>> i hear you. let me just say i think this is key, and, mr. chairman, i hope we can all work together to craft some kind of a message to the russians because this is critical. they are taking the lead on blocking any type of resolution now. i have a second point i want to make here. according to an amnesty international report, the syria authorities, and i'm reading this from the report, quote, "the authorities turned

hospitals and medical staff into instrumentings of repression in the course of the efforts to crush the unprecedented mass protests and demonstrations. people wounded in protests or incidents related to the uprisings have been abused and assaulted in state-run hospitals including by medical staff and no some cases denied medical care." the report cites experiences from a number of wounded protesters including one shooting victim who said a doctor at a state-run hospital told him, "i'm not going to clean your wound." this is hard to say. "i'm waiting for your foot to rot so we can cut it off." that's supposedly a quote from a doctor. there's also a report of a doctor who was forced to flee syria after reporting a nurse torturing a young protester. i heard pain and i walk towards

the noise, and a nurse was hitting the injury and swearing at him pouring antiseptic on the wound to cause the boy additional pain." there's three questions to answer. how much information are we receiving about the abuse and denial of care to protesters including by medical staff? secondly, are the international committee of the red cross and the syria arab red cross currently able to provide care to the wounded, and then last, in light of this, why have we not been able to use this to turn around the policies of russia and china? >> the information we get, senator, is mixed. because the media's not allowed, because there's restrictions on diplomats, we get a lot of

information, but it could be detailed in one area and sketchy in others. it's a very mixed picture, a very mixed picture, but it does provide enough of a vision of what's happening in syria to confirm some of these horrific stories you're describing. i don't know the specific examples, but i'm sure amnesty got eyewitness reports because information is getting out despite the government's best efforts to operate in darkness, to operate in the shadows. icrc has had access in syria, how effective they are able to be inside medical facilities, i don't know because they work quietly. that's one of their goals, but i think that the stories you're describing explain how it is that the syrians are courageous that day after day they go out and protest because they know friends, family, and neighbors who face this brutality, and

they don't want to face it anymore. they are facing a regime that hijacked the country with the sole purpose of protecting the elite of that regime. >> thank you very much, and, again, i won't ask you to answer the last point, but we hope we take this information to the russians and the chinese and thank you. >> thank you, senator boxer. senator lugar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to focus on some of the comments you made on the international aspects of this specific international aspect with the neighbors. you pointed out that turkey has teased this position, and now really harbors a group of resistance within turkey, but the lebanese essentially would still appear to be very worried about an upset of their domestic situation spilling over, particularly the christians in lebanon and others fearing the coming of a sunni regime if they

are not able to hang on. in addition to that, there is the problem that is faced by israel, at least as israelis expressed themselves. they feel that syria was never a friend, but it was a stable, a so-called stable antagonist that was not bound to bring about attack and that under pressure asad or others might decide to attack israel in the hope of gaining some adherence from other anti-israeli elements in the middle east thus creating an unstable situation on still another front for israel given the arab spring difficulties with e just a minute and -- egypt and with others. now, in the midst of all of this, the united states understandably is concentrating

on human rights and individuals who want their rights in the country and known as least by some of our staff members in the largest cities, and there's been very few demonstrations, but out in the hustings there has been, and this leads to feelings about sectarianism of the situation, about the rights versus the sunnies, over in iraq and how some how came on top of the proposition that this is trouble for iraq given their own sectarian difficulties as we withdrawal. what i'm wondering as you try to formulate policies, surely all of these things are on your mind and the secretary's. on the one hand, you have each

of us wanting something to save people who are in the streets indicating they would like to have better civil rights, and we sympathize with that. on the other hand, it could very well be that as we demand the departure of the asad and people with that, we tip the scales in this sunni business, and we can say we really didn't mean to do that. after all, 24 -- this is a syria problem, but begin the arab spring and the current volatile situation in the middle east, there's all sorts of other implications. under those circumstances, what is a policy that we should adopt that tries to bring a degree of stability to the situation even as we promote human rights, continue to espouse those things we believe most important, or are we going to be a tipping

force demanding action by the u.n. or demanding action by sanctions of various sorts already the economy of syria appears to not be drying up. it's lost its oil, lost much of the revenue, so we already had an effect. how much of an effect do we want to have, and if we're successful and asad left, what would be left with at that point? what happens to all of the surrounding territories? >> extremely important points, and you are right that these play into all of our thinking on syria policy all the time. i guess a couple basic assumptions we have, what worries the lebanese is instability next door and how that might spill over. what worries the iraqis is the same thing. what worries the israelis is another variation of the same thing, but what's cause l the instability right now what they fear is what they are doing to their own people. the president has been clear as

the chairman was earlier as well that but terrorist time for bashar to step aside. he's what worries the neighbors. he's past the tipping point, past the point of no return. the neighbors no longer look at him as the devil you know and will accept him, but they are recognizing with increasing vem nans is he is the cause that most worries them. >> let's say he goes tomorrow, who steps in? what do they do? >> that's one of the real challenges because the opposition in syria is still divide. we think more units them than divides them because they talk about the need for democratic, secular future where syria has equal rights under the law, but

there's organizational divisions. we can't pick out which opposition people are the right ones to lead the country, so it's one of the things we are in our discussions when we meet with opposition figures be they within the national com or outside the syria national counsel inside or outside syria is talking to them about you have to be able to articulate a credible plan, a credible vision that's practical that shows people who maybe don't like asad, but are worried about what happens afterwards that you have a plan that's practical and implemental and it's positive based on rule of law where the government governs with the concept of those governed. i think they are starting to do this. there's been vision papers put out, certain speeches begin, but they still have a long way to go to be frank on this. >> during this long way to go, life goes on in syria as well as around. when i'm interested in is the potential for chaos, the lack of

people who have not formed, what's the new plans are and have not come together at this point. >> you're right to be concerned, senator. the impending chaos is happening because of what they are doing to their own people so there needs to be an end to the violence and an opposition that is inclusive, that is able to articulate a practical, positive plan going forward. >> uh-huh. thank you. >> thank you. senator sheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding the hearing. mr. feltman, i wanted to begin by commenting on your points about ambassador ford and the great work that he has done in syria, and i commend him for that. i know all of us very much

appreciate his courage and his working with the opposition figures and we hope he'll be back there very soon. >> thank you. >> can you talk about how iran is playing in there now? are they supporting asad and so what extent, and how does the violence in syria affect their view of what's going on? >> it's a very interesting topic because the short answer is, yes, iran is definitely happening bashar, giving him the tools by which he represses his own people, cracks down on them, ect.. they are providing, you know, expertise, technical assistance to do bad things, providing equipment by which he can monitor opposition activity on the internet, and all of that stuff, and it's one of the reasons as my colleague

mentioned the irgc was sanctioned in one of the three executive orders that the president announced this year. at the same time, iran's embarrassed. you start to see iranian leaders like ahmadinejad who talk about the need to end violence in syria and talk about the need for reform. now, it's completely cynical on their part because they do just as bad of thing z to their own people, but it suggests to us that the iranian leadership recognizes, a, that they've lost credibility because of the support of the brutal deck at a timer, and b, he might not survive, and they have to start positions themselves for the day after bashar. iran is in an interesting bind now. they are trying to save him and whatever they have left of credibility in the world, and

also signal to the people he shouldn't survive and be doing bad things to you. >> and do you have any information about or is there information about how the iranian people feel about the government support for asad and what's happening there? >> i have to plead ignorance, senator. i'm not really sure. i have not seen polling on that, but if i could use your question to pull up something else that's interesting is arab polling. there's enough arab polling over the years to see a remarkable shift. a year or so ago, there's a poll done in six arab countries and asked who's your arab leader outside your own country who you most desire. bashar was overwhelmingly on top. now, the same countries were polled, same sort of data, and his numbers shall we say are

rock bottom. the highest is something like in morocco like 15% thinking he'll survive, and egypt it's 14%, everywhere else it's single digits. this influences the arab leadership because arab leaders woke up that they need to be attentive to the popular opinion this year, and that helps explain why the arab leaders are playing a much stronger role in syria than they would have a year ago. >> that does make sense, and given the arab leagues' effort to try and reduce the violence in syria, is there any -- is there any belief that if the violence continues that the arab league will actually take any direct action? will they sanction asad and the regime as their -- is there any

further effort that we think they might undertake? >> i mentioned this a bit in the opening statement. syria is considered to be a very important part of the arab world for historic reasons, political reasons, and we don't always like what syria has done, but they are a heavy weight in the arab world, and the leaders are trying to show they can deal with the problems in their own backyard and they can deal with this rather than have to turn to the outside world to solve everything. it's an embarrassment for them if they are unable to do something to protect the people at this point. when i'm talking to the arab foreign ministers for the secretary and the white house engaged with the arabs, there's a lot of ideas the arabs have and talk their membership and we can ask the council for action, and so there's recognition that bashar has basically lied to them. that's positive. there's recognition quietly, not

publicly, that his days are numbered. i look at the contrast between us again. a year ago where qaw tar would lend him a plane for state visits, and now co tar is heading up the committee that is trying to find wayings to take action in light of bashar's, you know, refusal to comply with their recognition. i dome want to be naive here. the arab league traditionally has lots of divisions inside it, so i don't want -- i don't know what they can actually produce, but they do recognize that in a very important way, their own celt with their own pop -- credibility with their own population is now on the line. >> and to follow along with respect to turkey, mr. bronin, in about 40 seconds that i have

left, turkey obviously made strong statements condemning asad and the actions, the violence in syria. are they prepared, to undertake sanctions against asad, economic sanctions or others? >> well, senator, as secretary said, i think it's hard to overstate the significance of turkey's break with syria. they have already imposed a arms em bar embargo. we have seen remarks from those suggesting they are considering additional measures and we welcome any such measures, and also will engage with them to encourage them to do so. >> are we already engaging with turkey to encourage them in >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator rubio.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to continue to explore the iran aspect of it. clearly, their ambitions in the region are known, and they are counter to our interests and the safety of the world. i don't think that argument needs to be made further. you can elaborate how important syria is to iran and how important it is to their economy, to their military aspirations, the land bridge that it serves to the rest of the region, and how devastating it would be to them if syria were outside their sphere. >> senator, thanks for the question. syria is, i would say, essential to the extremely negative role iran played in the region. take hezbollah. the transit routes for the arms of hezbollah are via syria. the transportation given to hezbollah to undermind the state of lebanon, to put israel at risk, basically to destabilize

the region, it comes via syria. syria is basically iran's only friend. iran is syria's best friend, and, in fact, it's one of their few remaining friends. we talked about how they have a security solution, the russian and chinese care about arab attitudes. i don't think that's the end of the story on russia and china, but look at iran's friends or syria's friends, they are each other, and a few misguided or purchased lebanese politicians. what's happening on the ground in sierra is interesting because as our embassy, and i thank you for the comments for the ambassador, and our embassy reports and through other channels that the demonstrations across syria have among other demands have an anti-ease blah

and anti-iran flavor to them, and the people know exactly who it is who is providing assistance to their government to kill them, arrest them, and torture them. it's from iran and hezbollah. to have a change in government in syria that's govern by the concern of the people is not the asset for iran that syria is today. it's in our strategic interest to see the change take place quickly. i mentioned iraq as well. there's been, you know, mixed press reports about what do the iraqis think about syria now, and they are concerned as senator boxer said about instability in the region, but iraq suffered grievancely from what this regime did to them. the syria regime facilitated, allowed the use of syria

territory and airports for terrorists to get into iraq and blow up thousands of iraqis, hundreds of our own servicemen. i don't think the iraqis have illusions about syria. it will also help iraq to have a different syria next door. >> just in terms of the general policy goal of limiting and containing and defeating iran's ambitions and regions in the world, the loss of the asad regime is a devastating blow to iran. is that accurate? >> yes, i would -- yes. yes, i mean -- people talk about there could be another sort of asad in, you know, palace coo inside, but that's very unlikely, so yes. the high probability is that a government that comes in with the concept of the serian people will not be an asset of iran. >> one concern raised and watching the experience of the other parts of the region is

that if asad's regime were to fall and leave, they would be replaced by, you know, another form of radical government or one that would not respect religious minorities in the country. i know there's concern about that. what terms in progress whether it's the national council or others have they made -- or what's the potential for that being less ped? >> it's a concern of everyone including the syria opposition themselves. the slogan of the opposition is syria is one people. they are trying to show in practice that they recognize that the syria national identity is composed of many, many diverse sex, interest groups, ect., and you do see christians, kurdss, and others participating, but the majority of this is still a sunni heavy

movement, and part of the country itself is heavily sunni. it goes back to what we talked about earlier is the opposition has started to articulate and needs to continue to articulate why it is that bashar's predictions of what happens after he leaves are wrong. that it won't be chaos, that the minorities, members of the armed services and judiciary, all parts of syria have a proper role to play and rights respected in the future syria. i don't think that based on our own conversations with the minority groups, syria minority groups, that's there any illusions about bashar or any love for bashar. they saw him once as the source of stable, but they recognize he is driving the country to ruin. they are worried about afterwards, and that's what the opposition needs to work on. >> the last question with

sanctions and has to do with the full many of sanctions that we've placed and others placed around the world, the european community, canada, japan, and others recently. i wanted to ask you a little bit about -- i'm aware for some time now there's a fright from damascus to caracas and is there anything in particular that others providing assistance to evading any of these sanctions? >> senator, thank you for the question. i can't speak to any specific examples of financial support. clearly, the asad regime is looking around the world for support, and also for alternative markets and i will say just as a general matter, they have not found much success to date. >> the testimony is that as of know, we have not found willing open participants and efforts to undermind our efforts or other nation's efforts in aiding

them -- obviously for iran, in sur dumb venting these sanctions? >> again, can't speak directly to specific forms of finances, but what they lost with the european oil market, that's correct, they have not found anything to replace what they have lost. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you senator rubio. senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to attend the subcommittee. thank you for your leadership, and i thank the witnesses for being here. it was two months ago i had a meeting with a large group of muslim-americans in chicago of syria difficulties sent, and they are following this closely and are concerned about it. they ask several questions that i'll ask. whether or not the sanctions imposed have gone far enough and several things they asked about, i said i'd follow through with,

and that is whether or not we are targeting lebanese banks involved in syria and whether or not we have expanded our sanctions regime where we are currently targeting oil exports to include other elements of the oil and energy sector of exploration production and transport? >> thank you very much, senator. important questions. to the question of lebanese financial sector -- we have designated one lebanese financial institution. it's a subsidiary of the commercial bank of syria, the syria-lebanese commercial bank. we are also regularly engaged with our counterparts in lebanon to stress the importance of remaining individual lent and not allowing their financial system to be exploited by the regime or regime insiders. i think after, particularly after an action we took earlier

this year in making a three patriot 311 finding against lebanese-canadian bank in beirut, they are alive to the risks they run if they allow the financial system to be exploited, but, again, we continue to engage very regularly with leb news counterparts. >> and what about expanding the sanctions pursuant to the suggestion of senator jill brand that i joined in to go beyond oil exports to other areas of the energy sector? >> our sanctions already do prohibit any investment in the syria oil sector. they believe in all transactions between the u.s. persons and government of syria, and the europeans have taken a similar action as well. >> that's good to know. mr. feltman, a question was asked to why we are not pursuing at the u.n. security council the

referral of mr. asad to the international criminal court. can you tell me? >> we are looking at how we can use the u.n. system in the best way to first of all raise attention to what's happening in syria, and then to try to find ways to stop the violence. the -- we are looking for support with the -- with russia and china to get a resolution on syria. right now, we're also working with european and other partners to get a resolution passed to the committee that also calls for the types of human right monitors 245 we think give -- that we think gives protection to syria people. there's two sections we helped lead of the u.s. human rights

council, and so we're looking at all the ways that the u.n. system could help us to achieve the goal of stopping violence and moving towards a democratic transition. >> mr. feltman, i applaud that the administration's done through ambassador rice, and i think calling for the vote in early october in the united nations, even though it failed, it brought to the issue to the fore front and forced nations to stand up and vote, and the question i'm asking because the arab league intervened and that effort clearly failed and we pronounced that, why are we not following up again at the security county -- council with a similar resolution or directing the efforts of the criminal court towards mr. asad? >> on the international criminal courts, i'm not members, and we look if the lead of others, but we are pursuing and looking for the right time hoping something

comes from the arab league on saturday that helps us with those on the security counsel who didn't let the resolution pass the last time. definitely, this is a matter that the u.n. security council should be dealing with, and we would hope that russia and china in looking at how the asad clique just refused all attempts of mediation from others realize it's time for the security council to now act. >> i followed through a little bit on this after thinking about it and working with my staff on the question about the u.n. security council, and one can certainly come up with a rationale for the russian position that may have something to do with arms sales, rationale for the chinese position which is fairly consistent with their foreign policy, and i really struggled with brazil, india, and south africa. i asked the ambassador,

mrs. road to come in my office and talk about the indian position on this, and she said to me what i think others have said, and i want you to comment on it. she believes there's evidence, at least she told me there's evidence, that the opposition in syria is armed and violent, and i have not heard that, not from any credible source, have you in >> there are increasingly evidence of opposition using arms. some of this is in self-defense as we understand. the movement for the large part is peaceful. what bashar wants is for the opposition to be entirely violent to turn to the world to say it's insurgency. he doesn't know how to deal with peaceful protesters. thank you for seeing the indian ambassador. that's a welcomed initiative because we talk with the indians and others as well. what i say to her is what the u.n. security council is trying to do is -- what the arab league is trying to do, what the u.n.

human rights council is to do is to get monitors in the country. if there are terrorists in the country, they'll either stop attacking because they don't want reveal their action, or they will be revealed by the monitors. we think it would put a check on the brutality of the bashar regime and brutality on its own people, but they can use those arguments to get to the point of supporting a resolution. if they truly believe what she should you and if she believes that, she shouldn't be frightened to have monitors there. >> that's a constructive suggestion. i hope other colleagues on the committee can join me in inviting the ambassadors from these countries that are in the efforts of the united nations security council to explain to us. many of these are our friends, you know, historically are friends, south africa and indian for that matter, and it seems to me to be at least valuable to

note that we see their opposition and we would like some explanation. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, witnesses. >> nawng, senator dure -- thank you, senator durbin. we'll go to a second round. we may not all have questions, but i have two or three more points. mr. bronin, i wanted to raise with you, and today we probably don't have enough time to cover all of this, but i want to raise a question about an article in the "wall street journal" that's dated october 29th of this year. the title of the article is "u.s. firm acknowledges syria uses its gear to block web." i'll just read for two pertinent parts, really the first two paragraphs, short paragraphs. "a u.s. company that makes internet blocking gear acknowledges that syria has been using at least 13 of its devices to monitor web activity there,

an admission that comes as syria cracks down on its citizens and silences their online activities. blue coat systems of california says it shipped the internet filtering devices to dubai late last year believing they were destined for a department of the iraqi government; however, the devices that can block websites or record when people visit them made their way to syria, a country subject to strict u.s. trade embargoes." i'll just read one more part. "blew coat told the "wall street journal" that they were transmitting automatic status messages back to the company as the devices censors the syria web. they said they don't monitor where such hard beat messages originate from." it goes on from there, and i know that you and your team are familiar with this. i guess the basic question i

have, and i know it's -- i'm putting you on the spot, but if you have an answer, we want to hear it today. has this company blow code systems incorporated violated the u.s. trade embargo? that's the first question. >> senator, with respect to our export control regime add administered by the commerce department, and i have to refer you there for the specifics on this particular instance unless secretary feltman has anything he'd like to add. >> secretary, i don't know if you have an answer or comment. >> reenforcing what luke said. this is add ministered by the department of commerce. they are looking into this case because there was no license issued to send this to syria. since the expert controls were put into place in 2004, any item like this exported to syria requires on a case-by-case examination and an export license. there was no export licenses

issued for this, and department of commerce is investigating it. i would defer to them on the state of the investigation. >> i would -- just for the record just so we're clear, i would have or suggest the administration to make sure that an answer is forthcoming whether it coals from the commerce department or from whatever agency the answer emanates because part of our responsibility here is not just simply to point fingers at other countries and impose sanctions that are far away. we have to make sure that our government, our companies are doing the right thing as it relates to syria. i wanted to ask a broader question. it's been referred to by a number of us, but i wanted to try to get in on a summary form before we can conclude about sanctions. we know, and i know that both of

you have spoken to the issue of sanctions, and, in fact, there's a recent crs report that outlined, and i'm looking at a report that's rather recent, but the last two pages of this report, a report dated november the 4th, but they put -- they set forth a table where they listed all of the sanctions and the individual sanctioned. i have two questions. number one is how would you assess the success or impact of sanctions to date, both u.s. and other sanctions, e.u. and other, and number two, what, if anything, can you tell us that's forthcoming by way of sanctions? i have some ideas about home should be sanctioned, but i wanted to hear from you about the assessment of where we are,

and secondly where we could be headed with additional sanctions, and it's really for both our witnesses. >> thanks very much, senator. first, with respect to the impact the sanctions are having, i note that syria has, for a long time, been among the more sanctioned country, and 10 the tie is between the syria and u.s. financial system were limited. our actions have been comprehensive and aggressive, but there's only so much to do unilaterally. the real significance of what's been done is in concert with the europeans in particular, and the european actions have really been dramatic with a profound impact. they -- >> mostly because of oil? >> mostly because of oil. mostly because of oil. their actions are beyond oil, and i don't want to dmaish the importance -- diminish the importance of the symbolic actions as well by highlighting the activity of those come police it in the human rights abuse, and also by

highlighting those of the syria business community who support the asad regime. you know, we are sending an important message both to the protesters in the streets in syria that we stand by them and sending a message to the syria business community and important constituency that there's severe personal costs to associating oneself-'s too closely with asad. >> is it accurate to say, and i get this from a couple of places, including your testimony -- let me rephrase the question. you say on page 4 of your testimony that the asad regime prior to sanctions, they had one-third of the total revenue from the oil sector, and that's been eliminated; is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> mr. feltman? >> yeah, quickly, it's worth noting the contrast between

today and not too far in the distant past which is only recently europe was looking at an association agreement with syria. europe was in the advanced state of negotiations with syria about having an association agreement with trade and other benefits to benefit the syria, and today, they sanctioned syria and two of the banks, cut off the oil revenues which is, you know, we talked about it, but that's over $4 billion in loss, and they have not found other customers, so with the other subjects talked about, it's worth remembers where we were not very long ago and where we are today which helps give us the sense of inevidentability that basically bashar's finished. >> uh-huh. what -- can you tell me -- maybe you don't know the answer to this, it's tough to answer, i guess, but sanctions relating to turkey -- why don't you think they've taken that step, and can they, will they?

>> i don't know. all of us have been in discussions with the turkish officials as have the bosses at the cabinet level and white house with the turks because they played thee essential role in providing space for the opposition. the effective arms embargo they put in place has had an impact on the regime's ability, and in practice, much of the economic ties between the two countries dried up as a matter of course, but we would, as i said earlier, we want to see them take the additional step of putting legal sanctions in place that parallel the sanctions at the e.u., the united states, japan, and canada have done. >> i don't know if our colleagues have more questions, but i have one comment. when i was asking our staff not too long ago, when you consider the number of people slaughtered here, by one estimate now, more

than 3500, if you do the math in terms of population proportionally, it's equivalent to more than 43,000 americans killed by our government, and i know it's a different world. it's not necessarily comparable in terms of the way we traditionally responded to our own challenges here, but it's hard to comprehend that that kind of a slaughter's taking place, and it doesn't get near enough attention in this town, so we're going to keep -- we're going to keep that -- unless senator, ranking member or senator lugar have any other questions? senator lugar? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask about the food situation in syria. reason i ask is that over in the agricultural committee from time to time we get reports about the changes in exports or imports in

egypt and tiew tunisia and libya for that matter after arab spring. without going into all the details, the facts are that the expense of importing grains that were a part of the diets of those countries have increased largely, the worldwide prices. i don't that in capacity to -- beyond that in capacity to pay for it and really the exchanged moneys begin problems in the banking system have created a situation in which in these countries, there may be as much as a 40% decline in the amount of food being consumed by the people of these countries. that is a very large change, and some pointed out in the past that leaders in these countries retain their power through a so-called food subsidies that if people were very unhappy,

somehow they were pass mid by -- passified by money used for food. i have not heard anything on the nutrition and food supply situation coming out of sanctions or out of the problem of loss of export money or exchange, whether there's been an impact there. >> senator, in terms of sanctions, of course, even in our case, food and medicine are exempted from sanctions. it's one of the only examples exempted from sanction, and we don't have reports of sanctions, themselves, having impact directly on the food supply. in fact, the only reports we have a food shortages in syria so far are places under siege because the army are occupying the outskirts, but there's not reports of food deficits in syria. there's the subsidy question.

before this started, syria's economy was heavily by sub subsidized or mismanaged one would say. there's suddenly a drop of revenue from the oil, from the tourism revenues, from trade with turkey, and at the same time that the bashar and his clique are trying to maintain some semblance of control and loyalty through the subsidy program, and there's a -- you see signs -- i mean, i'll defer to the experts of treasury, you see signs of panic among the upper echelon of the elite system. there's a ban on the import of luxury goods into syria in order to try to save hard currency probably to help buy the food stuff and help the subsidy program going for the general population, but they had to revert because of the popular outcry against this so there's creeks in the system suggesting they are concerned about their ability to keep the current

subsidy program going. >> i raise the question because many feel the president for president mubarak came down to this, that the young people in tahrir square and people demanding their rights, but basically 180 million people, and the millions usually getting the subsidies from the mubarak government were not getting the subsidies, and as though as a result, there was a whole pattern there in terms of country wide revolt which was not a hidden factor, but a major factor in changing the government. >> sorry? >> not much to add to what secretary feltman said. i would note that the ban on imports that the syria government imposed at the end of the september was significant for a couple reasons and imposed in large part to protect their

foreign exchange reserves which is a demonstration that the actions weaver -- we've taken together have a significant impact and the fact it was imposed and then revoked is an example of europeans raddic, inconsistent policymaking by the syria regime that has the dissatisfaction of the syria people on the syria regime rather than the international community. >> i want to thank both witnesses. i'll say for the record before we go that the record will be kept open for one week for members of the committee and secondly that we have received testimony for the record from the following organizations. there are three. number one, the foundation for the defense of democracy. number two, the washington institute for near east policy, and three, human rights watch, so those will be made part of the record as well. so there's nothing further, we are adjourned. we want to thank our witnesses,

and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> so we still, as a united states government, for our defense department, are we still doing business with these people? >> the parts that we have been purchasing as a part of this ongoing investigation are rare, hard to find, and obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons systems. the interpret purchasing -- the internet purchasing platforms indicate contractors that are in need of these rare obsolete parts have a platform to acquire these parts. the concern though is the intent

to conceive exists. >> are we still purchasing, sir? it's a simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from counter fitters putting out inferior products? >> the internet trade platforms have 40 million line items parts, yes, sir, senator. >> watch more on this hearing online at the c-span video library with every program we've aired since 1987, archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> in the senate today, members dated a proposal that would require internet retailers to charge sales taxes. we'll hear from senator mike enzi, dick durbin, and lamar al exander. this is 20 minutes. >> i'm going to talk about a problem that i've tried to solve for 14 years, and today i think

we have a new solution and the solution. this has to do with sales taxes that are not being collected at the present time. it's a little loophole in the tax law. i used to be a retailers, and i never thought that it was fair that i had to collect the sales taxes, but the people from out of state didn't have to collect the sales tax. i used to be a mayor, and this bill that we have is a jobs bill and an infrastructure bill. a lot of people don't realize that sales tax helps pay for schools and police and firemen. they may not realize it pays for infrastructure like streets and suers. i always tell people that it's a little tough to flush your toilet over the internet, but this bill would allow states,

not require states, to be able to have the out of state online salers, provided they sell more than $500,000 in a year to collect the sales tax. in the state legislature, and as a state legislature, we never intended to pass a law that forces the retailers in main street that participate in the community@of activities to be the one to collect the tax and anyone from out of town not have to do it, so this cleans up that little problem at the same time. does it make much of a difference? yes. we're being asked as congress to give money to the states for their teachers and their firemen and their infrastructure, and it's because there's a decreasing amount of revenue going to them through sales taxes that are owed.

people don't realize when they buy something online, if the tax is not collected, they still owe it. it's not a new tax. it's a tax already on the books. no legislature just intended it for the main street roadway -- retailers, and as a result we have a number of support letters for this new bill, and i hope everyone looks at it. it's online. here's some of the groups, and i ask unanimous concept the letters are made part of the record. >> with no objection. >> one of the national conference of state legislatures. one from the national association of counties, the national league of cities, the federation of tax administrators, the national retail federation, the retail industry leaders association, the international council of shopping centers, the simon property group up corporated, the neeman markus group, the

jewelers of america group, best buy, and i want to read the one from amazon.com because they're one of the world's largest online sellers. in the past they opposed previous versions of the bill, but they think we've got this one right. they say thank you very much for your legislation on interstate sales tax collection. amazon strongly supports the enactment of the bill working with you and your colleagues in congress, retailers, and the states to get this bipartisan legislation pass the. it's a win-win resolution, and as noted, amazon offers customers the best prices with or without sales tax. this allows states to require out of state retailers to collect sales tax at the time of purchase and remit the taxes on behalf of customers and facilitates collection on behalf of third party sellers, and your bill allows instigates to have additional revenue without new

taxes or federal spending and makes it easy for consumers and small retailers to comply with state sales tax laws. we appreciate your hard work on the issue and look forward to working with you and your colleagues in congress to pass this resolution. we have a number of others we'll also list. now, this is a by partisan bill. the original co-sponsors are five democrats and five republicans, and a key person in this is the senator from illinois, senator durbin, who has turned in a previous version of the bill, and we encourage you to take a look at that one, but to see the difference there is in this new version that i think is a very passable bill, and so at this point, i'd ask senator durbin if he had any comments 20 share because he's been and intreg grail part of making this bipartisan in realizing that both the retailers and local governments are in. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to my colleague, senator

enzi. i give fair warning to who are witnesses this that bipartisanship is about to break out on the floor. you can witness it. there's a bipartisan effort by senator enzi who had a life in public service to be sensitive to the needs of main street and small business. he worked with our former colleague of north dakota, and they did their best to pass this legislation, and when senator retired, i approached senator enzi wanting to join in the effort, and i'm pleased to be on the floor with him and senator alexander in this combined bipartisan effort to deal with an issue that i think is essential to fairness in our economy in helping small businesses thrive, which is the key to economic revitalization. if you ask the small businesses 234 my home state of illinois

what they want, it's not a big handout from washington nor any special attention. frankly, they ask for a level playing field. let them compete. what was said what many retailers in every state find it difficult to compete because they have to represent a building or buy one. they have to pay the property taxes. they have to pay utility bills and local taxes generated because of their sales to the state or local government, and in each instance, they are investing back to the community and state that they live in. that is part of the basic understanding we have in this country, that we are, in fact, in this together, and that we have to cooperate, so that the businessman down the street who is selling something in a sore store is also at the same time supporting the local community to make sure that it has traffic lights and makes certain there's police protection and utilities and streets and curbs and

gutters and everything that goes with it, but there's a new phenomena in american market place over the last several decades, and now it is in full throat, and that is the internet. internet sales are an amazing entity where we can literally click a mouse and buy a product to arrive several days later at our home or business place, but it invited an inequity and unfairness addressed in the bill. we are not creating new taxes in this bill. i say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, that is not our intention, nor does the bill do that. what it does is to provide a mechanism to collect existing tax that is owed under existing law, period. we do this in a fashion that senator alexander will describe in a moment that capitalizes on the technology and software available today to make this a process that is not burdensome

and does not slow down commerce in any way. mr. president, i recently went to bloomington, illinois, and a number of other communities in my state and stat down with local retailers and had them tell the stories. in many cases, depressing stories about what they are going through. in one instance, this fellow sells camping gear and outdoor wear and also sells snorkeling commitment and ski equipment, and it's not unusual now for him and others selling that sports equipment to have local customers come in, look for the product they want, actually get a fitting to get the right size, and then leave to order it online so they can escape any sales tax liability.. intention of illinois or any other state to impose a sales tax just on those businesses that exist -- physicallyies

exist in -- physically exist in our states. so this bill applies the sales tax to businesses across the board. states have to decide they want to move into this field and use this opportunity. i think that's the way to approach it. some 24 states have already signed up for the streamlined coalition which allows them to make this happen. other states by complying with alher states by complying with which allows them to make us happy. we the spot and passing a local state law can do the same.it's e it is their action. it is their option if theyathe choose to use existing sales tax and take the initiative at the state level. stes' ri as senator alexander hasnd thats reminded me many times, it is c state street issue as itshould be in that is what we are focusing on in this legislationi i think it is a issue of what fairness and i think it goes beyond what we are facing today in terms of the disparityomin

between democrats and republicans. we are coming together on behalf of tax fairness, coming together on behalf of states rights,s a coming togetherme to make certan that all businesses across america have the resources they we need need to be prosper, profitable and expand the workforce. we need to create more jobs and i don't think it's unreasonable to expect that to happen as these local retailers become more competitive and more profitable. i might also add that the statei that decided to opt into it will revenue helpful too bad in difficult times you can come it is their decision. i won't recount of the groups that endorse this.of thet it is pretty impressive array. one of the most impressive letr supporters is amazon to think one of the largest, if not thern largest online retailer in america endorses this bill. when i think that of all the b

battles that have been fought ia all the states by amazon, when , each state tried to address this, i think it is telling thaf they have stepped forward in fact, here is a solution that can work.shou if the largest online retailer in america are one of theconomy. largest feels that way, you is should encourage many colleagues who don't want to destroy that part of our economy. and i certainly don't need there. i think it's a positive step in the right direction. eewant to thank senator tim johnson, senator bozeman, jack reid by senator p blunt, senator white house andas many others who will joinlet'set senator randy and senator don alexander and myself in thiset effort to pass this bipartisanhs bill.aunted u let's get this done. a let's work together on ahat bipartisan basis to solve a problem of it as forever decade and do it in a fair fashion itny does not create any new taxes,ts the cases states the right tohe collect taxes already on the boat. i yield the floor.cer: thesena

>> mr. president. >> senator from tennessee. >> minority has 20 seconds lefte s> i ask consent to expand theei colloquy into democratic time. >> is there objection no objection. >> i think the democratic whip. well, i want to congratulate sen senator and seeing senator durbin and say how pleased i amt to join as a cosponsor of theaie legislation.is and here's what i want to congratulate them for it. center in seeking to this is a a former mayor come as a formeri o shoe shop owner. i., save a former governor. and in our constitutionalit wasn framework, esi have always thout it is their business in tennessee to decide what wha services we wanted to provide and what taxes do want to levy y to pay for them. we have a high sales tax, but no income tax. that is different than thoseax

states who have a lower overall tax burden.e, for me, this is a matter of states raised. r but the most important thing that i think i can say todaythis were that we can say today ifbls they think they've solved the problem with this legislation.pn this problem has been there fors a long time.of amazo it's had the opposition of conservatives worried about taxes and the opposition of amazon and others. online sellet the supreme court said 20 years ago that it was too complicatedo for out-of-state vendors toow figure out how to collect salesd ataxes when something is the purchased and send it to the state, which is what mainstreett seller does.ars ago, .nd maybe that was true 20 yearm ago, but the supreme court saids 20 years agoen and invited us ii congress to solve this problem. and senator and see an senator durbin with this legislation in my opinion has solved thean

problem and this is going to pdt happen. i'm not presumptuous enough to l predict what the united states b congress will do and what the president willut sign. long enough and .i've congress enough to say this is going to happen. if if i were governor, if iran on my retailer or a catalog retailer, i would make my planh? to conduct my business in this e way. why do i say that? times well, h for one thing, times had changed. this morning i got up and looke, at whether in my hometown, so i put in by their 37886. that's a zip code and backing the ihanformation. under the bill, senator durbin and senator enzi have proposedwl to see what had the option of completely creating a system for seller. all they have to do is divide by $300 or $400 television set isut put my name in.

they put in a zip code and the d software that the state haseveny provided will tell them what the taxes and will even elect tropically transfer the tax money back to the state.mazon w in other words, amazon will dote the same thing that thetore in appliance store in maryville tennessee will do. intend that is what we intended toe, i happen. i mean, when it passed the sales tax in tennessee, i was around r then. but once it than meets, wempt -- didn't intend to extend some people over others. we didn't t make sense subsidizh some businesses over others. we made a general decision that when you buy things in tennessea alwe are going to payocal s primarily with a sales tax. where the local sales tax and w. have a state sales tax and that is our right to decide. some of the opposition in the w past has come from conservative groups.

the american conservative unionn rating very strong strong letter in support of the house -- a b house version of this same bill. and i talked him yesterday. a businessman from florida and he is reviewing ourur bill.wrote 10 years ago, william asked buckley wrote about this problem and said it was a loophole that needed to be solved.ver and when states decided tor subsidize some taxpayers overhe others and some businesses overh others, that was not goodnservai conservative philosophy. soloso i'd do on all sides. a when youma have amazon supportie and a strong letter that senator enzi red coming of the president of the american conservative union announcing his support for the sameyo principles, i think 0 solve the problem. what we sing of the last 20 years a great many voluntarylikn cata like amazonlo and other companis that sell online or sell buy

we haveas figured out how to do it, it is signed at best.hey as in the fungicide, they are in business to compete if they cant sell goods that they claim cheaper online than they can bye and senator enzi's door.he maybey' they can come and maybe they can't come up with at leash both the store in wyoming and gillette wyoming and the seller th'll coll on line will both do the very eame thing. they will collect sales tax that is already from the purchaserich and they will send it directlykg to the state, which has been the way things have worked for a long time. about so this is an issue about preserving the states right tooo collect or not to collect its a loophole. it is about stopping the oth subsidization of some businesses over others, some taxpayers ovea

here's what william f. buckley said about it and i will a conclude my remarks in just a if moment. but not just snickering canpracl indicate that it if out-of-stati businesses are in practical termshe subsidized. that is with the nontax amountsd to. local concerns are complaining about traffic and mattresses anc computer equipment that come in. so to speak duty-free.cording te of course governors andcoof legislatures are at the ninth as well according to the national council of legislators, thisbil. is $28 billion. don't hav tennessee could use this money to ward off the state income tax, which we don't happen we don't want. mig wyoming could use revenue to or reduce property tax. other states may reduce risingag college tuition or might reward outstanding teachers.0 this has been a problem for thed last 20 years, but senator enzi haolve and senator durbin was stop legislation has solved the problem. so i will stop where i started.g

this is not a new tax. not it is an existing tax.t. it's on all sales. as senator enzi and turbine has done has solved the problem andt i predict that because of the ve voluntary agreements and the ease of out-of-state vendors doing the same thing that mainst street vendors do that very soon we will eliminate the subsidiess close this loop hole and i congratulate them for their s area. s area. i am happy to join 10 senators, five republicans, five democratr cosponsoring this legislation. >> what the senator here for anh moment? obliged to go on the record on behalf of myself and senator enzi and say that senator alexander doesn't give himself enough credit. giv he has been an integral part ofm our effort to put together this bipartisan bill. in we wouldn't be here without himo want to thank him for facilitating the bipartisan effort to put thiss bill togethr

and they think we have finally found that sweet spot in the frm compact this bill. >> i think the senate from illinois and i wonder at my desk and sent to include the following numerics, the article out cardin, head of the american conservative union, the essay by william f. buckley and a letter from governor bill hazlet tennessee, endorsing the legislation. >> without objection that will be included. >> today comes the senate debated net neutrality. the sec has issued regulations requiring internet providers to treat all internet traffic equally. senator kay bailey hutchison has introduced a resolution to repeal this sec rule. we talked to capitol hill reporter but senator hutchison's

bill. >> josh smith is a reporter for national journal daily. >> well, opposition to the fcc's net neutrality or openness internet rules breaks down onto issues. when they say the agency doesn't have the authority to regulate the internet in this way. and to come and they these regulations are written some and try to fix a problem that doesn't exist, kind of a problem than if it did exist would be handled by market forces. >> who supports keeping the sec will someplace? >> in congress, generally democrats outside of congress, a lot of public interest groups have called for both these rules and in fact stronger rules to be not good.

>> what is the sec attempting to regulate with its net neutrality will and might have taken 10 regulations are needed? >> basically there is a concern that companies, especially if they start to hinder more and more different kinds of content online, they will begin to block were kind of throttle access to competitors services or other websites. the sec says these regulations are needed to preserve the open nature of the internet while opponents say that this isn't going on right now and this will only service kind of more government control of the internet. >> has there been any reaction from the white house on this? >> yes, a similar resolution on most identical pass the house earlier. the white house that that threatened to veto it and earlier this week the white house also said that if this resolution passes, president

obama would likely veto as well. >> waterpipe and network service providers seeking about practices? >> rate now they also an general tonight any of anti-can editor behavior is taking place in such rules are unneeded. >> what are the chances this measure will advance in the senate? >> it comes down to this simple math. republican backers only need a simple majority, the td that they need to win over nine democrats were so. i talked to the senate congress chairman jay rockefeller yesterday who was against the resolution and he said he is hopeful that all democrats who oppose the resolution. >> again, what are the chances that it will advance? >> at this point, not very good. >> josh smith reports for national journal daily. we want to thank you for your help with this. >> thank you. >> now some of the debate on the

fcc rule. we'll hear from senator hutchison and senator jay rockefeller. this is 40 minutes.umber >> mr. president, today's debate concerns the senate joint resolution a number six. in a larger context, we really have been having this debate for 34 months.s th in thisat team is deeper that lt of regulations have really not help desk get into a recovery and in fact i think are freezing economy. leasing up with the environmental protection agency when they try to regulate c carn emissions and greenhouse gases using the clean air act come aer purpose for which congress never intended a lot to be used. we've seen it at the national mediation board when itturned na overturned nearly a century of precedent and issued a newmaki

rulemaking to allow unions to br formed more easily, but harder to be certified.laborions b we've seen it with the national labor relations board. when i took a shocking step ofng challenging owings decision tow create new jobs by building a new factory in south carolinathl simply because south carolina is a right to work state. today's issue is a symbol of american innovation and cre creativity. the internet because the federal communications commission has decided to regulate thehree internet. last december, three fcc commissioners on a partyline rul vote voted to impose rules thatt restrict internet service providers offer bribe andoviderf service this too can dimmers. these rules now and is not

charity impose 19th century impr style monopoly regulations and the most competitive and important job creating engine of the 21st century, theg r internet.ev this marks a stunning reversal of from a hands-off approach toa the internet that federal policy makers are taken from more than a decade. during the last 20 years, the by gtternet has grown in force strn without burdensome regulations imposed by washington. plaorm powered by the strength of free market poses the internet has been an open platform for innovation, spurring business creation.d the former democratic sec chairman william kennard statede in 1999 the fertile fields of innovation across ther and communications act touring around the country are blooming because from the get go, we have taken it deregulatory

competitive urge to our communications structure, especially the internet. p now the president is reversing e policy that has been successful beyond our expert patients. pride and internet networks have powered the information and accd communications industries, which in 2009 accounted for more than 3.5 million high-paying jobs ann about $1 trillion in economic dvd. this industry has been an engine for major economic growth, evenm during these difficultes times. get the fcc's rules could severely jeopardized this industry is vastin potential. limi net neutralityt is intended to limit how internet service a providers develop and operate their broadband networks..c.c. the net neutrality or paralyzed

the sec to tell broadband providers for kind of business practices are reasonable and not unreasonable. the fcc however did not bother to define and its rules with the agency considers to be reasonable. this point is vital towith sucn understand.compans will b such an arbitrary in a poorly defined standard, companies will be forced to air on the the side rather of caution. from t rather than risk possible punishment from the sec, many companies will simply decide, and they believe on the best mae right now a new technologies.new maybe it is too risky to develoy and deploy new services. at the very least, it will delay such investment. tiis kind of regulatory par uncertainty will be crippling for companies and particularly small providers. we have heard exactly that frome a small witreless internet

provider. a this is a provider serving remote areas and respond to other underserved areas. lariat testified before congresa that these fcc regulations arebs already harming its availability to attract investors, gross business, hire more workers and serve new customers. forcing broadband companies to ask the government for try permission before moving forwarv is exactly what we should try to avoid when reviving our economy. this regime will lead to united stagnation and internet innovation in the united stateso placing a disadvantage against competitors who are not are the similar rules. moreover, internet providers wind up spending resources on lawyers and lobbyists in order to comply with the fcc's rules,i rather than investing dollars it innovation. to

small companies find it even n more expensive to navigateingto, washington d.c. they certainly won't help consumers, particularly in rural areas and will only increase the cost they have to bear. r before any new regulations are forced on american it's the governmentn responsibility to show that there is anin actual problem t t needs to be addressed. femost. that should be foremost. with the sec taken such a large departure from the agency's previous light touch approach pt while one might think the fcc can point to ali long list of nt neutrality violations and problems that need to beot fixe. that is not the case here. 1 any 134 page regulatory order, the fcc spent only three of paragraphs attempting to catalog alleged instances of misconduct. and within those three short

paragraphs, every alleged problem was addressed. ynder the fcc's existing rules.b or if not, it was fixed by the m provider under pressure from the public or the competitive be marketplace where should the facts. as far as ec commissioner meredith baker noted in her f.c. statement dissenting from the fcc's net neutralityc.al or dir, the commission, she said was unable to identify a singlebroai ongoing case of a broadband provider that it finds problematic upon which to base , section. to put it simply, the fcc has issued new rules without even demonstrating that intervention is actually necessary.eutralit despite protesyt to the contrarn these attractive regulations one

broadband providers clearly establish the fcc is the rnment internet gatekeeper, a role for which the gov iernment is not suited.rnment tetable oesovation does not work on a government timetable, nor does it rise gourmets avert linux. ironically, supporters of net neutrality insists that providers are the ones who may y become gatekeepers of the say internet. these people say the up and said the internet is far tooby important to be left to it byths the i government.ann this is a font's premise. in fact, the internet has been an open platform for innovation since its inception and has not needed any sort of net from neutrality rules from bureaucrats at the sec. to make matters worse, congressi has never given the fcc thet explicit authority to regulate t

how internet providers managewo. their networks. new that is why the new rules represent an unprecedented aircraft by the unelected commissioners at the sec. curre in fact, current state, it is a the policy to preserve thexistso vibrant and competitive market that presently exists to the internet and other interactive , computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation. that is the law today. the fcc has lost this fight already in the courts. appea last year, the d.c. circuit court of appeals struck down th8 fcc's 2008 at 10 to impose net t neutrality in the comcast versus fcc the court rules that the fcc was

acting beyond the reach of its congressionally provided authority. and cautioned that regulations should be in those only with explicit congressional delegation. this is validation that regulatory agencies cannot make direction.er tha rather than back down, however,e the fcc doubled down. expanve the current fcc ordered trays and even more expansive interpretation ofhe the law than is used in the comcast case. fcc commissioners inexplicably claimed the agency can impose heavy handed internet regulations under section 706 of the telecommunications act. act this was a section of the lawtoy that was intended to remove badd regulatory barriers to bribe an investment, not to raise them..

if the fcc's legal theory is left unchallenged, the fcc will have nearly kind poundedanythine authority to regulate almost anything on the internet.ne is congress' role, not the fcc to determine the proper policy framework for the internet. anda over time and aided by the current administration, regulators throughout the try government to crush it crush a k2 sees increasing control over so many facets of american lifee it is time for the senate to ov. stop this overreach. we write the laws of this y, country, not on the bureaucrats. that is why we are here today. thanks to senate majority leadee harry reid, former senator don nickles in the late senator ted stevens, one of the tools congress has two stop rogue the agencies is the congressional

review act. rw the congressional review act allows congress to review a rule before it takes effect and evenf to know if either the will of ii congress finds that it is it inappropriate to orcuttcong overreaches. or if congress does golf hasn'tt delegated this power to the agency. review senators reid, nicholson stevens said at the time of this bill's passage, congressional review gives the public the opportunity to call the attention of politically accountable elected officials too concerned about new agency rules. if these concerns are sufficiently serious, congress can stop the rule. we believe the concerns about so bseus fcc's net neutrality rules are sufficiently serious to warrant consideration for senate joint resolution six, the disapprovalpp resolution, senatr

mcconnell and i introduced you know if i the fcc's net hutrality ureter under the congressional review act. the house has 30 passed its reso version of the resolution. we need only a majority of senators to send this bill to the president's a desk.er, even a technicality supporter, author senator olympia snowe who is out there technicality ledgers patient is a third and supporter e while senators snowe and i don't agree on the need for netmpleter neutrality law, we are in complete agreement that she stated beautifully that shod congress, not the fcc should f determine what the proper regulatory framework is for the internet. if the senate does not strike rg down these regulations and, then will go into effect on november 28. further jeopardizing jobs in

this fragile economy. i guess youou could say that alw more lawyers to be hired. the more innovators probably the not.ix that is not to next we need to k assure that our economy will get back on track in this country.ny studies indicate that net aff neutrality rules could significantly affect ourcapi economy. broadband if net neutrality reduces capital investment in broadband could cost our country hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade. we must reserve the hope that nice as the internet as aconomi platform for innovation and keep economic growth. we must keep the competitive advantage that we have in this country for innovation. the last thing we have to be doing is putting restrictions ou

ournt providers when many countries are also advancing this area are not doing the same thing. so when we go to globalting competitiveness, we are putting. our companies at a disadvantage. why would we do that. we must stop. jobelg the job killing regulatory affair inspired government todaa in soy many areas and we can b start right here right now by fn keeping thge internet free,provl voting for this resolution of disapproval and seem to regulatory bodies in this town, congress must authorize authority for your agencies to pass rules and especially the congress is in disagreement with this is a key policy decisions for our body.

we need to step out where thegrs responsibility of congress has.e you know, our constitution divided the powers between three branches of government. up for if congress doesn't stand up for us one third of the powers of this government and let unelected bureaucrats run over her prerogative, we will become a weaker branch in oure government will become weaker for it.d we need to have three each holet branches of government and thats means each branch must refill its responsibilities under the constitution.authity congress cannot delegate its authority explicitly for a rule to be made. that is the way the constitution intended for congress to fulfilf

its job as the elected representatives of our country. the house has passed itsresoluo. resolution.e w i hope the senate will tomorrow. f hope the people will speak ano say, even if you disagree on the basic issue of net neutrality, that it is not the right of the fcc to pass such sweeping o regulations that will affect the economy of this country without co explicit authority from congress which it does not have. thank you, mr. president. i would like to just ask my flor colleagues to come to the floor if they want to speak on this amendment, on this resolution. there are four hours equallyso d divided in that time is now running. have qte a

pe i would say to my republicans colleagues, we have quite a list of those who want to speak. o they must know that the time will run out and about 3.5 hours now. so i asked them to contact me ik they wish y to speak. thank you, mr. president and i yield the floor. >> the senior senator from the great state of west virginia. >> mr. president, i rise today j to oppose the senate joint resolution number six from the resolution under the congressional review act to which i'd like to talk, to fed disapprove the communications sec's open internet rules, such as they are. go w americans want the internet toan be freeing up in. see they want to go where they want to go and see what they wanthato see and do what they want to do. they don't want somebody they don't want to have gatekeepers. they wanted to be a nice open t.

forum for them. and everybody uses the internet. they want to be able to develop new businesses. they wantea to read. they want to watch video. and they want to reach out to friends and family and community and they want to do it online te and they want to do all of these things on the internet without having to ask permission from their broadbande provider. promu yes cc has balanced rules that pet americans do all of theseane things and keep the internet open, which keeps the internet f free. so let's be clear clear from the outset. no matter how sj red sixessed stressed that the language of t success will promote openness and freedom. it will not do that.ion

the resolution is misguided. it will add insurgency in fact into the economy.dependt on daily hinders small businesses dependent unfair, brought an access or otherwise they might they don't want to be in a slower lane. they want to be able to compete with other parts of the country. it will in fact it will in fact it will in fact, this undermi resolution. it will hamper digital congresse and that will imperil deal and a sentry guns but it's been the hallmark of the internet from the very start. the fcc's rules for a product of hard work and consent this and compromise. the agency had extensive input from stakeholders and they justp open up anden said no.theyad wrt sending your comments. in fact, they admit input from within 100,000 commentators. t

about 90% of those filing support option is open internetf rules. on top of this, rules are based on long-standing pope and internet principles, which refers to reticulated that ther, bush administration. these rules are three basic ovider things. first they impose a transparency application on providers of broadband internet service. this means all brought to dis providers publicly disclosed to concerns with the network nd, management practices.ixed second, rules prohibit its bribe in providers from blocking local content, from blocking d applications andev devices. this means consumers and innovators continue have theernt

right to receive traffic with wh mobile bribe and service to a very limited set of prohibitions and i'll speak about that in a moment. third, rules aime to ensure that the internet remains a level playing field by prohibiting fixed rugby in providers prevent transmit a lawful networkwork traffic, which they done. finally, the rules are meant to apply with complementary principles of reasonable networt management, which provides broad and providers flexibility to address congestion or traffic that is harmful to the note were. these are the principles i wrong believe everyone can support. i see nothing wrong with them. the word reasonable somehow doesn't scare me. maybe it should but it justd

with doesn't.parency? that's my colleagues what is wit wrong with transparency? what is wrong with that? why would we want to promote internet locking or discrimination? why do you want some peopleome unfastening and some miscellaneous depending on whether you pay your internet provider or not enough money. what is unreasonable about reasonable network management? t i believe the fcc's effort along with the ongoing oversight and lnforced that will protect wil consumers and i believe will provide companies with the certainty they need to make thestments in our digital economy. many champions of the openrnet p internet with prefers strip turs decision.el i myself as rove reservations are treating wireless broadband different link from wired bribe and. a i think the fcc's decision was step nevertheless a meaningful stepak

forward and in a moment i will talk about other people who feel the same. supporters of the joint resolution fail to acknowledge the fcc's open internet rules oe have received overwhelming support from bribe and internet service providers, can service n and public groups, as high-tech. companies. randall stephenson's stated wanted no way chelation the oped internet order ended at a place where we have a line of sight cn and we now and can commit time warner cable is set atth te time that the orders release that they had talked it and said about that committee appear tosr reflect a workable balance between protecting consumer interests and incentives for investment and innovation a by pibe and internet servicernet i

providers. numerous analyst for a major frm investment banks have found the open internet workers removes oe what they call rate history to overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on investment. ebay, skype and other leaders of innovation all urged the fcc to adopt common sense be finensr rules, their words. key critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and glob global head of business.to they are more than 150 organizations to oppose this joint resolution. i hate doing this. i hate reading lists. thommu but i'm going to do it anyway. the communication workers of america, afl-cio, united states conference of catholic bishops,n

american library association. hn leadership conference on civil andea human rights, united latin american citizens. the national organization for women and technet. a lot of folks and technet. they have a lot at stake onould this. mr. president, i have the that they be added to the congressional record at the. ro appropriate place. >> without objection. >> to be sure to read those who internet rules and there is an avenue for these complaintssing called the judicial system.mpane some are using it. two companies have filed lawsuits claiming the fcc wentnt too far. f. did several public-interest groups have filed lawsuits claiming that the fcc did not go farandhn enough. well, it's critical right to go. to the cards when they choose to do that they can do that.

so let's think for a minute whae a world would look like without a free and open internet in arne world without a free and open ansparen internet they would have no dband transparency as to how the broadband provider manages its t network. no ability to make informed decisions about their pride andu provider in a world without a to free and open internet, there would be nothing to prevent t broadband provider from steering you only to its preferred websites and services, limiting therefore your choice as are consumer. if you are a rural american, era broadband internet-access has the power tosend erase distancen allows you to have the sameurba. access to shopping, educational matters come employment opportunities as those in urbano areas. it's a time-honored rentable

around here.ite that but not if the website you seek to access is blocked by the ce consumers and entrepreneurs,s small businesses need the certainty they can access websites of their choice when they want.nothg in a world without a free andg s open internet, there'd bees nothing to stop broadband providers from blocking access e to websites that offer products that compete with those of its affiliates that happens,panies mr. president. in a world without a free and open internet, companies could pay to have providers to guarantee their websites but then mark quickly than their competitors. now, in a world without a free and open internet company, companies could pay providers to make sure that their online sales are processend more quicke than their competitors with

lower prreices.wcialthat' well, that's not thes american way. and it's particularly disturbine in tough times like these. prevt and i would've had a free and open internet, there'd be nothing to prevent internet service providers are charging users if premium in order to guarantee operation in the fasto lane. if you're trying to start a small business, struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to pay the toll, you run the risk of being left in the slow t lane. that is not good. with inferior internet service, that is not right. th unable to compete with larger companies. that is very wrong.or start-up and what if you are a innovatorx startup can't any and you have the next big idea.n g but broadband the next big idea suburban garage or from the

silicon valley.e and income for rural america oro anywhere. a free and open internet is alli thatg is required to give thatia big idea a global reach. the in a world without a free and open internet, the ability of the next revolutionary idea toe make it to the greater marketplace it be entirely dependent on a handful of entrenched bribe and gatekeepers and toll collect fares.ct, i am not totally opposed to the congressional review act, but i have to say, mr. president, it a an extraordinary blunt instrument. t f.c.c it means that all of the rules adopted by the fcc must be overturned at once. out this would even mean tossing out commonsense provisions aboutansy transparency.ncy do our opponents know this? p

it was denied the agency the power to protect consumers. what to our o'spponents know this? t? what is the sense that all of that? i don't get it. anoth p and there is another part that if they take out what you're doing s. res. 6 to pass and thek just had these without, you couldn't come back and later had lhe fcc put them in.congrena you have to go through whole congressional legislative process tohe reinsert it into te public law, which means many would never end up there.int ret they also want to address supporters of the joint will resolution that the open roadsin will somehow stifle innovation and the internet economy.5 that is just so wrong i don'tnes want to say. over the past 15 years, it is the internet that has been theeg greatest engine for the u.s. economy. it leaves everything as it doe , creating more than 3 million ind

jobs as a senator from texas sun nndicated. t ope in help sustain this growth. people have to want to know what the rules of the road are. they want to know what the word is bringing for them.whatoming, and if they decide they don't it like ofwhat is coming, they will tell you and they're not going to invest.tem, very simple.f according to hamilton consultants the open internet ecosystem which led to creations of 1.8a jobs relate to well applications on e-commerce and as well, 1.2 million jobs related to infrastructure. moreover, investment has the continued to increase since the open internet rules., not decrease as supporters of will the resolution will tell you. the facts show that in broadn and, the investment abroad and0. networks increase in the first half of 2011. in fact, networks that supporthe

broad and bizarre than 10% higher in the first half of 2011 and in the first half was 2010.s and moore is fat investment companies surged in 2011. this is after they sort oft adjust it and had taken into account what they saw coming in the way of the rules. a there is a 2.30 yen dollars investment going into 275 companies in the second quarter, all of them at this internet i tape. that is the most invested in internet companies in a decade.g plus certainly after the free market to top it adopted, americans leading wireless

professors announce they're they're accelerating to fit hast fourth-generation 4g networks. it seems we have been in theand providers a notch for nurse in investors certainty that theyhao soed to invest and create jobs. certainty is key. they will not invest in what they don't know. we see that in so many other areas. people have all this cash.and wi here they have certainty. they understand the certainty and what's coming and they like it and there does seem never int before. the fcc's open internet roles also protect small businesses. as estimated, about 20,000 small businesses operate on the hav more than 600,000 americans havs part or full-time businesses onf ebay allowed. i was not aware of that. the fcc's open internet rules mean that small entrepreneurs will not have to seek permissios from broadband provider to reach

new markets and consumers with innovative products and m services. that smal this is a very important point. and it's a small business can be located anywhere in this country, including rural americv than to open broadband, have the opportunity for ideas and products and services to have a global reach. that is the point of all of this. la we all know, small business are responsible for no 65% of new jobs over the last 15 years. far from preventing investment, the fcc's open internet rulesuse will foster small business is because they see it, they see that movie is insane about itt e and what the wall street investment bankers say aboutst , they say it's encouraging investment. they trust that and so they take risks that they might otherwises not take because they trust.ey

bureaucrat. they understand it.ably seeit they've seen it and commented oc it. maybe some of them didn't like as much as methey should.ught some thought it should have beei weaker such is life in america. so anyway, i think what theythee conclude on is supporting what they are doing. finally, i want to know when ito comes to education and privacy of intellectual property, globar internet governance or network l security, the government has s long provided and necessarily serve reasonable rules of the road to make possible consumer protection, fair trade and open markets. the fcc's open internet rules are no different. they take has been coded by many

a light touch approach. kp i like that phrase. and keep the playing field fair. they keep the internet open and free for consumers, businesses, everyone who wants access to broadband internet. open so that is why, mr. president, o support the fcc open internet rules and i encourage my colleagues to vote against the joint resolution. >> next on c-span 2, occupy washington d.c. protesters discuss the federal budget. in a previous maxtor's congressional elections from the national journal.

>> i want to alter the outcome of those who wanted me to run the battery and those who are terribly does point that i'm doing the right thing. >> i believe 1984 frames the united states and the strongest position years to establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the soviet union.vvvwvvvvvñvvw >> occupy washington d.c. organizers hosted a discussion of the federal budget. the purpose of protest in washington d.c.'s freedom plaza since october 6, asking for an end to what they callçsççwçsççw corporatism at the americans economy. this is a little over two hours. >> those who have not been here

before, this is occupy washington d.c. we have been out here for a month. to start october 6 in the regularly to the fans, sometimes teach dance, sometimes protests. does this make to the? o think it's a little too loudn a little bit of an echo. we've anyway, we've been out here for as. month now and we've had dinners, protests, teachings, great speakers from cornell west to gregory, lots of people have come out. e do today is something we t we think is important because it's a debate going on right now in congress we think is way off track. an it is off track because we do with a corrupt political system, corrupt to the core and they cannot deal with real problems ll this country faces would say is and so, the so-called super

committeethey are occupied by ce power. now, we're calling this is occupying super committee, but i think we're liberating. what we are is a liberated center in an occupied city, occupied by mass wealth and corporate power to limits government. welcome to freedom plaza. that's what we are here, and we had here with not by ourselves, but there's another occupation in mcpheerson plaza. i thank both for staying out for doing incredible citizen work to change the debate. occupations are happening across the country, and people are finally stepping up and taking responsibility for the direction of the government and the economy. it's refreshing to see, and it's great to see people doing their constitutional duty. we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union. that's our constitutional duty, and we're exercising our freedom

of speech, right to freedom of assembly, and in doing that to show us how far we are off track, 2700 people have been arrested, not violently protesting across the country to just redress their grievances. we have serious greechtions. this country is way off track. we have an empire economy that works around the world in wars. we have a domestic economy that's dominated by big business wealth where the people's voice is no longer heard. we are here to redress the grievances and build an independent movement. this is just the beginning. this is just the beginning. what you're seeing happening in freedom plaza and your own cities around the country is the beginning of an independent political movement to hold both parties accountable and if necessary run can dates ourselves and take this government for the people. we believe in participating democracy, and that's what this is about. participating democracy versus

concentrated corporate wealth. we'll announce plans on our website. you can go there and sign up even if you can't come here, you can be a part of it. occupy washington, d.c. is announcing big events. among those events are a bus tour, for example. planning to go out into the country and build this movement. we'll have people put on events, teach people how to do occupations, teach people about the issue, and that's starting in the future. we'll also planning with a bunch of occupations around the country, national occupation of washington, d.c. next spring, the american spring is going to bring the occupations together into washington dc beginning march 30th. join us there. now dc. national occupation of washington, d.c.. put that on the schedule and plan to be here for that.

that's tens of thousands of people camping out in washington, d.c.. what we're going to do today is we told the speakers, we have great speakers as they get prepared to speak. we told the speakers is we do not want to be limited by political reality in washington. political reality in washington means what the corruption requires, what the people who fund the campaigns require. we are breaking free of that political reality, and we're going to go into reality reality. reality reality is two things. it's evidence based solutions to the problems the country fces aneve m t .. solutions that are easily put in place, and they are not being put in place because of the political reality that limits choices here. the second reality is we want solutions, and we want to confront the problems and solve them. you know, president obama's faced health care, but not solved it. it's worse. he's confronted the financial crisis and made the big banks

bigger rather than broke them up. he made the federal reserve powerful, bailed out the banks over and over through the federal reserve and trash ri, there's bailouts, and main street is struggling. the problems have been raised, but not dealt with. we'll put forward solutions to solve the problems. the problem with the super committee on the hill is their members have raised tens of millions of dollars from entrenched corporate interests. in fact, a report -- cut 1.2 frl, and that's something that's doable between a combination of tax changes, cuts on military spending and other efficiencies. it's easy to reach the 1.2 trillion mark. it's not impossible at all, but unfortunately the committee on the hill exemplifies what's wrong with congress. a report came out last week from the public campaign, national people's action, that compile the amount of donations received on the deficit committee.

$41 million from big finance over their careers. $41 million from big finance. do you think that big finance will be challenged? of course not. they will not be challenged, and you also see a revosming door. at least 27 former aids of the super committee are lobbying now on behalf of financial firms. they are hearing from their former aids coming back as lobbyists, as well-paid lobbiests. they received money from jp mar -- jp morgan, chase, and since 2000, the finance energy spent $4 billion trying to influence the direction of congress through lobbying and elections. the ten biggest contributors, the first is club for growth. thars a group that advocates low taxes for the rich, corporations, and cuts to social spending, cuts to the social safety net. a lot of candidates are now

called tea party candidates because they were co-oped by the republican party. we're facing up to that. we're not going to let the democrat front groups co-op that movement. we're going to stay independent. we are not co-oped. you won't see them called occupy democrats. that's not going to happen. the club for growth candidates are tea party candidates. other donors, goldman sachs, 519,000. citi group, $630,000 to members of the committee. i hate having papers. jp morgan chase, bank of america, general electric, $340,000. these are the people who control this committee, and we've seen last five years 1.7 million in donations from political committees with ties to weapon contractors and the health care

try industry. those are two of the biggest issues on the block up there. if they fail to meet their deficit reductions, there's automatic cuts to the military and to health care, and their lobbying aggressively up there, and our view is that a bad deal is not worth making. if they will make a bad deal to please corporate interests, it's not worth making. let the cuts go in place and fix it as the 99% take more power. we're not going to get anything out of the committee or the cuts. they are too corrupted to make it happen. they are limited in their choices. they talk about cuts to social services, cuts to medicare, medicaid, social security. that's where they are going with this. they are not going to cuts because of the military or tax increases on the wealthy. you'll hear a lot of views on that today, and i welcome you to that, and from a week from now, we'll put out our own report with real reality reality recommendations on how to really solve the deficit crisis and get this economy going, and the critical thing is to solve the

deficit, we have to get the economy going. it's a critical ingredient to solving the deficit. when you have people paying taxes, less people using services. you win on both ends -- income and spending, and so solving with jobs crisis, this economic downturn is a critical step in order to solve the deficit of problem. i'll introduce our first speaker from the economic policy institute, andrew fieldhouse discusses how to raise revenue through change of the tax structure and create a fair tax system and raise sufficient revenue and close the divide and get the economy moving. andrew. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction, cell phone. the united states suffers from an unwillingness to pay the bills, not inability to pay the bills. all too often, there's prominent policymakers make views we're broke or compare the united states and greece. like last summer's artificial

debt ceiling crisis, 24 is nonsense. the united states is not broke. income per capita jumped 66% over the last 30 years, and it's projected to grow another 60% in three decades. on the corporate side, inflation adjusted profits in connection withed 7% -- increased 7%. while productivity surged 73% since 1973, median income rises only 15%. the market distribution of robust productivity and national income gains is incredibly skewed while regressive tax policies have simultaneously exacerbated a trend of quality. since 1-9d 79, the top 1% of households saw average tax rates fall from 37% to under 30% even as their income more than doubled. that calls for restoring a greater degree of productivity to the tax code rather than

dismantling government. the long term challenges stem from political disagreement over the size and role of government and the financing of the social contract. to clarify, much of the concern about the deficit has nothing to do with the deficit and everything to do with opposition to taxation particularly taxation and raising revenue from upper income households. the u.s. experiment with trickle down economics failed the vast majority. the top 1% of households captured 65% of economy-wide income gains leaving the bottom 90% with 13% of gains. trends were exacerbated by tax policy as the bush tax cuts gave gains to those at the top. in 2010, 38% of the bush tax cuts went to the top 1% of households, and roughly half to the top 5%. yet the bush economic tax cuts never trickled down as they were

promised. the bush economic expansion proved # to be the worst since world war ii in terms of economic growth, employment, and wage and salary growth. real median income for working families has fallen 10% since 2000. 24 is a cost -- this is a costly experiment. the bush tax cutted added $2.6 trillion to the public debt, half the debt accumulated over this period. last december, congress paid another $670 billion for a two year extension of current tax policies. increased borrowing increased the need that ensued last summer. the bush tax cuts are partially paid for with roughly $1 trillion in domestic spending cuts and defense cuts enacted year to date. continuing the bush era tax cuts costs $3.8 trillion. this represents the difference of the fiscal outlook over this

period, an extension of all current policies costs $6.5 trillion, more than the bowles-simpson plan cuts over the next decade. this leaves revenue levels at grossly inadequate levels in the coming decades because the tax code defunds government. this was aptly demonstrated by the house republican 2012 budget proposing financing of the tax cuts with $4.7 trillion to cuts in domestic spending programs coming from low income programs. this dismantling social programs is a choice, however, not a necessity. the tax code was more progressive in the 1950s and 60s when the fruits of growths were shared. the cut off has fallen from $3 million to just $380,000 today. simultaneously, the top marginal

tax bracket fell from 90% in the 1950s to 70% in 1970 to just 35% for most of this past decade. declining corporate taxation, born by shareholders and business owners contributed greatly to progressivity. the share of economy fell from 4.8% of gdp to 1.8%. tax policy must be reformed to raise revenue fairly. here are a few principles for the corporate and individual tax reform i'd like to see. first and foremost, income derived from wealth and investments should be treated the same as income derived from work. the single most regressive future of the income tax is a preferential treatment of capital gains and diff deppedz. the top 1% of the earners will pay 70% of gapes this year, but pay a rate of 15% well below the

35% rate paid on wages and salaries. similarly, additional tax brackets should be restored to the income tax. consolidating tax brackets and tax rates at lower rates and revenue levels maybes no sense given the distribution trends of the last 0 years. similarly, bolstering the estate tax makes sense with wealth disperties. it's thee most progressive tax, but it's been entirely e vis rate the over the last decade, another trend to be reversed. progressive tax reform falls in the 1% of earners, the top tent of 1% because that's where the gains have been, but the 99% has to pay more too. the bush tax cuts were unfair and ineffective, but their reach expanded beyond households making over $250,000 a year. letting the upper income tax cuts retire is a good first step, but adequately funding

government maintains three-fourths of the tax cuts as president obama proposed presents quite a challenge. tax reform and simplification benefits from limiting or wholesale eliminating tax expenditures like the home interest tax deduction. they are divorced from the policy objective, and their benefit increases with filers marginal tax rates if filers receive any benefit at all. any reform of tax expenditures, however, should maintain and expand a refundable income support like the earned income tax credit we have today. 234 a different -- in a different vain, carbon should be priced. it makes sense to tax something harmful than work and savings. a dividend to take the sting and renewable energy and trade deficit benefits from pricing the extraalties of carbon.

financial speculation and leverage poses a prime target for corrective taxation. small taxes on financial transactions dampen trading volumes ending the high speed training adding no value, but increasing risk as we saw with the 2010 flash crash. dean baker is pushing a transaction tax for year, and it looks like the european union is moving in that direction. financial transaction taxes can recoop the societal costs imposed by the financial crisis and raise revenue upwards of $800 billion in a decade according to the tax policy center. senator harkin and congressman defasio introduced the fill to have a 3% tax on every $100 traded raising $350 # billion over the next decade. that's enough to finance a meaningful jobs program or fund programs for a decade. lastly, congress seems to be

moving towards complete tax reform to lower loopholes. without raising revenue, however, corporate tax reform rewards all businesses for decades of successful lobbying by some. as noted earlier, the share of revenue extracted from corporations has fallen dramatically for years. should they embark, the taxing of interest should be reconsidered and limited. the current tax treatment of interest encourages high degrees of leverage in the finance sector although this could be addressed directly by taxes leverage. in summary, tax policy can and should be used to alter the market distribution of income, tempering inequality and alleviating poverty and correct social externalities and increase financial speculation. tax reform has to raise more

revenue in the coming decades. america is not broke. we can afford economic security programs, public investments, and a serious jobs program. putting people back to work and creating taxpayers is the first step in a reduction strategy. conversely, premature spending cuts, the recipe for deficit reduction strategy with fiscal balance remains as european nations are discovering. ignoring prolonged mass under employment or turning medicare into a coucher comes to mind. taxation is the price paid for a civil society. by restoring a higher degree, we can ensure that price is born fairly and raise adequate revenue to fund our government. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. what we'll do as far as participation of the audience, at the end of the speakers,

there's a question and answer session, but in between each speaker, there's time for a two to three questions or comments. if anyone wants to do that, go to the mic up here now if you want to participate. if you don't want to participate, we'll go to the next speaker. any questions or comments on tax policy or impacts on you and your circumstances? >> go ahead. let's keep it moving along. anyone else, get in line behind her so we can keep moving forward. >> my question is are taxes -- if there's a chance to reroute, i'm worried about how the environment is being affected by corporate greed. will there be a possible change how tax rates are paid to

positively affect the environment. >> absolutely. ten minutes with a challenge. reinstating super fund taxes makes sense. waste clean up should be taxed based on people creating waste rather than general revenue. that's a change in tax policy of the last decade that made no sense. taxing carbon makes sense. if you believe in free market solutions, you would assign property rights, yet the free marketers don't like this idea. it's not a very hard concept. externalities should be paid for and environmental taxes are a way to do that. [applause] >> i don't see any other comments or questions, so moving on to the next presenter. >> the defense alternatives working on transitioning from a foreign policy based on militarism to a foreign policy based on cooperation and

diplomacy, and they apply resolution techniques and this leads to cuts in military spending. here's carl. >> thank you. [applause] >> i'll talk about problems in the defense policy, but before i begin, i want to talk about why change is difficult. the pentagon is a drop box, and into that drop box every year goes $700 billion, about $450 of the billion leaves that immediately to go to industry. industry, and defense industry and contractors employ about a thousand lobbyists, twice as many people in congress, and in the last election cycle, the top defense industries spent $22 million in campaign contributions. the one question that we need to ask ourselves is what do we have

up against that? i think what we've learned, what i've learned, over the past year is that what we have is the most powerful weapon in the world which is this. right there. that's a place to start. let's take a look at what's the problem we're trying to solve in the area of defense policy. it doesn't take a lot in terms of forensic science. we don't have to call in csi. a few observations will do. over the past 12 years while the deficit and the debt was growing, the pentagon budget rose by nearly 100% in real terms. that's 100% after you take inflation into account. all told in the past 12 years, we've added $2.5 trillion to the

pentagon's budget above the level it was spending in 1998 so that was the pentagon money surge. that's brought military spending back up to the level that it was in the cold war, although, you look around, and today there's no competitor comparable to the old soviet empire, so why spend so much? well, let's take a look at the $2.5 trillion. half of that went directly to paying for new wars. the other half went to developing a new strategy that's evolved over the last 12-15 years. that strategy sets out goals and missions for the military that are far more ambitious than the traditional ones of defense and deterrence. the strategy is aimed to do a number of things. it's aimed to take our incomparable military power and to transform the world's security environment. that's one of the goals.

it's aimed to try to prevent the emergence of threats, nip them all in the bud before they can grow if you can identify them, the world over. it aims to help stabilize so-called fragile states wherever we choose along the lines we choose. it's a system of nation building, and finally, it's aimed to so-called -- to secure the so-called global common, and that's all this space in between states, not just on earth, but in space and cyberspace too, so this strategy has bitten off quite a big task for itself and centered the direction guy dance to here in the united states. in a sense, we prieftized social

security and made ourselves the per -- purveyors of social security. it's not surprising our military is active in many more places than before. it's preparing to do many more times of thing, and up deed, the pentagon is crowding out the state department, and it has crowded out the state department in pursuing goals that used to be the work of diplomacy and development aid. now, today, we only have about 70% as many troops as we did in the cold war, so how does a smaller military manage this expanded task list, a list which included prolonged foreign occupations? well, regarding the size of the military, appearances are deceptive. we've increasingly back filled the pentagon labor pool with private contractors. how many contractors does the pentagon employee? it's hard to say. not even the services can say for sure. it's at least 800,000, perhaps

it's as many as a million. in that light, the pentagon's total labor fool may be only 15% smaller than it was during the cold war, and that helps explain the return to cold war levels of spending. all right. let's try to assess the new strategy. what can we say about it? how can we evaluate it? i think just about all we need to know we can learn by looking at the wars we've waged. despite all the years, all the treasure, all the lives spent in afghanistan and iraq, we've been unable to bring reliable security or stability to either of those countries. between them, they constitute just about 1% of the world's people. we've spent $1.3 trillion over ten years on those two wars, and that exceeds the combined gdp of those countries for that entire

period. we could have paid everyone for ten year, and what's the outcome? from a security perspective, it's uncertain at best. looking at their neighborhoods, iran, pakistan, it's fair to worry that the security situation is worse, not better. what about the war on terrorism? well, it's grown boundless. it didn't end with the death of bin laden, but it seems to have just grown bigger. we have u.s. involvements and investments now in multiple internal conflicts. we are involving ourselves everywhere. the strategy appears not to have mopped things up as much as spread them around. at the end of the tum, there's no light at the end of the tunnel, just another opportunity. what to we have? we have undeterminable outcomes. we don't know how it turns out. we have expanding involvements,

exorbitant costs, and these are the tracks of a failed strategy, a strategy that was conceived when the federal budget was in surplus and many thought we had trillions to burn. it's surprising to discover many defense leaders and dod defenders seem to agree with this gloomy assessment and agree, they don't intend to agree, but look at the debate in congress. congress is looking at the issue of deficit reduction. defense policy leaders have been asserting 245 the pentagon needs a special compensation. the pentagon led the way in the increase in discretionary spending over the past 10-12 years, but now they need a special compensation. secretary defense panetta on the democratic side, head of the house armed services committee on the republican side talk from the same script insisting any

defense reduction exceeding 7% would be catastrophic to the armed services and would imperil our nation. let's keep this in mind. america and its allies today outspend actual and potential adversaries, including russia and china by a margin of 3-to-1, and that's better than was the case during the cold war when things were about even, so when leadership says that despite this advantage and current levels of spending, $700 billion, the pentagon cannot role back any 7% without risking catastrophe. i think it's fair to conclude that we got the wrong strategy. or we got the wrong leadership, or we got both. [applause] what's wrong with our current approach? it's simple. military power is a uniquely expensive thing suited to very

narrow purposes, defensive purposes, not transformative ones. it's a destructive tool, not a constructive one. it conserved diplomacy in some instop signses, but it -- instances, but it shouldn't substitute diplomacy. we have been trying 20 use this instrument beyond the limits of utility. look, when we came out of the cold war, this is what we had in greatest abundance. this was judged to be our greatest competitive advantage, but just because you have a tool doesn't mean it's the right tool. it all you got is a hammer, as they say, everything ends up looking like a nail. we are misapplying our armed forces, and that's been costing us and others dearly. positive change begins with thinking differently about international security. look, it's not just a case of using the military wrongly, and it's not just a case of biting off way more than we can chew.

it's also a case of misunderstanding what security is. security is not a wall. it's not a wall of stone. it's not a wall of fire. security is not a wall that you build on your border. it's not a wall that you forward deploy. get the enemy over there as george bush would say. this is not secure. what security is fundamentally is accord,. security is agreements. that's the foundation on which we build safety. it requires dialogue. it requires reaching out and when we understand that, we understand we have to give diplomacy pride of place. what are some changes? well, first, we can restore the traditional bounds in the foreign policy tweeness defense and diplomacy. second, the pentagon. let the penalty gone reemphasize the simple goals of defense.

these are appropriate to the instrument which should be an instrument of last and infrequent resort. third, let's concern ourselves less with running the show, less with being the indispensable power as leaders assert this, and many of being a facilitator of cooperative action, not just cooperation with friends and junior partners, either, but cooperation that reaches across lines of division. this be joining with others, let's join with others to cooperatively invest in global, regional, and security institutions. it means advancing the role of international law and being careful to operate within its structures rather than at or beyond its boundaries. [applause] we change along these lines, and we roll back the size of the armed forces and overseas presence, and we can reduce the defense expenditure. we then up vest less in military

power and more in the long term preservation of our national strength, and that's our economy and our people. they form the foundation of all forms of power including military power. how much do we cut from defense? it's funny. earlier this year the university of maryland conducted a national poll that asked americans that question. it was a unique poll because it told the participants how much we're spending. many polls on defense spending don't tell people what the sums involved are. this one did, and it asked people to correct the budget. respondents settled on $109 billion a year. that's in the realm of 16% of so, and that roughly accords interestingly with the president's fiscal commission last year coming up with very similar conclusions which congress tossed aside. it also accords with the nonpartisan sustainable defense

task force that i was a part of. we all said let's go with 100 billion. what might be the effect on the economy? $100 billion spent on just about anything other than the pentagon yield a net increase of at least 300,000 american jobs. that's not a bad place to start. [applause] thanks. [applause] >> if there's questions, line up. i see people like to talk about the military, yes. okay. [laughter] for those who were just joining us, this is coming to you from freedom plaza, and we're occupy washington, d.c.. sign up, get involved, donate, come down and participate at freedom plaza on pennsylvania avenue. first comment or question. >> okay. well this is a complex question i suppose. >> not too long now. >> i'll try not to. a lot of people think back in kennedy's time, that president

kennedy was dragged by the military, whatever complex because he did not want to seek first strike capability. he was trying to reach out to end the cold war. i'm wondering, and then you look at the new american century, their goal to control the world's resources. isn't part of this, i don't know where it exists, but there is a whole bunch, a part of the government that's not accountable to anybody, the security system, the cia, parts of the first. they are not accountable. isn't there an attitude we want to rule the world and totally control it? isn't that really a part of this whole thing? >> you know, i think it's not the type of thing that's said. [laughter] you can go back in history. this is not the first time the

question has risen. i like to point to emanuel kahn who philosophyed the question. he says, you know, every sorch, meaning every king wants security, and they are most secure when they are in charge, so everyone tries to create a security system that's under their own control, and they say that it is to everyone's benefit. of course, other sovereigns disagree, and that's the genesis of wars, disagreement about who should run things and whose interest is best or who represents the common interest, so i think that plays a part -- it plays a subtle part even among those who don't admit it. we just trust ourselves more, and the real challenge is that others trust themselves more, and that's why the real issue is one of reaching across those

lines of division, and the first thing to say in a step towards resolution is to your opponent, well, you've got a point, and to work from there. >> yes, hi, thank you for your presentation. i was glad you started out taking about the thousand lobbyists, and how this is part of perpetuating the system, and that means with the super committee, we don't have even the kind of possibilities that we'd like to see. i mean, some people would like to see the pentagon budget cut in half. that's not going to happen. frank says cut 25%, that's not going to happen. with the limitations that we have in this corrupt system, is the best that we can hope for in the super committee is that they doarnt come up with a deal, and that there is then a trigger of cuts across the board and how likely might that happen, and would our corrupt congress not allow that to happen to the

pentagon, and then within the $100 billion cuts that you talked about, where does most of that come from? there's the ending wars that we shouldn't have been in in the beginning, there's the cutting out of military weapons we don't need, and then there's the issue of 800-plus bases overseas. i've been told by people in congress that cutting the bases would not lead to significant reductions in the military budget because we've have to keep paying the personnel whether they were there, overseas, or back home. details about where the $100 billion that you suggested would come from. >> sure. there's that suggestion that you gave, and then the super committee. i don't think we should underestimate the capability of congress to fool around the edge edges and change the rules. we may not see this go into

effect, that what happens next year is a prolonged fight over redefining it at best with the pentagon defenders. i call them pen gone -- pentagonnists, arguing we need to wall off spending and protect it. let's have where all the cuts go to so-called non-security spending. that's another thing too. they talk two baskets, security, and non-security as though the center of the universe is security. it's security versus national strength and life. those are your choices, but at any rate, i don't think that we can trust that leads to defense cuts, but i think that the problem the country's facing is one that's not going to go away. i think awareness is growing, and people are looking hard at the defense budget. i've seen in the past two years more movement on this issue than

i've seen in the previous decade and a half, so i don't -- i think the battle is just beginning. on the $100 billion and where to get it. by the way, that $100 billion is from the base pentagon budget meaning it doesn't include the wars. you get that savings too. people are expecting that to go down. in addition to that, they are looking for another -- actually it was $119 billion, and that was not exactly the proposal, more in the 100 range, but the point is you reduce the size of the armed forces and tie that into reducing the task list, not trying to do all of these transformative tasks; right? reduce the task list, reduce the size. that reduces the amount of equipment you need to buy, and obviously, reduces payroll, you roll back the reliance on contractors. it's actually not that hard when you're starting out with $700 billion to find $100 billion to

cut. >> three more questions here or comments. make them brief because we have a long way to go. >> will rogers speaking in the latter part of last century said defined diplomacy as good dog until i get a rock. that seem to characterize american diplomacy in the global continuum we live in. the other issue that comes up with a question is there never was a missile gap. misinformation caused the missile gap. we never -- the russians were never ahead of us. we drove the missile gap, and it was driven by the military industrial complex as characterized so well by president eisenhower. i'm an organizational psychologist with 35 years of experience working in the public and private sector and any organization existing long enough, the final stages is corruption. it's the stage we're in now. given the supporting of the political system by money and

politics, how in god's name do you expect any change to happen without stopping the machine and starting over again. thank you. [applause] >> one of my favorite will roger's quotes, i believe he's the source, is one you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. that's good advice to our congress and to the executives as well. i think it's right that we have to have a dpicht approach -- different approach to dismantling diplomacy. we entered the post cold war period with sufficient an abundance of power relative to other people we felt we didn't have to compromise. now, what happens if you take that approach is that gradually others begin to build power as well, and you eventually end up where i lope we don't. we've been through the cold war. we don't want to do that again and bequeath that to our children, but if you don't learn how to compromise and how to build commonty, that's we with

end up. we don't have raise a pure competitor today, we'll find one tomorrow. many the threats are spun out of whole clothe particularly now when you hear people saying that you can't cut by 7% or everything falls apart. you know they are not -- this is not evidence-based approach to security people like to point to china. if i worry about china, before their military. the chinese theory is that the decision about which is the dominant power, the leading power in tomorrow's world is going to be decided in the economic sphere. that's their theory. that's why thigh spend less of their gdp on defense than we do. i happen to think their theory is right, and it's time for us to move this that direction too to understand that what's really at risk here is long term

national strength, and what's been happening is that we have been sapping that strength in order to build short term military power. >> thank you. first of all, just thank you for delineating the source of the problems and many of the problems and what my question is what do you think is the worst case scenario for the -- if there are no changes, if no one can in the entire united states stop this current phase, and we can see where it's going. you showed this clearly, statistically where it's going, where is it going to morph into? as an american citizen, i still love and hold dear the constitution, and once we defeat all of our so-called foreign enemies, do you think there's a possibility that all of this

military might might be turned inwardly on the american population? in other words worst case scenario, what do you think that might be? >> i think there's one thing that would completely unite the tea party and the occupy movement, it would be the scenario you described. i put a lot of trust in the american citizenry that you can only push them so far so i'm not so much worried about that particular worst case scenario. short of that, what do we see? well, we do see police forces adopting tactics from our armed forces. what we do see is more security functions fielded out to private contractors, domestic security functions. we do see more surveillance on all of us to be used in a number of ways. these are all products of the

past ten years and the way security policy is developed. we also see the use or the implied use of so-called anomaly for weapons, not just tasers, but pain waves, sonic weapons, the possibility that will be used for crowd control here and tested elsewhere. there are things along those lines that i think are real. as far as the ultimate, that's when i think -- that's when i think you bring every man, woman, and child into the streets, and left and right come together, so i'm not so worried about that. internationally, i'm worried we're going to end up in the same type of situation that we had during the cold war which had so many negative effects in terms of development, in terms of sponsoring wars, the worldwide between the soviet block and western block, we may be there with china. this is not a direction we want

to go, and it's not a wise direction or necessary at this point. it is avoidable if we are willing to rethink how we use our defense, and if we're willing to rethink deploim se. -- diplomacy. >> okay. last question. >> first, we want to thank god for being with us. if we have god on our side, and we move according to the spiritual forces of our culture, then we're moving in the right direction. i want to welcome you all to washington. we had to do this so many times, but it's an amazing that the collective force and the intelligence that you bring forth and putting forth in these groups and organizations. i was pleased to see the young man there because it was back in rosa parks day, poe is -- rosa parks hit at the problem we were suffering from, and that is a system of white supremacy that

causes oppression and the inequitable distribution of the wealth. now, rosa parks and ms. fdr who was instrumental in forming the new united nations, these were two women of our culture who helped to form a view of how america and the rest of the world could relieve itself of the oppression and the exploitation. i come from the exploitation of the world. i don't know who my family is other than a few here in this system, but if we get back to the business of doing what the young people told us to do back in the 50s, was to turn the pentagon into a day care center and stop war, shut down the industrial complex, and turn the

world community into a caring, sharing, spiritual community guided by the spiritual systems. now, you three -- i didn't hear this man here, but these two i did here, and what you have to say as a young person, i like to know how do you get that message to all of your people, and you in terms was military industrial complex, in terms of turning the pentagon into a day care center, and there is a group from that period that meets at the pentagon every day to hold a vigil to that effect. i come from a military family, from world war i, and i had a nephew 18 years old who just finished a tour of the -- what

do you call that -- the associated with the marines srb seals. they are all in the water as rescues. what are we going to do in terms of stopping the world bank and all the corporate america from running the nation through the banks if you all remember, i think it was president andrew jackson who was very much opposed to the banks and the power that your sign now says to end corporate rule. i think i've said enough, and i want to thank you gentlemen for being here and to find how you can get the diverse global group, not only should we organize locally, but we have to extend that nationally and globally, and i think that we

are at that point now where his parents are willing to listen more closely to what he had to say back then about turning the pentagon into a day care center and what our spiritual leaders such as dr. martin luther king and malcolm x told us about creating a consciousness and an action of peace and justice; then we'll have prosperity and no more foreclosures and no more displacement from our workplaces. i thank you gentlemen for being here, and the next time have some women up there. they are over here, all right? we want them up there. i thank you very much. continue your good work because you're god blessed and directed. >> thank you.

>> thank you very much. let's make room for the next panelists. gar -- margaret and ken. >> you're next, you're coming up. didn't want to ask you to leave, but -- you're going to be after the next speaker, dean. >> can i make just a short comment on last woman's thing? >> no, not right now. next issue. you'll get a chance later at the end of the session there's more time. next is jobs, a central issue, and that's what we have ken here for, an economist of the communications workers for america, serving as a economist of the north cheyenne tribe, and he focuses on what to do about creating jobs. >> thank you, and thank you for

the invitation. what i'll do is talking about what to the to do and then go into what to do. i'll start off with a little story about veer verizon that employees 45,000cwa and -- >> hold it up. >> did people hear what i said before? >> yeah, yeah. >> better now. that's what the goal is. better now; right? [laughter] verizon has been in the midst of a labor dispute. we went on 45,000 workers, went on strike for two weeks in august, and verizon and what it's been doing is kind of like a model of what's happening nationally. it's a very profitable company in the last three years, 33.4 billion in pretaxed profits in the u.s., and they got actually in the last three years $1 billion in took refunds.

tax refunds, so $1 billion in tax refunds on 33 billion in u.s. profits. what do we get for that investment? they should have paid $14 billion in state and federal taxes, but they didn't. what do we get? did we get more jobs? no. those three years, verizon cut 40,000 jobs. did we get more investments? no. verizon cut $1 billion in the capital expenditures. did workers get better wages and benefits? no. because verizon's demanding right now $1 billion in cuts to those 45,000 union representative workers. that's about $20,000 per worker. and verizon is anti-union, preventing the unionization of the verizon wireless.

they are 50 workers, they are doing everything to prevent further unionization of wireless going to the point where there's interest in call centers and they moved them to right to work states. this -- verizon's just a model of of what's going on nationally, and it's basically a corporate agenda whether it's conscious, planned, whatever, it is what is being done, and we know this policy because it's been enacted in bits and pieces, more and more over the past 35 years. basically, that policy, which is being pushed throughout the world is to actually weaken the ability of whatever institutions stand in the way of corporations, so if there's an attack, a frontal attack on workers and unions. the policies are to weaken or reduce the power or eliminate

unions and the rights to collectively bargain. we see that throughout. it's to cut labor costs as much as possible, to increase productivity and to globalize. that hits the power of unions which tradition namely were a boat work against unfettered corporate power. it's also a frontal attack on government. cut government regulations including labor regulations, environmental regulations, trade regulations, financial regulations, and political regulations. politics is now being deregulated so that with the citizens united, corporations can have free reign and free investment, and believe me, it's an investment that they do in politics because they get the policies they want. they also want to cut government spending on non-business related programs. don't we see that? they want to privatetize government services to make them

profitable, not to serve the public interest. you can see that throughout, for example, education, what's happening there. they want to allow corporations the flexibility to do whatever they need, and the latest symptom of this policy a worldwide which is austerity for the many, prosperity for the few, and that's the 99% against the 1% which you all are here, we're here, we're a part of that. it's deeper than just an economic political policy because it affects our values and what progressive movements have won over the centuries in the u.s. and other places. i think it's very important to show or discuss that this is not just a political economic program. it's a counter reformation, and a counter revolution to put power in the hands of corporations and take it away from the 99%. i'll just mention a few things

and then go on to what we want to do or what we can do. the revolution no taxation without representation. well, corporations are getting no taxation with a lot of representation. we're getting taxation with hardly any representation. the civil war, the right to citizenship, the 14th amendment, what's that turned into? the basis for citizens united. that corporations are, indeed, a person.. .. stuff and yet it is a corporate form that is created legally and should be chartered with responsibilities. the progressive era, the right to a free public education. what is happening there? the free public education is

going away. corporate responsibility and the progressive era. we see corporate irresponsibility from our perspective. the great depression, the right to a decent paying job, the right to collectively bargain. what has happened there?atment b under attack, weekend. civil rights, equal opportunity and treatment for the law. one person, one vote. are being attacked contingently and environment, the environmental movement, the right to live and work in a clean and healthy environment, not just for us but for our progeny and our inheritance that we give to them. that is under attack and here we have the occupy movement which is just beginning and we will see what happens and how it plays out that contains a lot of these strains that are under attack by the corporate agenda, the neoliberal agenda, whatever

you want to talk about it and what we see is what has happened now, the crisis we are in. the massive flow of income from the top 1% undermining decent paying jobs especially in manufacturing, the lifting of power and rights than any person and the weakening of any political and economic institution to stand up to corporate power. that is what we are up against. that is a the policy that was developed and implemented over the past 35 years and is being implemented over and over again even though it has been seeing -- maxine to fail over and over and over again. just think about the idea of cutting government in a time of high unemployment, firing as a way to get hiring doesn't work. so what is our agenda? there have been some great, i don't know what origin but

proposals, right? there have been some great plans put out. the afl-cio has six pillars to creating keep good jobs. is the blue-green alliance and the alliance of unions and jobs 21, eti economic policy institute putting america back to work, the etr has a lot of very good ideas and plans and what i want to do is just, just put out a conceptual framework for this and not get into the specific -- specifics because they are all there. all these programs are there. one is, the goal is to create 20 some million jobs, right? the chamber of commerce has that is a goal in their programs what i outlined before and that won't work, right? it hasn't worked and it won't work. so there are one, two, three, four elements to this basically. one is improve the standard of living of people.

isn't that the goal of what economic development and economic wolesi should read? but how do you do that? we need a living wage. we need living benefits, health, retirement. that's part of the quality of our life. we want to improve the quality of life. union organizing as a way to improve life, collective bargaining rights, inadequate government safety net. right now extend unemployment benefits that are coming up to expire. these are a sick human decency type of things that make economic sense because the increased demand and increase the demand for products that corporations have so they can make a profit. two, the private sector isn't doing enough for job creation. they are creating some jobs but it is very