and on public sector pay, the chancellor was completely silent about whether the labour party supports 1% average increases. no doubt we'll find out more about that later this afternoon. >> margo james. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the chamber of commerce report that 400 new businesses started in the our region this year, 170 with help from the government. i welcome the national loan guarantee scheme particularly. does my right honorable friend anticipate that that scheme might support business start-ups? >> well, i think it will help new businesses borrow, but, of course, we've also announced today the seed enterprise investment scheme. this is a new scheme which will help start-up businesses very specifically, give 50% income tax relief for anyone who invests up to 100,000 pounds in a new company, and also for one year only we're allowing people

to put capital tax-free gains of up to 200,000 pounds into the scheme. this is trying to get investment into new companies such as the ones she talks about in the black country. .. >> we are still committed to a billion pounds investment as a very significant investment in technology. but it can't be on an unrealistic timescale, as

previous, the previous government, the energy sector in the previous government of course is the leader of the opposition of the moment, they made promises about getting it up and running but that didn't happen. we are operating on a more realistic time frame but we are committed to a million pounds investment in technology. >> so much to welcome in this budget debate. [shouting] >> especially, and cannot welcome the growth fund by 1 billion pounds, and also the infrastructure changes? but will he set the record straight that our youth jobs fund is nothing like labors future jobs fund where in the west midlands only 2% of the jobs actually were for private companies? create real jobs are young people.

>> well, the future jobs fund not only was primarily aimed at the government employing people into public sector, of course with a very large deficit labor was running, that was unsustainable but it didn't work in its own terms because 50% of the people who use the funds were unemployed within 12 weeks after being on the fund. i think they just contract as the deputy prime minister has worked on and presented last week i think is going to make a real difference. >> stewart hoby. >> two announcements today. one is the national -- credit easing 20 the and the second was the investment in infrastructure, perhaps 30 billion. can the chancellor tell us when disease expect the business finance backed by the scheme to actually start, and how much infrastructure spend desi expect this year and next when it will have the biggest effect? >> the first thing i would say to him is look, it's an

ambitious program we are undertaking. and i hope to get this running in the next couple of months. we have to clear the hurdles on this and we're working on flat out to do that but i'm confident in part by following the european investment bank scheme in the u.k. that a lot of the work has already been done, and the precise numbers are set out in the book. >> george friedman. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in particular, the infrastructure, strong support of science and innovation and the very imaginative scheme for unlocking credit easing to small companies. doesn't it show that it is this government that is laying foundations for sustainable economic growth? >> i can completely agree with my honorable friend. i'm almost really striking in the response from the shadow

chancellor who said at the heart of his argument where borrowing too much so let's borrow more. i don't think that's a very convincing argument. the only reason is because he cannot admit that they borrowed too much under the last government. >> but can he confirm, rest in peace, and as far as -- [inaudible] on promises of local enterprise zone, and still nothing. >> well, i completely understand why the honorable lady is fighting hard for her constituency and her city. the proposal put forward on the enterprise zone, in the end was not as compelling. this was independently assessed by the civil servant. it was not as compelling as the

other enterprise zones that were put forward at the same time. what i would like to do, for the honorable lady and the other members, is i'm very happy to sit down, work with them on what we can do to make it a success. i'm very open to considering if we can get the enterprise zone into a state where it's a successful enterprise zone that we go ahead. >> harriett baldwin. >> mr. speaker, there so many measures in this statement that help businesses with the cash flow and that is truly welcome. for example, extend the small business rate release, the credit easing. and can the chancellor clarify that with business rates to go up with rbi next year that the ability to do for the 60% for two years is going to be done interest-free? >> well, we are helping businesses with their cash flow but it is not a subsidy today's businesses. it is more a cash flow measure. >> adrian bailey. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the chancellor has a number of supply-side measures designed to help small businesses. however, that's only one part of the equation. with the main obstacles now that small business applying for loans is actually the squeeze on personal incomes in their market. can the chancellor explain to me how, at this time, removing a current expenditure in squeezing incomes further, for some very worthy projects, in two years or three years time, can he explain to me how this is going to benefit unemployment and the feeling of deep insecurity that there is come in my area, at this moment? >> well, i would argue not squeezing incomes. we have frozen in january. we have taken the measures on benefits to operate non-working benefits in line with cbi.

that's a pretty big increase. pension is getting the largest ever increase in the basic state pension. that we are not able to afford the additional on top of the operating 110 pounds with promise on the child fund. >> does my right honorable friend agree that -- such as the one on the edge of my constituency will be extremely important in relation to bringing new money back to the jobs the west midlands? >> my honorable friend is a powerful champion. i'm glad enterprise zone is going to help his town. and also, he very specifically raised with me the issue of whether we could introduce an above the line r&d tax credits i listen to is our choice and the argus of the business organizations. i'm delighted we're able to go ahead with it and to set up precise details of the rates and the like in the budget. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

in view of the fact that -- the worst fits of the population have lost more from the chancellor's statements than anyone else than the richest bit, could he tell the house what impact his announcements will have on child poverty? >> well, the treasury is very clear, that on the precise weight the child commodity is measured with a baseline, it has gone up and we been honest about that, that if you compare it with the fact that there's also an above inflation, sorry, inflation increase in the child tax credit and other benefit, the picture is more mixed and better for child poverty. i would make a broader argument, also the, i would like to make a broader argument that in investing in early years education, investing in schools, surely transform the life chances of people is going to do more to lift people out of poverty. and that is surely a lesson we

learned through the recent years. >> mr. richard harrington. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to commend the chancellor for his statement, particularly in respect to young people and small businesses which will be gratefully received in my constituency. i'm sure i share his concern about the seemingly lack of interest of shadow chancellor in terms of interest rates in the out of national debt. with this in mind with the chancellor confirmed to me that his top rarity of this government is to reduce the hundreds, the 130 million pounds to date my taxpayers and my constituents, and all taxpayers have paid to pay down the interest on the debt? >> despite the deterioration in the borrowing forecast, the debt interest payments, the debt interest payments we are paying our 24 billion pounds a year

less than forecast. that's the burden of the day. and it would be billions more if the shadow chancellor ever got his hands again on the british economy. >> mr. stuart bell. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i welcome the statement of the chancellor of the 100% allowances for the enterprise zones in the peace valley? can i refer them to the statement to be talking about 20 billion from pension for infrastructure investment? canada his attention to the fact that the industry has something like 80 billion in its kitty? cannot invite him to go back, raise more money or more investment in the same budget? >> well, i would certainly like to see them more money coming from pretty pension funds, but 20 billion is an ambitious target, and you know, it's a shame we've not been able to mobilize private sector resources over the last decade in the way i think we should

have been able to. this government is making a determined, to change the. the memorandum of understanding, i hope will lead to more infrastructure investment. >> commend my great honorable friend are doing so much our hard-pressed families and hard-pressed working people. here, here. >> if today had to borrow billions of pounds at almost 8% interest. the u.k. borrows rates because of the confidence, not economic. the strikes, the strikes vote tomorrow will damage confidence in the british economy. was the chancellor condemned the strikes and we urge the opposition to come out and condemn the strikes tomorrow? >> here, here. >> well, of course my honorable friend is absolutely right. look at the italian bond auction this morning, that is the kind

of interest rate we might have to pay if we lost credibility in britain's ability. and as for the strike, very surprising, wasn't it, the shadow chancellor didn't mention the fact that there are strikes tomorrow. that is because he's a wholly owned consider he -- wholly-owned subsidiary. >> the giving with one hand and the taking away with the other with regard to -- is frankly playing with children's lives and is just disgraceful, mr. speaker. but by how much is the chancellor action going to increase the early intervention grant to play for his pledge that he announced today on child care? how much capital funding is going to provide to local authorities in order for them to expand and build nurseries, and what children's park is going to rob that money from? >> what i would say to the honorable lady is that we have

introduced, we've introduced for the first time ever an entitlement to disadvantaged, free nursery care. that was never introduced into 13 years of a labour government. we have increased it. we've increased it now the 40% of all children of that age. and the cost of it is just shy of half a billion pounds by the end of the period. >> jessica lee. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the commitment to improve the infrastructure in u.k. in order to maximize this opportunity, what would really assist us is the campaign to reopen the train station to assist businesses and committees. i wonder if my right honorable friend would kindly be with me or colleagues on the treasury to describe how this project conform with the government plans? >> well, the chancellor secretary sitting next to me -- [laughter]

volunteer, generally volunteered to meet with my honorable friend and we will want, we will look at the improvements to the train station. i didn't set it all out in detail today for further smaller investments in rail stations, and pinch points on a road network as well. we set aside considerable sums of money on that and i'll make sure my honorable friend meet soon to put it in her case. >> on credit easing, i wonder can the chancellor today will apply in northern ireland, he will know that some 60% of bank lending visited northern ireland is done by non-u.k. clearing banks pics i would be grateful if you could elaborate on how he thinks this will apply in northern ireland, work with the finance mr. there to find a way through current credit crunch for business? >> well, first of all i'm very happy to work with the administration in belfast on how

this scheme is going to apply in northern ireland, because specific issues that northern ireland faces with the involvement of the southern irish bank, certainly a u.k. wide scheme. and i think we are particularly unaware of iq problems of the financial crisis south of the border has caused in northern ireland. >> mr. mark spencer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today with cynically difference between a chance are the ones to manage and invest in our economy and an opposition who frankly spent and taxed their way through boom and bust. >> here, here speak with a chancellor assure the house for the sake of every homeowner and small and medium-sized business with a mortgage overdraft or long-term loan, that he will follow a fiscal policy that delivers low interest rates or the long-term future of? >> i absolutely will, and we've had a startling admission by the shadow chancellor vicky wants to see interest rates higher in britain.

i think that will be a terrible thing for our economy. but i will give him this. his policy certainly would lead to higher interest rates in britain. >> the chancellor is wrong that policies are making unemployment worse. over 8% since the start of this year. will he apologize for scrapping the jobs fund? >> as i was saying, the future jobs fund, the pages of people who went on it were unemployed were within 12 weeks. it was trained as i said very honest is a youth unemployment was not a problem, it was great by this government. and, frankly, if we more honest people come if we had more honesty from the shadow chancellor, he would have a bit more economic credibility than it really does. i can't help with the british public actually thinks than the men jabbering the opposite in

the job of charge sort -- job of shadow chancellor. >> interest rates at record lows come with each other agree with me the rest of the world seems to support his plan and not that of the party opposite? >> spent the short answer to that is yes. >> mr. speaker, last you the chancellor cut 4 billion pounds in housing investments. does the chancellor today accept responsibility for the catastrophic 99% collapse in affordable house building over the past six months, but 187 in the whole of the west minister? and does he agree that he is restoring but today, but 10% of what he cut at a time when the need for building homes and building jobs has never been greater? >> well, the first thing i would say to him is that capital

spending plans by this government are higher than the capital spending plan by the labour party in march 2010, in which one family try to persuade the country to vote for the second out say is it's quite striking that with his background he has not raised the strikes which we did huge damage to our economy and jobs. why doesn't he and his colleagues condemned them and make sure that our country is working? >> can i warmly welcome the announcement made by the chancellor come in particular huge warm welcome to the announcement about the government backing for the northern line extension, a key to unlocking many, many new jobs at home. does he agree with me that he is also working for the many existing communities in the area, many of whom are disadvantaged in my constituen constituency? >> well, i had the opportunity

with her and the mayor to visit one of the department sites between. it is fantastic using that program going ahead. i hope the support we're getting in the commitment we're giving to help with the borrowing requirement for the northern line extension will help create 25,000 -- 25,000 jobs in that area of london. >> the 5 billion pounds program of cattle infrastructure is to be welcomed. what is not to be welcomed is that it will be paid for out of the pay packet of individuals, both in the private and in the public sector. last year the chancellor, last year the chancellor said that he believed that the british public were able to spend their money better than the british government. wendy t. stop believing that? >> -- when did he stop believing that? >> well, perhaps i can think of

the honorable gentleman that taxes come from people working in the public and private sector. [laughter] and i think this money spent on infrastructure is well spent. we have, for every pound of spending, -- i think it will help create jobs and support the economy. >> nicky morgan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does my right honorable friend here hear them laughing we mentioned the help of the people with the cost of getting? and is not backed up by the shadow chancellor refused to recognize that low interest rates have kept many families in their homes over the past couple of years including the very women and children which he says he cares about? >> well, my honorable friend is absolutely right. low interest rates are helping keep people in their homes, help keeping mortgage payments down, they are helping keep business going. and if you want to know what the

alternative is, look across the channel to european countries in the middle of the debt storm with her interest rates going up. we can see that is a path we must avoid, and not a path that we will only avoid if we don't follow the policies advocating i got spent on the chancellor noted opportunity from the dispatch box to admit that 150 billion pounds is a deterioration in the forecast that has just been announced? how long will it now take to balance the books? and isn't affect it an admission that this country is going to have more severe austerity going forward? >> well, i said the borrowing forecast have deterred. i set up an independent body, unlike the labour party, to make sure that those figures are independently verified. what i can confirm, the

borrowing would be 100 billion pounds higher if we pursue the spending policies set out by the party opposite. >> james morris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i welcome the chance of statement today, particularly around small business that i recently visited a country and i can stay juicy, which is growing and providing young people with training and support. with each other agree with me that's precisely the sort of business or benefit some of the measures he has taken today? >> absolutely. we are doing a huge amount to support small businesses through our rate policy, through the national loan guarantee scheme that we have announced, through the support we have given to companies that innovate him want to bring those innovations to market. all these things we are doing to help small businesses in this country so that they can create jobs and grow. >> deweese almond. >> the announcements of new investment in transport are very

welcome. can the chancellor confirmed that these will not -- by reducing or delaying? and what does his announcement mean for the future of the northern have investing in rail across the north? >> first of all i can get that confirmation. this is additional money that is, from savings in current spending. specifically on the northern half. the first part of that, of course, is that electrification of the leads expressed, and that also benefits train travel times from liverpool. and we've also made other improvements which will help. but we want to go further than the northern have. and the transport development will be producing further hubs on the northern have next year. >> you and i and many honorable members have campaigned on behalf of the east-west rail. today tremendous use. but since -- is there more

mobility now that will have east-west rail at the connection of junction between east-west high speed, could depress be a part we stations that residents of buchan sure can't enjoy the benefits of high speed? [laughter] [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, i don't think a decision has been taken on stations, but i would certainly agree with him that we need to bring home to the people the benefits of high-speed rail. >> yes. [laughter] >> naomi long. >> that chancellor expressed the important economic collectivity and also the infrastructure. can he confirm whether the northern -- and also can he offer any good news about the duty for those who rely entirely

on regional flights about connectivity? >> well, it will be up to the northern administration to do that, spend the money that is allocated. but being capital spending it is one of monies, think carefully about how they spend it on airports and aviation, they will be setting out and aviation strategy next year. but, of course, and is confirmed in this document we were able to make that decision that saved the flights to north america your. >> mr. david rightly. >> i welcome the chance to state and announcement today -- will be brought forward. i just want at my right honorable friend would agree with me a couple investment is the right way to strengthen i region rather than relying on increasing public spending that was so over the last government?

>> well, my honorable friend is right and it draws a constituency, affected by that road link i very much welcomed. i should stress the decision was not taken by me. it's not in my constituency. he will know i'm sure that the people will remember that this road scheme was canceled in the first week of the labour government in 1997. so glad we have been able to take that, that are going to help them grow. >> the chancellor has already announced a half-million jobs cuts in the public sector alongside pay freezes, both which deflated demand reduce growth and help increase the deficit by 158 alien. he's not including a 3% income tax on all public servants, dressed up as a pension contribution for lower pension after working longer. would he accept the 3% reduction in spending power of all public servants which will be

inflationary, unfair, unwise discriminatory, and provoking unnecessary strike tomorrow for? >> the first thing i would say is that we are basing it on report from the huffington. he a particularly focus on the benefits and he said there was a case, he said there is a case for the increase in the contributions. and he said recently, the it's been difficult to imagine a better do. that is a form of labor pension who said that. what i don't understand is what exactly is the policy of the labour party on that. they are silent. are you in favor of increased contributions? if you're not in favor of increased contributions, where in your five-point plan have, are you spending the money to stop those contribution increases? is completely economically illiterate. outside in glaciations why does he and his party -- sit around

the table, negotiate with us, let's get a deal. a man i know, i know the angle member of dudley really admires as he says, it's difficult to imagine a better deal than this spent well, i may or may not be economically illiterate, but tentatively, to support up to the chancellor the idea of a five-point plan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can't i think the chancellor for listening to millions across the country, and not raising fuel duties next year. is he aware that this will actually save 37 hollow motors more than one been pounds next year? cannot ask them to listen to essex man once again said the commission to look at the long-term problems of petrol and deal quite right is if anything more can be done?

>> well, i should pay particular tribute to the honorable member for harlow, my honorable friend. he has led a dog campaign on behalf of the people of harlow and to do the whole country to try to get some relief from the increases in petrol taxes our planned by the last labour government. i'm delighted we been able to help and, of course, i always listen to essex man and is represented for him of my honorable friend. >> will chancellor acknowledge that public sector work -- workers are themselves -- [inaudible] and will he stop treating them like leeches on the public scourge? >> of course people who work in the public sector pay taxes, make an enormous contribution to the british economy. and enormous contribution, but she should recognize that public sector pay restraints under the pension reform is one of the way

actually we can minimize the impact, reduce the impact of the very large deficit that her government ran up. on the public sector workers. >> thank you, mr. speaker to make it a wholehearted welcome to the announcement concerning the crossing would make a big difference as will help small business by dick can i make a plea to the chancellor to look further at small business exit the finance whether it will be expanded, possibly floating the business growth fund? >> i'm very happy to look at ideas to enhance the business growth fund, which, of course, is operated by the banks, principally but it is there a commitment to investing in small companies. we've already announced the investment scheme which i think will help investments in companies. and i'm glad he support the commitment we made for the new

crossing. >> the chancellor has proclaimed support for business and jobs in the present climate. he also puts out a premium, innovation, productivity and exports. do his plans, therefore, extend to existing -- assisting those firms who are -- from your some companies in areas like medical devices, life sciences and sustainable technologies? they are finding this compromise, unreliability of payments also damaged because of austerity measures in those countries. >> well, i'm not sure i agree with the honorable gentleman that it's due to austerity measures, but i certainly agree with him that this is a real problem. that, of course, one of the consequences of the use of crisis, ongoing eurozone crisis has been an increase in bank funding caused across the

european continent, a disruption, for the destruction of financial system that is having an impact on exports to the eurozone. one of the reasons it's having a chilling effect on this crisis on the british economy, other reasons why labor will now be going to another meeting in brussels to try to get a better resolution to these problems. >> mary mcleod. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in my constituency within, we have real and immediate shortage of school places and, therefore, i welcome the chancellor's -- [inaudible] with this been an extra -- for schoolchildren when this money will become available? >> first of all, let me say to my honorable friend that we are addressing this problem of need which was frankly ignored by the previous government, and i know in places, it is very a cute. perhaps i could write to her

about the specific impact on her seat and additional places. >> in my constituency religious and committee organizations are now providing food parcels to for families -- poor fellas get we're witnessing executive pay remuneration. there was nothing in the budget statement that addressed executive renumeration i is a commitment to bring forward some controls to tackle this obscene inequality for? >> i know the previous government was intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, i think they put it. but what we are doing is introducing transparency in pay so we're bringing forth regulations before the house of commons to force banks to disclose the incomes of the highest-paid employees. we've also consulting at the moment on high pay more

generally, and, of course, we've introduced the bank levy, something they had continued to introduce, something they could have introduced but never did. >> anne-marie morris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i can go to the chancellor for his support for my constituents, the extension of small business rate of a great. fantastic. and i asked the chancellor, going forward can we hope to have more focus on the very important tiny companies which are too often overshadowed by the big brother? they are the ever new jobs and ever growth and the economy? >> my on the print is indeed a powerful champion for my constituency. she spoken on a number of occasions in the last year about this. and we have set up a number of measures, that will help them. we are our consulting and again call for evidence, specifically

on no fault for firms of less than 10 employees of the micro pigs as she talks about. >> spent we will leave our coverage of the british house of commons at this point. by the way, you can see the prime minister's question time live from the house of commons tomorrow morning. prime minister david cameron answers questions from members of the house of commons again life you on c-span2 starting at 7 a.m. eastern. looking now at the u.s. capitol where the senate set to convene for more work on fiscal year 2012 defense programs and policy. leaders are hoping to finish deliberations on the measure this week. we will have live coverage of the senate when they get underway 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. until then we will go back to the british house of commons for a portion of the statement this morning from the british chancellor of the exchequer, george osborne, talked about the state of the bridge economy and a multi-billion dollars infrastructure repair program and a plan to help boost small business loans.

>> mr. speaker, let me start by. placing squarely before the house of commons and the british public the economic situation facing our country.he much of europe now appears to be heading into a recession caused by a chronic lack of confidence in the ability of countries to deal with their debt. deal with their debt. we will do whatever it takes to protect britain from this debt storm while doing all we can, all we can to build the foundation of future growth. today we set up how we will do that by demonstrating that this country has the will to live within its means and keep interest rates low. by acting to stimulate the supply of money and credit to make sure interest rates on the

families and businesses. matching the determination on the deficit with an active enterprise policies for business and lasting investment in our infrastructure and education so that britain can pay its way in the future and every opportunity helping families with the cost of living. the central forecast published today from the independent office of budget responsibility does not predict a recession here in britain. but they have not surprisingly resolves -- revise their short-term prospects for the country, for europe and the world. they expect gdp in britain to grow this year by 0.9% and by 0.7% next year. they than forecast 2.1% growth in 2013 -- [inaudible] -- 3% in

2015 and 3% again in 2016. this central forecast assumes in their words that the euro area finds the way for the current crisis and policymakers find a solution to deliver sovereign debt. if they do not, there could be a much worse outcome for britain. we hope this can be averted. if the rest of europe heads into recession it may prove hard to avoid in the u.k.. we are now undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. so they cite the chilling effects of the current instability of one of this and for reasons for reduction in net growth forecast and i want to thank robert coates and his

fellow committee members and their team for the rigorous work that they have done. i think there forecast today demonstrates beyond any doubt that independence. if we expect their numbers it is an important point for the house. we must also pay heed to their analysis. addition to the euro zone crisis, it gives two further reasons for the weaker forecast. first, when they call the external inflation shot, result in their words of unexpected rises in energy prices and global agricultural commodity prices. they're analysis is this explains the slowdown in growth in britain over the last 18 months. second, the independent obi are

-- >> statement by the chancellor should must be heard and he should not have to fight to be heard. >> second, mr. speaker. the 0 we are today shows new evidence that an even bigger component of the growth that preceded the financial crisis on an unsustainable boom, the bust was deeper and had a greater impact on our economy than previously thought and the result of this analysis is the ob are have reduced their assumptions about the economy and trend rate of growth. this increases estimates of the proportion of the deficit that is structural. the path of the deficit that doesn't disappear even when the economy recovers. so our debt challenge is greater than we thought because the boom is bigger and the bust is deeper and the effects large even longer.

britain has had the highest structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside of work. and the last government left it to this government to sort that mess out. mr. speaker, this bogey our analysis is directly through to boring numbers that are falling but not at the rate forecast. in 2009/10 less government was borrowing 1 fifty six billion pounds the year. during the first year of this government that all to 1 thirty-seven billion pounds. this year they expected to pull 1 twenty-seven billion. 1 twenty billion next year followed by 1 hundred billion in 2013 the from 14, seventy-nine billion in fourteen-15 and sixty-three billion in 2015-16, twenty-four billion a year by

2016-17. however i can report the cost of lower market interest rates we secured for britain, dentist payments forecast to be twenty billion pounds less than predicted. the house might also like to know given the economic events described by the office of budget responsibility what would have happened to borrow win without the action this government has taken? borrowing by 2014-15 would have been running well over -- >> the chancellor is proceeding but the chancellor at statement must be heard. there are strong passions on the subject and plenty of time for people to come in on the back of the statement that the statement must be heard. the chancellor of the exchequer. >> by 2014-15 borrowing would be

over 1 hundred billion pounds a year more and britain would bar 1 hundred billion pounds total over the period. if we pursue that half we would now be in the center of the sovereign debt storm. the crisis we see unfolding in europe has not undermined the case of the difficult decisions we have taken has made the case stronger. we held the deficit reduction budget on our terms last year. not on the market turned this year as so many others have been forced to do. in that budget we set out a tough fiscal matters that we would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five year forecast horizon and supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target that we would get national debt as a proportion of income by 2015-16. and set plans to beat these budget rules one year early. that head room has disappeared. i am clear that our rules must

be adhered to and i am taking action to insure that they are. as a result the capital of central protection is we will meet both the fiscal mandate and the debt target. current structural deficit is forecast to fall from 4.6% to gdp this year to a current structural substance of 0.5% in five years time and the debt to gdp ratio which is forecast to stand at 67 this year is now set to peak at 78% in 2014-15 and falling but the end so borrowing is falling and debt will come down. it is not happening as quickly as we reached -- which because of damage to the economy because of the ongoing financial crisis but we are set to meet our budget rules and we are going to see britain through the debt storm. mr. speaker, berri a suggestion from some in this house that if

you spend more you will borrow less. this is something for nothing economics. the house should know what we would be running. last april the absence of incredible deficit plan meant that credit rating was a negative outlook and our market interest rates were higher than italy's. 18 months later we are the only major western country that had its credit rating improved. italy's interest rates are 7.2% and less than 2-1/2%. we were even borrowing money more cheaply than germany. and those -- at risk by deliberately adding to our deficit must be explained. just a 1% rise in market interest rate would add ten billion pounds to mortgage bill every year. 1% would mean the average family with a mortgage would pay 1,000 pounds more. 1% increase cost of business by

seven billion pounds. 1% would fall to taxpayers to find twenty-one billion pounds in debt in trust payments much of it going to our foreign creditors. in other words 1%, extra government spending or tax cuts foreign debt by borrowing what is proposed today. that is the cost of about 1% rise. italy's rates have gone up 3% in the last year alone. we will not take this risk in the solvency of the british economy and security of the british family. mr. speaker, the current environment requires we take further action to ensure britain continues to live within its means. this is what we propose to do. there is no need to adjust the overall total set out in the spending review. taken altogether the measures i will set out to they require no extra borrowing and provide no extra statement across the

spending period. second announcing significant savings in current spending to make a fiscal position more sustainable in the medium and long-term but in the short term over the next three years we will use these savings to fund capital investment in infrastructure, regional growth and education as well as health for young people to find work. every pound spent in this way will be paid for by a pound saved permanently. this includes saving from for the restraint of public sector pay. some work forces the two year pay freeze will be coming to an end next spring and for most during 2013. in the current circumstances the country cannot afford the 2% rise from some government departments. instead we will set public sector to an average of 1% each of the two years after the pay freeze ends.

many are helped by paper aggression. annual increase in salary grade even when pay is frozen, is one of the reasons public sector pay has risen at white race of public sector pay in the last four years. while i accept a 1% average rise is tough it is also fair to those who work to pay taxes. mr. speaker, i am also announcing that we are asking of the independent paper review body to consider how public sector pay could be made more responsive to local labor markets and we ask them to report back by july next year. this is a significant step towards a more balanced economy in the region of our country that does not squeeze out the private sector. mr. speaker, mr. speaker the

budgets will be adjusted in line with a pay raise as i announced with the exception of the and h s and the school budget where the money saved will be returned to protect those budgets in real terms. this policy will save 1 billion pounds in current spending by 2014-15. the deal we offer on public sector pensions is fair to pack the rest taxpayers and public service. the reforms are faced on the independent report of john hutton, former labor secretary who says that it is hard to imagine a sector deal like this. and i would once again ask the union why they are damaging our economy at a time like this and putting jobs at risk. call off the strike tomorrow. come back to the table.

complete the negotiations and let's agree generous pensions that are affordable to the taxpayer. let me turn to other areas of public spending starting with overseas. this government will stick by the commitment it has made. the poorest people in the world by increasing our international development budget and all whole house should be proud of the help our country is providing to eradicate disease, save lives and educate children but the spending plans of the department of international development meant that the u.k. was on forced to exceed 27% national income in 2013. that i don't think can be justified. we are adjusting those plans so we don't overshoot the target. turning to welfare payments the

annual increase in basic state pension is protected by the 888-introduced to guarantee a rise in earnings, prices or 2-1/2%. whichever is greater. the basics than pension will make vaporize 55 found 30 to 110 pounds 45. the largest ever catch rise in the basic state pension and tormented -- commitment of fairness to those who worked hard all their lives. hy wanted to make sure the pensioners did not see a smaller rise in their incomes so i can confirm we will also upgrade the pension credit by 5 pound 35 and pay for this with an increase in the threshold of savings credit. also want to protect those who are not able to work because of disabilities and those who through no fault of their own have lost jobs and are trying to find work so icahn confirmed we will upgrade working age benefits in line with september cpi inflation number of 5.2%.

this will be a significant boost to the incomes of the poorest especially when inflation is forecast considerably less than that by next april and we will upgrade with prices the disability elements of tax credits and increase the element of the child tax credit by 135 pounds in line with inflation too but we will not operate other elements for working taxpayers this coming year and given the size of the upgrade this year we will no longer go ahead with the additional 110 pound rise in the charles a element over and above inflation that was planned. by april of 2012 the tax credit will have increased by 390 pounds since the coalition came into power. best way to support low-income working people is to take them out altogether and our increases in the income tax personal allowances this year and next will do that for 1 million

people. let me turn to future public spending, mr. speaker. today i am setting expenditure totals for two years following the end of the spending review period. 2015-16 and 2016-17. co-manage expenditure will fall during that period by zero.9%, same rate that set out existing period of the spending review with a baseline that excludes the additional investment in infrastructure also announced today. these are large savings and will work on different areas of government. i am also announcing a measure to control spending which is not today or next year or the next decade but directly addresses long-term challenge britain and so many other countries face with an aging population. our generation has been warned the cost of providing decent state pensions are going to become more affordable and --

unless we take further action. let's not leave it to our children to take emergency action to rescue the public. let's think and take responsible, sensible debt now. so starting in 2026 we will increase the pension age from 66-67 so we can go on paying a decent pension to people who are living longer. australia, america and germany have taken similar steps. this will not affect anyone within 14 years of receiving their state pension and by saving sixty-nine billion pounds it will mean a long term future for the basic state pension. we are showing a world skeptical that democratic western governments can take up positions that britain will pay its way in the world. mr. speaker, that is the first thing the government can do in

the current environment. keep interest rates lower and protect our country from the worst of the debt storm. but we need to make sure that low interest rates are available to families and businesses. it is monetary and credit policy, principal and most powerful tool for stimulating demand. bank of england monetary policy committee decided to undertake -- authorized an increase in the ceiling on asset purchases to two seventy-five billion pounds. this will support demand across the economy but we must do more to help those small businesses who can't get access to credit at an affordable price. we already extended the last government enterprise finance guarantee scheme and expanded to include business with annual turnover of forty four million pounds and accrediting new things like metro bank. this scheme is not ambitious enough and never will be within the constraint of state rules.

the government is launching a program of credit easing to help small business. we have set a feeling of forty billion pounds. at the same time i agree with mervyn king that we will reduce by forty billion pounds the asset purchase ability of the previous government gave the bank to buy businessland. only a small proportion of that facility was ever used and i am publishing my exchange with the governor today. we are launching our national loan guarantee which will work on the simple principle that we use a hard one low interest-rate the government can borrow at to reduce the interest rate to small businesses. we're using credibility on international markets to help on domestic economy. new loans and overdraft business turnovers of less than fifty million pounds will be eligible to stay focused on smaller companies.

we expect it will lead to reductions of 1% in the rate of interest in charging companies show business facing a 7% interest rate gets a five million pound loan. we developed with the bank of england a mechanism to allocate funding for different banks based on how much they increase -- that is a clear audit trail to the shore banks comply. we will use the experience of european investment banks in the u.k. to ensure that it works. state approval so that the national loan guarantee scheme will be up and running in the next few months. initially twenty billion pounds of these guarantees will be available next few years. we are also watching the 1 billion pound finance concert ship in britain's midsize company. crucial part of the economy neglected too long and intensified by the director general and others as a future source. government will invest directly to these businesses in

partnership with other investors like pension funds and insurance companies. it will give these mid cap companies a new source outside the traditional banks and the business finance partnership cakes of ice stand ready to increase its size and we will develop further partnership ideas to the new bond issuance to help small and medium-sized companies. no government has attempted anything as ambitious as this before. we will not get every detail perfect the first time around but we don't want to make the best the enemy of the good which is a strain on the financial increase. the important thing is to get flowing credit to britain. mr. speaker, the government can use low interest rates to help young families too who want to buy a home but can't afford the large -- banks are now demanding. we will use mortgage indemnity to help 100,000 such falieso >> a portion of the statement of the british exchequer earlier today. we uncf in its entirety later on the c-span networks or hit your

video library. we are going live now to the u.s. capitol where shortly the senate to continue work on fiscal year 2012 defense programs and policy. senate leaders are hoping to finish deliberations this week. they will begin within hours of general speeches and then take a break at 12:30 for their weekly party lunches. now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, source of all life, may your power be felt today in the united states senate. strengthen our senators with your might, infusing them with faith to look beyond today's challenges with confidence that you are still in control. lord, impart to them knowledge that will enable them to find creative solutions to the

problems that beset us. keep your hand upon all the citizens of this great land, protecting them from evil, as you guide them along the pathway of life. help us to remember that we should be one in purpose, seeking the best for our republic. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication

to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., november 29, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed daniel k. inouye. president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans will control the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the department of defense authorization bill. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today for weekly caucus meetings. filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to the defense authorization bill is 2:30 today. we can work through the amendments. the managers of this bill, senator levin and senator mccain are certainly experienced with this bill and the legislative process is here,

and they're going to do their best to move through this as quickly as possible. we'll notify members when there are votes scheduled. we should be able to have a few votes today. i would hope so. i'm told, mr. president, s. 1917 is due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 1917, a bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle class families and businesses and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: the objection has been heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: mr. president, senate democrats' number-one priority of this congress is to pass commonsense legislation. for example, tax cuts, infrastructure investments. all of these ideas that we have will put americans back to work and revive our economy.

republicans in the house, on the other hand, are focused on gutting the safeguards that keep our air clean, make our workplaces safe and check the greed of big wall street firms. never mind this whole package has no chance of passing in the senate. never mind experts say the so-called jobs agenda will create not a single job. house republicans complain we've not taken up and passed these policies which would risk american lives while doing nothing to improve our economy. they insist we should waste weeks or month to pass legislation that is dangerous and proven to fail. but the senate has too much work to do on legislation that will create jobs without risking american lives, to waste time on these ineffectual, purely partisan measures. unlike republicans, our jobs agenda was designed to create jobs, not headlines.

in any case, the cincinnati passed its -- the senate passed its own share of legislation, 40 pieces in fact, that's yet to be taken up by the house republicans. the senate has passed legislation that would stop china from cheating american workers by manipulating its currency, evening the playing field for american exporters. we passed a bill to monitor the air travel system, the f.a.a. reauthorization is so important creating hundreds of thousands of jobs but would also keep passengers safer and save money on travel time. we passed a measure that would protect lives by keeping our food safe from contamination. house republicans refused to take up these worthy pieces of legislation. period. they don't pick them up. meanwhile senate republicans blocked many reasonable job proposals with a proven track record of success. they're simply too busy rooting for our economy to world and creating an extreme social agenda. that won't stop democrats from

doing everything in our power to get the economy back on track. that's why senator casey introduced legislation to put money back in the pockets of middle-class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding the payroll tax cut. this legislation cut taxes for 160 american workers, saving the average family $1,500 each year. most families will have more money to spend on the local economy, grocery stores or pharmacies, giving communities across the country a financial shot in the arm. the proposal would also give payroll tax cuts to businesses, including 50,000 firms, businesses in nevada. more than 1.2 million nevada workers benefited from the payroll tax cut this year. under our proposal they'll get even greater benefits for next year. payroll tax cuts have been a boon to the economy in every state in the nation. in kentucky, for example, the home of my friend, the i don't recall, 2.-- the home of my opinion friend, the i don't

recall, 2.1 billion took home plenty in payroll tax cuts. that's why the i don't recall said in 2009 that a payroll tax cut would put a lot of money back in the hands of businesses and hands of individuals. the average kentucky family will keep $1,330 of their hard-earned money this year. 70,000 firms in kentucky will benefit from these new tax cuts. in 2009, senator mcconnell went on to say -- quote -- "republicans generally speaking from maine to mississippi like tax relief." republicans already appear poised to block this legislation. so let's be clear what a "no" vote on this proposal really means. it's a vote to deny tax relief to millions of businesses. it's a vote to raise taxes for 120 million families by about $1,000 each. republicans who vote no will literally be taking money out of the pockets of middle-class families.

once upon a time republicans rushed to cut taxes regardless of which tax cut it was or whether it added to the deficit. for example, the bush tax cuts we hear so much about added trillions of dollars to our deficit, and it's obvious from what's going on during the bush cuts and now that these tax cuts have not created jobs that amount to anything. today they are lining up against a new tax cut, my republican friends. they'll put money back into the pockets of the middle class and get our economy moving immediately. so i hope republicans will now start working with us to pass a tax cut for 160 american workers and nearly every business in america. as my friend, the republican leader, said -- quote -- "republicans, generally speaking from maine to mississippi, like tax relief." end of quote. i hope they remember what the republican leader said time and

time again. would the chair announce the business for the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to take a few moments here in the senate to pay tribute to a remarkable woman. maggie daley served with dignity and grace for 22 years as chicago's first lady. she died on thanksgiving evening after a nearly decade-long struggle with breast cancer. she was at home, surrounded by her loving family. there is a sad but fitting poignancy to the date. people in chicago and far beyond have so many reasons to be thankful for the life of this exceptional woman. maggie daley was an adopted

daughter of chicago but no native-born chicagoan could have loved the city more or served it better. last may as her husband rich prepared to step down as chicago's mayor, "the chicago tribune" ran an article about what maggie daley had meant to chicago. the first paragraph really put it well, and i quote, "there's never been and may never be a chicago first lady of greater impact, influence and inspiration than maggie daley." maggie was smart, funny, tireless, amazingly modest and deeply compassionate. she was also a very private person, yet she still managed to touch the lives of so many people. the funeral reflected the love of the people who waited in line this past sunday, over a block long in the rain at a building which she worked hard to restore. i stood in that line and talked

to many people. some of them i knew from my public life and their public lives, but many just private citizens, some of whom had met her briefly, some had worked with her for years. but they all came to pay tribute to her. among them was hazel holt, 74 years old. chicago tribune described mrs. holt as a person who decided to drive downtown in her church finery from her neighborhood on the south side, pay for parking, take a bus, then walk on a damp, chilly november day to stand in line for the wake. mrs. holt said that maggie daley -- quote -- "built connections to the city's people with her commitment to charities assisting children as well as her public poise in the face of cancer that would claim her life." she then went on to say, the reporter, "i just love this lady. i wish i had one-quarter of her grace. she was a role model for a lot

of us." that's a feeling shared by many of us in chicago and beyond. upon hearing of maggie's death, nancy brinker, founder and c.e.o. of the susan g. komen foundation for the cure, said we've lost a real general. we were blessed to have known maggie personally and rich has been my friend, my colleague, even my boss for decades. yesterday morning i attended maggie's funeral at the old st. patrick's church, our neighborhood parish in chicago. i remember the last mass that i attended there with maggie and rich daley. it was st. patrick's day. it's a big day in chicago on st. patrick's day and ground zero for the celebration, old saint pat's. it was clear maggie's health was flagging. she had to sit through most of the service. she came to the front pew in a wheelchair. but all of those struggles were quickly forgotten as her grandkids -- children and

grandkids were seated next to her, and we heard from the back of the church after the mass that sound we all waited for, the famous shannon rover's bagpipe band from the bridgeport section of chicago, and they come marching up the center aisle with those bagpipes blasting, it is a moment you'll never forget. maggie's grandkids were nervous little waiting, expectantly waiting for the sound of the bagpipes scrambling all over the pew and all over maggie and rich to get to the point where they could peer out down the center aisle to watch the bagpipers come away. i looked at maggie and rich at that moment, and i saw them beaming with the kind of joy that loving parents and grandparents just live for. maggie was a patron's saint of social causes but her deepest convictions were to god and her family. maggie and rich daley have been blessed with four children: patrick, nora, kevin and lolly. years ago she made her husband

keep a promise to reserve sundays exclusively for private family time. so the bottom line was this: you can ask mayor daley six days of the week to go anywhere in chicago or anywhere else, but sunday no way. he made a promise to maggie. that was family day. it's a promise he always kept and we respected. two weeks ago, the family announced that their youngest daughter had moved the date of her wedding from new year's eve to mid november so that maggie could attend. it was a signal that the end was near. but she was at that wedding. in her wheelchair with hire irrepressible smile, a beaming mother celebrating her daughter's happiness. quintessential maggie daley. part of the reason maggie found such joy in life is that she understood what a fragile gift life was. in 1981, her third child kevin died from spina bifida just months shy of his third birthday. after kevin's death, she found healing and meaning in reaching out to help others and

especially in volunteering to work for kids with disabilities. someone u.n.c. called her the godmother of all chicago's children. mayor rahm emanuel said on her passing mayor rich daley may have been the head of the city, but maggie daley was the heart of chicago. in 1991, maggie and lois wiseberg, chicago's long-time commissioner of cultural affairs and an icon in her own right, began something called gallery 37. it was an abandoned piece of real estate in the middle of downtown chicago that had been lost in legal and court battles for decades, and she decided, with lois, to set up a tent on this old plot of land that was sitting vacant and create gallery 37, which was an art gallery for kids. so all across chicago, they invited kids, grade school and high school kids to submit their artwork, and we all went down there for the joy of that moment in seeing the kids, the pride they had and some of the

magnificent artwork that they produced, all because maggie and lois decided here was an opportunity they couldn't miss. the program later morphed or matured into an amazing program called after school matters. maggie thought if i can occupy these kids with art and music and drama and theater and chorus during the school year, let's do it after school. a vulnerable time for many kids. so over two decades, maggie daley nurtured the artistic talents of thousands of chicago high school students and became a model for programs in many cities across the country and as far away as london and australia. the last time maggie was in this building was in my office to come upstairs and to sit and lobby me for money for after school matters. needless to say, she won my vote and my support. maggie daley believed that art could change lives. she believed that artistic

talent could exist in children from the robert taylor home in chicago as surely as it could from children in better, more wealthy neighborhoods, and that all the young people should have the opportunity to develop their talents together. that's why after school matters has become such an amazing program. maggie daley also served on the auction you willary board of the art institute and the women's board of the rehab institute of chicago. she was a very busy person. it was a happy accident that she came to chicago. margaret ann corbett daley was born and grew up in a suburb of pittsburgh. she was the youngest and the only girl in her family. after graduating in 1965 from the university of dayton, she entered a management training program for xerox and her job took her to chicago. she promised her dad she was just going to stay in chicago for two years and then come back to pittsburgh, but in 1970, she met a young attorney named rich daley at a christmas party, and they decided to date, got

engaged and married for nearly 40 years. now, the average survival rate for maggie's form of breast cancer that has spread beyond the breast and lymph nodes is very brief. maggie daley lived with this incurable illness for nine years. her doctors called it a medical miracle. she endured years of painful treatment and faced her cancer with courage, dignity, grace and good humor. as the cancer progressed, she relied on crutches, a walker and eventually even a wheelchair, but the smile never quit. she donated generously to help open the maggie daley center for women's cancer care at northwestern hospital last year. the center helps other women facing cancer by providing access to doctors and important support services. loretta and i obviously offer our deepest condolences to rich daley, his wonderful children and their families. all the daley children and grandchildren. we trust that time and treasured

memories will ease the great sorrow that they obviously feel. they can also take comfort in knowing that the legacy of margaret corbett daley can be seen and felt all over the adopted city she loved. maggie daley's dedication to the arts will continue in part through the work of her daughters, nora daley conroy who chairs chicago's cultural affairs advisory committee and of course lally, who will continue in her mom's tradition. her commitment to education will live on in the lives of the young people she has touched. her courage will endure in the women she inspired who can now find medical care at the center she helped establish. maggie daley was a modest person. she didn't like to talk about herself. she preferred speaking of others. two years after she was diagnosed with cancer, however, she gave an interview to the "chicago sun-times" in which she hinted about how she felt about her future. this is what she said, and i quote -- "i try not to waste any time. at the end of the day, what's important is if you think that

the people around you have maybe had a better day because of some of the things you have done, well, by that standard and so many others, maggie daley lived a good and full life. she did much good and she will be greatly missed. mr. president, i ask that the statement i have made be placed in a separate place in the record from my previous remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we have an opportunity now before we leave for christmas to not forget people across america who are struggling in this economy. there is a payroll tax cut that was instituted by president obama, supported by congress, which basically gives more working families a little bit extra money each month. for the average working family in illinois, it's about 1,500 a year. for some of us in the senate, that may not seem like an enormous sum of money. but for families struggling paycheck to paycheck, it makes a big, big difference.

so we need to make certain that we restore this payroll tax cut which is going to expire at the end of this year. how terrible it would be for us to impose an additional burden on working families, to impose a new payroll tax on working families when they are struggling and this economy needs their spending power. every economist has taken a look at it and said the two best things congress can do to help this economy move forward and not fall back is to make sure this payroll tax cut is protected and that this new payroll tax is not imposed on families, and secondly to extend unemployment benefits for the millions across america who are still struggling to find a job. we need to call on our republican colleagues, democrats and republicans. for goodness sakes, how can we in good conscience go home to celebrate the holiday season with our families and say to the millions of working families across america, incidentally,

january 1, your taxes are going up? that's wrong. it's not fair. whatever our rationale politically, it makes no sense in the family rooms and neighborhoods of america that we would impose a new payroll tax on working families who are working so hard to keep their heads above water. before we leave, let us follow the lead of senator bob casey of pennsylvania who is sponsoring this, let us extend this payroll tax cut to help working families and help our economy, and we shouldn't go home for christmas without that and some help when it comes to extending unemployment benefits. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about captain sampson luke who was 33 years old. he was of greenwood, arkansas.

captain luke is one of those people who had many, many options in life. unfortunately for -- fortunately for us, he made the decision to serve his country and he did so with distinction. he is -- he was a field artillery officer who served on active duty in the army from 2000 to 2007, and he was also afterwards in the arkansas national guard where he was a commander of the h.h.b. 142nd field artillery. here is a photo of him with his family, and his family was very, very important to him. he had been to iraq on two different deployments, and he was awarded the bronze star. as i said, he elected to stay on with the arkansas national guard, and he served with distinction there. he told his wife here that he felt that he was truly at his

best when he was leading men. i want to talk about him just for a moment because, quite frankly, the bean counting, the bean counters over at the pentagon have really tried to save a little money at his family's expense here, so i do want to talk about his passing away on january 10 of 2010, so less than a year ago. he was during -- it was a weekend where he was doing his required training weekend. he was authorized because he lived so close to the post, he was authorized to spend saturday night with his wife and his four young children at his home instead of staying on the post. in fact, he wasn't authorized to stay on the post because he was so close to home, he had to be off post. and then the idea was that he would return the next morning

and finish up his weekend on that sunday, but he never woke up. and while dealing with this tragedy, his wife was informed that her family would not receive his death benefits. mr. president, from my standpoint, this is a classic case of getting pencil whipped by the government. i think the arkansas national guard has stepped up. they have done everything they could do. they have run it through all the proper channels. they have been very supportive of making sure that his family gets the death benefits that i feel like and people in the guard feel like they are entitled to, but the decision is out of their hands. the law states that death benefits are allocated if a soldier dies while remaining overnight at or -- quote -- "in the vicinity of the site of the inactive duty training." what i want to do in my amendment that i am offering to the defense authorization bill is i want to clarify congress' intent and make sure that the very tiny number of people that

were in his shoes will be -- and his family will be entitled to these death benefits. i spent a year working on this issue with the army and with the department of defense, and again the arkansas national guard has stepped up and they have been great, but we are at a standstill over the d.o.d.'s interpretation of the -- this is an important point and i want my colleagues to understand. had captain luke stayed on base or had he stayed at a hotel at the taxpayers' expense or had he been traveling to and from his post, his training, the family would have received these benefits. in fact, the guard has a policy that if you live within so many miles of the post, you can't stay on the post, you have to go home. they don't -- they don't have arrangements for you to stay there. they want you to go home. this saves the government money by not putting you up in a hotel

or whatever else they may have to do. when you are on a national guard training weekend like he was, you're under orders, you're on orders for 48 continuous hours. wherever you're sleeping, wherever you're traveling, whatever you're doing, you are on orders, you are on duty, and he was on duty when he died. in fact, if his colonel had called him at 1:00 in the morning and said get over here, we need your help on something, he would have had to go over there. he was on duty, he was on orders, and he would have done that. in fact, he would have gladly stayed on the post had they had provisions for him to do that, but it worked out in his case that he was able to -- because he lives so close to stay with his wife and family. also, let me say this, that had he been on orders and gotten out, which, of course, would never happen to him but had a soldier like him gotten out and had they done something like had a d.u.i. that night, that would have been subject to the code of

military justice because they were on orders. but nonetheless, he died when he was on orders and now the pentagon is trying to deny him his death benefits. so what my amendment does is it clarifies congressional intent to ensure that service members who live in the area or in the vicinity of their training site can return home to their families in the evening without losing benefits. again, they are on orders, they remain on orders. this doesn't change anything along those lines. it just clarifies congressional intent. this is a gray area. we're trying to clarify the congressional intent. this amendment will not bring back their father and their husband, but it will get them the benefits that they are entitled to. i think that we can do better for our soldiers' families, and when you look at miranda, miller, maclin, larkin and

landis luke in this photograph, you know that this is a very patriotic family and this is a group of people that should be compensated for his loss. abraham lincoln once said to care for him, he shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, and those words apply in this instance. he was serving his country to the fullest and he should be granted the benefits associated with death of a service member. and i'm fighting on behalf of him and for his families and for others in a similarly situated circumstance, where we clarify that when you're on orders when you're doing your national guard training, you are entitled to the benefit wherever you happen to be laying your head down that particular night. mr. president, one last word on this. we don't know exactly how much this will cost, but it will not be very much money. someone estimated -- i don't think it's an official c.b.o.

score, but someone estimated it would probably cost $1 million -- that's with an "m" -- over ten years. $1 million over ten years. this is budget dust. this is so small, it's almost laughable. but it's so meaningful to this family and maybe others that in the future will find themselves in this situation. i'd like to ask my colleagues to consider supporting the pryor amendment. it's amendment number 1151, and would love to work with the bill managers here to see if we might be able to get it into a managers' package and/or if we have to, request a roll call vote on this. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to honor a great american military leader from nebraska: colonel randall l.cumoose, united states army. colonel comoose died in

indonesia where he was at the office of defense cooperation at our united states embassy. officers in the u.s. army have many roles. we most often recognize those who lead soldiers in combat. others are assigned to protecting and promoting vital american interests throughout the world. during a notable career, colonel cumoose served with equal skill and commitment in both roles. his life of public service began early when a high school art teacher invited him to attend a national guard drill. randy was hooked. after joining the nebraska army national guard, he attended the university of nebraska and earned an officer's commission through the rotc program. he spent much of his early career with the famed 82nd

airborne division, where he became a master parachutist with over 100 jumps. he led a platoon during the 1991 gulf war and later accompanied during nato operations in bosnia bosnia. not satisfied with what many consider easy assignments in u.s. embassies, he immersed himself in the history, culture and the language. he would become fluent in tpourp foreign languages -- in four foreign languages and attend the pakistan army staff college. a crowning achievement for colonel cumoose beyond leading soldiers in combat was writing a major article about relations between the united states and pakistan. his article titled "positive

perceptions to sustain the u.s.-pakistan relationship" was published in the prestigious army war college quarterly "parameters." the decoration and badges earned during his distinguished service speak to his dedication and his skill. defense superiors service medal, bronze star, nato medal, army commendation medal, armed forces expeditionary medal, global war on terror, meritorious unit citation, and several foreign nation awards. but he was probably perhaps most proud of having earned the master parachutist badge. colonel cumoose was known to be a no-nonsense individual. he was always focused on the mission, but randy had a soft

spot, an unrelenting spiritual love of family dwelled inside this stoic professional army officer. his wife tracy and his sons, robert and michael and david, they meant absolutely everything to him. the colonel's larger family extended through his parents, larry and karen cumoose of norfork, nebraska, to friends and colleagues around the world who revered his strength and his compassion and his leadership. today i ask that god be with the family of colonel randall cumoose. their faith is strong, and i pray it brings them peace at this very difficult time. and may god bless all those serving in uniform and bless their families.

mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, james madison, the father of the constitution, warned the means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home. abraham lincoln had similar thoughts saying "america will never be destroyed from the outside if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." during war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. during the civil war, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. newspapers were closed down. fortunately, these rights were restored after the war. the discussion now is to suspend certain rights of due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. rights given up now cannot be

expected to return. so we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that these rights that we give up now may never be restored. my well-intentioned colleagues' admonitions in defending provisions of this defense bill say that we should give up certain rights, the right to due process. their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely without due process or trial people suspected of an association with terrorism. these would include american citizens apprehended on american soil. i want to repeat that. we are talking about people who are merely suspected of terrorism or suspected of committing a crime and have been judged by no court. we are talking about american citizens that could be taken from the united states and sent to a camp at guantanamo bay and

held indefinitely. this should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today because it puts every single american citizen at risk. there is one thing and one thing only that is protecting american citizens, and that's our constitution. the checks we put on government power. should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won. detaining citizens without a court trial is not american. in fact, this is an alarming arbitrary power that is reminiscent of what egypt did with its permanent emergency law. this permanent emergency law allowed them to detain their own citizens without a court trial. egyptians became so alarmed at that in the last spring that they overthrew their government. recently justice scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the

ham did i case our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or another crime. scalia concluded by saying the very core of liberty secured by our anglo-saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive. justice scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers. as franklin wisely warned, those who give up their liberty for security may wind up with neither, and really, what security does this indefinite detention of americans give us? the first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misnamed patriot act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. this is simply not borne out by the facts. congress long ago made it a

crime to provide or conspire to provide material assistance to al qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. material assistance includes virtually anything of value -- legal, political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. the supreme court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition. we have laws on the books that can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. al qaeda adherence may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition. in fact, we have already done this. jose padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenceed to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al qaeda. the criminal law does require and can prevent crimes from occurring before they do occur. indeed, conspiracy laws and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked

after 9/11 to thwart embryonic international terrorism. in fact, from the bush administration, michael chertoff, then head of the justice department's criminal division and later secretary of the department of homeland security, testified shortly after 9/11, he underscored the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concern about classified information. we can prosecute terrorists in our courts and have done so. it's the wonderful thing about our country, is that even the most despicable criminal, murderer, rapist or terrorist, our court systems do work. we can have constitutional liberty and prosecute terrorists. there is no evidence that the criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international

terrorism. suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. additionally, miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of the interrogation is public safety. the authors of this biller antly maintain that the -- bill errantly maintain that the bill would not reverse people held indefinitely. i believe this is simply not the case. the current authorization for the use of military force combines the universe to persons implicated in 9/11 or who harbored those who were. this new detainee provision will expand the universe to include any person said to be part of or substantially supportive of al qaeda or taliban. but remember, this is not someone who has been included at trial to be part of al qaeda. this is someone who is suspected. if you are suspect in our country, you are usually afforded due process.

you go to court, you are not automatically guilty, you are accused of a crime. we are now saying someone accused of a crime could be taken from american soil, an american citizen accused of a crime, a suspect of a crime could be taken to guantanamo bay. these terms are dangerously vague. more than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either al qaeda or other terrorist organizations. it's an accusation and sometimes difficult to prove. some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack, we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. for combatants captured on the battlefield, i agree, but these are people captured or detained in america, american citizens. 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted terrorists due process. in fact, 9/11 did not succeed because al qaeda was so formidable but because of human

error. the defense department withheld intelligence from the f.b.i. no warrants were denied. the warrants weren't even requested. the f.b.i. failed to act on releaseed pleas from its field agents who were in possession of a laptop that may well have had information that might have prevented 9/11, but no judge ever turned down a warrant. our criminal system didn't fail. no one ever asked for a warrant to look at moussaoui's computer in august, a month before 9/11. these are not failures of our laws. these are not failures of our constitution. these are not reasons we should scrap our constitution and simply send people accused of terrorism to guantanamo bay, american citizens. these are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. no amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that. a full accounting of our human failures by the 9/11 commission has proven that enhanced

cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or not giving up our liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism. we should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. we cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. the rules, the binding chains of the constitution were written so that it didn't matter who was in power. in fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power with good intentions. we are not governed by saints or ache -- angels. occasionally, we will elect people and there have been times in history when those who come into power are not angels. that's why we have laws and rules that restrain what the government can do. that's why we have laws that protect you and say you are innocent until proven guilty. that's why we have laws that say you should have a trial before a judge and a jury of your peers before you're sent off to some prison indefinitely. finally, the detainee provisions

of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom. they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the united states. no benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al qaeda, taliban or other foreign terrorist organizations. in fact, this bill explicitly says that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force. when will the wars ever end? when will these provisions end? no congressional view is allowed or imagined. no victory is defined. no peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition. to disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the president to continue war forever at whim, i will offer an amendment to this bill that will deauthorize the war in iraq. we're bringing the troops home in january. is there any reason why we should have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq when

the war is ending? if we need to go to war in iraq again, we should debate on it and vote on it. it's an important enough matter that we should not have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq. the use of military force must begin in congress. our founding fathers separated those powers and said that congress has the power to declare war, and it's a precious and important power. we shouldn't give that up to the president, we shouldn't allow the president to unilaterally engage in war. congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters and must reclaim its constitutional duties. these are important points of fact. no good did -- know good and well that someday there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist. someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the department of justice.

someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. if you are suspected by these activities, do you want to have the government have the ability to send you to guantanamo bay for indefinite detention? a suspect. we're not talking about someone who has been tried and found guilty. we're talking about someone suspected of activities. but some of the things that make you suspicious of terrorism are having food, having more than seven days of food, missing fingers on your hand, having ammunition, having weatherproofed ammunition, having several guns at your house. is that enough? are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for liberty? i would argue that we should strike these detainee provisions from this bill because we are giving up our liberty. we are giving up the constitutional right to have due

process before we're sent to a prison. this is very important. i think this is a constitutional liberty we should not look at and blithely sign away to the executive power or to the military, so i would call for support of the amendment that will strike the provisions on keeping detainees indefinitely, particularly the fact that we could now for the first time send american citizens to prisons abroad. i think that is a grave danger to our constitutional liberty, and i advise a vote to strike these provisions from the bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i listened to the discussion by senator rand paul and understand his theory. facts are stubborn things. 27% of those who have been released have been back in the fight. that's fact. that's fact. and some of them have assumed

leadership positions of al qaeda. that's a fact. and if the senator from kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people are released and go back in the fight and kill americans, that's his right, he is entitled to that opinion, but facts are stubborn things. the facts are 27% of detainees who are released went back into the fight to try to kill americans. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. paul: mr. president, if i might have a moment to respond and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: does the senator withhold his quorum call? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: with regard to releasing the prisoners, i'm not asking that we release them. i think there probably have been some mistakes of people who are let go. what i am asking for is only due process. we release some of those people without any kind of process in a flawed process, so we did make a mistake. due process doesn't mean and believing in the process doesn't

mean necessarily that we would release these people. due process often convicts. jose padilla was given 17 years in prison with due process. so i don't think it necessarily follows that i'm arguing for releasing of prisoners. i'm just simply arguing that people, particularly american citizens in the united states, not be sent to a foreign prison without due process. mr. mccain: mr. president, in response to that, we're not asking they be sent to a foreign prison. what we're arguing is that they are designated as enemy combatants. when they're enemy combatants, then they're subject to the rules and the laws of work. again, i point out the fact that there have been a number who have been released, who have reentered the fight. that kind of situation is not something that we want to prevail. so, i mean, as i said, facts are stubborn things. they are designated as enemy

combatants and will be treated as such during the period -- mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: yes. mr. paul: my question would be under the provisions, would it be possible that an american citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to guantanamo bay and detained indefinitely? mr. mccain: i think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the united states of america should not be allowed to continue that threat. and i think that's the majority of american public opinion, especially in light of the facts that i continue to repeat to the senator from kentucky. 27% of detainees who were released got back in the fight and were responsible for the deaths of americans. we need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening. that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president, do i understand there is morning business time pending? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: i ask consent all morning business be yielded back unless there is a question on the floor. the presiding officer: if there is no objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i yield to the senator from michigan. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1867, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 230, s. 1867, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012, military activities under the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would now ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 12:15 be equally divided between myself, working with senator mccain in opposition to the udall amendment, and controlled by senator udall. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i understand under the pending u.c. that senator udall is now to be recognized to offer his amendment. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. under the previous order, the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i rise to speak in favor of amendment number 1107. first let me say that i know how hard chairman levin and ranking member mccain have worked to

craft a defense authorization act that provides our armed forces with the equipment, the services, and the support that they need to keep us safe. and i want to thank also my colleagues from the armed services committee, a number of whom i see on the floor here this morning, for their diligence and their dedication to this important work. with that, let me turn to the amendment itself, and i wanted to start, mr. president, by thanking the cosponsors of the amendment. they include the chairwoman of the intelligence committee, senator feinstein; the chairman of the judiciary committee; senator leahy; and our colleague senator webb, former secretary of the navy, and someone i think we all respect when it comes to national security issues. i also want to point out this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. senator rand paul joined as a cosponsor this morning and gave, i think, a very compelling floor speech a few minutes ago. senators wyden and durbin have also recently cosponsored the

amendment. i want to recognize their leadership as well. mr. president, again, let me turn to the amendment itself. a growing number of our colleagues have strong concerns about the detainee provisions in this bill. and at the heart of our concerns is the, is the concern that we've not taken enough time to listen to our counterterrorism community. and have not heeded the warnings of the skraurd, the director of -- the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence and the be director of the -- equally concerning, we have not had a hearing to fully understand the implications of our actions. my amendment would take out these provisions and give us in the congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals and respond in a measured way that reflects the input of those who are actually fighting our enemies.

specifically, the amendment would require that our defense intelligence and law enforcement agencies report the congress with recommendations for any additional authorities or flexibility that they need in order to detain and prosecute terrorists. my amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understand the views of relevant national security experts. in other words, mr. president, i'm saying let's ask our dedicateed men and women who are actually fighting to protect americans what they actually need to keep us safe. this is a marked departure, in my opinion, from the current language in the bill which was developed without hearings and seeks to make changes to the law that our national security professionals do not want and even oppose, as i pointed out. like other challenging issues we face here in the united states senate, we should identify the problem, hold hearings, gather input from those affected by our actions and then seek to find the most prudent solution.

instead, we have language in the bill, while well intended -- of that, there is no doubt -- that was developed behind closed doors and is being moved rather quickly through our congress. the secretary of defense is warning us that we may be making mistakes that will hurt our capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad. the director of national intelligence is telling us that this language will create more problems than it solves. the director of the f.b.i. is telling congress that these provisions will erect hurdles that make it more difficult for our law enforcement officials to collaborate in their effort to protect american citizens. and the president's national security staff is recommending a veto of the entire defense authorization bill if these provisions remain in the bill. now, with this full spectrum of highly respected officials and top counterterrorism professionals warning congress not to pass these provisions, we

are being asked to reject their advice and pass them anyway, again without any hearings or further deliberation. i don't know what others think but i don't think this is what the people of colorado expect us to do, and it's not how i envision the senate operating. the provisions would dramatical ly change broad counterterrorism efforts by requiring law enforcement officials to step aside and ask the department of defense to take on a new role they are not fully equipped for and do not want, and by taking away the flexible decisionmaking capacity of our national security team by forcing the military to now act as police, judge and jailer, these provisions could effectively rebuild walls between our military law enforcement and intelligence communities that we have spent a decade tearing down. the provisions that are in the

bill to me and many others appear to require that the d.o.d. shift significant resources away from their mission to serve on all fronts all over the world. this has real consequences, mr. president, because we have limited resources and limited manpower. and again, i just want to say i don't think we would lose anything by taking a little bit more time to discuss and debate these provisions, but we could do real harm for our national security efforts by allowing this language to pass, and that's exactly what our highest ranking national security officers are warning us against doing. mr. president, you will note i'm speaking in the broadest terms here but i did want to speak to one particular area of concern just to give viewers and my colleagues a sense of what we face. the provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of american citizens who are suspected of involvement in terrorism, even those captured here in our own country, in the

united states, which i think should concern each and every one of us, these provisions could well represent an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties. let me explain why i think that's the case. i agree that if an american citizen joins al qaeda and takes up arms against the united states, that person should be subject to the same process as any other enemy combatant. but what is not clear is what we do with someone arrested in his home because of suspected terrorist ties. these detainee provisions would authorize that person's indefinite detention, but it misses a critical point. how do we know, mr. president, how do we know that a citizen has committed these crimes unless they are tried and convicted? do we really want to open the door to domestic military police powers and possibly deny u.s.

citizens their due process rights? if we do, if we do, i think that's at least something that is very worthy of a hearing and the american people should be made aware of the changes that would be forthcoming and the way we approach civil liberties. but since our counterterrorism officials are telling us these provisions are a mistake, i'm not willing to both potentially limit our fight against terrorism and simultaneously threaten the constitutional freedoms americans hold dear. as i begin my remarks, mr. president, i hope i have projected my belief that we have a solemn obligation to pass the national defense authorization act, but we also have a solemn obligation to make sure that those who are fighting the war on terror have the best, most flexible, most powerful tools possible. to be perfectly flank, i am worried that these provisions will disrupt our ability to

combat terrorism and inject untested legal ambiguity into our military's operations and detention practices. we will hear some of our colleagues tell you not to worry because the detainee provisions are designed not to hurt our counterterrorism efforts. we all know that the best-laid plans can have unintended consequences, and while i'm sure the drafters of this language intended the provisions to be interpreted in a way that does not cause problems, the counterterrorism community disagrees and has outlined some very serious real-world concerns. stating in the language that there will not be any adverse effects on national security doesn't make it so. these are not just words in a proposed law, and those that will be chartered to actually carry out these provisions are urging us to reject them.

shouldn't we listen to their serious concerns? shouldn't we think twice about passing these provisions? i have not received a single phone call from a counterterrorism expert, a professional in the field or a senior military official urging us to pass these provisions. we have heard a wide range of concerns expressed about the unintended consequences of enacting these detainee provisions but not a single voice outside of congress telling us that this will help us protect americans or make us safer. mr. president, in a-- addition to our national security team who are urging us to oppose these provisions, other important voices are also asking us to stop, slow down and consider them more thoroughly. the american bar association, the aclu, the international red cross, the american legion and a number of other groups have also expressed a wide range of

serious concerns. again, i want to underline although the language was crafted with the best of intentions, there are simply too many questions about the unintended consequences of these provisions to allow them to move forward without further input from national security perts through holding hearings and engaging in further debate. mr. president, i am privileged to be a member of the armed services committee, i'm truly honored. as i have implied and i want to be explicit, i understand the importance of this bill. i understand what it does for our military, which is why in some -- what i'm going to propose with my amendment is that we pass the ndaa without these troubling provisions but with a mechanism by which we can consider in depth what is proposed and at a later day include any applicable changes in the law. it's not only the right thing to do policywise, it may very well protect this bill from a veto.

the clearest path towards giving our men and women in uniform the tools they need is to pass this amendment and then send a clean national defense authorization act to the president. in the statement of administration policy, the president says the following. i should again mention in the statement of administration policy, there is a recommendation that the president veto the bill. quote -- we have spent ten years since september 11 breaking down the law between military and intelligence officials. congress should not now rebuild those calls and make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult." these are striking words. they should give us all pause as we face what seems to be a bit of a rush to pass these untested and legally controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists. so, mr. president, i want to

begin to close and in so doing urge my colleagues to think about the precedent we would step by passing these provisions. we are being told that these detainee provisions are so important that we must pass them right away without a hearing or further deliberation. however, the secretary of defense at the same time along with the director of national intelligence, the director of the f.b.i. are all urging us to reject the provisions and take a closer look. do we really want to neglect the advice of our trusted national security professionals? i can't think of another instance where we would rebuff those chartered with keeping us safe. if we in the congress want to constrain the military and give our service members new responsibilities, as these provisions would do, i believe we ought to listen to what the secretary of defense has had to say about it. secretary panetta is strongly opposed to these changes, and i think we all know that before he held the job he has now,

secretary of defense, mr. panetta was the director of the c.i.a. he very well knows the threats facing our country and he knows we cannot afford to make any mistakes when it comes to keeping our citizens right. we have to be right every time the bad guys only have to be right once. so this is a debate we need to have, it's a healthy debate, but we ought to be armed with all of the facts and expertise before we move forward. the least we can do is to take our time, be diligent, and hear from those who will be affected by these new significant changes in how we interrogate and prosecute terrorists. so as i have said before, it concerns me that we would tell our national security leadership, a bipartisan national security leadership, by the way, that we would not listen to them and that congress knows better than they do. it doesn't strike me that that's the best way to secure and

protect the american people. that's why i filed amendment number 1107. i think my amendment is a commonsense alternative that will protect our constitutional principles and beliefs while continuing to keep our nation safe. the amendment has a clear aim, which is to ensure we follow a thorough process and hear all views before rushing forward with new laws that could be harmful to our national security. it's straightforward, it's common sense, and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. mr. president, i thank you for your attention. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from michigan. mr. levin: we have approximately a half-hour on each side. i'm wondering how much senator graham needs. mr. graham: ten minutes. is that too much? five minutes? mr. levin: we have seven speakers on this side. try for eight minutes? mr. graham: i will try to do it

as quick as i can. okay. mr. mccain: we have had plenty -- a long time from the previous proponent of the bill. we have had ten minutes from the senator from illinois. i yield the senator from south carolina ten minutes. mr. levin: the senator from arizona will control, if this is all right with the senator, half of our time, would that be all right? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. can you let me know when five minutes are passed because there are a lot of voices to be heard on this issue and i want them to be heard. i'm just one. and let me just start with my good friend from colorado. i respect you. i know what you are -- i know your concerns, i just don't agree. i can remember being told by the bush administration we don't need the detainee treatment act. everybody said we didn't need it, but they were wrong. i remember being told by the vice president's office during the bush administration it's okay to take classified evidence, show it to the jury,

the finder of fact, and not share it with the accused, but you can show it to his lawyer. how would you like an american soldier tried in a foreign land where they are sitting there in the chair wondering what the jury is talking about, can't even comment to their own lawyer about the allegations against them? i have been down this road with administrations and we worked in a bipartisan fashion to change some things that the bush administration wanted to do, and i'm glad we did. we're working in a bipartisan fashion to change some things this administration is doing, and i hope we're successful because if we fail we're going to be worse for it. here are the facts: under this provision of mandatory military custody for someone captured in the united states, if you're an american citizen, that provision does not apply to you. but here's the law of the land right now. if you're an american citizen suspected of being, joined al qaeda, being a member of al qaeda, you can be held as an enemy combatant. the padilla case in south

carolina, where the man was held for five years as enemy combatant, went to the fourth circuit court of appeals and here's what the court said. you can interrogate that person in an intelligence-gathering situation. the only thing you have to do is provide them a lawyer for their habeas appeal review. so here's the due process rights. if our intelligence community military believe that an american citizen is suspected of being a member of al qaeda, the law of the land as it is today, an american citizen can be held as enemy combatant and questioned about what role you play in helping al qaeda, and you do get due process. everybody held as an enemy combatant here, at guantanamo bay, captured in the united states goes before a federal judge, and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is in fact an enemy combatant. there is due process. we just don't hold someone and say good luck, you have to go before a judge, a federal court,

and prove your case as the government. and here's the question for the country: is it okay to hold an american citizen who is suspected of helping al qaeda under military control? you better believe it's okay. now, my good friend from colorado said this appeals the posse come cat tuesday act. , the posse comita t*us is a prohibition on our military and goes back to reconstruction. this is the central difference between us. i don't believe fighting al qaeda is a law enforcement function. i believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home and abroad. and the idea somehow allowing our military to hold someone captured in the united states is a repeal of posse comitatus act, you'd have to conclude that you view that is a law enforcement

function where the military has no reason or right to be there. that's the big difference between us. i don't want to criminalize the war. to senator levin, thank you for helping us this time around craft a bipartisan solution to a very real problem. the enemy is all over the world, here at hoefplt and when people -- here at home. when people take up arms against the united states and captured within the united states, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity? the only way you can do that is hold them in military custody, and this provision can be waived. it doesn't apply to american citizens. but the idea that american citizen helping al qaeda doesn't get due process is just a lie. you go before a federal court, and the government has to prove that you are part of al qaeda. and let me ask this to our

colleagues on the other side: what if the judge agrees with the military or the intelligence community making the case? are you going to require us to shut down the intelligence-gathering process, read them their rights and put them in federal court? that's exactly what you want. and that will destroy our ability to make us safe. if an american citizen is held by the intelligence community, the military, and a federal judge agrees that they are in fact a part of the enemy force, that american citizen should be interrogated to find out what they know about the enemy in a lawful way. and you should not require this country to criminalize what is an act of war against the people of the united states. they should not be read the miranda rights. they should not be given a lawyer. they should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us. so this provision not only is necessary to deal with

real-world events. it is written in the most flexible way possible. and to this administration, the reason we're on the floor today, it was your idea to take khalid sheikh mohammed and put him in new york city and give him the rights of an american citizen and criminalize the war by taking the mastermind of 9/11 and making it a crime, not an act of war. the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for five minutes. mr. graham: thank you. i am wrap up. to senator levin and senator mccain, what they're accusing you of doing is not true. you're codifying a process that will allow us to intelligently and rationally deal people who are part of al qaeda, not political dissidents. if you don't like president obama, we're not going to arrest you. you can say anything you want to about the president or me. you just can't join al qaeda and expect to be treated as if it were a common crime. when you join al qaeda, you haven't joined the mafia.

you're not joining a gang. you are joining people who are bent on our destruction and are a military threat. and if you don't believe they're a military threat, vote for senator udall. if you believe al qaeda represents a threat to us at home and abroad, give our intelligence and military agencies statutory guidance and authority to do things that need to be clear rather than uncertain. we're ten years into this war. congress needs to speak. this is your chance to speak. i am speaking today. here's what i'm saying to my colleagues on the other side and to the world at large. if you join al qaeda, you suffer the consequences of being killed or captured. if you're an american citizen and you betray your country, you're going to be held in military custody and you're going to be questioned about what you know. you're not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system because we're not fighting a crime. we're fighting a war.

there's more due process in this bill than any other time in any other war. i am proud of the work product. there are checks and balances in this bill that have been working on for ten years. the mandatory provisions do not apply to american citizens. they could be waived if they impede an investigation. we're trying to provide tools and clarity that have been missing for ten years. this is your chance to speak on the central issue ten years after the war. the attacks of 9/11. are we at war? are we fighting a crime? i believe we're at war, and the due process rights associated with war are in abundance and beyond anything ever known in any other war. what this amendment does, it destroys the central concept that we're trying to present to the body and to the country, that we're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organization who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life.

let's give our law enforcement and mitt romney community the -- law enforcement and military community the clarity be they have been seeking and i think now they will have. and to the administration, with all due respect, you have engaged in one episode after another to run away from the fact that we're fighting a war, not a crime. when the bush administration tried to pass policies that undercut our ability to fight this war and maintain our values, i pushed back. i'm not asking any more of the people on the other side than i ask of myself. when the bush administration asked me and others to do things that i thought undercut our values, i said "no." now you've got an opportunity to tell this administration, we respect your input, but what we're trying to do needs to be done not for just this time, but for the future. ladies and gentlemen, either we're going to fight this war to win it and keep us safe or we're

going to lose the concept that there's a difference between taking up arms against the united states and being a common criminal. in conclusion, khalid sheikh mohammed and all those who buy into what he's selling present a threat to us far different than any common criminal. and our laws should reflect that. senator levin and mccain, you've created a legal system for the first time in ten years that recognizes we're fighting a war within our values. i hope we get a strong bipartisan vote for the tools in this bill. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: how much time do we have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has 15 1/2 minutes. mr. udall: before i recognize senator durbin for eight minutes, i want to respond to my friend, the senator from south carolina. mr. mccain: question: how much

time on this side? the presiding officer: five minutes remain. mr. udall: the senator from south carolina is broadly admired in the united states senate. if i'm ever in court, i want him to be my lawyer. i would point out what i'm proposing wouldn't destroy the system we have in place, a system that resulted in the convictions of numerous terrorists with life sentences. what i am asking is to listen to those who are on the front lines fighting against terrorists and terrorism who said they have concerns about this new proposal and would like a greater amount of time to vet it and consider it. i'd like to yield to the senator from illinois, eight minutes. mr. levin: mr. president, i just have a unanimous consent request which senator durbin said i could interrupt to make. i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today, during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and

that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have the greatest respect for senator carl levin and senator john mccain. they have done an extraordinary job on the defense authorization bill. i would say this bill would not have engendered the controversy that brings us to the floor today but for this provision because it is a critically important provision which has drawn the attention not just of those in the military community, which they of course would expect in a defense authorization bill, but also the attention of those in the intelligence community and the law enforcement community across the united states as well as the president of the united states. the provision which they include in this bill is a substantial and dramatic departure in american law when it comes to fighting terrorism. i salute senator udall for bringing it to the attention of the committee and now to the floor that before we take this step forward, we should reflect and pass the udall amendment which calls for the necessary

agencies of of government -- law enforcement, intelligence and military -- to reflect on the impact of this decision, not just on the impact of america's security but on america's commitment to constitutional principles. this is a fundamental issue which is being raised here, and it should be considered ever so seriously. and we need to ask ourselves why ten years after 9/11 are we prepared to engage in a rewrite of the laws on fighting terrorism. thank god, we meet in this chamber today with no repeat of 9/11. through president george w. bush and president barack obama, america has been safe. yes, there are people that threaten us and they always will. but we have risen to that challenge with the best military in the world, with effective law enforcement and without giving away our basic values and principles as americans. take a look at the provision in

this bill which senator udall is addressing. who opposes this provision? i'll tell you who opposes it. secretary of defense leon panetta, who passed out of this chamber with a 100-0 vote of confidence in his leadership has told us don't do this. this is a mistake in this provision. secondly, the law enforcement community, from attorney general eric holder to the director of the federal bureau of investigation, have told us this is a mistake to pass this measure, to limit our ability to fight terrorism. and the intelligence community as well. the director of national intelligence tells us this is a mistake. so is it any wonder that senator udall comes to the floor and others join him from both sides of the aisle saying before you make this serious change in policy in america, ask ourselves, have we considered the impact this will have on our nation's security, our ability to interrogate witnesses and our commitment to constitutional

principles? when i take a look at the letter that was sent to us by the director of the federal bureau of investigation, robert mueller, i have to reflect on the fact that director mueller was appointed by president george w. bush and reappointed by president barack obama. i respect him very much. he has warned this senate, do not pass this provision in the defense authorization bill. it may adversely impact -- and i quote -- "our ability to continue ongoing international terrorism investigation." if this provision had been offered by a democrat under republican george w. bush, the critics would have document floor and said how could you possibly tie the hands of the president when he is trying to keep america safe? the director of the federal bureau of investigation has made it clear that the passage of this provision in this bill will limit the flexibility of the administration to combat terrorism. it will create uncertainty for law enforcement, intelligence,

and defense officials regarding how to handle suspected terrorists and raise serious constitutional concerns. listen. all of those things are worthy of debate. were it not for the record that for ten years america has been safe, it has been safe because of a republican president and a democratic president using the forces at hand to keep us safe. if we were coming here with some record of failure when it comes to keeping america safe, it's one thing, but we have a record of positive success. and this notion that there is no way to keep america safe without military tribunals and commissions defies logic and defies experience. since 9/11, over 300 suspected terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in article 3 criminal courts in america. yes, they have been read their miranda rights and yes, they have been prosecuted and sent to prison. the most recent being the underwear bomber who pled guilty

just weeks ago in the article 3 criminal courts. during this same period of time when it comes to military commissions and tribunals, how many alleged terrorists have been convicted? six. the score, my friends, if you're paying attention, is 300-6. president bush and president obama used our article 3 criminal courts effectively to keep america safe, and in those instances where they felt military tribunals could do it best, they turned to them with some success. and i might add to those who want to just change the law again when it comes to military tribunals, this is the third try. twice we have tried to write the language on military tribunals and commissions. it's been sent ultimately across the street to the supreme court and rejected. they told us start over. do we want to risk that again? do we want to jeopardize the prosecution of an alleged terrorist because we want to test out a new legal and

constitutional theory? i hope not. i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the director of the f.b.i. be made part of the record in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: let me also say, section 1031 of this bill is one that definitely needs to be changed if not eliminated. it will for the first time in the history of the united states of america authorize the indefinite detention of american citizens in the united states. i have spoken to the chairman of the committee who said he is open to language that would try to protect us from that outcome, but the language as written in the bill unfortunately will allow for the indefinite detention of american citizens for the first time. the administration takes this seriously. we should, too. they have said they will veto the bill without changes in this particular provision. i hope that we will step back and look at a record of success in keeping america safe and not try to reinvent our constitution on the floor of the united states senate. i think we ought to give to

every president, democrat and republican, all the tools and all the weapons they need to keep america safe. tying their hands on the floor of the united states senate may give us some satisfaction for a moment, but it won't keep america safe. i reserve the balance of my time and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i yield myself ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: there have been so many misstatements of fact that have been made, it's hard to keep up with them, but let me just take the last statement that the senator from illinois made about changing military tribunal law. there is no change in military tribunal law whatsoever which is made in this bill. now, i'm going to address the other misstatements that have been made by my friends and colleagues, but that one is the most recent so i want to just take on that one first. now, in terms of constitutional provisions, the ultimate authority on the constitution of the united states is the supreme court of the united states, and

here is what they have said. in the hamdi case about the issue which both our friends have raised about american citizens being subject to the law of war. a citizen, the supreme court said in 2004, no less than an alien, can be part of supporting forces hostile to the united states and engage in armed conflict against the united states. such a citizen, referring to an american citizen, if released would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict. and here is the bottom line for the supreme court. if we just take this one line out of this whole debate, it would be a breath of fresh air to cut through some of the words that have been used here this morning, one line. there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens

as an enemy combatant. okay? that's not me, that's not senator graham, that's not senator mccain. that's the supreme court of the united states recently. there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. mr. graham: would the senator yield for a question? mr. levin: i would rather not at this point. now, there are a number of sections in this bill. my dear friend senator udall says these sections as though it is a whole bunch of sections which are at issue. there is really only one section which is at issue here, and that's section 1032, and that's the so-called mandatory detention section that has a waiver in it. section 1031 was written and approved by the administration. okay?

section 1031, which my friend from illinois has just said is an abomination, was written and approved by the administration. now, section 1031 is the authorities section. this authorizes. it doesn't mandate anything with the waiver, the 1032 does. section 1031. and now i'm going to use the words in the administration's own so-called s.a.p. or statement of administration policy. this is what the administration says about section 1031. "the authorities codified in this section already exist." so they don't think it's necessary, 1031, but they don't

object to it. their words. the authorities in 1031 already exist. they do. what this does is incorporate already existing authorities from section 1031. unnecessary in the few of the administration, yeah, but they helped write it and they approved it. we made changes in it. we have made so many changes in this language to satisfy the administration, i think it all comes down to one section, 1032. 1032 is the issue. not all the sections, by the way, which would be stricken by the udall amendment. the udall amendment would strike all the sections, but it really comes down to section 1032. 1032 is the so-called mandatory provision, which, by the way, does not apply to american

citizens. i better say that over again. senator graham said it, but let me say it over again. the most controversial provision, probably the only one in this bill, is section 1032. section 1032 says that the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the united states. i guess that's the second thing that i would like for colleagues to take away from what i say, is that section -- and senator graham said the same thing -- section 1032, the mandatory section that has the waiver in it, does not by its own words apply to citizens of the united states. it has a waiver provision in it to make this flexible, and the way in which 1032 operates is that it says that if it's

determined, if it's determined that a person is a member of al qaeda, then that person will be held in military detention, they are at war with us, folks. al qaeda is at war with us. they brought that war to our shores. this isn't just a foreign war. they brought that war to our shores on 9/11. they are at war with us. the supreme court said -- and i'm going to read these words again -- there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. they brought this war to us, and if it's determined that even an american citizen is a member of al qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the supreme court. that's not according to the armed services committee, our bill or any one of us. that's the supreme court speaking. who determines it? what we say to give the

administration the flexibility that they want, the administration makes that determination, the procedures to make that determination. who writes those procedures? we don't write them. by explicitly, the executive branch writes those procedures. can those procedures interfere with an ongoing interrogation or investigation? no. by our own language, it says that they shall not interfere with interrogation or intelligence gathering. that's all in here. the only way this could interfere with an operation of the executive branch is if they decided to interfere themselves in their own operation. they are given explicitly the authority to write the procedures. i think we ought to debate about what is in the bill, and what is

in the bill is very different from what our colleagues who support the udall amendment have described. yes, we are at war and yes we should codify how we handle detention, and this is an effort to do that, and as the administration says itself, we are not changing anything here in terms of section 1031, we are simply codifying existing law. the issue really relates to 1032. and that's what we ought to debate. should somebody when it's been determined by procedures adopted by the executive branch, been determined to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that

person be treated according to the laws of war, and the answer is yes. but should flexibility be in here so the administration can provide a waiver even in that case? yes. and finally, about civilian trials, i happen to agree with my friend from illinois, and he is a dear friend of mine. civilian trials work. there is nothing in this provision that says civilian trials won't be used, even if it's determined that somebody is a member of al qaeda. not only doesn't it prevent civilian trials from being used, we explicitly provide that civilian trials are available in all cases. it's written right in here. i -- i happen to like civilian trials a lot. i participated in a lot of them, and they are very appropriate, and we have a very good record. in the case that you mentioned,

the senator from illinois mentioned, excuse me, that case was a michigan case. i know a lot about that case. it was the right way to go. i prefer civilian trials in many, many cases. this bill doesn't say that we're going to be using military commissions in lieu of civilian trials. that is a decision which we leave where it belongs, in the executive branch, but we do one thing in this bill in section 1031, which needs to be said. we are at war with al qaeda and people determined to be part of al qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us. but even with that statement, we give the administration a waiver. that's how much flexibility we give to the executive executive. how much time have i used,

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator has three and a half minutes remaining. mr. levin: i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president, how much time remaining on both sides? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona has just over five minutes. the senator from colorado has eight minutes. mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i want to clarify for the record before i recognize senator webb for five minutes that some here have claimed that the supreme court's hamdi decision upheld the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens captured in the united states. it did no such thing. hamdi was captured in afghanistan, not the united states, and justice o'connor, the author of the opinion, was very careful to say that the hamdi decision was limited to -- quote -- "individuals who fought against the united states in afghanistan as part of the