us have benefited enormously from just the advances that we have seen in technology, people today conduct business, communicate with friends, pay bills. so may things we do with technology today, and it's important that in a knowledge-based economy and society that we live in, that we have broadband service that's available to everyone. because it's become literate and have the necessity in terms of getting anything done. so i'm very enthusiastic about substantial growth we have seen in the telecommunications sector of our economy, but i'm also concerned that there are areas in the country that are underserved and are likely behind the rest of the american population when it comes to the deployment of broadband. and i believe it's important in u.s. -- u.s. at reform that give all americans directly those in tribal areas and rural areas access to broadband service.

and so i hope that if confirmed that she will both continue to monitor the reform efforts to ensure that usf is not only fiscally responsible, but also sustainable over the long run. and ultimately and economically sound usf is going to create fairness and certainty in a competitive marketplace. and i don't mr. pai, you're from kansas, ms. rosenworcel you are a thing from connecticut, is that right? so you probably have some experience in your states with some of the more rural areas, but i certainly would welcome you to travel to south dakota as well to gain perspective on how these issues play in rural areas in the country. so i would like to extend the invitation to you today. another important topic in my state, the issue of telecom mergers, i'm concerned about the effect of the best teachers on rural states like south dakota has had. and i would also ask you, if confirmed, to look into the

issue to make sure that those packages are truly preserving competition and not negatively impacting certain regions of the country. and to the point, and i phrase that was mr. pai, we had in my state of south dakota, back in 2009, the justice department permitted emerge to go forward on the condition that divestiture take place and ultimately allowed at&t to take over the assets in south dakota. as a result all those customers suddenly found themselves in debt spots where there hadn't been any before. and that at&t of course is reportedly a package of disasters in attempt to obtain justice department approval to its merger with t-mobile and i concerned about how those proposed divestitures might impact my state. somebody might be able to comment on that issue, sort your perspective on it, and how you intend to do with those issues as they come before you.

>> i can take this one, transfixed. thanks for the question. a general matter, i would take case-by-case, look at every transaction to determine whether or not a divestiture were in the public interest. and the extent that i believe that a divestiture actually would harm consumers rather than benefit them, that's not something that i would support. i think the very purpose of the best teachers to address the competitive harm that would be presented by the consummation of the merger. and so it seems is highlighted in the article that you mentioned from south dakota, it seems counterintuitive then, the fcc or the department of justice would insist on a divestiture that would not be too benefits -- >> divestiture is a traditional tool of antitrust in order to make sure that a transaction maintains competitive markets. but i do think it is fair in a divestiture situation to first

ask if that divestiture will harm or benefit consumers. and i know, unfamiliar with the article you're talking out from "the wall street journal," and it makes some interesting points and i think it should be studied further. >> well, i hope you will. as you do with those issues in the commission. as i travel around my state, around the country, one of the reasons that employers say they are not hiring people is because of uncertainty, economic uncertainty causing some cases by federal regulatory actions, and whether those health care reform, regulations coming out of the epa, dodd-frank, go down the list. and i guess i'm interested in knowing, one, your thoughts and without excessive regulation is a contribute either to high unemployment? and if confirmed, how you would usual positions to limit the types of harmful regulations that limit economic growth and kill jobs? and furthermore, how would you

promote the kind of economic certainty that i think businesses are looking for out there today? i just think even in a world of uncertainty makes it very difficult for people to make investments and for our economy to create the types of jobs that are necessary to get people back to work. i know it's a very broad question so feel free to approach it however you would like, but i'm interested in sort of your overall perspective. >> i think the clear rules of the road, by investment and investment creates economic growth. so if i were confirmed i would certainly try to make sure that in my position as fcc commissioner that i contributed clarity in any regulatory policy. >> senator, i agree with that completely. i think it deserves the parties transsexual, rulemaking procedures meddlesome i consumers because companies are reluctant to invest in other technologies. alternately economic growth suffers and consumers suffer. i would also, with response to

second quite i think was, if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed i would -- really do whatever proposed order our purpose of action is taken through the prism of job creation and economic growth. i think is a very difficult times for american families people are out of work and the unemployment rate is much higher than we would like a to b. for a longer break than it ever has been. the telecommunications sector by some measures i represent one-sixth of. >> income and i think our recent experience is that it is one more dynamic area so to the extent the commission can adopt a regulatory framework that incentivizes the industry to continue to be dynamic, to continue to be vibrant, to continue to create jobs, i think that's something i would find valuable as a consumer, frankly, but also as a commissioner at the agency. >> thank you. appreciate that answer. thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> thank you, senator thune.

i have an announcement to make it a couple of announcements to make it actually i have one more question because no has come close to asking this question so i'm going to use my prerogative. i've been a long -- been around long enough to ask you. i know everyone's to get out, but i think that some was again because the largest of this decision. and i think you've both been superb witnesses. senator thune says it's been inspiring, and he's quite right. senator demint wants to keep the record open until december 6, and i agree to that. on the other hand, as for questions i'd like to be able to of all questions divided as quickly as possible, hopefully by tomorrow. questions that members and their staffs, we will circulate that, the questions they might have wanted to ask or some came

actually because they felt they were too far down the list when we did it after myself and kay bailey hutchison and subcommittee folks, we did it by order of appearance. so some left but they probably had questions, and we want you to have a chance to see those questions and i want them to have a chance to get those to us by tomorrow. i have always been and ms. rosenworcel knows this, this is a commerce committee but it's taken on and on several years very much a consumer orientati orientation. and we spend a lot of time worrying about, let's say insurance companies and health care skimming and cramming on all kinds of things which we simply have not done before. obviously the media landscape is changing enormously, and this is especially true for children

which is what i want to ask you about. our children have been watching programming i rarely over television, multimedia universe switch and is often interact. cable television and internet inundate children with images, social network, multiplayer games that many parents don't understand and have absolute no idea how to work a controlling remote, or a remote control. they simply have no idea. so there's always the possibility that things can be controlled, things can be cut off, but there's a greater probability that they will not be because the parents will either not be there or they will not understand. and i've had many of these meetings around west virginia, and parents are deeply concerned about content. i think the diversity of media is very exciting, but it's very hard for parents and very

available for their children. i personally believe that there's been a substantial coarsening indie media that children watch. it's been done and down -- it's been dumbed down and i think that's industry news and kids to watch that quite as much but in programming in general. is more obscene, more violent, more promiscuous, more whatever you want that isn't good. than it was before. and i think that's really bad. everybody yells first amendment, so you never really get much done about it. on the other hand, you do have recourse at the federal communications commission, not to do all things but to do some things. and so i just put before you this question that the legal landscape is very difficult, and i understand that. but so is the problem of what it

is that children now watch. and get depressed by, get bullied by. i'm not a great fan of facebook. everybody else's. 750 million people certainly are around the world, but i'm not because i think what it does an essentially, not just them but others, it leads children to expose himself thinking that they're just doing it, making a comment to a friend but then it is available to all of indonesia and all of china and all of the world. and then you get bullying and you get picking on. you get sort of cyber suicide type thoughts. and there are examples of this. children have been mortified by what the system that they can't penetrate, which their parents have no idea how to penetrate, but it does to them. and then they can't do anything about it because they're caught up in it, their humiliation,

then and they can do harm to themselves and to others or to some of course make a practice to make sure to have a chance to do that. to this future but it makes me very angry. it should thank all of america angry. first amendment or not. so my question to you is simply, i do recognize that the legal climate is constrained, but i can't believe that the two nominees of your distinction wanting on the fcc, one of them quite obviously has two children who are here, but not yet probably television watching. but i'm interested in what could be done to protect children, and parents. >> well, senator, having loosely joined the ranks of parents, i

have firsthand concern of the images that my son sees, the words that here's over any type of media, whether television, radio, frankel didn't figure on a smartphone. and so i think it is important for the federal communications commission to do what it can to give parents knowledge about this technology that are out there, about the tools that are at their disposal, to prevent their children from viewing inappropriate content or hearing inappropriate words. obvious as you pointed out the legal landscape is a little bit uncertain. the supreme court is going to consider the constitution jousted entire framework of the commission's rules in this area. depend on how the court rules of course i would be duty-bound to intimate the statute that congress has said the communications commission should enforce. and i would do that to the best of my ability, mindful of the concerns you expressed. >> you said what i can.

that's where to from from your answer. and that's not wholly sufficient to me. i remember extensive conversations, and i apologize for the time here, but with chairman martin over saving private ryan, and obviously that was a wartime situation and physic question of if somebody said an obscenity, who could say, who couldn't say it. his role was the soldier says it was okay, but if a commentator on the situation said it, it was not okay. i mean, to that level that he at least was willing to immerse himself. now, this is not the time or the cultural desire to face these issues, except that it is. accept that that's exactly what parents want and that's exactly

what children need. and the courts will rule. i don't think jessica rosenworcel, you want to tell you that the fcc is so constrained that you can't get anything that might possibly happen to alleviate this problem. >> well, i should start saying that appreciative have come an updated me about what you are doing and what they're watching back there. but leaving that aside, video programming is really powerful stock. and at its best it can entertain and even educate. for some of it is not so enlightening and not so healthy. traditionally the fcc has had authority to limit indecent and profane language and content. but the legal landscape is probably change it was that change is this is very important and i think it is incumbent upon

the fcc and, frankly, all of us to make sure that we both provide quality content, foster it and stimulate, the good stuff for kids, and i would also help parents become good parents with providing them with tools to help protect their children. >> that's a good answer. and we will leave it at that. i'm very serious about this, and i worry about it greatly. i think that there's a lot of wonderful things to be said about the internet, a lot of wonderful things to be said about telecommunications, but people are talking to each other less. they don't have to take responsibility for what they put on facebook or other such social networks because it doesn't come back to haunt them. it's usually somebody else, except when it is them come and and are mortified. and it has an enormous effect.

just hear me on that, and we will work together to see what can be done. you've both been absolutely wonderful work you've done yourself proud. you've done your families proud of. and you make us proud. so i think as was indicated, you should feel pretty good about your chances, and i thank you for your testimony. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live on capitol hill as house republican leaders will be talking about the jobs and the economy. a short time ago the labor department reported that jobless claims dropped last month and the unemployment rate fell from 9%, to 8.6%. this is live coverage on

c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. any job creation is welcome news, but the jobless rate in our country is still unacceptably high. today marks the 34th

consecutive month of unemployment above 8%. as you may remember, the obama administration promised that unemployment would not exceed 8% if we had passed other stimulus bills. that promise has gone unfulfilled. more than 300,000 americans left the labor force last month. they stopped the king forward. i think we should all be concerned about that. the house has passed a series of bills designed to remove government barriers such as private sector job creation. there are now 25 bipartisan bills that passed the house that are waiting in the united states senate. it's all part of our plan to help america's job creators. it's been our focus all year. we have a plan, and, frankly, if the united states senate would take up these bipartisan bills they would find that they would be a person support in the unites states senate as well. president obama should use this opportunity to call on the senate to move these bills as

passed by the house. the american people want action on jobs, and they want it now. >> good morning. today's unemployment numbers certainly look, look good on its surface when the rate of unemployment comes down. that's always good news. however, if you look at the number of new jobs created, they're just not enough new jobs being created in america. and we need to work harder towards that end to be able to provide people with better opportunity. i know americans are looking for some optimism around the holidays. we continue to try to stay focused on areas in which we can find common ground. i mean, we have looked at where we've been in this session and we been able to find some common ground with the president when it came to the trade bill, when it came to the 3% withholding bill. there is an ability for us to set aside some differences and to find some common ground, and we look at house republicans to try to continue to find those

ways. now, there are plenty of areas in which we disagreed. we are to start their comrade to set aside this but we don't live in higher taxes and we don't believe in more spending. but we do want to work with this president in terms of finding common ground and seeing how we can create jobs. so if we can't see our way clear on those bigger issues, let's look towards how we can make incremental progress day by day to help the lives of americans and to create more jobs for families across this country. >> well, although improved from last month, november still marks the 34th month where unemployment has been 8% or above. and as the speaker has alluded, although encouraging when you realize 300,000 perhaps have just given up, it's even less encouraging. so again, 34 months of 8%

unemployment or more in the obama economy. 28 of the last 30 months we've had 9% plus unemployment in the obama economy. 13.5 million remain unemployed in the obama economy. small business startups and entrepreneurship remains at a 17 year low in the obama economy. meanwhile, house republicans have passed three more jobs bills your we now have 23 of them stacked up like cord wood at the united states senate awaiting action in the democratic senate. as our leader said will continue to try to work with the president and senator reid and the democrats as we did on the free trade agreement with 3% withholding of the american veterans act. but it is time for the president to admit after being able to enact all the major tenets of

his agenda, beat his health care plan, the dodd-frank, be it the stingers, that ultimately his policies are not working. so we would add, mr. president at least tell senator reid to pass our jobs bills. >> the question isn't really where are we today. the question is where should we be? remember, the obama administration promised the american public that if this thing this bill passed, that right now we would be under 6.5% on the point. and instead, we are over 8.5 unemployment. so think about the remedies, think about the opportunity moving forward. as was briefly mentioned, over 20 bills are pending, jobs bills that are pending in the united states senate and just imagine what things could be like if those were called up, past and signed into law our economy

would be game on, we be roaring forward and we wouldn't be having a conversation stumbling around unemployment in the mid mid-eighth. >> what is the house republicans plan for paying for an extension of the payroll tax cuts and it expansion of the unemployment speak with will have a conversation with our members as soon as we leave here, and we will know more about it soon. >> the message democrats are putting forth is republicans are anti-middle-class, and that republicans are only protecting the wealthy. a lot of people saying they are running that message. how do you respond to that? >> listen, i've got 11 brothers and sisters on every economic rung of the ladder but my dad owned a bar. i know what's going out in america. and the fact is that republicans are trying to do everything we can to allow american families and small businesses to keep

more of what they earned, to try to get this government off the backs of employers so that they can begin to hire people. and the other side can come out with all the rhetoric they want to come out with, but the facts are the facts. >> the action of the senate last on both the democratic and republican polls, does that make your job work out something here harder, different, what does that do? >> who knows? spent i mean seriously, this is an issue, this one of the key issues in the next three weeks. give us speed we will talk to the conference here in a few minutes and i'm sure you'll have all kinds of answers to your question. >> the senate though some republican alternatives -- [inaudible] do you expect to see that kind of resistance among the

republicans? >> i would hope not. thanks. >> as this briefing comes to close, minutes of the house republicans conference are meeting behind closed door today to develop a strategy to address renewing long-term jobless benefits. there's an article in "cq" today that talks about it. sender jim demint of south carolina said yesterday a group of republicans from both chambers were discussion with party leaders a plan to renew these benefits which will expire beginning early next year. he said the plan depends on certain conditions and cost must be all set, the window must incorporate both an overhaul of unemployment insurance programs and provisions that would create jobs. that meeting happening today behind closed doors. we have more live programming coming up for you today with a hearing on proposed keystone oil pipeline running from canada down to the u.s.

posted by house energy and commerce subcommittee. that will start at 10:30 a.m. eastern this morning on c-span2. as we look at the capitol here at this point, this friday work the house of representatives is in session. yesterday the senate approved fiscal year 2012 defense policy programs and policy bill. there were several unnamed stephen with terry detainee policy. next, california senator dianne feinstein describes her amendment on the issue which later was rejected by the poll said her comments in subsequent debate run about an hour. will show as much of this asnat again and tell the hearing on. the keystone pipeline gets underway at about 10:30 a.m.supr .. military custody to terrorists captured outside the united states. this amendment is cosponsored by senators reid, casey, shaheen,

inouye -- excuse me, leahy, dur imine, udall, kirk, lee, harkin and webb. madam president, this is a very simple amendment. it adds only one word, the word "abroad," to section 1031 of the underlying bill. i strongly believe, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. and the ability to have maximum flexibility in the united states is very important, and i totally support the executive having that flexibility. this bill creates a presumption that members or parts of al qaeda or associated forces will be held in the military system. and that's what concerns me, because the military system has not really produced very well over the last ten years.

and i want to take a moment to contrast some cases. on this chart we have sentences, five of them, with military commissions, and five or six from federal courts. the federal courts have actually convicted over the last 10 or 11 years not 300 people but 400 people. military commissions are really limited to some six convictions. and let's take a look at what they are. a very sameous one was salim hamdan. he was bin laden's driver. he was bin laden's driver. he was acquitted of conspiracy only convicted of material support for terrorism and he a received a five-month sentence by a military commission and was sent back to his home in yemen to serve time before being

released in january of 09. mater numberia two, david hitt entered into a plea on material support for terrorism, was given aserveb nine-month sentence, mostly serve back served back home inom australia. omar kotter, pled guilty in exchange for an eight year l sentence butik he will likely be transferred to a canadian prison. ibrahim ahmed mahmoud pled guilty to conspiracy andsm. material support to terrorism. his final sentence was two ple years, pursuant to a plea deal. mohamed pled guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism. sen his final sentence would be less than three years pursuant to his plea agreement. l he received a life sentence after he boycotted the entire commissionio process. on the otherhe hand, you have

sentences from the federalhard court. rei you have richard reid, the shoe bomber, life in prison. brian al-awlaki and, life inbo prison for the bombing of new york city. the 20th hijacker, zacharias moussaoui, life in prison. i rumsey youssef, life in prison for the 1993 world trade centera bombing and the manila air plot. umar farouk abdulmutallab,obab probably life l in prison will e sentenced in january 2012. and nazi bolus of the potential life in prison. this was the man with conspirators who was going to bomb the new york subway. if there is definitive evidence that is irrefutable, that the federal courts have done a mucht better job than the militarybetr commissions. j why this constant press that if

it's not broke, we are going to fix it anyway, i don'tnd. understand. why the constant push to puthe people in military custody rather than provide the flexibility so that evidence can be evaluated quickly. this person will get life in the federal court versus an inability or a problem in a military commission, or vicehoul versa. tha i think the executive should have that and i think the last 10 years have clearly shown that this country is safer than it has ever been.ey terrorists are behind bars where they belong and plots have been thwarted, so the system isth this amendment would make clear that under section 1032, the united states armed forces are only required to hold the i suspected terrorist in militaryp custody when he is captured

abroad. all that amendment does is that one word, and that's the word abroad. to make clear that the military will not be roaming our streets, looking for suspected terrorists. the amendment does not remove the president'ths ability to use the option of military detention or prosecution inside the unites states. the administration has threatened to veto this bill and has said and i quote it strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032 because it would tie the hands of intelligence and law enforcement professionals. halves most importantly, addressing the issue of this amendment specifically on november 15, defense secretary leon panetta wrote this, and iq- quote.ailure o the failure of thef revised tax to clarify that sections 1032

applies to individuals captured abroad may needlessly complicate efforts by front-line law enforcement l professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the united states.irector the director of nationalence, j intelligence, jim clapper, also wrote a letterte november 23 to say that he opposed the detainee provisions of this bill because they could, and i quote, restricts the ability of our nation's intelligence professionals to acquire valuable intelligence and prevent future terrorist attacks. the administration suggested this change to the armed services committee but it was rejected and so theen administration a has had to threaten a veto on the bill.y who knows whether they will? i certainly don't know. this amendment, limiting mandatory military custody to

detainees outside the united states, is a major improvements improvement to thel. bill. colleagues to support it. a i have a very hard time because i have watched detainees carefullyom in part of the intelligence committee and we are doing a study on the detention and treatment of highs value detainees.n this has been going on for twoo years now. it's going to be a 4000 page document and it's going to be classified, but it will document what was actually done with the each of the high-value detainees and what was learned from them,y and it shows some very interesting things.ll but, the upshot of all of this - is that we should keep militaryd

custody two people arrested abroad and have the right optioi in this country, which is this case now, and not mandate, mandate the military custody iny military commission trial must be c for everyone arrested in te united states. you will hear that anyone who comes to the united states, who carries out a criminal act, a terrorist act, under the law of war really should be subject to militaryy custody. the problem is, 10 years of experience hasn't worked. how many years experience do we need?an how many sentences? six cases and this is all there is in 10 years. i know the other side got very upset when abdulmutallab was mirandized.

the fact of the matter is, abdulmutallab is going to do a life sentence in a federal prison, put away somewhere in a place where he cannot escape and where the treatment is very serious. i think -- i just have again, a hard time knowing why if it's not roque, we need to fix it and why we need to subject everybody that might be arrested in this country to a record that is like this. nnt five month sentence, nine-month sentence, eight year sentence, two-year sentence, three years e pursuant to a plea agreement and one life sentence when you have 400 cases that advances exposed of and a s federal court who are serving sentences in federal prison. so i would like to hold thend

remainder of my time and have ao opportunity to respond to the distinguished chairman and ranking member. >> madam president. >> the senator from arizona.enar >> madam president i would like to yield. >> before the senator yield. >> the senator from michigan. be >> as i understand that it is n now preferable that the vote be 2:00, not immediately following this half hour debate.tein i po if that's possible. that would be helpful. >> is our right? >> okay, all right.mr >> so now if you would yield.s n madam president i would askviouy unanimous consent that the vote which was previously scheduled at the end of the half hour debate of this amendment now bed rescheduled 42:00. >> is there objection?ng seeing none, -- >> madam president relative to 2: the time between a half-hour and

2:00, that time hopefully would be used. for it will be by me for my remarks on this amendment by the way in and because after the 30 minutes is used totally, i would want an opportunity to speak during thaf period of time as necessary in morningus business. w there are otheer amendments we leave can be voice voted duringe that period m of time. i believe my friend from arizona would agree, so that time would be fruitfully used at the time now is 2:00 to vote on thathe first amendment. >> madam president? >> the senator from arizona. >> that vote will be at 2:00. senators from new hampshire and south carolina would like towod speak. i don't know if the chairman would like to be before or during bad or in between, but does not change thehich agreement that we have, which has not been agreed to but we have agreed that we will attempt to have a v vote on the second

fine stand and amendment at 4:0e still.l att is that correct? we will attempt to do that. >> it was objected to before buf we hope that objection will beto removed. if not, if not removed and will have these votes at the end of the day instead of during the day. a >> so beginning aten 3:00 whethr we have the unanimous consent agreement because the feinstein amendment is very important. i would ask informally if we do not have unanimous consent agreement that we have in our equally divided beginning at 3:00 so that we can debate theen second feinstein amendment. sai in the meantime as the chairman said we will try to dispense with unanimous voice votes and other agreed upon amendments and perhaps even maybe a recordedust vote if necessary and one of the amendments. i would just remind my6:00 colleagues that we have run out of time at 6:00 this evening and we would rather do it in aed

measured fashionas allowingde recorded votesba orte debate beo those recorded votes because those pending amendments will be voted on after 6:00 p.m. tonight. so, i hope that i didn't sayage anything that the chairmann. doesn't agree with. >> madam president? >> the senator from michigan.s >> you said with the intent is here, that hopefully we could have an hour debate starting at 3:00. tt we will try to lock that in at a later time after giving folks notice but if there is objection to votes before the time runs out, the three hour clock runsvs out, then we have to have all de those votes after a three-hour clock runs out and it doesn't make any sense to do that but if there is going to be an objection, then that is the way it will have to be.h what senator mccain is saying and i totally agree with him,itn even if we are put in a position which i hope we are not, least we could use the time before it -- between t now and then for debate on those amendments which we would have to vote on at afr

later time and iom totally agree with my friend from arizona. >> the senator from arizona. >> i yield seven minutes to the senator from new hampshirena and eight and as to is to the senator from south carolina. >> the senator from new hampshire. >> thank you madam president. i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the senator from california, amendment 1125. and i would start with this. we have heard repeatedly not only from the senator from california but also from the senator from illinois about the number of cases in our civilian system where we have tried tong her -- terrorist. te i think there's one thing that needs to be clarified up front here. that one of the first acts that the president took when he came into office was to actually abo suspend all military commissions for about two years. so to compare the number of cases in our civilian system

versus the number of militarys commissions, trials we have had, is just a false comparison whens we suspended these trials for over two years. i just want to say that up front but i think the chart that the senator shows actually misseshia the point ofme why we have this amendment before us.o and that is, we need to gather intelligence when we have captured a member of al qaeda, who is planning an attack against the united states of america. the first goal has to be obviously giving that -- getting that person away from where he can threaten us again to kill americans but also just astellen importantly, to gather intelligence to protect americae the criminal justice system is set up to be the justice system in a particular case, not that we have the maximum tools on tho hands of our intelligence officials to gather informatione

yet, it seems to me that if you look in context of senator feinstein's amendment, 1126, that we have already talked about on the floor, she wants to limit the administration case law that our supreme court, back going back to world war ii, would take us before 9/11 and heaven forbid if we had anof american citizen who was one ofk thee participants in an incideno like we hadn occur on our soil d 9/11. our military would not be permitted to hold that personto and to question them to get they maximum amount of information to protect our country.he with respect to this amendment that she has pending before the committee, before the floor, 1125, i just want to point out that the amendment would lead to a very very absurd result. essentially, what it would say is if you are a member of al

qaeda, planning or committing an attack against the united states of america, a foreigner, and you make it to our soil as the 9/11 conspirators did, who committed that horrible attack on ourry country, then you cannot be helm in military custody. t there is no mandatory militarymr custody under those circumstances yet we willy hold you and anatori military custody if you are found overseas. in other words, their goal is unfortunately to come to the homeland, to come to our country to attack us here and in our country we need the authority to, in the first instance, in their presumptions did the too hold those in military custody so that we are not reading them miranda rights. to tell a terrorist you have the right to remain silent is counter to what we need to do to

protect americans and make surew that for example i would use the christmas day bomber as anbeany exampleim because it has been cited so many times here on this floor. that day, when he was found onte the plane, after 15 minutes of questioning he was read his miranda rights and he invoked hisok miranda rights and remaine silent. it was only five weeks lateronvd after we track down his parentse to convince him to cooperate that he actually provided more information. we are very fortunate that he was only involved in one event, that it wasn't a 9/11 type event where there were multiple events on american soil planned. aft what is after that 50 minutes, v we waited five weeks to get more information. yet there have been or events coming that day. that is what is at issue hereha and can you imagine that if wed

had caught -- let's bring ourselves back to september 11. what if weau had caught one of t individuals who are on one of those planes before it took off on 9/11?e to and what if in that instance, to say that we would not hold thosr members of al qaeda in military custody, that instance to make sure that we could get the maximum amount of information from them to hopefully god forbid prevent the lifting up ot the other flights and whatory happened on that horrible day in our country's history. i have to believe that if we were standing here immediately after the events of 9/11, i do not think that we would be debatinghi this amendment, deciding whether or not if you make it to our homeland, we will not hold you in military custodm as the first instance to find out how much informationuc you d toar make sure that you are not part of multiple attacks on the

united states of america. if the senator from california'e amendment passes, what kind of message are we saying to members of al qaeda, foreigners, who are planning attacks against the united states of america? vie we are laying out unfortunately in my view, a welcome mato to sy if you make it to america, heity won't be held in military custody. but if you attack us overseas then you will be held inwh military custody. why would we create a dualprio standard, where we should beri prioritizing, protecting our homeland, protecting the united states of america? this leads to an absurd result and i would hope that mysenatos colleagues would reject the senator's amendment to say that only those members of al qaeda don't make it to our homeland to attack us right here on our soil will be held in mandatory

military custody. our goal has to be here to protect americans and to make sure that we don't create a dua- standard where if you are lucky, if you are captured over there, we are going to hold you in her military custody but if you areo captured and you make it heregr you are going to be getting greater rights in the civilian system and we will tell you you have the right to remain silent. we should not be telling t terrorists they have the right to remain silent. we should be protectingand americans.as if we were to pass thisld amendment it would create an absurd standard where you get greater rights than you would hear on our soil and i don'td iu think -- i think that makes us less safe and i would urge my colleagues to reject both of the senator's amendments, both 11262 that would bring -- denied the executivety branch the. >> the senator's time has

expired. >> i thank you madam president for this i would ask for 30nani seconds to wrap up unanimous consentth for 30 seconds. >> without objection. >> thank you madam president. it as my colleague to reject 1126 as well which would take eu us, would take awayti the authority of the executive branch allowed by her court and would ring us back anw make us less safe in this country as well 1 as 1125.ma sur we have to protect america and make sure we get the maximumou information to prevent future attacks on this country. time -- >> madam president? >> madam president ihe yield thu floor.. >> the senator from california. >> how much time do i have? oria >> the senator has threel minute remaining of the w original 30 minutes. >> well thank you very much. >> one moment. >> the senator from michigan.evn >> after the 30 minute expires

because we are not going to havv a vote now. there would be additional time should you need it after that 3e minute period.m pr >> ien appreciate it. i may well use it. madam president i've made -- rich reject to the statementn ya just mers that this would make america less safe. 10 years of experience has shown that it has not. after plot has been interrupted. i've served on the intelligence committee for 11 years now.ly we followed this closely. this country is much more safe because things have finally come together with a process that is working. the fbi and the national security division with 10,000 people, 56 fbi officers. military does not have offices to make arrests around this country and his constant push that everything has to be

militarized. they were wrong on hamdi. they were wrong on hamdan and it keeps going and it is terrible to protect people's rights.it i don't think that creates a safe country. this country is special as we have certain values and due process of law is one of thosego values. and sof i object. i object to holding american citizens without trial.af i do not believe that makes us more safe and i object to saying that everything, there is mandatory military t commission and military custody. i if anyone from abroad commits as crime in this country. the administration has used theh flexibility in a way that they have one every single time. there had been no failures. and that is unlike the bush administration as well who use

the federal courts withoutotten failure.the they have gotten convictions. the militaryil commission has failed essentially. six cases over 10 or 11 years and i've pointed out in the sense in so to say what we are doing is to make this country0-o less 30-second sound bite but it is not the truth. i thank the chair. frid >> the senator from south carolina. >> to my good friend from california, and you are a patriot. you are here for all the right reasons. a we just have a strongands disagreement about where we stand as a nation. nobody interrupted the christmas day bomber plot. the people on on the plane ftap the guy before he could load upa there was nos fbi agent there.

there was no cia agent there. we are just lucky, thank god the passengers did it so there is nothing to suggest that our intelligence community doesn't need as many tools as possiblete because the guy got through the system and we are just lucky as hell the bomb didn't go off.r >> would you yield for a question? t >> please. the the times squareim bonner of -- bomber.we nobody interrupted the apply. the guy didn't know how to set the bomb off.on't sta we were just lucky as hell that the bomb didn't go off. don't stand here and tell me that we have got it rightan because we have not. andet here's the point.ot we never will always get it a right. and i'm not saying that his, criticism, because we are going to get hit again. we can't be right in lucky all the time come into those who are trying to defend us, the one thing i don't want to do is micromanage the war. now here's the political dynamic.

you have got people on the left who hate the idea of saying the war on terror. to if you left it up to them, theye would never ever use the military. they would always insist that ty the law enforcement model be used because they don't buy into the idea that we are at war.t ws so you have one part of the country, a minority, that wants to criminalize the war and if we ever go down that road, will be unto us. you have people ons. my side and senator feinstein you are right about this.er they have gone the other way. if you left itmy up to people at my side they would be a long pass tomorrow. you could never ever read a miranda right to a terrorist. caught anywhere in the united of states.ki i don't agree with that wayng. w thinking. to myf fellow member of the united states military, you have not failed at guantánamo bay. you have not failed, because you

validate the fact that those whn are taking up an oath to defend us when they are put in a peoe position of passing judgment on people accused of trying to kill us all, they will be fair. so when you say that a military commission tribunal at guantánamo bay gave a nine-month sentence and that's a failure, d say as a proud member of thege military, i am proud of the fact that you can judge a case based on the facts and the law and not emotion. so i am very proud of the fact that military commission can do their job just as well as a civilian court and to our federal prosecutors and our i federal juries and our federal judges, i am proud of you too. e we should be using all of the above approach. thereha are times that federal courts are better than militaryn commissions.s there are times that military

commissions are better thanguage federal courts. the 1032 language has nothing to do with what venue you choose. this provision is simple in its concept.hose it is a compromise between thost on the left to who say you must criminalize this war, we areo he really not at war.rcemt you are going to have to use law enforcement model. you can never gather militarylly intelligence, don't really believe that role on the homeland to gather intelligence, which is an absurd context never acknowledge beforl in any other war. when american citizens help the nazis, collaborated with nazis in sabotage not only were they e held this enemyary combatants during world war ii, they were tried by the military commission.t i we no longer allow american citizens to be tried by the t military commissions and io thik that is a recent decision.unit f what we don't want to do is prevent our intelligenceffilted committee from holding an al qaeda affiliated member in

gathering intelligence if the american citizen went to pakistan and god -- and l madrassas and came back to the united states and landed aton dulles airport and started shooting everybody in them all. i believe it is in our national security interest h to give our intelligence community the ability to hold that person and gather intelligence about did another guy coming.at fure what did you do and what future threats do we face is not automatically mirandizing.e t but if they choose to mirandizen him, they can. legis in this legislation we presume military custody but it can be waived. that is the point i'm trying too make.r ve senator levin and mccain have struck a balance a tween one group who m thinks that the military can only be used and s nobody else and another group that says you can never use the military. we have got that balance.ance if you upset this balance you are going to make us not only

less safe, the congress is goino to do things on our watch that r was never done in any other warl a word of warning to mynite colleagues. if you had s a bill on the floor of the united states senate thing we are not going to reads miranda rights to terrorists who are trying to kill us all, 70% of the american public would say heck yes. let me tell you i don't want that bill to come up because i do believe the people who are best able to judge what to do is not any politician. it's the experts in the field fighting this war and we are saying you can wave the presumption of military custody. you can write the rules to wave it but we believe you shouldth t start with that construct and let me read to you what the general counsel for the department of defense said today. top national security in the obama administration say u.s. citizens and our legitimate targets when they take up arms without qaeda. the government lawyers and

pentagon counsel jeb johnson did not address the al-awlaki case, but they saidki u.s. citizens don't have are working out of the states. the present of the united stateo was right to target this american citizen who went to t yemen to help all qaeda. i'm glad we took him out sot wooded he absurd that you can at kill him but you can't detain him? and if you can -- if he came yon here you can question him for. military intelligence gathering so this is a compromise between two forces that i think are well-intended but will take us into a bad policy position. the hard left who wants to say the military has no role for protecting s us on the homeland and some people on my side who say that the law enforcement community can't be an bald at all. so senator levin and senator mccain, you have constructed a concept that provides maximum flexibility. communi you havety got us with theirt

law-enforcement community, starts us with a presumption like but it will not impede any ongoing t investigation. that is the part of thehe bill that was changed. so to my good friend fromhe california, we have got the balance that we have been seeking for five years and tot s me, thisul is what we should bes doing as a nation. creating legislation that allows those who are fighting the war the tools they need. so in this case, you start with a perception of military custo y because that allows you to gather intelligence. domesti under the domestic criminal law you cannot hold someone and asked them about future attacksa because you are investigating a crime. under military law, somebodygage joins i the enemy and engages ih an acte of war against the natin are military intelligenceong asi community can't hold that person what they know about future attacks. if the guy gets off the plane and starts killing people on the

mall, when we grabbed a person l they say i want my lawyer andd they will say you are nottryi to entitled to a lawyer. we we are trying to gather t intelligence. at the of the day use military y commission trials, use federalmd court, at the end of the day read miranda rights and you think that it makes sense butthw you don't have to because the law allows you to hold equal under military custody if you represent a military threat. the law allows you to killitizes american citizens who have joined al qaeda abroad. the allows -- law allows you to hold him in military custody here at home. so i just hope that this comp remise the carl levin and john mccain have crafted and to carl levin, have been in your h shoes. when john and i were on the talking about don't te waterboardrb people. gather intelligence but don't become likeom the anomie. a lot of americans believe that we should waterboard thesed to , people, whatever we need to do'o because they are so vicious and

hateful. john mccain knows better than anybody in this body what it's like to be tortured. i want to protect america without changing who we are andn it has always been the law that when an american citizen takes up arms and joins the enemy that is not a criminal act, that is an act of war. w they can be held and interrogated about what they did and what they know because thats keeps us safe. u if you take that off the table,t with homegrown terrorism becoming the greatest threat we face we love done something nowl other congress has done in any other war. so to senator levin and senatord mccain --.am:o >> senator the original 30evin minutes has expired. d >> to senator mccain and thi senator levin thank you for drafting a compromise that i think speaks to the bust of this country. to my colleagues, please don't upset this bill because you are

going to upset pandora's box. >> madam president? >> the senator from arizona.ldi >> madam president i would just y like to say to both senators walking around the floor, if iti had not been for theirot invaluable effort, this legislation would not have comei about and i thank them for theit incredibly important contributions, using the benefit of experience that both members have. so i yield the floor. >> madam president?idin >> theg of senator from caliform >> i wonder if it i just might take a few minutes to make a couple ofig statements. speeds the senator fromo michigan. >> i have no objection at all but i think maybe we now ought toio return to morning businessk >> no objection at all. >> thank you. i will be very quick. that i wanted towi add that with respect to abdulmutallab, what was very new there was that an

explosive had been invented tham could go through a magnetometert without detection and this was to my knowledge the first time anyone came into the unitedn states, this young nigerian from a very prominent nigerian family, came in wearing a diaper that had enough of this tet end, this new explosive, to blow up u thep plane. he missed the detonation but itt he caught on fire in the fire was put out. to there've been other incidents of trying to smuggle this petn and cartridgespu of computers. we even had dogged going to thes airport andme theyll could not l the explosives inside of the computer cartridge. that was in dubai. it's a very dangerous explosive. it was new.methg it had been improved and it is something we need to be very wary about.

i also want to point out that there is a public safety exception to miranda. you did not have two mirandized someone or you can continue to question them if there is a public safety risk, and soly mirandizing an individual really is not a point in this argument in my field because you can continue the interrogation. what is a point in my argument is that the fbi now has confidence. there is a group of special experts that can be flown to a place where someone is arrested and do an initial interrogationd they are and to the best of my knowledgeo they are effective and m interrogating, so my only pointn is, the system is working. i we should keep it as itt is.

>> the senator from michigan.amo >> senator grimm is on the h floor. i would like to have a colloquy with him about this section 1032 which is the section at issue.m what senator graham said by theh way.ecia >> without objection. one >> i very much appreciate his i remarks.that the the one thing he said is the provision for military custody as a beginning.come a starting point and whether he would agree that not only is it a beginning point but it isnl only for the group of people who are determined to be al qaeda or their supporters. >> is not only a presumption that can be weighed based on what the it expert still think, is necessary. the waiver provisions are

incredibly flexible. you do not have to stop andth interrogation to get away from the executive branch rights to a procedure. premp not only is it a presumption that can be weighed, it also isa landed to a very narrow class of people. it has nothing to do with somebody buying gold.abou i don't know about you senator i level, they have been saying you don't let obama put me in jail because i think he is a socialist or you'll be able to t come and grabbed me because of my political views. i just tell my staff, be respectful and read them the language. the only people that need to worry about this provision is at very narrow group of people that are affiliated with al qaeda, and engaged in hostile acts.tors >> with the senator also agree with me that under the provision on page 360, we are told that

the civilian trials arery preferable to military trials or preferable to the detention as an unlawful combatant.mbat would the senator agree, if everyone of those options is open to the executive branch, there is no preference stated one way or the other for which itoa approaches taken to people who are detained. >> not only would i agree thatri 1032, 1031, the compromised language about the statement of authority to detain and military detention as a presumption, has absolutely nothing to do with the opinion. there are people on my site, would yougr agree senator levin, that are chomping at the bit to prohibit from supreme court's to be used in al qaeda driven cases. are you familiar with that? >> i am of the few that we are overly criminalizing the war but

i don't want to adopt that policy, so there is nothing in this language that has anything atit all to do with how you try somebody and what venue you pick. cam i am in the camp, i think you are too senator levin, of and all of the above approach.d i i'm proud of our civilian courts and i'm proud of our military courts. you and i are probably not intht the best position to determine that. let's let the experts do that. >> that is exactly the point madam president and that is,hi this language that is describedt as language that says somehow or other it works against the use of civilian courts, these arege folks who haven't got the language. the language isli exquisite. h. 360 of the bill, lines three through 14 that this position or a person under the law of war may include the following andta then they talk about detention

under the law of war, trial under title x which is the b military trial, transfer to trial by an alternative quarter competentju jurisdiction having lawful jurisdiction, article iii courts, transfer to the company control of the first country of origin. those are the four possibilities. there are no others and there is no preference stated for which of those venues would be selected by the executive branch. mentould the senator yield? is this a fair statement, thatet if it was your goal to prevent military commissions from ever being used, you didn't get your way in this legislation. if it was your goal to mandate the military commissions are thu only venue to be used you didn't get your way in this legislation because this legislation doesn't speak to that issue at all. >> that is absolutely true.ethit

nell senator grimm brought to the floor something that was stateds this morning by our topk lawyers of the obama lte administration and i think everybody ought to listen to this. there is so muchus confusion abt what is in this bill and what isn't. a right now there is authority to detain u.s. citizens. that authority exists right nowt that is not me saying it. that is the supreme court that has said it as recently as hamdi when they said and i'm quoting, there is no bar that this nation isci holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.e therent is no bar. that is the current law.o that is the supreme court saying that in the supreme court also said in h hamdi that they see no reason for drawing a line

because a citizen no less than an alien can be part of supporting forces hostile to thn united states for coalition partners and engaged in an armed conflict against the united t states.pres the tot p lawyers for the president this morning acknowledged, and i wish everyone of our colleagues coule hear what senator grimm brought to the floor. top national security say u.s.ak citizens are legitimate targets when they take up arms with als qaeda. to now, are we then going to adopto an amendment which says to al qaeda, if you attack us oversead you are subject to military -- but if you come here and attack us you are not subject to's w military intervention.amdm enthat is what the feinstein ser amendment says. >> senator levin if i may justy

add, not only is that the effect, that would be a change in the law because do you agree with me o that in other conflicr prior to the one we are in citin today, american citizens bee unfortunately have it involved in aiding the enemy?mrgr >> i'm sorry, i was distracted.n >> you agree with me than prior wars american citizens have been involved in aiding the enemy and their time? t >> they have. they been held accountable. >> the site which hamdi cited and confirmed was a fact pattert in what follows. you have german saboteurs. some lived in america before they went back to germany. i think one or two may have been an american citizen that landed on our shores with a plot to blow up different parts of coue america and during the course of their efforts, american citizens aided the nazis and the supreme

court said that when an americas citizen shows to help the nazis here at home on our homeland, they were considered to be an enemy belligerent regardless ofp their citizenship and we could detain one of our own when they side with the enemy. >> there was a naturalized citizen involved and wasas arrested as i understand it onsn long island, who was charged ine with crimes involving aiding and supporting the enemy. >> now let's talk about the world in whichwo we live in tod. >> and military detention. >> yeah, derived by military commission. >> and by the way executed.mr. h >> you and i long with herwe colleague said that military commissions cannot be used to try american citizens. >> that is correct. >> our military said they didn't want that authority. wte they want to deal with enemy combatants whennt it comes toal military commission trials but our military cia and f. d. iood have all understood that their

power to detain for intelligence gathering purposes is an important power. it's not an exclusive power so l let's talk about today's threatr the likelihood of home grown terrorism is growing. do you agree with that? homegrown terrorist isle becomig a bigger problem. >> is an issue. >> so where an american citizen goes to pakistan and gets radicalized in madrassas, gets on the plane and flies back to e dulles airport, gets off the as plane and takes up arms against his own fellow citizens, those at the mall start randomly shooting people that the law that we are trying to reserve that if the experts decide it's in theere nation's best interest they can hold that american citizen likeg they were able to hold the

american citizen helping the nazis and gatherlr intelligence. that is the right already givenk in senator feinstein's amendment even though i don't think it's well-written, could possibly take that away, that 1031. to what we are saying is that we want to preserve the ability of the intelligence community to hold that person under the lawui of war andhe find out is there anybody else coming? are you the only one coming?hat what do you know? what madrassas did you go to? d how did y you get over?how d how did you get that?serv we want to observe their abilitw to hold that person under the ao law for interrogation but we's also can see if they think it is better to give them their mirandair rights again and thats what this legislation does that we have created. do you agree with that? >> i do. and the top lawyers of the administration acknowledged ashe much this morning when they saiy u.s. citizens are legitimate

military targets when they take up arms with al qaeda. the provision where talking about in section 1032 which senator feinstein would modify so that is only al qaeda abroad that would be subject to this -s >> but al qaeda would come here. by the way they are not citizens and not even covered by that. the florida al qaeda fighters that would come here to attack us are not going to be subjectiy to that presumption of military detention which again can bethin waived. t it has nothing to do with whatti venue they are tried in.ice the of administration, executive has total choice on it's just whether not we aresu going to starmpt with an assumption that if you are determined to beat al qaeda, ifa you are a foreign al qaeda person you sure as heck ought to be subject to that same assumption whether you attack us here or whether you attack ustor

overseas. >> senator levin wouldn't it be kind of hard to explain to your constituents that our top lawyers in the pentagon and cia said today that once you decide to help al qaeda as an american citizen you can be killed in a f drone attack and the congress somehow says well, pay but you can't be detained.ouldt >> i would want to try to hold -- i wouldn't want to try to hold that position. >> you believe that america is part of the battlefield on the war on terror? w >> it has been made part of theo battlefield without any doubt. b september 11, the war wasa brought here by al qaeda and tou suggest that the foreign al qaeda members should not be subject to an assumption tohe begin with. if they are determined to be al qaeda, that they are going to be detained, that we should not start with that

subject of procedures which the administration of dobbs is totally in their hands. it cannot interfere with thein civiliante interrogation. it cannot interfere with civilian intelligence. we are very specific about it. the procedures are written by t the executive branch.where they can try t them anywhere thy want, but you bring a war here,, you bring a war here. we are going to create an assumption that you can beo subject and are going to be subject to military detention. >> well my belief is that most americans would want our military being able to come back to al qaeda at home as much asld they would have brought. i think most americans would be very upset to hear that the military has no reallyy role inb combating al qaeda on our own shows but you can do anything hd wants to them overseas. do what you and i have tried to do quite frankly is, there there are people on our side, very good people who want to mandate that the military has custody and no one else so we never have

to read miranda rights and quite frankly there arope people on tr left and, libertarians, well-meaning people, who want ti prevent the idea of a person th being held under military custody here inhe the homeland t because they don't think we aret at war and this is really not the battlefield.th what we have done is started with a presumption that focuses on intelligence gathering because you and i are more worried about what they knowhan about future attacks and how you are going tond prosecute them.an in other domestic criminal lawhd you can't hold someonebout indefinitely. the public safety dimension, we'll talk to that and a little bit. v the public safety exception was a very temporary ability to secure a crime scene.egarding it was not written regardingff terrorism soic our law enforcemt officials cannot use the public safety exception to hold an al qaeda operative for days and question them. the only way you can do that legally is under the law of war and every other war you have hao that right.t. we are about to change that so o would just say to my college --r

>> and if i could interrupt, we have that right abroad against members of al qaeda but under this approach, we would not be able to assume that military detention here at home.ions subject to waiver, subject to i all the othern perceptions we have.le >> let's just keep talking about because the more you talk about the more interesting the whole concept becomes. the last time i look there is no really civilian jail overseas so when you capture a terroriste yn overseas, the only place you cat detain them is in military custody. if they make it here at home, say the military can't hold a person and interrogate them under the law of war, the onlyf way you can hold an al qaedaer operative who made it toaeda america's under the lawhe enforcement model. this is not dragnet. we are trying systems are preserve starting with a presumption of intelligence giving and here's the key distinction turned.ncti.

to my colleagues or worry about how you prosecute someone, that is really the least of my m concerns. i have confidence in ourcern civilianed system but aren't you concerned most of all senator cu levin that when we capture one of these operatives on our shores or abroad, that we holdhu them in a humane fashion but a fashion together, intelligence so that we may find out. imagine if we got one of thee 9/11 b hijackers. wouldn't it haveab been nice toe able to find out if there was ns another plane coming and hold them as long as necessary to get that information humanely? into say that you can't't do tht really makes us a lot less safe. >> you could do that if you capture them and afghanistan bud here you are going to be treating them differently.it it ought to be probably the reverse. people bringing the war here

seems t to be at a minimum, note be subject to the same rules ofl interrogation as they would be if they were captured part of an qaeda and afghanistan. i don't understand the theory behind this. as a matter of fact, when wef adopted the authorization for use of military force, when we adopted that, it would seem to me that f the first people thate would want to apply theul authority of that authorization would be ald qaeda members. t >> and that's the only group subject to this provision.nly >> the only group that that is protective. >> but i mean this protection we wrote -- you are not going to be put in jail because you disagree with lindseyou graham or barack obamw we are trying to fight a war here. are >> i would say something even more basic. w it is my political interests quite frankly, being from southh carolina, a verye conservativetk state, great people, to go home

and say i've supported legislation to make sure these terrorists are coming here to kill us, never been able to say you have the right to remainth silent, and they would cheer. the worst thing that t could happen to our guys caught byy these thugs and barbarians is ba that theyri would get waterboarded. they would get their heads cut off and you have all these people worrying about how we treat them, trying to find out a way to protect the country. p that would be in my politicallde interests and i'm sure would be in our political interest as they wait a minute we don't want to militarize this conflict. at the end of the day to think that i want to say about you and mccain is one is a warrior who has experienced worse than waterboarding and doesn't want that to be part of his country's way of doinge business.om the other is someone who is a very progressive, solid left of center for years.

i am a military lawyer who comes from a very conservative state.g i wantht to fight this war. i don't want believe we are fighting a crime but i want to fight it in a way that doesn't come back to haunt d us.ystem i don't want to create a system on our a watch that could come back and haunt our own people. i don't want to say that everyto enemy prisoner in this war had to go to trial because what if one of our guys are captured in a future war? do we want them to be considered a war criminal just because thea were fighting for the united states?o so what we are trying to do here is create policy that is as flexible as follows -- possible that understands the difference between fighting a war and fighting crime. >> those remarks from yesterday on the senate floor and that debate on the feinstein amendment, naked in a vote for senators voting to reject the amendment. the defense authorization bill itself was approved by the

senate last night and a vote of 93-7 with detainee related provisions included. this sets the stage iv a possible battle over the detainee issue with the houses both chambers will need to work on a compromise measure before the holiday break. there is an article in cq today that looks at it and reading from it, the senate house version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill cover similar ground on detainees, each attempting to provide a mandate that would shift to the person venue for custody from civilian law enforcement to the military. the house version though would require military commission trials from all accused terrorist and bar transfers of any terror suspect held anywhere in the world in the united states and it would toughen the review process for those held and restrict the transfer suspects to other nations. a little bit further down in the article there is a recognition by lawmakers that the issues could be carefully reviewed by the public and likely the supreme court. again that article by frank all a very and megan scully at cq

today. coming up next the house energy and commerce subcommittee looks at the keystone xl pipeline proposal. this is part of a series of hearings entitled the american energy initiative. the initiative seeks to highlight gas prices and the need to expand america's energy production. that is the hearing coming up shortly. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of this jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's pledge in the 1972 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon but his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on c-span's the contenders from the mcgovern center for

leadership in mitchell, south dakota live tonight at 8:00 eastern. ..

>> and live to capitol hill for the house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing on the keystone xl pipeline proposal. testified before the subcommittee will be very cents at unions and organizations that advocate u.s. energy independence from foreign suppliers. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]sation] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i call today's hearing to order. today's hearing on the keystone xl pipeline is a direct response to the administration's failure to issue a permit to build this pipeline. earlier this year the obama administration led us to believe they would make a decision on the pipeline by december 31,

2011. now, the administration says they are incapable of making a decision the 42013. and i might add that the original application was filed in april 2008. in the meantime tens of thousands of american workers are forced to wait at least another year or possibly the most shovel-ready of all projects. the announcement to delay a decision until after next year's election, to me, it appears to be blatantly political. the president had a golden opportunity to take bold action and create jobs for america, and he declined to do so. it appears that he is a pleasing environmentalists in casting aside the opportunities to create jobs. opponents of the keystone pipeline continually deceive the

public with a series of misguided statements such as how pipelines transporting diluted bitumen are dangerous. or that the pipeline will increase gasoline prices, or how killing the pipeline stopped oil sands production. rather than confront those opinions with my own words, i want to simply read a series of quotes. having candid as a supplier of our oil is much more comforting than having other countries supply our oil, secretary of energy steven chu. most synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen are similar in composition and quality to the crude oils currently transported in pipelines in the u.s. and being refined in gulf coast refineries. that was in the state department's final environmental impact statement. gasoline prices and oil markets

served by the gulf coast an east coast refiners would decrease, including the midwest. there was a deputy assistant secretary of energy for policy analysis, carmine giglio. it's a bit naïve to think the oil sands would not be developed if they don't build that pipeline. that was former white house economic adviser goolsbee. so while the presidents own advisers make numerous statements about the keystone pipeline that completely rebuffed all arguments against it, why does the administration insist on waiting another minimum of 12-15 months to make a decision on this project? but even without the answers i think it's very safe to assume this latest delay has nothing to do with pipeline safety, oil production rate in the state of nebraska. instead, it has everything to do with appeasing a small vocal group of opponents to this

project. we in congress like the president make policy decisions based on our best information and best judgment. most important decisions that we make involved economic and policy risks. then since the president did not act, congress in my view must act. and if we do nothing, the american people will have to wait at least another year until after the election to enjoy the benefit of the energy security in jobs that the pipeline can bring. so we must find a way forward and we must find it fast. and today we want to explore what the pipeline means to our job creation and the economy. we want to know what remains of the review process and how it can be corrected. i might also say that the pipeline has this material safety administration has suggested 57 additional safety measures for this pipeline.

which transcanada has agreed to me. this is the most technical -- technologically advanced in state object ever proposed in a 16,000 data points along its 1661-mile road. to monitor flow rate and pressure and detect leaks. that's a sensor for every 500 repeat. i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today to explore this important project, and we look forward to your testimony. and at this time i would like to yield in time and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. rush, for his opening statement. >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and today we're holding a hearing to discuss ways to force the obama administration to restlessly and expeditiously make a decision on

the keystone xl pipeline. even after the republican-controlled legislature and the governor in nebraska just recently voted to reroute the pipeline away from the ecological sensitive sand hills region in the district. as i understand it, mr. chairman, the bill was just signed into law two weeks ago on november 22, i might add. and it formalizes the states to conduct its own supplemental environmental review of a yet to be determined new route for the

pipeline, and that state and local review would not even be completed before mid-to-late 2012. mr. chairman, it's hard for me to believe that the party that solves the state's rights want trample over the rights of the state of nebraska. mr. chairman, i believe it is entirely appropriate, even necessary, for the administration to conduct a thorough review of the pipeline new proposed route before the issue a final decision. we all understand that other current republican republican majority in the congress, issues such as environmental protection safety laws and health safeguards are all secondary and important to a lowering industry to move forward unfettered and

unrestricted. but i for one believe that the obama administration is asking -- [inaudible] as the law requires and allowing the state of nebraska to conduct its own environmental review of the new route, making its own decision on this new proposed route your if this was surely about jobs for my republican colleagues, then they would not be trying to stifle each and every aspect of every job creating program that president obama has been making, pleading, and pushing the congress to act on, including new infrastructure projects which would put

thousands of construction workers back to work. if this committee, my republican colleagues wanted to work on creating jobs, then why not support the american jobs act? it appears to me that this is just one more of a long line of opportunities for my republican colleagues to try to hammer the obama administration and portray the president as not doing enough to spur job creation when, in fact, it is the majority party in this house, your party, mr. chairman, who have not, who have stated it is their number one priority, the highest priority, their main goal is to make president obama fail, regardless of how it

effects the rest of the country. with that said, mr. chairman, i am very interested to hear from all of our panelists on the issue of jobs, stemming from this pipeline, as well as the research and development of bringing alternatives to the fuel project. mr. chairman, ideal the rest of my time to mr. green of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank my ranking member four-line be to issue a statement. i'm extreme adjustment with the state department's announcement of additional lay -- to lay at least 15 months to grant a permit of xl pipeline. it's been 38 months, three years and too much since transcanada first found an application to the department of state to build and operate the keys and project. this demonstrates its already extensive review has gone towards the project in the other international pipelines were granted with an 18-24 months but

it's in a national interest of a secure stable source of crude oil. now there are thousands of jobs online at our economy still needs, is still trying to recover. i represent five refineries in the houston area who would like to be a customer of our closest neighbor to the north. i'm disappointed with the direction the administration has taken a note the project can afford this unnecessary delay. unfortunately, i do know are construction workers cannot afford delay. mr. chairman, i appreciate you inviting all my friends to the witnesses today before our committee. my hope is the skin will develop thoughtful bipartisan legislation that can pass both the house and senate. this issue has become so contentious and yet simply about jobs and energy security. we have worked together on this in the past and hopefully we will continue to work on it, and i thank the gentleman. >> i recognize the chairman of the full committee mr. upton for his opening statement. >> i want to thank you for registering. although it's a hearing i wish was not necessary. four months the white house assured us the final decision on keystone xl pipeline would come by the end of 2011.

earlier legislation on house floor to guarantee a timely decision on the long overdue project, formal statement of administration policy called the bill unnecessary because the state department was committed to reaching a decision by december 31. then as we know last month the white house announced what many of us had feared, that this administration had no intention of making a decision on his final project. you see, the longer the project has been delayed, about the advocates and detractors have become? while environmentalists waged an aggressive campaign against the pipeline in a futile attempt to halt oil sands production, it will continue regardless of this decision. workers represented by some of today's witnesses are clamoring for the image job creation potential of the pipeline. i'm willing to take positions the white house simply put it off until after the presidential election next november. and just a few yards and scored

the go ahead touchdown the administration called the 14 month timeout. president had a chance to greenlight a private sector project that would immediately create 20,000, pretty high wage construction jobs strengthen our nation's energy security, and create perhaps as many as another additional 118,000 spinoff jobs. but he didn't do that. it's a place election-year politics perhaps about jobs and the good of the country. the president has been using the slogan, we can't wait as he travels around the country. but wait is exactly told the workers who want to build and support the pipeline. weight is what he told families and industries looking for secure reliable energy supplies as unfortunate this could last forever. that's because another lengthy delay could, in fact, kill the project. at least for the united states. we are not the only country in need of canada's oil supplies to enter northern northern neighbor could very well look to other

customers around the globe if we continue to stall. canadian prime minister stephen harper recently talked about, and ago, the necessity of candidate making sure that we're able to access asian markets for our energy products. saying that will be an important priority of his government going forward, particularly if we continue to say no. this pipeline is ever opportunity for us to access energy from our closest friend and ally, canada. reduced depends on less reliable sources such as venezuela, nigeria, the middle east. have we learned nothing since 1973? a steady stream of oil from canada, north dakota and montana delivered to u.s. refineries at the lowest transportation cost could help stabilize not only u.s. oil prices but also the price of gas and other refined products. it just makes sense to keep the refining here at home, which means jobs and stable supplies. i recently visited a pipe

manufacture who has miles of pipe ready to go for use on this very pipeline. without a decision it is his idol any stockyard waiting for the white house to do the right thing, waiting for the white house to take american workers off the bench and say yes to a project that not only creates american jobs, but also increases our energy security. today's hearing allows us to discuss where we go from here, take a closer look at this pipeline, thomas for job creation, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. i yield about to buy time to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. >> thank the chairman for yielding something to me. this is about jobs. good, high-paying labor jobs. and i think we have a good solution going forward, a bill that will be introduced after this hearing today with the support of full committee chair, subcommittee chair, and i think

everybody that a sitting here right now. which would recognize nebraska's compromise to move the pipeline off of the sand hills area and reroute it. it is the goal of those that are engaged in the negotiations, our state legislature, deq, governor's office, transcanada, that they think they could have the environmental study finished within about six months. frankly, it's a move of about 50 or 60 miles off of some sensitive area. it's a good compromise. so the bill that i'm introducing with the support of the people i just mentioned recognizes that when the nebraska department of environmental quality is finished, they will submit that in according to our legislation to for who is the expert, agency and pipeline and understand pipeline safety and will

understand much greater than the state department's about pipeline safety and then we'll have a shot clock of 30 days to review that supplemental to the supplemental to the eis. to determine whether it's appropriate and will issue the permit. the point of this is to avoid the politics and get to the jobs. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time i recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman of california for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we all want more jobs. that's why i support and i think probably all of our witnesses support the president a jobs program, which is being blocked by the republicans because they don't want it to be paid for by any increases on taxes for billionaires in this country. instead, they want to get jobs from areas that benefit some of their best friends.

the oil companies particularly. my greatest concern is the keystone xl would make us more reliant on the dirtiest source of fuel currently available and a lifecycle basis tar sands, in it far more carbon pollution than conventional oil, almost 40% by some of, by some estimates. what this pipeline would do is carry a sledge made in canadian tar sands through the middle of america, 2000-mile pipeline. that's because they take huge amounts of energy to take something of a consistency of tar which they mine in canada and turn it into a synthetic oil. we should be reducing our oil dependency and choosing cleaner fuels, a keystone is a big step in the opposite direction. by moving tar sands oil to the gulf coast refineries, a

keystone xl pipeline would open world markets to tar sands oil. the pipeline would remove existing constraint on tar sands production, dramatically increasing carbon pollution for decades. it would be the equivalent to building five large coal-fired power plants. last month the international and energy agency issued its authoritative world energy outlook for 2011. i.e. a found that in just five years, business as usual investment in energy infrastructure will lock in in have carbon pollution to commit the world to potentially devastating warming of 11 degrees fahrenheit, or more. the iea's chief economist called such an outcome quote, a catastrophe for all of us, end quote. we face a choice. business as usual and climate

catastrophe, or making the necessary changes in our energy infrastructure to mitigate the damage. keystone xl is the wrong choice. supporters of this project make a number of arguments that just don't stand up to scrutiny. they say this pipeline will enhance energy security for the united states, but the department of energy found that we will have access pipeline capacity from canada for the next decade or more, even without keystone xl. and there's nothing to stop gulf coast refineries from simply exporting the refined product. that doesn't improve our energy security. the obama administration's fuel economy standards will do more to boost our energy security by saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil while saving consumers money at the pump. yet the republicans, some

republicans are beating out the obama administration for establishing these fuel economy standards. supporters also say if we don't bill keystone xl the oil will go west to asia. there are legal and political hurdles for a large new pipeline to canada's west coast and kludgy unified opposition from more than 70 first nations with aboriginal land and water rights in the pipeline route. de facto tanker ban also exists off the british columbia coast. ngm alberta's energy minister said that absent new pipelines quote, our greatest risk in alberta is that by 2020 will be landlocked, end quote. one argument we hear today is legitimate. the project would produce several thousand short-term construction jobs. it's on all of our minds and

should be on the minds of our witnesses today. people in this country need jobs, particularly in the hard hit construction industry. but with this project we will be paying a very high price over a very long time for some short-term benefits. instead, we should be focusing on good clean energy jobs that are going to last. there's going to be $38 trillion invested in new energy infrastructure over the next 20 years. our new economic growth and our national security will determine whether we succeed in building these new industries. i support the administration's decision to take some additional time to do a thorough evaluation of the climate and other environment and fax of this proposed pipeline. it's imperative we start to move to a clean energy economy now. keystone xl will take us in the opposite direction. i yield back to time. mr. chairman, i would like to

ask unanimous consent to have my full statement be made as a part of the record. and further i'd like to ask unanimous consent that we entered into the record written statement from the transport workers union of america and the cornell universities local labor institute, the transport workers union testimony discusses the reasons for their opposition to the keystone xl pipeline, and the global testimony discusses their analysis of the jafa estimate associated with this project. the institute's conclusion is that the pipeline will produce far fewer jobs than has been claimed. >> without objection. and it also like to ask unanimous consent that a rebuttal of a cornell university study by dr. baily perryman, be placed in the record as well. at this time like to introduce our witnesses. we do thank you very much for taking time to be with us today

on this very important issue. we have with us today mr. alex pourbaix. we have mr. brent booker who's the director of the construction department for laborers international union of north america. we have mr. jeffrey soth was the assistant director, department of legislative and political affairs and international union of operating engineers. we have mr. david barnett, who is a special representative, united association of journeyman and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry of the united states and canada, pipeline division. we have mr. bruce burden he was international representative for the international brotherhood of electrical workers. we have mr. jerome ringo who's the chief business officer of

bard holdings incorporated. and then we have ms. jane kleeb, executive director of bold nebraska. so once again, we welcome all of you. we're going to recognize each one of you for five minutes for your opening statement. on the front, in the middle of the desk is a little light. when it goes red in your five minutes are up. so we will try to get to these opening statements before we have boats on the floor, and i don't know if we will be successful or not, but mr. pourbaix, i will recognize you for five minutes for your opening statement. >> be sure to put your microphone on. >> transcanada is a $50 billion energy infrastructure company with more than 60 years of experience and responsible to feldman and reliable operation that north american energy infrastructure.

we employ over 4200 employees with half of those employers in the united states. in addition, we operate the largest gas pipeline system in north america, over 40,000 miles, with the capability transport 20% of the natural gas produced in north america every day. keystone will bring many benefits to the united states but i believe the most important role that keystone will play is to bring energy security to the united states during what has been recently some very unsettling times overseas. when you boil down to debate on this project i believe it comes down to a simple question for americans, do they want secure stable oil from a friendly neighbor in canada? or do they want to continue to import high price conflict oil from unfriendly regions such as the middle east or venezuela? keystone xl will help secure that stable supply of oil by thanking canadian and u.s. crude supplies with the largest refining markets in the u.s. canada's oil reserves are fast,

175 billion barrels. this compares to the united states reserves of 21 billion barrels. i think a lot of people forget that while transporting often can't keystone will also transport domestic u.s. crude oil. we expect move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from the north dakota and montana area to cushion in the gulf coast, and we further expect to pick up 150,000 barrels of oil from cushing to transfer that to the gulf coast. growing domestic u.s. oil production has long been a goal of the united states at this production cannot go effectively if it cannot reach market. the fact that his pipeline access is it is apparent to the very significant for a discount that u.s. because the producers have been receiving for their production. this project will also create valuable jobs for americans. construction of a segment from cushing to the gulf coast would've created over 4000 construction jobs next year in kansas, oklahoma, and texas.

these are high-paying jobs. pipefitters and welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators. construction of the northern segment through montana, south dakota and nebraska would have created an additional 9000 construction jobs. on top of that there are 7000 manufacturing jobs associated with this project. 20,000 jobs in all. these thousands of direct construction jobs were planned to begin next year. the majority of them were union jobs. they would've started on a couple of months from now. contracts and subcontracts have already been awarded to dozens of u.s. companies. americans were hired and ready to go to work. local businesses along the route would've also benefited from 118,000 spinoff jobs key so we have created through increased business for local restaurants, hotels and suppliers. keystone is expected to add $20 billion to the u.s. economy and the project will pay over half a billion dollars in taxes

just during construction alone. the need for prompt approval of the keystone project is particularly crucial today when u.s. consumers are struggling to cope with the high cost of gasoline. specifically the mr. chairman, approach has get billy to reduce by almost 50% u.s. dependence on opec oil supply. the type of canadian crude that keystone with the ship is very similar to the heavy crude that is already refined by gulf coast refiners to canadian oil is not new or different. at present more than 2 million barrels a day is imported and refined all over the u.s. i want to take one minute to talk about pipeline safety. many people have talked about pipeline safety and i want to assure everybody that one of transcanada's core value is to assure the safety of our facilities for our employees and the communities that we could do. keystone will be safe. we are using the latest technologies and the strongest steel pipe to build a pipeline.

we have agreed to implement 57 additional pipeline safety and integrity conditions that significantly exceed the current federal standards. they include such requirements as bearing the pipe deeper underground, more inspection placing more insulation bows along the route. this pipeline will be monitored 24 hours a day seven days a week. we have 21,000 data points along the entire route of the pipeline that are thank you satellites which she did her control center every five seconds. if any of these sensors detect a drop in pressure, the control center will remotely close files isolating the line and shutting it down within minutes. i want to emphasize that the project has already gone through a thorough review process. this has been by far the most exhaustive and detailed review every conducted at a crude oil pipeline in the u.s. in fact, the state department concluded that keystone xl would be the safest pipeline ever constructed in the u.s.

we submitted our presidential permit 40 months ago and are now faced with a potential delay of a further 12 months or more bring the total time prefer this process to 50 months. the length of this review was unprecedented and would certainly be on anyone's reasonable expectation. >> the gentleman's time has expired if you want to conclude. >> i'm happy to do so. once again, just to finish off, the fundamentals of this project has not change. keystone will help reduce the u.s. reliance on higher priced unstable foreign oil from venezuela and the middle east and replace it with secure supplies from canada. we're going to agree 20,000 american jobs at a time when unemployment is needed. this project is needed. the benefits are clear. the time is actually of the essence to receive the approvals we need so americans can begin to experience the benefits of keystone. we can create jobs immediately and we very much would like to get started. thank you. >> thank you very much.

i wasn't aware of it, we do have a vote on the floor right now. we have about three minutes left in the vote. we are going to have a total of about seven boats, which means we will probably be an hour before we get back. so i want to apologize to you in advance. we do have some marvelous delicatessens downstairs where you can get yogurt and drinks and cookies. [inaudible] >> mr. rush said on my dime. [laughter] but anyway, we look forward to hearing all of your testimony when we come back, and then we will resume, we will start our questioning. thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> so as you heard, a break in this hearing on the proposed xl pipeline from canada to texas. members taking a break to head over to the house chamber for boats on amendments to small business legislation. could be as many as seven boats, so it will likely be about an hour as you heard the cheers a before this hearing will resume. so the meantime we will take your phone calls from this voice "washington journal."

we will begin with the awfully in the washing and the at times rather with their stored on the senate rejection of the two payroll tax holiday extension. democrats look to payroll issues for upper hand seek extension of cuts hoping to paint gop as favoring the wealthy to build it. she writes after struggling all year for an economic message that resonates broad array of americans in our times president obama

politically democrats believe they have already won the latest and some excess but republicans acknowledged they are losing the exchange. party leaders have worked to bring the rank-and-file in line behind a tax cut. politico this morning adds more credence to the report. party of no to suggest, ready ready to say yes. tax package come together despite gripes from conservatives, and gop. as evidence of that let's listen to what house speaker john boehner has to say about the payroll tax holiday extension. >> i do believe that there's enough common ground between where the white house and democrats are and where republicans are for us to move this legislation and to do so quickly. i don't think there's any

question that the payroll tax relief, and that helps the economy. you're allowing more americans, frankly every working american to keep more of their money in their pocket. and, frankly, that's a good thing. >> host: last night in the senate all of the republicans say for maine's senator voted against the democrat proposal. and when the republican proposal was put forward, 26 republicans voted against their own proposal. it failed by a vote of 78-20. here are the same republicans who voted against their proposal. as we look at that will listen to our first call on open funds from new haven, connecticut. new haven ohio it is. good morning, mike, independent. >> caller: i'm just stunned. i've been busy working at everything and just recently found out about this 7.7 train

we get to the banks without hearings or thing like that. i just can't believe this. and another thing that i am -- dumb thousand is how does washington, our congressional leaders figure that insider trading doesn't even affect them? especially when their staffers and them are privy to all this information even before we are, even stock exchange? think anybody wants to know why we are in trouble, you know? i'm just, i'm sorry. >> host: new york is next on open phones. this is charlie. charlie is republican. what's on your mind today. >> caller: i would like to comment on the statement you did a few weeks ago on the ie aa report on iran's nuclear program. because the "washington journal" lacks civility and intellectual honesty, you have nothing now that an audience of treasonous

liberals who support a terrorist state over their own country. >> host: charlie, all the treasonous liberals are listening who would like to respond to your characterization of it will have an opportunity after your call. next up is greenwood indiana. democrat, good morning to you. >> caller: [inaudible] somebody going to vote for them, washington. thank you. >> host: let's take a quick look at the front page of the "washington post" for some other stories. first on the presidential campaign. gingrich offers up a bundle of big ideas. parallel systems, firing of judges among plans to draw skepticism. that is the "washington post." there are two social security

system, one old, when the running side-by-side. there are two taxes and got two versions of medicare it immigration decision are handling citizens across the country and in the white house the president eager to do battle with the judicial branch. the arcade stories today signs of a shift in central shift in europe. ecp chief lives to bolder action. ahead of european central bank signaled thursday thursday the institution might want to take more aggressive steps than the region's debt crisis but only if the 17 nations that share the euro deny behind a plan that contained years of runaway spending. also on the front page we see lots of coverage of this injuries news organizations that secretary clinton, u.s. extend they were handpicked open phones friday. next call is from san diego. good morning, your honor. >> caller: yes, i just want to

clarify basically people that are doing insider trading and congress throughout the whole and entire federal system. is an easy way to declare and doing it right or wrong. they simply, i feel, a conflict of interest. for example, in order to vote on any bill regarding if it's going to -- they just need to opt out of the vote. the reason i'm saying this is they simplify out of san diego, some of the mayors and what have you, and one particular one had farmland regarding some insects but one gentleman had farmland, therefore he opt out of the vote in courtesy of the people not having a conflict of interest. in other words, if anybody is involved with any bill that passing, it seems quite clear that they should have any access to any part of them so they need to opt out of the vote. i think that was help quite

indefinitely instead of attacking massive bureaucracy to the insider trading rules, they simply don't have any say in the issue himself. so i think that would become if they concentrated on that, if you're voting benefits, it might be quite feasible, honest and fair for what they took the oath for if they're going to benefit from something, they need to opt out of the about. either up front, sage of interest, therefore they are not legitimate to be our senators. >> host: thanks. conference ended with this market a second caller concerned about insider trading charges in congress. let's take a look at the "baltimore sun" this morning. a pakistan story continues to berkeley. pakistan not backing down as the headline on the story. outlook wants to sever ties with the u.s. government forces take a harder line.

the rights pakistan and the u.s. have been your before followed by saber rattling of commissions and move behind the scene to patch things up next on open phones, new york city, a democrat, you're on the air tractor i just want to make a comment to all those other

people that continue to vote against himself. >> host: we will move on. photograph from last night lighting ceremony of the national christmas tree. and the "washington post" the "washington post" medical page this morning, the president and cash on this, president obama touches his daughter's nose as the family sings rudolph the red nose reindeer on thursday at the annual lighting of the national christmas tree. next up is dawn, an independent. good morning. you on the air. >> caller: i'm also calling about insider trading, and everything else illegal our good friends in congress are doing. there's no laws that's been on the books for i don't know how many years, stating that congress and senators cannot pass a law or exempt themselves from laws. that would benefit themselves. i mean, where is our justice department?

where is the fbi? this is ridiculous. we need to set up a system skort, -- systems court. try them, throw them into. 90% of them are guilty. >> host: thank you. again, concerns about insider trading allegations of congress. another first family photo. is from a former first family. this is in "the wall street journal" this morning. mitt romney with ex-president george h. w. bush and his wife barbara at the houston home on thursday. the bushes have not act a candidate as governor romney makes a courtesy call. next up is raleigh, north carolina. and republican. what's on your mind? >> caller: i was just curious why is -- by witnessing coverage in the news over certain situations like stern who is a supporter of the president and also you've got bill payers has come to light now that he

admitted he held a fundraiser. if you read in "the wall street journal," andy stern's statement of how china is beating us because of their perfect communist system, that should raise alarms at one end a state. this was brought out in 2008 with these two individuals around the president composed a lot of others that are hard-core leftists, socialists, and a gentleman earlier was talking about, he wonders why they're such endeavors -- double standard of republican and democrats in congress being able to not be held to the same rule of law that we are. it's called rule class to but a fortunate we have up to now is a leftist radical class. it would be a lot worse than what you see now. i just want to know where is the coverage in the media? as always the leftist need is shooting the president in all his, how would you say, questionable relations. i just wish that people would

get on the internet and get more information. thanks and have a merry christmas. merry christmas to our troops who helped defend our freedom, even though they're being diminished as we speak. >> host: thanks. mentioned the troops, yesterday was the handover ceremony in baghdad, and here's a new trans international page coverage of the ceremonies. the tide of conflict is receiving. this was filed from camp victory. u.s. prepares to turn over its optimistically made military base to iraq. both countries held a solemn commemoration here on thursday of the sacrifices of american and iraqi troops during the eight years of work making the moment, marking the moment in a garish marble palace built by saddam hussein. the ceremony on thursday was not seeking to head over the war which has been winding down which start in '09.

that defend into the last american soldier leaves iraqi soil in the next few weeks. still, the ceremony was freighted with the symbolism of a foreign power's leading, in in occupied countries reclaiming its sovereignty. that's from "the new york times." next up is st. louis. floyd, independent. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i just want to comment on your last dollar. use talk about howard stern and the fact that china -- >> host: actually andy stern, a union leader. >> caller: he was talking about him and what and eastern was trying to say was you can't compete with a communist nation because the salaries over here and the salaries over there are two totally different things. you know, they make change and our. we make a decent salary. and they use children, miners, to do a lot of the work.

and their hours are ungodly, 60, 70 hours. we shouldn't even be trading with china because of that. and another comment i would like to make is, you know, where i live it, there's a lot of tea partiers. and you see nobody talking about payroll tax thing. all they talked about was taxes. the whole time that they have been in existence. and i'm wondering where all the tea party is at? they should be up in arms. thank you and have a good day. >> host: from twitter, 80% say they're dissatisfied with the way things are going in our country today. striking that theme is this from their times as more and. the job was little hope of restoring better days. people across the working spectrum suffer job losses in

recent years. bricklayers and bookkeepers as was workers in manufacturing and manufacturing. but selective fully regained their footing in a slow economy. even though the labor department is expected to report on friday that employers added more than 100,000 jobs in november, a new study shows how their people are like the ones pictured here, who has regained their former lifestyle. the study which was released friday by the center for workforce development and records says 70% of those who lost jobs after the financial crisis have returned to or exceeded their previous financial my stuff. about 18% say the reduction in the incomes has been drastic and will probably be permanent. next up is columbia pennsylvania. democrat. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, c-span. what i was wanted to talk about

is the republicans want you to vote for, but they want to take away unemployment, medicare, medicaid, all social programs so they can give the money to the rich. and i'm fed up with it. >> host: thanks. "washington times" front page. ..

you can see washington journal every morning on our companion network c-span's starting 7 a.m. eastern. we will leave the segment here and go live now to remarks from former president bill clinton and president obama. they are talking about energy policy. >> there are a lot of firms that are going to lose really skilled and gifted workers. if they can't find something to do because it's hard for new buildings today there for the best opportunity to preserve and rebuild the sector is through greater energy efficiency. i want to thank all the people that have been involved in this coming and mr. president, i just want to say how grateful i am

for the meeting we just attended. the president's jobs council and economic team put together a meeting for people there and he will tell you what they said they would do. but i hate to sound like a broken record. we can create an unlimited number of jobs out of this even in this lousy economy, even with all of this embedded mortgage crisis if we can work out financing, and all i am grateful to be able to support this to offer the continued effort of the climate change project and the clinton global initiative to help the partners we have that are involved in this and anybody else that wants it. but i'm especially grateful that the president didn't let this fall through the cracks. i haven't been in that job for a long time and i getting older, but i have some memory left, and

a thousand people ask you to do a thousand things, and one of the tests of whether things work out or not since you can't do all thousand is whether you can actually set up a process to do things and follow-up, and i am full of gratitude and praise, mr. president, for you and your whole team. not just for your commitment to clean energy but to energy efficiency, which gives you on buildings like this averages 7,000 jobs for every billion dollars invested. by far greatest bank for the bulk of any available investment i know. so thank you, tom, ricky, randy and mr. president. thanks for giving me a chance to work on this. >> well, good morning, everybody. i want to first of all thank tnt and tom for their participation,

and i am thrilled that president clinton has been willing to take this on as he pointed out partly thanks to me he is home alone too often and this has been a passion for him for quite some time, so i'm very grateful for his involvement. i thank everybody at trans western and all the folks that have participated here for giving us this remarkable tour. there are the equivalent of 250 full-time workers as a consequence of the project is taking place here. it is a win for the business owners and for the temmins of this building. it is a win for the construction workers who are participating, and for the property management that is doing such a great job. so this is a great example of what is possible.

as president, my most pressing challenge is doing everything i can every single day to get this economy growing faster and create more jobs. this morning we learn that our economy and another 140,000 private sector jobs in november. the unemployment rate went down and despite some strong head winds this year the american economy has now created in the private sector jobs for the past 21 months in a row. that is nearly 3 million new jobs and all and more than half a million over the last four months. so we need to keep that going. right now that means congress needs to extend the payroll tax cut for working americans for another year. congress needs to renew unemployment insurance for americans who are still out there pounding the pavement looking for work. failure to take either of these steps would be a significant

blow to our economy. it would take money out of the pockets of americans who are most likely to spend it and would harm small businesses that depend on the spending. it would be a bad idea and it's noting by the way i noticed some folks on the other side have informed president clinton about it is a bad idea to raise taxes during tough economic times that's precisely why i sought to extend the payroll tax this year and next year. it doesn't mean that we lock in tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i don't think president clinton has been on board for that for perpetuity, but just thought that might be worth mentioning. that's why it's so disappointing last night by the way senate republicans voted to block that payroll tax cut.

that effectively would raise taxes on nearly 160 million hard-working americans because they didn't want to ask if he hundred thousand of the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share and get the economy growing faster than anybody and i think that is unacceptable. we're going to keep pushing congress to make this happen. now was not time to slam the brakes on the recovery. right now. we need to get this done, and i expect it is going to get done before congress leaves. otherwise congress may not be leaving. we can all stand christmas here together. now, our longer-term challenge is rebuilding an economy where hard work is valued and responsibility is rewarded and the middle class are folks trying to get into the middle class regain some security. the economy that is built to compete with the rest of the world and the economy that is built to last and that is why we

are here today in a place where clearly there is some building going on. president clinton, leaders of business, leaders of labor, we are here to announce new steps that are going to create good jobs rebuilding america. this building is in the middle of a retrofitting project to make it more energy efficient. already this retrofit is saving this building $200,000 a year on its energy bills. it would have created 250 full-time jobs in construction here in this building. consider president clinton coming down from new york the fact the owner of the empire state building did the same thing. they are retrofitting that iconic landmark from top to bottom it's a big investment, but will pay for itself by saving them for $.4 million a

year on energy costs. and it's estimated that all retrofitting that they are doing will pay for itself and about four and a half years. making our buildings more energy efficient is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest way is for us to create jobs, save money and cut down on harmful pollution. it is a trifecta. that's why you've got lieber and business behind it. it could save our business is up to $40 billion a year on their energy bills hiring new workers. it would boost manufacturing of energy efficient materials, and when millions of construction workers have found themselves out of work since the housing bubble burst, it will put them to work during the word america needs done. so this is an idea whose time

has come and that is why in february i announced the better buildings initiative. it's an ambitious plan to prove the energy efficiency of america's commercial buildings 20% by the year 2020. and i asked president clinton and my job as counsel to challenge the private sector as a part of the initiative to step up, make the cost saving investments and prove that it works so the other companies follow their lead. i believe if you're willing to put people to work making your buildings more efficient, america should provide you some incentives to do so. that is something that will require congressional action, and we had asked congress to work with us to move on providing more effective incentives for commercial building owners all across the country to move forward on these energy efficient steps, but we can't wait for congress to act, and if they won't act, i will, which is why today i am

directing all federal agencies to make at least $2 billion worth of energy efficiency upgrades over the next two years. none of these upgrades will require taxpayer money to get them going. we are going to use performance based contracts that use savings on energy and utility bills to pay the contractors that do the work. and it should keep construction workers pretty busy. in fact this is something the chamber of commerce has said is critical to private sector job creation. the private sector and community leaders are also stepping up to the place alongside the federal government. president clinton and the clinton global initiative has been tremendous partners in rallying them to join this effort. so in june we announced initial commitments of $500 million to upgrade 300 million square feet of building space. some of these projects are

already under way. the good news is today we can announce that we are going even bigger. we have received larger commitments. we now have 60 major companies, universities, labor unions, hospitals, cities and states, and they are stepping up with nearly $2 billion in financing to upgrade an additional 1.6 billion square feet of commercial and industrial space by our target year of 2020. that's more than 500 empire state buildings. i just had a chance along with president clinton to meet with representatives of the 60 institutions that are involved and to hear firsthand how they can put americans back to work but also improve their bottom lines. so you have got companies like best buy and walgreens.com are going to up door lighting which is going to save them money, manufacturers like alcoa that are going to make their manufacturing plants more efficient, dramatically reducing

their operating cost which means they can compete more effectively all around the world. property management companies upgrading their buildings to meet the real estate portfolio more attractive to businesses, and one is already upgrading 40,000 units of military housing all across the country which will give our military families in lower utility bills and a higher quality-of-life, and all of this will create jobs. over the past decade we give seen what happens if we don't make investments like these. we've seen what happens when we don't come together for a common purpose. wages plant, unemployment stalls, and we lose our competitive edge. we've also seen what happens when we do what's right. when bill clinton was president we did a short-term investment, we didn't cut back on the things we know are going to helpless in the future. we didn't make decisions to put

the burden on middle class for the poor. we live within our means and invested in our future and asked everybody to pay their fair share, and you know what happened? private sector thrived, jobs were created, the middle class grew, its income grew, millions result of poverty, we ran a surplus, and we were actually on track to be able to pay off all of our debt. firing on all. we can be that nation again. that's our goal. we will be that nation again but we are going to have to fight for it. so there is work to be done. so the workers like these guys are ready to do it. businesses are ready to step up we just have to get mobilized and moved. and so i just want to thank everybody who is participating here for stepping up to the plate and showing extraordinary leadership. i am confident this is going to be one important piece of the

puzzle to get the economy moving again. thank you very much, everybody. >> [inaudible] >> the reason you should be encouraged by this you can run the numbers and see how many jobs are announced, but this meeting we just came from asset represented trillions of dollars of potential one vestments, and if the president by doing this can trigger investment so that you have more buildings like this, keep in mind it can also change goes on in every rural place in small-town america, upstate new york is in trouble. every little county has got one bonded contractor. the bonding contractor can

guarantee to every public school, every state county and local building. every little office building and new york where hillary and i live. with the savings are going to be. they've got software. we have to have breakthroughs on financing. that is really the long term potential significance of what the president announced today and the fact he knew something on the present should do. he got all these people together, and then to have the afl-cio and others sort of lead the way to say we will put ever members in this because we can get a good return, a stable return to put current members to work and other people to work and get a return on the pension. this is a big deal. this announcement president made today is the jobs that you can multiply 7,000 times a billion. but it's potentially, literally 50, 70, 80 times out.

because of his involvement. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] >> president obama and former president clinton on an energy efficiency initiative this morning. president obama taking a moment to mention legislation ending in congress and the economy. we did to join a little bit late but you can see it in its entirety in the c-span video library. live picture from capitol hill. we've been bringing a hearing on the proposed pipeline to be built from canada to texas.

committee members and witnesses are taking a break as members have been attending the series of house votes on amendment to small-business legislation. the legislation would require federal agencies to take additional steps before issuing new rules including considering the cost and impact of the regulation. the white house says that if the bill was passed in congress, senior administration of pfizer's would recommend a veto. the hearing on the exfil pipeline expected to get underway shortly. we are learning from the peace in the whole this morning that the house gop leaders are planning to attach legislation to speed of a federal decision on the pipeline to a broader package that extends unemployment insurance in payroll tax cuts. that's from a republican lawmaker. congressman terrie of nebraska is the sponsor of the pipeline measure and told reporters that speaker boehner announced a strategy of the house gop conference meeting this morning. the speaker announced this bill will be part of the unemployment tax holiday package. congressman terrie said at a

press conference on the bill the spokesman for speaker boehner didn't immediately respond to the request for comment. and you can see the rest of the article online at thehill.com. again, we will be returning to the live coverage of this hearing on the canadian u.s. oil pipeline. again they are in a recess for house votes. until then we will go back to this morning's washington journal for a discussion on the foreign-born population in the u.s.. and on this friday morning i want to start ever segment, which is going to be america by the numbers come our foreign-born population by looking at to charts created by the census bureau. the first is a snapshot of the country that shows the foreign-born population as a percentage of state population. 1970, 40 years ago, and as you can see just a few states have even tan covered areas that indicate 5-9.9% of their population back in 1970 were foreign-born. the highest among these actually

was new york state, which had been -- it had 11.6%. sure is a new map. this is a country in 2010. look at the change over the course of the 40 years. now look at the number of states which have a more significant foreign-born population. many are now in red, which is 15% and overcoming and those include california, texas, florida, and new york, and also the states that are in this color here or ten period 14% come in and you can see the large swath of states in the west and in the east coast. we are going to talk about that with our guests. let me introduce them to you. elizabeth is with the census bureau, and her jaw there is to be the branch chief studying the foreign-born population of the u.s.. she helped assemble the number for today. bob is a staff writer for congressional quarterly, and he has been following the debate over immigration in this country. thanks to you for being here. will we are going to start on

some of these charts and graphs brought along. but the first one we've got here is the summary of where this goes. since 1970 the foreign-born population continue to increase in size and as a percentage of the total population. today the majority of them from latin america and asia and considerable differences exist among the different countries of the groups in the various characteristics and we are going to dig into those and worry about those differences. here is the last about one in four children under 18 and the families at least one foreign-born parents. do these numbers surprise you or have you been watching every decade the increase? >> we see the continuous increase since 1970 and the size and the percentage of the foreign-born population. it has been pretty steady over the last four decades. >> is there a decade where there was the biggest influence? >> i would say that one of the

most important would be the late 1980's to about the 1990's during that period we saw a lot in the foreign-born population. >> host: you're the person is going to help us understand why. what has changed about the united states that there are so many more foreign-born people here as a percentage of the population over the last 40 years? >> well it comes down to employment opportunities. the economy usually drives immigration both legal and illegal, and the congress right now is considering measures that would either curtail that sort of immigration on one side or actually make it easier for the field employees to come over to the united states on the other side of the debate. >> host: so on the southern border is the continuing debate about how the border is to the south and economic opportunity has been bringing here. on the illegal immigration, and understanding basically of how the legal immigration works.

>> guest: well it depends on what sort of immigration you are talking about. there is -- there are work visas which you can come over and is usually a temporary visa there is a set limit on it. you have to have a sponsor. there is also family what we call the immigration related visa where you would be coming over you have a family member who is related to you or you are related to someone who is working in the states and that is the green card process. >> host: i want to go back to the charts because this one looks at how the country has looked demographically over the course of 150 years. 18532010. tell us what we are seeing. >> guest: this is one of my favorite graphs because it encapsulates a lot of our history over the last century. this chart shows the size of the

foreign-born population changed considerably over the last 15 years. it shows the size of the foreign-born population and a percentage of the total population from 18522010. the red bars or the size of the population -- >> in millions. >> guest: in millions, thank you. and the blue line shows the total population is resented by the foreign born. during the last four decades the foreign-born continue to increase. you can see in 1970 there were 9.6 million foreign-born, and by 2010, there were 40 million foreign-born. in 1960 represented about 5% of the total population. and by 2010 they represented just under 13%. , they had a historic american 2010 and the one thing i want to point out that is often talked that is the percentage of total foreign born or the percentage of the population represented by the foreign-born is actually lower than the great migration

of the late 1800's and the early 1900's when it fluctuated between 13 to 15%. >> host: elkus replete turn of the last century 100 years earlier between 13 to 14.7% of all of the people in america were foreign-born. today our bigger population is about 12.9%. now there is a difference historically that the people who came in the great migration did so legally as opposed to a good portion of these folks. >> guest: actually it may be a better question for the census. >> it's hard to compare the law respecting the late 1800's versus what we have today. >> it is a welcoming especially also the european -- >> exactly. >> we also in 1965 and a comprehensive immigration

overhaul dropped the system per country for the percentage of the immigrants that were allowed. >> host: i wanted to put on screen as we get into this and also invite people to join in the conversation. we asked our producers to bring together and this is from your publication as a matter of fact the major immigration legislation over the past 50 or 60 years, and here are those. the first 1965 the immigration and nationality act of 1965. it's one of the graphics here and then folks who have watched congress since c-span has been around the remember the big debate that resulted in the 1986 act, immigration reform and control and 1996 the immigration reform immigrant responsibility act passed and currently under debate of course is the new debate over the dream act which

is development release and education for alien miners. now this was passed during the reagan administration. how did that change on a fundamental basis? >> the major changes at about amnesty for the immigrants who were in the country and i believe before 1982, and it also required employers to verify that their employees have legal status to work. those are the to fundamental changes that it made. >> host: before we go to calls we've different phone lines for the segment. we have one for people who are foreign-born in the united states, and if you would like to ilyse for your experience or how to help us understand how the policies have affected you and your family and then for all others. foreign-born line, (202)737-0001 and the line for all others as we talk about american foreign-born population, (202)737-0002. we also have a line for people watching outside of the united states if you would like to

comment about our immigration policy or compare what you know the u.s. and you're own country (202)628-0184 we will mix all of those and you can also tweet and send an e-mail as well. he was if i would like to have you go back what we actually opened up with and again to watch one on top of the other so we can look at them kind of side by side. what are the most interesting trends to note when we look at a graphic display? >> i love these because it really shows the change in the foreign-born population. one of the things i think that the 1970 map is new york is the highest percentage born. look at the map overall. the majority of all states have less than 5% foreign-born in 1970. even with states today we

associate with large amounts or high emigration such as california, florida, new york, illinois. they have less than 10% foreign-born and their total population. now we skip forward to 2010, and again, the legend is the same and the colors of the same meaning but one of the striking things again when you look at the net overall what is the difference now most states have more than 5% foreign-born and their total populations and several states of over 15% for unborn as you mentioned earlier, california, new york, new jersey, florida, nevada, texas and massachusetts and a couple of other interesting statistics. one of every four residents of new york and new jersey are come excuse become one in every five residents in new york and new jersey are foreign-born and one of every four residents in california are