like-minded like holland, like germany, like the baltic states they want britain there when we're discussing issues which is another reason why there's a separate treaty and separate organization i don't believe will cut across the market. >> just for the sake of clarity, can the prime minister tell the white house where is the deputy prime minister and why isn't he here for this extremely important statement? >> the deputy prime minister agreed to the negotiating strategy. i'm not responsible for his whereabouts. i'm sure he's working extremely hard. >> mr. john baron. >> the prime minister's veto -- the prime minister's veto has rightly struck a chord with the nation. may i suggest that instead of being the end of the affair, it should be the start of a process

to recalibrate our relationship with the e.u. based on free trade and growth and not on fiscal unity and free regulation which has cost this money so much. >> i am grateful for my right honorable friend's support. we want to get the best out of europe for britain and that means they focus, yes, on the single market but that is not purely a focus on trade. it's recognizing that that market is not just open for our goods, but we have a say in setting the louisiana that is absolutely key, i think, to our national interest. >> what will the prime minister say to those leaders of the manufacturing sector who believe that his actions have deeply undermined their interest like, the director of the u.k. said today we are going to become less relevant decision-making. >> here, here. >> well, i don't agree with that. i believe there was a lot of arguments made when britain joined the euro and there were a

lot of media leaders and parties who said if you say out of the euro you will marginalize the economy. i think they were wrong then and i think they're wrong now. >> the analysis is focused on the use of the veto. can the prime minister confirm of the details of fiscal union proposed by theiest rest of the european union would render the entire opposition party's economic policy illegal? >> it's very good point because we know that the leader of the labour party is committed to joining the euro. if he's prime minister for long enough and we haven't heard if he's for it or against it. if he joins this party, it's made his own party legal. he would be fined for the european commission for the parties that the shadow chancellor who isn't here now is -- >> mr. speaker.

>> without exception, i hope, to hear mr. graham stringer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. euro wouldn't be the economic and political mess now if we had to wait for nearly 40 years before a british prime minister came back and said that he or she had used the veto. can the prime minister tell us how he's going to -- and when he's going to repatriotiat some of those powers that have been so carelessly given way. >> we have brought back the bailout. we've prevented britain from joining this treaty without the safeguards. i believe there will be opportunities in the future. i think that there are areas particularly in terms of costly regulation where britain has paid a high price from european regulation and i think we should use future opportunities to act on that. >> mr. bob russell. >> i bring some grandfatherly

advice to the proceedings and urge the prime minister to let the dust settle, keep calm and carry on carefully. but please abandon the approach to europe and also bridges need to be built. and the first bridge the prime minister can build is to get the tory meps to join the main street group of conservatives. >> i'm very grateful for the grandfatherly advice. i remember the advice he used to give me when we both cycled into the house of commons many years ago so i'll take it carefully on board. i'll take it carefully on board. i'll also take the reference and go away and give it a bit of thought. >> charles turner. >> mr. speaker, it's becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that the partners in this coalition are completely pointless.

since the prime minister doesn't know the whereabouts of his deputy that mr. and mrs. clegg will be sending our -- did >> did he really an hour and 45 minutes for that? i think i'm very keen to old on to the rebate and i think these constituents might want a rebate as well. >> mr. speaker, we are here from outside and announcing that the position wouldn't give on whether he would have signed or not signed the veto last thursday. his aides are saying he would not have signed it. can the prime minister press him to say to give us an answer on whether he would or wouldn't have signed the veto -- >> i'm very grateful my honorable friend has been on twitter or whatever it is the leader of opposition now uses. i believe it's possible to the

leader of opposition could confirm whether he's going to say he wouldn't or wouldn't sign this treaty. i'm very happy to have a few more minutes. we got a bit of clarity from the leader of the labour party. >> i think the sensible approach in conformity with convention is to stick with questions, too, and answers from the prime minister in this chamber. >> in the words of one business leader today, margaret thatcher was a constant thorn in the side of european leaders where she never came to the negotiating table. i'm anxious at the implications of what the prime minister done. when is he going to give business in this country the reassurance it needs about the impact on jobs and the economy and this country of actions of him walking away. >> i think business does understand that we must be in the european union for trade and growth and jobs. and our membership of the single market is the key but frankly

there's a lot of damaging regulation coming from brussels. and we do need to stand up for that. and when new treaties are suggested, it involve a huge amount of fiscal changes and other changes within the european union it's right that britain should seek some safeguards. i'm not hearing the same message from business that he said. >> karen bradley. >> mr. speaker, there's so much this afternoon about the number of employed in financial services and i have to tell the house that over 2,000 of those jobs are located in my constituency. so could the prime minister reassure those employees that the action he took last week was in their interest to safeguard their jobs and not put them at unnecessary risk? >> i can certainly do that and the honorable lady makes the important point that this is an industry that is based upon the country and not just in london but the protections of the single market go far beyond the financial services industry. >> mr. speaker, while the prime minister has likened his experience at e.u. negotiations playing chess against 26 different people, committee, therefore, tell us what attempts

he has made to build alliances with those countries in some similar views in the u.k. that could have played with him rather than against him? >> look at the e.u. budget, they had to apologize by the budget goes up 4%, 5% or more because it's decided by qualified majority voting. i put together a qualified majority bloc so that we could get a real term freeze in the budget. that was help from germany, help from france, help from sweden. help from holland. that's the sort of constructive role we played. >> mr. speaker, i am pleased -- i'm pleased we have a a chanceler who understands that we need to take tight control over the fiscal reins of this country and i'm pleased who has a prime minister who understands the difficult questions that need to be asked. i'm surprised he doesn't understand it and keep his mind open. but in all humility when the a

chance the public will have a chance to speak up. >> i've said the answer about a referendum. i think there is a role for refuse rendum but that's when a government or parliament is prepared to give up power rather than just holding one at different times. >> ronnie campbell. >> can the prime minister tell the house how many countries outside the european union have free trade agreements with the european union? >> there's a growing number. obviously, countries like mexico, now we got the korea free trade agreement. i'm keen to finalize the japan free trade agreement. i think effort should be made to have these treaties because they're good for both sides. >> can i pay tribute to the practical approach that the prime minister took to the negotiations at last week? and can i also say those practical obvious negotiations

seem now to be supported by the leader of the opposition who they at the briefing say he would not sign the agreement the same way the prime minister did? >> either he has no control over his aides who are randomly briefing the press. [laughter] >> that is his position or he failed to el it the house that his, you know, minutes and minutes of intervention -- whether or not he would have signed -- look, you can -- if you want to sign it, then you can say i made the right decision. if you're not going to sign it then you have to accept i made the right decision. you either got to have the courage of your convictions or you got to give an answer. >> jonathan ashworth. >> with the prime minister confirm that his veto does nothing to help financial services in the way he would want and now he's adopted a position of isolation, do you think he's more likely or less likely to win those safeguards in the future? >> the key safeguard we did get was against a treaty without proper protections and

safeguards for the single market. that was in britain's interest to do that. and that's what the honorable gentleman needs to understand. >> simon hughes. >> after last week's isolation, the prime minister confirmed that he still agrees fully with the words of the coalition agreement which say that britain should play a leading role and a participant in the european union and that way it helps solve the economic crisis, we bring growth and jobs to the united kingdom? >> i completely agree with that. we're members of the european union. that membership hasn't changed. and the treaties that govern the single market, they haven't changed either. >> alex cunningham. >> we all know how the prime ministers fills to build the alignments but could i tell what he's going to be doing in his days off when the other 26eu nations are sitting at the table, outside of the european zone? >> i'll be sorting out the mess that his party left when they

left office. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend -- [inaudible] >> and brazil and also the far east but given the decline of european unions that we need to ensure robust relationships with asia and south america as much with the declining powers in the eu. >> i think my right honorable friend is right. we want to have the best of both worlds where we use that single market to drive free trade deals with countries in south and central america and in the far east to actually we maximize trade for britain and europe and for the world. >> is it more likely than not that the 26 member states will agree amongst themselves courses of maximum financial services

matters and that britain -- even if it has the right to oppose them in the full eu will not be able to stand out against the 26 who have agreed on their position amongst themselves? >> what i say to the honorable gentleman is that the new organization outside the eu cannot draw or implement things in terms of financial services or other things that impact the single markets. those things have to be done through the single market council. of course, there would always be difficulties in that single market council where, frankly, my right honorable friend has to fight very hard in terms of britain's corner. but the danger for us is allowing that treaty of the 17 to come in the eu without proper safeguards and that's why we behaved as we did. >> christopher pitcher. >> is my right honorable friend that the frontrunner for the french presidency in the election next year has said if elected he will tear up the accord because it is not right for france? i'm not suggesting that socialists appreciate it when

britain stands up for itself but sadly there are socialists. >> i don't want to get drawn into the french connection of the campaign, i'm on extremely good terms with nicholas sarkozy and i believe the libya campaign proved that. but i will say one thing at least the opposition leader in france has told us what he thinks. [laughter] >> but i can they're tweeting and blogging for all their worth but they still don't have a policy. >> the prime minister has made reference the fsc in his statement and i have to say to the house that the prime minister selective memory loss it was him who was calling for less in regulation of our financial services when he was in opposition. but can i say to him why was it better to put clegg, in the backbenches rather than stay in the room and stand up and fight for british interests. >> well, two points, the sfa only mentions three politicians and one of them is the shadow chancellor. the point about placating

anyone, i think if you have your mind back on wednesday, i wasn't implicating anybody with a reasonable request that i was making of the european union. it was leadership on behalf of britain not any one part of it. >> my right honorable friend will be aware that he had overwhelming support of my constituency across the political spectrum. >> here, here. >> and if we have to safeguard jobs and expand the economy we must be equally robust in all our eu negotiations. he will know that the collins fishery affects my constituency can my right honorable friend that his colleagues will follow his lead when negotiating on this matter? >> i know how important the cod issue is to his constituents and people right across that region and i'll make sure that ministers in the government stand up for our fishermen.

>> the prime minister has stated that he wanted to deal with a level of 27 nations. why then did he end up having bilateral discussions with just three? >> well, the point about that is that it's quite clear that when it came to this issue of wanting a change to the treaty -- and i'll answer the question very directly that the germans and french were actually leading that particular charge and so it was very important to have discussions with that. but i also had discussions with the dutch and the swedish with the irish, with many others as well. >> i add my support to the prime minister and to the coalition government in taking a tough decision under difficult circumstances. will the prime minister confirm that over and above our contribution to the european union we also buy more from europe than we export to it and the difference is about 100 billion in product which the eurozone would need at a moment

to help them out of their own crisis? >> we do have a large trade deficit with europe. in fact, apart from one area which is financial services, frankly, i wish our economy was more rebalanced. we are aiming to rebalance our economy but it's very important in the meantime that we recognize realities. >> the successfully completion of the market could add 7% to the u.k. gdp. does the prime minister believe after thursday's summit he has more or fewer allies in europe for something that will be vital for our national interests? >> we have huge amounts of allies and support for action in a single market. and actually if you look at what has happened in the last 18 months, there has been more positive steps taken by the european commission and in terms of the single market than i think there have been, frankly, for the last 10 years or more if you're looking at what happened is on the services directive, on energy and small business. i think the penny has finally

dropped that europe does have a role here but it's one that needs to be about deregulation and it's no coincidence one of the reasons is because all of the 27 countries sitting around the table -- i think on him four of them are run by socialists. >> mr. speaker, many jobs in suffolk rely on a fair level playing field in the assemble market. if last friday morning wasn't the time to stand up for british interests, when other time would it have been the case? >> i think the honorable lady is right. when it comes to institutional arrangements and treaty arrangements in the european union they have to be agreed by unanimity and if you're not content with what is being put forward then i think it is perfectly acceptable to do what i did and to say i'm not happy to go ahead with the treaty without any safeguards. >> the prime minister has heard from members on both sides of the house about the worries of manufacturing industry. can he specifically say what exporting firms think that it's going to make exporting harder

or easier? >> well, i frankly found a huge support from the business community from what i've said and that expands a huge number of different industries for many industries are asking themselves the question about what are we going to do about the problem of excessive regulation and that is something that should be dealt with through the single market and we'll continue to do that. >> robert bucklin. >> mr. speaker, as someone has a -- [inaudible] >> positive role and europe. can i recommend -- [inaudible] >> will he commit the government in carrying on strongly with our european partners to ensure more jobs and growth in the single market? >> i'm very grateful to my honorable friend's support. and i have to say i spoke to a number of people over the last few days, whether in this party or in other parties who have a long history of supporting britain's membership of the eu who think i did is right. of course, we need to engage and we have to make it in terms of the single market even more

powerful in the weeks and months ahead. i think it was right on this occasion to say no to this treaty. >> mr. ian austin. >> there's one member of the government that doesn't share all things antipathy britain. and when they chanted hitler, hitler -- honorable members might not take it -- >> order. order, but i think -- order. i'm simply capable of handling these matters myself. if i wouldn't ask i wouldn't ask back beverages or anyone else. he asked his question earlier. order. it was perfectly in order for him to do so but we are here discussing the european summit and the prime minister's statement on it. the honorable gentleman is an ingenuous fellow -- order! i know i'm being helpful to the honorable gentleman. i've known him since we were at

university together, 29 years. i've probably forgotten more about him than in the first. but he can use other methods to get his point across and i'm sure he will. >> it's the only faction taken by my right honorable's friend to tackle our own deficit that has made us is safe haven in europe and given us is choice last week. is it not the case if we had followed the economic policies advocated by those in the benches opposite that they would not for us for help that it would be begging to europe to beg us out. >> my honorable friend makes a good point. when you look back, british interest rates and greek interest rates were previously equivalent at 4.5% and we had similar size deficits at that time. what happened since then is a huge increase in greek interest rates and a decline in british interest rates partly because we have a plan and shown we've got a plan to deal with our debts

and our deficit. >> the populace poll reported today shows that only 14% of the public opposed the prime minister's actions. does that not just show that this side of the house are totally in touch with public opinion and the opposite side is not? >> i'm very grateful to the honorable lady for what she says. what i noticed about that poll there's over 50% in support of what we've done and she said 14%. the leader of the labour party does have a constituent of opinions. that's people who haven't yet made up their mind. [laughter] >> mr. david morris. >> mr. speaker, may i -- may i first of all congratulate my honorable friend the prime minister for all the strength he has shown in leading our country. and also may i ask to the prime minister that in the tabloid press, 40 billion would have gone over to europe. that's 642 pounds for every man, woman and child in this country.

may i congratulate the prime minister and say thank you for stopping that from happening and also for himself to remind the opposition that seeing as he would now not have signed the treaty, would he reconsider that we're not cast adrift on the waves -- we are now the financial lifeboat of europe? >> i'm grateful for my honorable friend about his question. the question of the budget is important because there's a net contributor every extra percentage point does result in a big transfer from britain to brussels. and so i think it's important we've managed to achieve a freeze. >> mr. simon kirby. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i congratulate the prime minister on his strong and decided leadership and not only doing bess for britain but for the constituent in my constituency the world financial services. >> yeah, yeah. >> can i thank my honorable friend who's made a number of

sacrifices on my behalf over the last 18 months and one is to wait until the very last of this marathon question session. i'm delighted that he believes we've done the right thing for britain and the right thing for brighton and i very much praise him for his hard work and his constituency. thank you very much. >> here, here. >> order. i'm extremely grateful to the prime minister and colleagues. 101 backbenches had the opportunity to question the prime minister in the 88 minutes of exclusively backbench time on this statements. i think colleagues for their questions. we to a statement by the financial secretary to the treasury. financial secretary hobin. >> i thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to make a statement. today the state publishes its reports to the failures that led to the -- >> we have more live coverage to tell you about.

[no audio] >> newark, new jersey, mayor, cory booker spoke about why president obama should be re-elected in 2012. speaking on behalf of the president's re-election campaign at the new hampshire institute of politics at san anselm college. a group advocacy group within the national advocacy are cohosting this event. he's introduced by keith charles, a member of the cool's college democrats. this is about 50 minutes. [inaudible] >> good morning, everybody. it's an honor and a blessing to have mayor booker here to speak to us on this morning.

he's taken time out of his busy schedule to be here. i want to provide everybody a little bit of background. a few of mayor booker's credentials. he's a proud stanford alum. sequence he earned himself a rhodes scholarship. there he acquired his bachelor's in modern history. as well-rounded booker was in the classroom he also played varsity football while at stanford and made all pac-10 academic team. following his education at both stanford and oxford mayor booker completed his law school degree at yale university. prior to completion of his law degree booker spent his remaining year as a newark resident taking an active role in the community he became program coordinator of the newark youth project. it's appropriate that a man such as mayor booker speak with the younger americans for obama today about what the president has done for us and how we can

become change makers in our own communities with the obama 2012 campaign. mayor booker can relate to such things as restoring jobs where he's currently taken on such tasks in newark, new jersey, himself. he has appealed to several new large businesses and convinced them to move their national headquarters to newark. this allowed for over 50 businesses to start and expand. also, he's accredited with endorsing educational reform efforts in public schools. these efforts are leading to future opportunities for the youth of newark. mayor booktver also manages to make time for his people of newark as well as people from all over by responding to questions and concerns that arrive throughout the city via social networks like twitter and facebook. you can tell that he cares a great deal about change by the way he exemplifies it through his actions and through his speech. on behalf of the college, democrats, organizing for america it brings me great pleasure to introduce mayor cory booker. [applause]

>> i'm sorry. i just had to retreat kristin there. how is everybody doing? are we enthusiastic? are we excited? not for me, though. [laughter] >> look, i'm thrilled to be here. i'm looking at my time. i want to manage it appropriately. i really have two agendas. one to talk about obama and a lot of the issues and i'm hoping that in the question and answer we can get into that as much as we want to but really what i want to do is excite the folks here especially the students to get involved in this campaign. i was just interviewed by a campus reporter who's actually on the mitt romney campaign and i actually encourage that. at the end of the day you have to understand democracy cannot be a spectator sport. we can't sit on the sidelines. i always say we as americans are often getting caught up in a state of sedentary agitation. where we're getting so upset about what's going on in the world but we're not getting off our -- i think the technical anatomy is tuccuss and doing

something about it. king said it so eloquently what we're going to have to repent for not the words or actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. and so when i came out of school -- in fact, before i graduated -- that was a great introduction. i appreciate that but i'm hoping that next time i get introduced here in new hampshire it will be from a very out of shape individual who is not an athlete like i used to be. please close your eyes and imagine me 'cause i used to be chiseled. now i just jiggle. but i see these cameras back there i heard tmz is here. one of you tmz? no. not at all. if i started dating kim kardashian, tmz would be here. [laughter] >> but i'm just a jersey pol now. but when i came out of law school, before i came out of law school, i really wanted to start getting involved in what my

parents talk about as being a conspiracy of love. so ultimately the united states of america our history can be summed up as this conspiracy of love. that people -- ordinary americans who are willing to do extraordinary things more than what was asked for them and required of them to do, continuous acts of kindness, decency and love to make a difference and that i'm proud of that. i moved into the town i moved into because of black and white americans who came together through an organization fair housing council that allowed my family to be the first black family to move into an all white town. as my dad says four raisins in a tum of ice cream. it was blacks and whites coming together that allowed my parents coming out of college to find their first jobs through organizations called the urban league when many americacompani weren't hiring african-americans. and a community came together, that conspiracy of love to empower my dad not only to be raised but when it came time to go to college, recently for

thanksgiving he broke into tears whose people whose names he can't remember who put dollar bills in envelopes that enabled him to go to college. and this is the beautiful thing about america i know i stand here drinking from wells from liberty and freedom of opportunity that i did not dig. i eat lavishly like i do from banquet tables that are prepared for us by our ancestors. so many of us are sinking into cynicism surrending it as opposed to realizing that we have a choice in america. no matter how tough times are we can just consume the blessings that we were given or we can metabolize them and put them to work. and i landed in newark, new jersey, from my state going to our biggest city to make a difference. i was still a law student. i'll never forget this first person i met was named virginia jones. we just named a street after her and she passed away in january. she was a tenant president for some high-rise low-incomed housing that i would eventually

move into. and i remember knocking on her door looking at her and saying, you know, i'm cory booker, ma'am, i'm from yale law school and i'm here to help you, you know, i thought i was going to come to town and help her and she said you want to help me and she said she closed her door and she said you need to follow me if you really want to help me and she walked me down five flights of stairs into the courtyard into the middle of martin luther king boulevard and she said if you want to help me, you tell me what you see around you and i said what do i see in yeah, describe the neighborhood. i see graffiti, i see abandoned building being used for drugs. the more i talk she shook her head and she said you can't help me and i stopped her from behind and i said what are you talking about? and she looked at me hard and she said, boy, you need to understand something. that the world you see outside of you will always be a reflection of what's inside of you. and if you're one of those people who only sees darkness and despair and problems, that's all there's ever going to be but

if you're one of those people who stubbornly opens your eyes and see hope and sees possibilities and promise sees potential, sees love, sees the face of god then you can be one of those people that helps me. and she walked off leaving me looking at my shoes thinking to myself, all right, grasshopper thus ended the lesson. and so this was a start of my professional life is understanding that we have a choice in america every single day. we can surrender to things as they are or we can take responsibility for changing. and i -- when i met barack obama before he was president obama, before the whole campaign really started to swell, i met a guy and sat down in newark, new jersey, just a mile or two from where i first met ms. jones and it was just two guys talking about our nation and our hope for what could happen in our country. and at that point, i said, look, whatever this guy does, i want to follow him. i want to be a part of -- of not his vision, but i want to be a part of a vision and

understanding he has about what our nation is, what the real story of america is. that america is a place of inclusion. that we're a country that believes that everybody has something to contribute. we believe that when people join the military, they shouldn't have to lie about who they are. that they can tell the truth. how god made them. i want to serve my country. we're a nation that believes and i found this out just from sitting at my dinner table that people who do good hard work, the same job as others should get paid the same amount of money. and barack obama by passing legislation and making changes to ensure that women who are getting -- doing the same work, get paid the same amount of money it was the same thing we talked about that understanding fundamentally, in order for this economy to lead into the future, we cannot have a first rate economy if we have a second rate education system. if college education, for example, gets more and more out of the reach of other americans

and what has happened -- you understand this that america went from being the number 1 country in the globe in percentage of their population that were college graduates, now we're down to eight or nine. and so to see obama now as president obama start to deliver on many of these things, greater inclusion, greater affordibility. helping really young people to achieve the dreams for their lives that i had for mine. the dream of contributing, the dream of improving yourself, the dream of giving back, the dream of being a part of the conspiracy. and so i'm standing on a college campus and i'm proud. president obama has doubled the funding for pell grants enabled more of my citizens in newark to afford to go to college. president obama has helped to figure out ways to actually get more funding for kids when it comes to their student loan program. in fact, he took banks that were just middle people, collecting money, and took that money and reinvested it into your student

loan program. i remember when i came out of yale law school i didn't feel golden handcuffs because yale had a program that said if you go into public service we'll forgive your loans over a 10-year period. after 10 years of making your payments if you still have money you owe to yale, we'll forgive it. i thought it was the greatest things in the world. it's one of the reasons why i chose to go to yale law school and i turned around and president barack obama who went to a far interior law school called harvard has now created a national program that is the exact same thing. and so i stand here pretty proud. i've seen how credit card companies used to set up these things in my -- at my stanford -- at my campus at stanford and sign kids up offering them all kinds of baubles and whatever. and half the time we don't know. i get a free t-shirt, a frisbee, i can get a frisbee. [laughter] >> sign up for credit cards and be all of these hidden fees. and before you know it, you would be leaving college in debt to your university and in debt

to credit cards. president obama said that should not be the way and he reformed those programs. i've seen in a tough economy -- this is what makes -- i did have this big afro, pull out all my hair. in a tough economy i've seen ideas that aren't republican or democrat. in fact, they come from many republicans. one of my first fundraisers in washington, dc, was this incredible guy named jack kemp a republican back in those days in the ninety who threw a fundraiser for a democrat for a mayor in a place called newark because we shared the same ideas. more republican ideas, they weren't democratic ideas. jack kemp believes if you give the right tax incentives in more urban areas like enpowerment zones like jack kemp ideas you create ideas. now i have a president, barack obama saying the same kinds of things. let's give businesses tax incentives to reinvest in our economy. i love the fact that as we have

programs in newark to help small businesses, i can tell small businesses well, over the last three-plus years of the barack obama administration he has cut taxes on small businesses three times. he proposes like giving businesses tax incentives to hire people. giving businesses tax incentives to hire people coming home from iraq and afghanistan. ideas that to me seem like every american regardless of your party should stand up and embrace but i hear this ridiculousness coming out of congress where people are more interested in picking partisan fights than doing what i know can help my community today. but yet we still succeeded. we've succeeded in getting in my city as well as all across america payroll tax cuts. but now i can't believe again congress is fighting over because as soon as it happened, i had residents in line getting $1,000 or more on average on their paychecks and who are trying to struggle to provide for their family and what do they do with those $1,000.

they don't sit it and hold it they reinvested it right back into our economy. you see president obama understands that we can stimulate jobs but he's taken extreme criticism for but in my city thanks to this stimulus act we built roads, we built affordable housing. we provided summer jobs. and thousands of people in my city got opportunities in the toughest economy of our lifetime because of the actions of our president. and so i stand here pretty psyched right now. i and my generation -- every generation will face great crises. it's unavoidable. my parents generation faced a big battle of creating a more equal nation with civil rights for all. my grandparents' generation faced a great depression and a world war. america is not defined by our challenging. every generation is defined how we meet those challenges. what will we stand up for and

what will we do? and so this election again -- it's so much about -- i'm such not a partisan politician. a large percentage of my supporters from newark, new jersey, come from republicans. it didn't stop with jack kemp because to me i'm not about ideology. i'm about pragmatism. that will get the job done. what will educate more people. what will get businesses moving. what will get banks to invest? what will provide more security for families? i'm proud of my country right now. i'm proud that in the deep depths of the worst economic crisis, what the tv cameras want to focus on, all the rancor in washington and there are leaders standing up and getting things done. i'm the first person to tell you that health care legislation wasn't perfect. it wasn't perfect. and that we have a severe problem. america cannot spend, you know, close to over 17% of its gdp on

health care costs when our closest competitor nations are spending about 12. but we're not going to be able to sustain a bold economy unless we start controlling these. i'll defend barack obama the day is long because what he did to me are heroic. do you know weather millions of children in america that could not get health care because they had something called preexisting conditions? do i want to live in a nation where you have a child born with a disease or disability that can't get coverage is in front that's not the america that i believe in. i talk to college students all the time. and i see kids graduating from college and are worried because they're being kicked off their health coverage. to me, that's not the america that i want to believe in. and i see that now we have laws in place that kids can stay on their parents coverage until they're 26. so this is a complicated time. there are no easy ways to success. in fact, i always say a recondition to triumph is great

frustration. it is. i know this from calculus in college. [laughter] >> a precondition to success great frustration. but i do believe this nation has a destiny. and i do believe also what the great american leader frederick douglass. in life you don't get everything you pay for, but you have to pay for everything that you get. our nation is not going to just ease out of this crisis. a politician that tells you that they don't want anything from you, that you don't have to sacrifice anything, give anything, do anything -- they're selling you something that you should not buy. america did not get to where it is on an easy road. we had to make tough choices. we had to make sacrifices. and that's the only thing possible to get us out of the challenges that we have now. but i have a faith. the king said change will not roll on in the wheels of the

inhe havitibilii inhe havit -- i see the tradition of my parents who ended up in college in the early 1960s and friends with freedom rides and marches. when i saw my friends from yale or stanford or colleges that i went to giving up the luxuriously wonderful jobs being offered, hey, i'm going to go and serve. i'm going to do teach for america. in fact, my generation of people like wendy cobb founded that foundation, give two years of service. i'm going to go in the united states military, serve my country as it empowers me to continue in my life. and so it's your generation of college student. and the wonderful thing about just generation is you are in my opinion the millennial generation. you will be the defining generation the direction our country takes. and so as i conclude, and begin

to open up for question, i just want to end where i started with the young lady who i told you, miss jones, who we named the building after. in 2002 i ran for mayor and lost that election. and there's a wonderful documentary about it called "street fight" and i see somebody pumping your fist in the back. it was a -- it's like now when i turn on tv, 50 documentaries die -- it actually won the tribeca film festival. it won the canadian film festival and it was nominated for a oscar and it lost to the march of the damn penguins they dropped the damn and left penguins. i'm a vegetarian but i make exceptions for penguin meat.

i hate those little rodents. i'm not bitter or anything. i'm not bitter. [laughter] >> i lose this election. it was a painful election. i hope you get it on netflix and watch the movie if you have a chance. i'm really down and "esquire" magazine comes to me and says we want you to be in our issue the 40 best and brightest in america. and i go what are you talking about? i don't feel the brightest on anything. i just lost an election for crying out loud. let me write an election about real american heroes that we don't often don't see on tv cameras or newspaper articles. will you let me write an article for esquire about one of the best and brightest i've encountered. and they said okay, a great editor named mark warren said absolutely. i went to interview miss virginia jones, the people who stand on the trenches and the front lines of the american dream and do whatever they can to make this country be real. make its promise real. and so i'm standing there interviewing her and she tells me this story that shocked me.

i've known human resource for a long time. i put my pen down but back in the '80s it turns out her son served in the american military and was amazing in his service to our nation but then came home to visit her and one day she gets a knock on her door and it's not some youthful arrogant guy like me he wanted to help it was a woman who was crying, couldn't speak to her, grabbed her by her arms and said, follow moe and dragged her down five flights of stairs into the lobby of the building and miss jones comes into the lobby and says her son lying on the ground with bullet holes in his chest, bleeding the lobby floor red. she said cory, i whaled into the lobby. fell upon my son's chest and knew immediately he was dead and so you hear a story like that in the most unnatural thing in life for a parent to ever have to bury a child. and i remember just putting down my reporter's pen and just looking at her and the first thing came to mind was the stupid thing to say, you really -- nobody tells you how to deal with situations like

that. and the first thing came to mind, wait a minute, she -- i know where she works. she actually makes pretty decent money but she chooses to live in what then became public housing. she and i actually paid market rent to live in these buildings. i know where you work. i know the money you must make. i said, why do you still live in these buildings and have to walk through the lobby every day where your son was murdered. she almost looked at me insulted by the question. she folded her arms and looks at me and she says, why do i still live in brick towers? i said, yeah. she goes, why do i still live in apartment 5a? i said, yeah, why? she looks at me harder. why am i still the tenant president in these buildings and have been since the day they were built in 1969? and first i'm thinking that's electoral longevity. i said to find out what's going on there. and i said, yeah. and she stood up straight --

she's a woman is five foot and a smidgeon but at that moment i was looking up to her and she said to me because i'm in charge of homeland security, and i hugged her. each and every one of us must understand that we are stronger than we know, more powerful than we believe, more wise than we'll ever understand. but especially us that are coming out of school, you really can make a difference. you really can make change. you really can transform this world. but it starts with taking action and taking responsibility. this election will determine the destiny of the globe. there will be decisions that will be made in the next four years that will have global impact. i for one have faith in the president of the united states of america. i believe that he will be a good steward of our nation. and most of all, i believe that

he believes in us and our leadership ability. no matter what your political belief, i hope this is a campaign that hears more from the american people than ever before because it's that important. and i hope that you who are here choose today not just to vote but to lead as we go into next november. thank you. [applause] >> so q & a, are you, like, oprah you'll run around with a microphone. yes, sir, you are a handsome man, shave the head. shave the head, man. obama wouldn't. that's the first advice he said cory, do you have any advice as i get running for president i said shave the head. he didn't do it. i think he would have gotten 10 more points in the last election. romney needs to shave his head, seriously. [laughter] >> that man's hair is too perfect. it defies gravity. all right. yes, sir, in the back.

[inaudible] >> i'll repeat the question because -- [inaudible] >> any place in new jersey but especially in newark? >> the question he said -- just in case tmz didn't get it in the back. the question he asked is, do we have full school choice in newark, new jersey? do we have abundant options and the answer's no. we haven't gotten there yet. because there are a lot of forces that have resisted it in the past but i have this weird alignment. really, i think the most untalked about greatest achievements of the obama administration are because of a guy named arne duncan that -- our secretary of education and our president have really teamed up to do transformative things and one of the things they did was to create greater accountability of schools 'cause you need accountability but

greater access to laws that may empower school choice, everything from charter schools to alternative school models. i talked to the secretary of education a lot so why not? because it takes a while to scale up. >> you can watch the rest of this online at our c-span video library as we take you live now to an event here in washington hosted by the "national journal" on the nunn-lugar arms control program. >> we do want this to be a lively discussion. we want your thoughts, your comments, we welcome your suggestions on this event via twitter at hash tag njnunnlugar. we will be coming around with a microphone during the q & a session and we just ask that you say your name and your organization if you have a question. the event would not be possible without the generous support of the nuclear threat initiative, the sam nunn school for international affairs at george tech, the center for nonproliferation studies and the

elliott school for international affairs at george washington university. and for the past 10 years "national journal" has been a proud to partner with the nuclear threat initiative to publish global security news wire, a critical and award-winning resource. here from the nuclear threat initiative we have joan rol f-ing and she served as president and chief operating officer. while providing leadership to all nti programs she supports the secretary for the nuclear project for george schultz and william perry and henry kissinger and former senator sam nunn in their effort to galvanize urgent nuclear dangers. joan? [applause] >> thank you, connie. i'm delighted to be here today

to represent the nuclear threat initiative and to congratulate our ceo and co-chairman, sam nunn and our board member senator lugar on the 20th anniversary of the nunn-lugar program. 20 years ago, senators nunn and lugar showed tremendous foresight and statesmanship in recognizing and working to prevent a potentially catastrophic threat by proposing a joint u.s.-russian effort to help moscow and the states of the former soviet union keep control of their weapons, materials and know-how. 10 years ago, senator nunn, having left the senate, and entrepreneur ted turner founded the nuclear threat initiative with a mission very complementary to the nunn-lugar program. nti is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization working to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and

preventing the spread of nuclear biological and chemical weapons. guided by a prestigious international board of directors, including former senator pete dominici who is with us here today as well as our former president charles curtis, who's also with us today, nti focuses on closing the gap between global wmd threats and the global response to those threats. recognizing that governments have most of the resources and authority in the large scale work of threat reductions, nti emphasizes leverage. it's not just what nti can do throughout the world, it's what we can persuade others to do. we use our voice to raise awareness and advocate solutions, undertake direct action projects that demonstrate new ways to reduce threats and foster new thinking about these problems. nti has also worked to develop public education initiatives

that reach a range of audiences, from officials around the globe to ordinary americans concerned about the safety and security of their children and grandchildren. one of the key partners in this effort has been the "national journal" group, the host of today's event. when nti was founded in 2001, public awareness of the threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons was low while the reality of those threats was high. we felt that an independent news source would best serve the public and nti's mission particularly in what was already a changing media environment. launched on october 1st, 2001, just weeks after the terrorist attacks of september 11, global security news wire has become a critical award-winning resources produced independently by the "national journal" group and underwritten by nti.

we are confident that as more people read global security news wire and become educated about global security issues, more of you will become engaged in helping to find solutions to these challenging problems. i'd also like to recognize and thank our next speaker, dr. bill potter, of the center for nonproliferation studies, which provides in-depth analysis and content on weapons of mass destruction for our website, nti.org. bill has been a tremendous leader on these issues for many years and a valuable partner to nti over the last decade. on behalf of the nti board of directors, we appreciate your participation today and we are honored to be part of this special event. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, joan. and please, everyone, enjoy your lunch. please begin. i would now like to welcome dr. william potter to offer some

additional welcoming remarks. dr. potter serves as a sam nunn and richard lugar of nonproliferation studies and founder director of the nonproliferation studies at the monterey institute of international studies. he is the author and co-author of numerous books including principles versus pragmatism, nuclear policies and the four faces of nuclear terrorism. dr. potter has served as a consultant to the arms control and disarmament agency, lawrence livermore national laboratory and the rand corporation. dr. potter? [applause] >> it's a great honor to speak to this distinguished audience on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the cooperative threat reduction legislation sponsored by senator sam nunn and richard lugar. i believe it's fair to say that few legislative initiatives have had such a profound impact in

promoting u.s. and international security. although that assessment is widely shared today, it was much more problematic in december, 1991 when the soviet union dissolved and four of the successor states possessed literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, massive quantities of weapons-useable nuclear material, huge stocks of chemical munitions and biological agents and a staggering quantity of delivery of vehicles for weapons of mass destruction. senators lugar and nunn recognized that this weaponry and precursor material might be coveted by both nations and nonstate actors who also might be emboldened as the collapse of the soviet union left the successor states with depleted capacity to safely decommission or even guard their arsenals, much less provide adequate pay

to their weapon scientists, the nuclear custodian. in short, a vast supermarket of wmd material, hardware and know how have been open as a consequence of the soviet union's demise and presented the post-cold war world with an enormous and immediate challenge. senators nunn and lugar's extraordinary leadership in recognizing this threat to world peace in conceiving, legislating a program to reduce the danger is why i have had the privilege repeatedly to nominate this dynamic duo for the nobel peace prize, an award they richly deserve but i hope will some day soon receive. ..

in my capacity as sam nunn and richard lugar professor of non-proliferation studies at the monterey institute of international studies. as director of the center for non-proliferation studies, i am also very pleased to note how delighted we are today to include in our audience a group of 15 young russian chinese and american scholars as part of the joint cns georgia tech project adam and i direct in promoting strategic stability of lower numbers.

i believe this project supported by the carnegie corporation of new york represents the best hope for building an international community of non-proliferation specialist who will work cooperatively to sustain the tremendous advances in peace and security achieved during the 20 years since the visionary nunn-lugar legislation was enacted. thank you. [applause] spain now i would like to ask her speakers to join us onstage. our moderator for today's discussion is "national journal" senior editor, james kitfield. james is written on defense, national security and foreign-policy issues from washington d.c. for more than two decades. he is a three-time winner of the gerald r. ford award for distinguished reporting on national defense and most recently in 2009 for his first-hand reporting of the afghan war and other ongoing conflicts and threats. beas twice won the military

reporters and editors association award and the dill school of journalism top prize for excellence in reporting. joining james we have two senators who forced a landmark bipartisan program to destroy weapons of mass destruction. that nunn-lugar program is to activate more than 7000 nuclear warheads when saints for d. senator sam nunn served as co-chairman and chief executive officer of the nuclear threat initiative. he was the united states senator from georgia for more than 24 years. senator nunn attended emory law school where he graduated with honors in 1962. after active duty service in the u.s. coast guard he served six years in the u.s. coast guard reserve. he first entered politics as a member of the georgia house of representatives in 1960. during his tenure in the u.s. senate, senator nunn search is a chairman of the senate armed services committee and the permanent subcommittee on investigations. his legislative achievements included the landmark department of defense reauthorization act

addressed it with the late senator berry goldwater. u.s. senator richard g. lugar is the ranking republican of the senate foreign relations committee and a well-known leader in the national security issues. a proponent of free trade and economic growth, senator lugar was elected in the u.s. senate in 1976 and won a sixth term in 2006 with 87% of the vote. his fourth consecutive victory by a two-thirds majority. senator lugar has been instrumental in senate ratification of treaties that reduce the world use production to use production and stockpiling of the nuke we are chemical and biological weapons. and 2006 "time" magazine listed lugar is one of the top 10 senators and doug campbell wise men of the senate. james. >> thank you all for showing up today. is really an honor for me to be with these two gendelman on the 20th anniversary of the nunn-lugar and the advantages of being around this time and doing what i do for so long as you apply a long memory in a town with a short memory.

and from covering defense systems in the mid 80s i would say nunn-lugar has grouped to be the product of the most far-reaching bipartisan congressional project i have seen on national security issues in my time here along with goldwater-nichols which senator nunn had a hand in both. is the kind of think we see two rarely now so it is befitting we come here 20 years later and think about what this program means and what it has accomplished. as i said we have short memories here. we are already what i think in a post-9/11 era. we have the post-9/11 era in the post-cold war era but when nunn-lugar came around, it was very much at the tail end of the cold war era and i think we forget really the time and with so much joy in the crumbling of the soviet union, about really how dangerous that period was. we had an empire crumbling which frequently leads to other wars throughout history but this was the first time we had an empire crumbling that had 30,000

nuclear weapons, 60,000 bombs worth of material, 40,000 kinds of chemical weapons, smallpox, tens of thousands of scientists who suddenly certainly didn't have a paycheck that had a lot of nuclear know-how so it was really a time of existential change and threats. at the same time and not unrelated to the soviet union you had this group called al qaeda that was just getting established which had a very nihilistic vision of the world and an appetite to acquire weapons of mass destruction so you can imagine what was at play here and the threats really were, and this is not an exaggeration to say it's existential. at that time senator nunn you travel to the soviet union. u with mr. gorbachev at a time when he just survived a military coup. talk us through that because i want to start the narrative at a place we understand what was at play. >> thank you james. it's great to be here and first i want to thank "national journal," george washington university, the nunn school and

bill potter who moderated and all the people who made this anniversary possible today. i was in budapest at a meeting actually relating to sort of an east-west dialogue and dave hamburg who is in the audience today was head of carnegie at that time and they sponsored meetings with members of parliament and leaders from the soviet union as well as the united states as well as europe, meeting together. during the middle of the meeting in budapest hungary our russian friends, then so be it friends, got on a plane and went back because gorbachev had been taken captive. it was an attempted coup. about two days later after one of my friends by the name of andre had left, he flew back in an emergency situation, he called me on the phone and by that time gorbachev had been, just been released and the coup was over and yeltsin was the hero. they were gathered all around the russian white house they called the committee said you have got to come to russia.

and i said, well, i hadn't got a visa. he said have your visa in the lobby in 30 minutes. i said, nobody in the soviet union has ever done anything in 30 minutes. [laughter] it's impossible. if it is here i will come because otherwise i have to leave on a plane this afternoon. sure enough he had the then ambassador to hungary, come to the lobby, handed me a piece of. i got on the plane, went to frankfurt, and then i flew from frankfurt and. when i was in frankfurt in the airport, the american embassy page me and told me not to come because they couldn't handle it. it was chaos over there and i said well i have a russian friend who will take me around, and so i went on. sure enough andre, who i had known for some time, he later became number two and dick lugar knows him well. he took me around for three or four days. that was during the period a time when the soviet people from all over and they were really

debating the breakup of the soviet empire. gorbachev was there, and i had a chance to meet with him which was a very interesting meeting because i asked him. one thing i asked him and i had been with him several times before. i knew him fairly well and i asked him mr. president, during the time you were in captivity did you have full control of the nuclear weapons? was there a danger of command and control? he didn't answer me and that was a huge answer because gorbachev had always been a very frank person. so that made a huge impression on me and then sitting there while the supreme soviet was debating with leaders from kazakhstan, ukraine and belarus all who had nuclear weapons in their own territory to really try to decide the breakup of the soviet empire made of big impression on me. i will never forget one other incident that happened during that time is i was sitting up in the audience listening to that kind of debate. i had my interpreter, a fellow

you also know named sergei rogoff. he was so wrapped up in the reform and the opportunity for change in russia that he basically couldn't help but editorialize as he went along. is that an interpretation like that. he would tell me what they just said he would say under his breath relying -- [laughter] and so it was quite a time to be there. anyway, long story short i get on the airplane and as i head home i basically decide if i can possibly get my colleagues to do something with me in the senate and house, we would try to tackle the subject of loose nukes, because james as you said, there were thousands of nuclear weapons, tons of chemical weapons, a huge amount of nuclear material that could be made into weapons and smallpox actually in some cases ready to be put on a missile. so that was the condition we found. i came back and i introduced the

legislation. we will get to the story later, but it was interesting because we are ready had had the senate armed service bill had passed. this was august of 1991 and the house armed services bill had passed. we ring conference. les aspin was trying to put some kind of humanitarian aid in the bill so i calledless when i got back and we decided in the conference committee to put a package and on the humanitarian side and one that would also deal with nuclear chemical and biological weapons. that conference committee report was basically attacked by the left and the right. at that stage i was like the preacher once said that man if you think you are leader and use dried out and look over your shoulder and ain't nobody following, you are just taking a walk. [laughter] i found out pretty quickly i was just taking a walk. that is when i recruited dick lugar. we had a series of meetings and we had to take the legislation

out of the conference report, send the conference report back. later on we put on the appropriation bill because dick lugar as an indispensable and extremely credible person, joined and completely on the subject and we worked hard on it and got it passed. >> a great story. senator lugar i want you to talk about that period where senator nunn comes back. you know better than i, there were a lot of cold war warriors who had no interest in spending money too heavily secure soviet weapons. they found it abhorrent the idea that we would spend our defense budget doing something like that against the hated communists. i remember those times as well. one author wrote during that period there were a lot of people willing to "let the soviets drown in their own sorrowsless you had a different approach. what brought you to that conclusion? >> started in 1986 when sam and

i were invited to be part of the delegation to go to geneva switzerland. is the hope for the beginning of arms control talks with the soviet union which did not pan out in that period of time what the great congressional delegation. we both found that we had -- in the subject so as a result in subsequent years, sam and i were both in europe, banding together to visit often with delegations of russians that we had met in geneva or a derivative of that in geneva. so we began to see the unraveling of the soviet union and the dangers that were clearly there that were not being met by arms control, which was very helpful. i mention all of this because i remember vividly the russians coming to sam's office. the roundtable around which we had the senate i had to roll down the hallway to my office. there is a memorial to this, but they in essence made the point

to that they were not going to be able to bring security for their weapons and as a matter fact the army was not getting paid. people might take it off or at least would not send it. who knows what all would happen to it? and they said, this is a big problem for a security wise, obviously but a big problem for you. you spend trillions of dollars trying to contain this all this time which is really quite true as a practical matter. >> and they are aimed at you. >> these meetings with the russians were very helpful, because they gave some credibility then to sam's ever to my efforts in dealing with colleagues. we could claim that for for five years we actually have been dealing with russians. it was really totally counterintuitive on two counts. first of all, the great superpower like the soviet union would ask another superpower to disarm it, or to work on

disarmament. that will always be historically it seems to me one of these things that people ponder. how on the world can such a thing happen? the other thing is that this was not an administration initiative. some of the cold warriors were not just in the congress who didn't like the russians. samore also in the administration, so as a result, this is going to have to be congressional initiative which someone pointed out. i know grandma allison -- carter and other people who were very helpful to us at harvard at that point, often made this point that this was a congressional initiative and for that reason, it almost floundered for a while because after we had gained passage on the 20th anniversary of d-day, even the president who was assigned to it was not certain what to do with it nor was his secretary of state or others, and i see david

hamburg right in front of us today. david was on a plane with us that one out and back to russia and ukraine and belarus i think on that particular occasion, as we tried to condense general burns, and our state department, and others that this was for real and that there were things that really needed to occur right away. it was not just a question of passage of legislation. that didn't happen but it was a question of the administration acting and fortunately, we developed at least enough credibility with the administration as well as with our russian, i wouldn't say friends but persons with whom we had had some dealings, to get the ball rolling. >> okay, some -- one other tidbit, i remember when we are debating the legislation on the floor in december of 1991 and i remember a crucial moment where it could have gone in any direction. pete domenici stood up on the floor and made his speech and he

said, this really makes sense. in his pete's speech because he had so much credibility, made an enormous difference. there were a lot of voters who came with a pete domenici speech. later on pete was part of what we called nunn-lugar domenici which was the first major act on terrorism which passed in 1996 that sort of follow that so pete has been a very big player in all of this and also help to stimulate the work between the laboratories at the department of energy. ikenson or pete domenici a huge partner in all of that. >> absolutely. it's great to have him here. so, you are having the vision of the threat. you passed the nunn-lugar 86-8 and two weeks later the president signs it, two weeks later the soviet collapse is. you overcome your ideological differences at home and get the thing implement a. >> are you sure that was washington? [laughter] >> course it was. you have a long memory too.

>> what argument did you use to convince the russians? we talk about how difficult was for our cold war warriors and you talk about yes there were russians and the security service knew there was a vulnerability here but there were some really staunch anti-american feeling in russia as well. the idea of opening up a nuclear apparatus to u.s. scientists was benevolent to a lot of them. how did you go about convincing them to put leadership and russia and these other satellite states to really embrace this thing? >> well, it was mixed because they number of the russian security officials realize what a problem we had and some of them mentioned had talked to us about the dangers and the problems even beforehand. like my friend andre, he was an outside ngo, usa institute without a huge amount of influence before the else and take over but later he was a very influential person. it was new ground in the political leadership and many of

the military people understood how dangerous it was. you still had kgb president. you still had a lot of suspicions. it took two or three years of work to gain that kind of trust but one of the amazing things that happened during this was there was a trusted developed between our military leadership and the nuclear are raina and trust that developed in the laboratories which i mentioned peach had -- pete had so much to do with. it makes a difference today. people working together on projects that have the historical animosities and distrust, working together ask a big difference. andy weber sitting at the head table by david hamburg, and the hold-up your hand. and he is out there in the trenches working on chemical and biological problems. he did that for a number of years and he has been a key of this. i tip my hat to those who are out there in the field in the executive branch like andy, counterparts in russia who really made it happen.

>> i think it is forgotten that if it hadn't been for nunn-lugar there is a very good chance the ukraine kazakhstan and belarus would be nuclear weapon states. a lot of people don't realize the company -- countries gave up their nuclear weapons in those countries have more nuclear weapons on that territory than china, great britain and france put together. so this was a huge undertaking. another thing people don't realize because it is going on still today and that is the nuclear materials that came out of the ukrainian missiles, the way they agreed was to get their part of the economic value for the highly enriched uranium so as they took those apart, both u.s. and russia entered into an agreement where the material coming from those missiles, that portion ukrainian portion of it, would be reimbursed in terms of value. we bought that material. the russians blended it down. we used used it in our nuclear power plants today. that is still going on as a 20 year program so if you look at

the lightbulbs appear you figure that 20% of the nuclear power, 20% of electricity in this country is nuclear power and 50% of the material that is generating those nuclear power plants is coming from the missiles and a highly enriched uranium blended down to low-enriched uranium into fuel that was from the cold war. one out of 10 lightbulbs that there is coming from material that was aimed at america and the cold war. >> let me follow-up at this point, that sam and i did not lack nerve then we went out to kazakhstan to see the president. this was before we had an ambassador there or anybody else. he said what is the ukraine going to do? i want to know about ukraine. so we went to see president yeltsin again just after the election of president carter. he was very unhappy with both of us and had a bad time with the governors of russia that day i

guess. and in essence we didn't know what the translation was but i think he was saying i am going to bomb the hell of them if they don't give it up. he said i know you guys are going down there, which we were. and so we were to get the message to them. we had a dinner with the president of ukraine and

these are vignettes that then lead to people asking us to come out to see the typhoon submarines. they didn't have to do that. >> they kept thinking you would write them a check. >> that's right. [laughter] >> and i don't want to play poker with that, but you mentioned the chip to see the typhoons where they were dismantling each one that carries 20 missiles and 10 warheads basically around the world with what you saw being destroyed. did you understand them that you had want something, a pebble that would start an avalon when

you saw them actually -- i mean if you look at the scorecard, 7000 plus warheads in 2000, 3000 missiles, 33 missile submarines, 670 for missiles, 24 stored security -- and nerve agent. if nunn-lugar itself for a first strike weapon you would be the most successful in history. did you understand that something historic had taken place. >> we didn't have time to worry about that. it was just a question of accepting his invitations and they came because we were available to talk to the russians. they had developed a certain amount of trust in the fact that first of all we understood it and secondly we were beginning to be able to deliver something. it was very unusual. would not allow me to take a picture of the typhoon standing in front of it. i am on my summer vacation but a russian did take a picture and unbelievably six months later,

sent a large one to our office which for the first time our intelligence people to my knowledge had seen a picture of a typhoon. but that is a long project. i think probably three of the six had been dismantling it to this day, huge expense and very complex business. >> james, i knew that it was succeeding and charlie curtis is sitting out there. charlie was deputy secretary of energy when we started the nunn-lugar domenici program in 1996 and had that working together. i knew what was happening was very unusual because the military-to-military were working together understanding we had a common problem and the laboratories were working together. the people who developed and the stewards of the nuclear weapon in the nuclear stockpiles, but i think that when we started that program in 19961 of the reasons we started it and the second

program, the nunn-lugar domenici was because we were being taken away by the opposition of nunn-lugar so we had, we were busy. we were busy because there were still considerable amount of opposition to the nunn-lugar concept in the congress and they were putting more restrictions on every year. i knew i was leaving and i felt that we have to had to go on the offense, and it was the first domestic terrorism bill. we started helping local fire departments, police forces, get ready for any kind of act of terrorism on the theory that people in this country needed to understand that we had to be prepared at home but the best defense from having a nuclear incident here at home on nuclear territory was to help countries secure material wherever it is. that concept continues today. the easiest place to secure nuclear material and prevent nuclear terrorism is not in the united states. it's too late and it's very hard to even find that. is trying to help countries around the globe secure that material where it is now.

charlie played a big role in that. pete played a big role in that. david played a big role in that and we have and ti are still playing that role and dick lugar has expanded the concept and i think you might want to say a word or two about that because now it is global. it is not just the former soviet union. >> it's a good point because sam and i before we got into it very far were being invited to go out to the countryside and see the chemical weapons. the russians had already denied they had biological weapons but we had saw lots of laboratories and so forth. that remains a real problem, these nuclear businesses. these are big. is going to be hard for a terrorist to carry in a nuclear warhead to the united states. another thing is carrying pathogens of marburg or horrible diseases that could be applied not only in africa but likewise in the united states.

and so as a result, under kenny meyer out there presently working with ash carter, a strong sponsor, dave went into kenya, uganda to put security with the cooperation of those governments around some laboratories that were very vulnerable and that work continues. but that is chu all over the world, were people that develop some type of chemical predicament, and of course the huge situation there in siberia where we have been working with the russians for a long time is to go through all the chemical weapons, sort of tone by time and by tomb and i said as they call it. there was a day when all of this, sam and i saw flying in shells and a sporty good store around this was rather unguarded, very dangerous. it could happen elsewhere other

than russia and no doubt was our first incidence. >> 1,900,000 shells of nerve gas in one storage, big storage facility. we went in with gas masks, holes in the roofs, was not secured, lowland, swampland, the buildings were sinking. they now have opened up that chemical destruction plan and they are beginning to destroy that. ash carter was with us. he computed andy that there was enough nerve gas there if it was properly disseminated, that would be impossible virtually, but it would kill everybody on earth four times over on that one side. god knows how anybody could have thought we needed that kind of nerve gas. the united states were producing chemicals too. that was a period -- >> the at arms race was out was out of control. >> you mentioned in doing stories in the late '90s when quite honestly the u.s. russian relations started to go south

again. they were having a hell of a decade as you know, and i went out to los alamos into the state, and talked with lab director stewart doing these labs and i've really got the sense that one of the byproducts of that lab to lab was when the political relationship had gotten into tough times there was still trust at that level they kept us on an even keel and i wonder if you think that is one of the residual benefits of the flow? >> and we need to restore that now. it gets interrupted. for instance there were all the allegations about chinese spying and not only the chinese access to the lab with the chinese which we need but also the russian u.s. got interrupted. they have done a tremendous job, the former head of los alamos and he still travels around and he still has russian friends but it is not even today as we speak is not nearly as good as it should be in terms of that kind of cooperation. so i know that we have to

protect secrets and technology and so did they but we have got to continue to find ways to work together because we basically with rush and with china and others, we have really have enough powerful weapons to destroy god's world. those are the stakes here are. >> sam is a division on the nti board, having russians who are very prominent in the past as well as the president, but also representing china and india and other places on earth that likewise for c. potential problems. these people may not have positions in government per se but they are well respected in our countries and a very good avenue for each of us to sort of keep track of what the agenda ought to be. >> i have got a few more minutes and i will ask some more questions. i will ask questions for the audience so please be prepared if you have questions for these two gentlemen. more recent history, you have

joined with secretary schultz and henry kissinger and bill perry in writing this seminole op-ed "the wall street journal" that became dubbed one of the four -- anti-apocalypse. basically saying that the drift and proliferation have gotten so concerning to you that you thought something wasn't done and the united states did not express a vision of a world without nuclear weapons period, that we were going to face another downslope of the liberation. that was a very dire pronouncement you made. what brought you to that moment? >> my position on this evolves over a period of time. i finally, before we have wrote that op-ed, working with with the schultz and kissinger and perry, concluded that we had to take a number of steps in the world. we talk about them today and i won't go over them, to protect the american public and the only way we could take those deaths is by cooperation. we could not do it single-handedly. there wasn't any defense program in the world that would

single-handedly just the united states are checked our public. we had to have cooperation. we could not get cooperation and taking those steps without repeating and reiterating that we were really pledged to a vision of eventually ultimately getting rid of nuclear weapons because that is what we signed up to is the non-proliferation treaty. that is what we have signed up for every president since then but we had not taken it seriously. the world knew we were not taking it seriously and believe the nuclear powers, not just the united states at other countries, were hypocritical about it some most countries in the world that had nuclear material were basically saying the heck with you guys. we are not worried about it. terrace are more likely to hit you than they are us. you don't stick to your pledge on the non-proliferation treaty. why should we worry about it? so george shultz and bill and henry and i all came to the conclusion that we had a layout that vision and say we are serious about it and we will work to ultimately rid the

country and the world of nuclear weapons. it is not going to be easy. i probably won't be alive when it happens but that is the goal, the top of the mountain. we have to get to base camp. we are not even at base camp now but we have to get to base camp. one of these days it is my prayer that we will have our children in the next generation, the young people in this audience that will arrive at base camp and they will be able to see the top of the mountain. it is going to take cooperation. i say we are in a race between corporation catastrophe not just in the nuclear field but the chemical and biological field or goes be without the cover of you, we could never be accused of being soft on defense. i don't think a lot of that is happened would have happened. >> we have 14 countries where leaders have taken the model of fact and written hotbeds endorsing this concept and then of course the real breakthrough came when president obama lead the u.n. security council to make, to endorse what we call the vision.

>> the's profile in courage i have on my right here, new start, was not an easy five. i talk to you during that fight. you stood up against many of your own party and saying this was a good thing to do and helped carry president obama's -- talk about how you envisioned the climate now here for the non-proliferation treaties going forward and were you more optimistic now than in the past or was the process such that you are a pessimist in a true sense? >> i'm trying to work in a very modest way along the pathway here and i really admire sam and the other three or four, but the facts of life are that -- died before the end of the ford administration and nothing further was negotiated. this was really very important because american boots on the ground, literary our military

and civilian personnel and what have you depended upon the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and they were dismissed from russia. and so, it's all well and good to talk about trust and verify that the verify part was surmounted at this stage. and the abundant they did negotiations with the russians but it wasn't until the latter part of the year that they came to a place where a treaty could come before the senate. by that time many people said there has been a new election and there are new members coming in here and furthermore it is christmas and how dare you bring up something like this. it's not a very nice atmosphere for the whole situation. but nonetheless, we try to work our way along and we got 71 votes ultimately for the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. but there is still a little bit of a testy relationship with our russian friends. i don't want to over emphasize that the various other issues have come into this but nonetheless we are back, the boots are back on the ground. i still get the reports from the

pentagon of how many warheads were taken off the missiles and how many missiles were destroyed, how many silos, submarines or what have you which i treasure because this isn't over. working with the russians is very important and so ultimately at least a number of my republican colleagues agree with this, and i hope that they will stay with us because we are going to have some more discussions and the appropriations each year for nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction really depends on this bipartisan. sam made a good point. in the old days in some years when so many restrictions were placed on nunn-lugar that they didn't do anything. they were so busy pulling out reports. a whole year had passed without the appropriate money being spent. this had gone through several administrations and ups and downs. this is why it is very very

important. i cherish this opportunity to celebrate the 20th anniversary to remind everybody where we were, how we have come along and what we need to do. >> just like senator nunn offered cover for a lot of people to come along and edition i don't think new start would be where does today if you hadn't done what you had done. >> we would not have had a treaty without it and would not have any verification. we would be two superpowers still thousands of nuclear weapons with no way to verify. the military if they assume the worst case, dick lugar deserves a huge amount of credit for getting that s.t.a.r.t. treaty through the senate. >> absolutely. [applause] >> one last question and then i'm going to go to the audience. addresses question because when i was going back and thinking about nunn-lugar over the years and all my reporting on it, you know you had two statesmen who engaged in risky shuttle diplomacy. you had a vision to avoid a

potential catastrophe. you had effective politicking to get over ideological resistance and to reach across the aisle and did something historic. it strikes me that we see too little of that in washington. we have had a brutal year in this town between the two parties and reaching impasse over impasse over impasse and i'm curious if you think this town is still capable of producing something like what you guys were able to and if so, what are the elements that we can point to that says you know, allowed this to happen. what is missing now in our politics? >> i am confident and optimistic that we can do it, but nevertheless, there are some days that are better than others in this business. we have talked about it a lot, but this is over a 20-year period of time. there were days and months i think when sam and i were

working together where things were not going particularly smoothly. one of the nice things about the initial thing was that we invited i think 14 members of the senate, seven democrats and seven republicans, to come together to hear ash carter give a paper. that was really helpful to say the least. may be essential. there are many who have been included in these situations who have seen what has occurred and we are very proud that they were but i think all senators have to recognize the dangers of biological and chemical residual of nuclear and the problems of india and pakistan quite apart from what might happen in iran or north korea and you say this doesn't really pertain to nunn-lugar. but it does in the sense that proper threat reduction has really reached out into all weapons of mass destruction, picks up allies on medica manes not just foreign relations and armed services. i would just emphasize that,

they need to to share that responsibility and to share the load. >> senator? >> do you think our politics are still capable? do you worry about it at all? >> i worry about it because i saw what was an unusual -- which will take 10 to 20 years. is not going to happen overnight in the supercommittee given all sorts of power, committee appointed by the leaders and it came up with a big zero. i thought that was very discouraging but i agree with dick and the long run. i think our american political system is stronger than the congress or the administration in any one period of time. we don't allow vacuum's to exist too long in american politics and we have got a huge vacuum right now. i compare the two parties with two wings out there flapping with no fuselage. [laughter] a plane flying along with all

wings, and there is no center. the center has got to rise up at some point it will. i hope it is this election but we will see but i do believe the vacuum will be filled. i think they're a number of other people in congress like dick lugar that can work together, but the atmosphere is pretty bad right now. the two-party system is historically served us well. of the two-party system does not begin working better in fiscal energy and environment and finding ways to work together and compromise a think there will be an outside force that the american people will not let it keep going like it is now. >> okay i'm going to open it up to questions from the audience. raise your hand and state your name and affiliation, please. senator domenici i will start with you if you have a question. the microphone please.

>> well, sam thank you so much for mentioning me. i appreciated very much. i would like to share a couple of things that were interesting. well into this spending of american money on the russians with various activities of the type we have talked about here, one big expenditure of money was to give the get the russians money to secure their facilities and once the soldiers left they had no security. the security was soldiers walking around the outside and inside didn't know but they never got out. the soldiers maintained maintain that's the one that left, nobody knew what would happen. it a program put in place where they could always count what went in and what went out. i was over there once and i couldn't believe what i ran into. and one of the closed gates that we have to open there was a camera. we taught them how to take pictures of coming in and out. i looked up to see what it was all about and it said, made in albuquerque new mexico.

[laughter] some of the people there got excited about the russian exchange of activities because i was in they went over and did business with them him and they built those cameras as an american requirement. this second i would like to make is that all of your work to try to get highly enriched uranium as a genre of all btu wall, to get it shipped over here so it couldn't be reused. i happen to fall upon that and i want to tell you how exciting that was. one afternoon i took a bill on a supplemental appropriation for $375 million. never a hearing on the matter. i ticket to a subcommittee with my trusted eight, presented it and said to opie, this will blythe highly enriched uranium from from the soviet union from russia and supplier electrical power plants. knows how long. he said why did it take so long to get here? i said i don't know but if you tell me it's okay we will buy it and sure enough, he quickly said

the one person that was there, if you aren't voting with me we will call all the democrats back and we will do it. i said the republicans too. he said it's done. with that we bought all of their uranium and we are still doing it. it is five to 10% of electricity in america comes from that and at the same time i would like to tell you that the people that impressed me the most in terms of helping america bridge the gap where the leaders in the national laboratories. i can give you one particular. sig hanker now at stanford is some kind of a fellow. those kinds of people, if we could still find them, we can do the cooperating you are talking about because without a doubt, they have real friends over there no question about a. >> charlie charlie curtiss helped enable those programs too. >> that is true. the ones that paid people to come over here and get educated and go laces in the world so

they wouldn't be developing weapons, we did that one and we did one industry to industry and you help us with that one. they all followed in the footsteps of nunn-lugar. >> if you would focus on energy policy we would appreciate a. >> there is an easy energy policy and is coming on its own. it will be here in about 10 years that they would just leave it alone. >> if you read in sunday's paper, he will tell you the answer. he is right. >> other questions? i see one in the back there. >> hi, i'm richard from radio free europe. nice to have this opportunity. i want to ask senator lugar if he could follow-up a little bit on a question asked a little bit earlier regarding new start. he said the relationship of the russians on non-proliferation right now is still a bit testy to use her word. some people would say it's a lot worse than just a bit testy because the russians have even threatened some people in

russia, have threatened to pull out of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty citing problems with the missile shield, that if the u.s. is ahead with its missile shield plan that could tip the balance of power. based on that, how secure do you really think the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is? can it withstand these pressures that are now being put upon it? >> yes, i think it can but i think you make a very good point, that a side issue and once the russians feel is integral with the first issue, the missile defense with regard to europe is going back and forth and not with very good resolution. so as a result, work that might be occurring in russia to further the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, to move and say tactical nuclear weapons, has been installed, this is not the first time in the 20 year period we are discussing today that the sorts of things have occurred and it's not that i see this as any less serious.

i always take carefully the arguments that at the same time, i perceive it as a part of the overall debate we are still having as two countries with our nato allies in the middle of it and likewise the potential for iranian nuclear missiles being at the heart of the question that our european allies want protections. the russians may not be convinced that the iranians are a threat to them or to anybody else, but we think they may be and so we are going to have to continue to discuss this. but it's just important to keep in touch with our russian friends throughout all of this and sort of understand that these stallings and difficulties will occur but nevertheless we are going to overcome them. >> any questions? right here. her first and then you. >> jessica farnham from the center for non-proliferation studies. thank you of any both stress

that this is an issue of paramount importance and that it is going to require long-term commitment into the next generation so i would like to ask you as people experienced with the congressional process come is there something that u.s. congress could be doing to ensure that we have long-term and educated citizenry and educated next generation of leaders who have invested in these kinds of issues and special is. because we have made a number of commitments to things like the non-proliferation treaty review process and the security summit to the need for non-proliferation and disarmament education at all levels but we don't currently have really any process for that to occur for example at the high school level which is tremendously important i think were just in general in this country and perhaps we need some kind of legislation that would mandate that. >> i would, quickly that there are a number of high schools in our country that have been debating this and learning about it. it is quite remarkable and we see a good number of the students and their teachers coming through our offices but i

see bill potter. build is prepared i think to teach all of these students. as a matter fact there was enrollment out there to center. being very serious about it, this is a course that really deals with the 10 to tensile leaders for the next generation and maybe beyond that now. and i am heartened by that and likewise other efforts that will has been associated with. >> i think education is critical. it's one of the issues the labs themselves were worried about that there was not a generation of scientists coming along because there were no tests anymore which was the stewardship, to give them science and sort of create an imagination to want to do this kind of work. >> another question? the auch is going to say i know you're already doing great work on the monorail in educating young people. there's a lot going on in russia right now as we speak and i'm told there are 50 million

internet users in russia. the biggest number in europe and that's it has a lot to do with the climate right now where people are demanding that there be accountability in government and demanding that they are be an attack on corruption in russia. i see some real hope in this. i see hope of young people communicating because the young people, the new generation it's, they are going to have to deal with these problems in the future and the more we can solve now the better your future is going to be. but russia and u.s.-russian, and chinese also, young people really need to form bonds. the internet gives us a way of doing that without necessarily having to do it through governance who sometimes break off relationships like that when they are they're having difficulties politically. >> a question over here. >> thank you. my name is mary, and i am here on behalf of fuel cycle week.

obviously nunn-lugar was intended for, well, this warmer soviet union and the territories associated with it that a number of other countries have created their own nuclear weapons today or are on the track to creating it. i was wondering if there have been any efforts to extend the treaty to other nations outside the former soviet union, or possibly form a treaty with similar terms inspired by it in these past couple of decades? >> the answer is yes. dick lugar has art expanded the program for eligibility for -- is global now thanks to dick lugar. nti, nuclear initiative team about a year ago went over and reached the chinese and the south koreans and the japanese on the concept so they would understand if north korea ever were willing to terminate their nuclear program, the nunn-lugar concept could be applied to

north korea. that is a big gift but nevertheless it does apply now thanks to deck globally in his dealing with such things as biological dangers and africans africans -- >> i just commend sam for his confidence. [laughter] >> we have one question right here. i will get to you in the back. spew my name is valerie. i am with one of the organizations that implement ctr. you spoke about the importance of building and maintaining relationships. obviously there are a lot of stories about different relationships, but those of us who on the implementation side who will continue working with the ctr, what would you suggest will be the key components of

the international cooperation in the future? maybe two or three things we should keep in mind, lessons that you have learned through your career that will help us to successfully continue implementing the program? thank you. >> a great question. >> well i would suggest that essentially we will need to continue to work carefully with our military people and the department of defense. for example, we have had briefings recently from general dempsey and others who have stressed that we are going going to be involved and much more connectedness with intelligence services, with friends and foes alike, and that as opposed to perhaps sending divisions and battalions of troops we are going to be using drone aircraft more. this is the military side of that, a a less military point of

view. i think the question is, with this intelligence as we are able to send scientists to various countries, and to find really what is being developed by various countries or for various groups of people, we will have a backup at least in the united states military, but likewise american diplomacy and smart diplomacy. and weighs really of making certain that the rest of the world knows that we want to try to coordinate safety with regard to weapons of mass attraction, whether they are chemical, biological or nuclear. this is not meant to be vague, but it is i think in the process of being formulated as to how come i mentioned detroit and the threat reduction agency presently working with the department of defense. they are trying out all sorts of

new avenues and i think with some success so i am eager on the legislative front to try to back them up and make certain that they have the money and the congressional authority to do that. >> let me just mention a couple of things. broadly speaking with all the problems we have got in the world today and we could list numerous problems, iran, north korea among those, middle east problems and so forth but if you back off the way i do history and look at the great powers today and there are a number of those grade powers, europe japan china soviet union. we have got of course the u.s.. we have got more in common with a great powers than i think we have had at least in my memory of history. but we have got this animosity. we have got historical reconciliations that it never happened. we have the leftovers of the cold war. we have got china, fears of

encirclement and so forth so we have all of the spheres and animosities but if you look at it objectively there is every reason for young people to say whether you are in china, russia, europe or japan or the united states, we have to find ways to work together because we have so much in common. idea that as inevitable sweep of history if we will get behind that kind of concept. i think the younger generation can do that. one thing we are doing right now at the nuclear threat initiative is non-governmental and i always emphasize the government have to do the heavy lifting here but governments have not been able, because of a lot of different impediments including political reasons to come up with any kind of measure, a common way of determining how secure nuclear materials are come any best practices and standards and so forth. our organization is going to public and index. we have teamed up with the economist intelligence unit of london and we are going to publish an index of 32 countries that have weapon usable nuclear

material. we will score them in five categories, three or four subparts in each category, each -- 18 ways of scoring and we will have a list sometime in the middle of january of countries and how will they are doing, comparing one country with another. we are not trying to put some at the bottom of list and some of the top although that will happen because of the scoring system. we are trying to give everyone some criteria so when the south korean but terry hill summit, they will begin to be able to discuss how we should have, how we should have a baseline judgment and how we should measure improvement in securing nuclear materials in preventing catastrophic terrorism, so we are going to do that in january. there a lot of things you can do outside of government that government can do. i'm hoping the government will start debating this at the south korean summit so yes there a lot of things that can be done but overall i really do believe and i repeat that the nuclear powers as well as other countries in

the world have more in common now than we had in many generations. if we can just back off our historical animosities and distrust and begin to work together, to dissipate that kind of distrust. >> the last question. i think we have time for one more in the back there. >> edward roder, sunshine press. i wanted to follow-up on mr. kitfield's last question about the politics. it seems that in 1991, had he not been able to attach this to a conference committee report, there probably never would have happened. and, i am wondering if looking at today's politics and how broken things are and how we can't even pass legislation. >> we will have several minutes of "national journal" probe ran to take you live over to the united states senate. a reminder that you can check her web site c-span.org for the rest of this program as well as information. the senate is about to gavel in

for the start of their day. general speeches up first for about two hours or so. at 4:30 lawmakers turned to a pair of ambassadorial nominations, and the boats on the schedule for an hour later at 5:30 p.m.. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2 weekends in just a couple of moments. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

god our king, you are clothed in majesty and strength. your throne has been established from the beginning, and you existed before time began. help our lawmakers today to do their work well, striving to labor for your glory. give them the purity of life and honesty of purpose to walk in your way. strengthen their hearts and minds that they may worthily measure up to the role you have ordained for them. thus may they fulfill their vocation to the glory of your name and the advancement

of your kingdom. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., december 12, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in morning business until 4:30 this afternoon. following that morning business the senate will be in executive session to consider nominations of norman eisen to be ambassador to the czech republic and mari aponte to be ambassador to el

salvador. i ask unanimous consent that john d. tealy from the state department be granted floor privileges for the eisen and apone nominations. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the senate will vote on norman icen to be ambassador and mari apont spe, they're in their positions. these nominees are qualified public servants who will continue to represent their nation with distinction. for our republican colleagues, being qualified and dedicated doesn't seem to be enough. last week they blocked the nap nation of a brilliant legal mind, caitlin halligan to the district court of appeals. obviously they don't mind there are vacancies paws republicans

were in the majority in that court. so defeat this competent woman and that's what they did with vacancies still in the court and blocked the nomination of richard cordray to lead the financial protection bureau despite his qualifications for the job. he has a long history of protecting the middle class and he would have been a great asset in our fight to protect main street from the kind of wall street greed that caused the 2008 financial crisis. yet republicans denied mr. cordray's nomination, i should say confirmation, and all it does is weaken the agency he was nominated to lead. i hope republicans will not turn every confirmation process into a political three-ring circus. the candidates today, mr. icen -- mr. eisen and

ms. aponte have jumped through enough hoops already. ms. aponte's record speaks for itself and experts in the region support her confirmation. the same enthusiasm is there for ambassador eisen. if republicans block the confirmation of these excellent, qualified candidates, it will only be for nakedly partisan reasons. also is a democratic proposal to to to end a $1,000 tax increase on working families. every hour they delay and every day they filibuster is one more the senate by necessity will have to stay in washington to get its work done. republicans have opposed our plan to pay for this legislation with a tiny surtax on a tiny fraction of america's highest earners. the tax would only apply to the second or third or fourth

million the wealthiest americans make. but republicans say the richest of the rich in our country even those who make millions every year shouldn't contribute more than to get our economy back on track. they call our plan time after time a tax on job creators. and i say so-called job creators. because i say that, mr. president, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring. for example, other -- there have been many outlets but i'll concentrate on one, national public radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire job creators. a reporter reached out to a tax lobby in congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. days ticked by with no luck. maybe job creators are like unicorns, impossible to find and don't exist. that's because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than 1% are

actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator. most of these businesses are hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers. they don't do much hiring and don't need for tax breaks. one reporter looked for millionaire job creators hiding on facebook. this time they found a few and they actually supported our plan, these people on facebook actually supported our plan to ask the richest of the rich to pitch in to improve the economy for all americans. this is gentleman yaifn bergering, owner of a contracting company, said. first of all, he's hiring like crazy. and i repeat this quote. "it's only fair that i put into the system that is the entire reason for my success that i put something into the system." mr. berger may be a millionaire

but he's one in a million. a majority of people who make more than a million dollars a year say they boo gladly contribute more to improve the economy. it's often said what's good for america is good for america. i hope my republican colleagues said as mr. berger said that what is good for america is also good for business. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. president, later this week ?ons senators will have an opportunity to do three big things with a single vote. by voting for the act that will soon come from the house senators will be able to extend the tax relief americans

continue continue to need, prevent job losses by blocking a new regulation on u.s. manufacturers, and facilitate the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs through the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. one vote, three accomplishments. and that's to say nothing of the other things the bill would do like the doc fix and unemployment insurance. so my suggestion is once this legislation comes over from the house, that we pass it without delay. based on nerts of the bill --, merits of the bill, it should be a strong bipartisan vote. nothing could be more bipartisan right now than preventing job loss or facilitating the creation of new private sector jobs. the president has said that job creation is his top priority, here's a bill that helps him achieve it. without a dime of taxpayer money. the president says he wants to

extend the payroll tax extension. here's a bill that does it. the president says he wants unemployment insurance extended. this bill does that. the president says he wants the two parties to compromise. this is it. there is no reason this legislation shouldn't have the president's enthusiastic support. the only reason, the only reason for democrats to pose this job creating bill would be to gain some political advantage at a time when every one of them says job creation is a top priority. here's what the junior senator from west virginia, a democrat, had to say just today about the pipeline measure contained in the house bill. "i'm for the keystone pipeline. all the trade unions, everyone's for it, it creates thousands of jobs." i couldn't say it better. the house actually had a stand-alone vote on the keystone x.l. in july. 47 -- 47 house democrats voted

for it. so i would suggest to my friends on the other side they join with us and close out the year on a bipartisan note. the middle-class tax relief and job creation act was written to appeal to both parties and i have yet to hear anyone on the other side offer a single good reason for opposing it. so far, the only reason democrats have given for opposing this bill is they'd rather extend the payroll tax cut on its own without adding language about a pipeline that many of them say they support anyway. so evidently, they'd vote for both of these things separately, but not together? that makes absolutely no sense. look, you're either for this pipeline project and the jobs that would come with it or you're not. and if you're for it, there's no reason to oppose it just because it's not offered as a stand-alone measure. that doesn't make any sense.

it's time to stop the posturing. here's a bill that contains top priorities from both sides. let's take it up and pass it without any more theatrics. let's tass past this job-creating bill and give americans the certainty and the jobs they deserve. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and under the previous order the senate will be, in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended and speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. last week the highlight of the united states senate were two republican filibusters. those are efforts by the republicans to demand 60 votes for the senate to take action. used to be rare. in fact, so rare that jimmy stewart made a movie about it, "mr. smith goes to washington." you may remember it. it wasn't this chamber, he was if the back row because he was a freshman senator and he literally spoke until he dropped physically. but he won the argument. won the day. great triumph in washington. he used the filibuster effectively to stop what he thought was a greedy move, a selfish move by his colleagues.

that's the movies. what's real life? reife i when a republican senator said i declare a filibuster and i'll see you later. i'm going out to dinner. that's how it works around here. if we had a few more jimmy stewart moments on the floor where those who are pushing for a filibuster an exceptional, extraordinary, 60-vote margin had to stick on the floor and argue their point, i think they'd go away. because nine times out of ten, 19 out of 20, maybe even more m, turns out there's no solid basis for what they're doing. what they did last week was to stop a woman there being appointed to the district court in the district of columbia. her name is kaitlyn cal hin -- caitlin halligan, who has argued many cases before the supreme court, i don't have a resume in front of me. i spoke to her nomination last week. she was found unanimously well qualified by the american bar association and yet she was filibustered by the republicans. and we couldn't come up, we

couldn't come up be with -- only one republican vote to support us. only one. all the rest said filibuster continues. to put that in historic perspective, a few years ago we had a big confrontation in the senate before the president was elected. so i don't implicate him in any way but before this president, there was an argument about whether you should filibuster federal nominees. a group of 14 bipartisan group said only under extraordinary circumstances. last week with this filibuster on this nominee they completely forgot that except for one, senator hurricanes of alaska -- murkowski of alaska. she joined us breaking to -- she joined us voting to break the filibuster, it wasn't enough. that one nominee fell by the wayside. one filibuster a week wasn't enough for the other side. they came up later in the week with another one. that seems to be the sum and substance of their strategy in the senate. and this filibuster was for richard cordray. richard cordray is a former

attorney general from the state of ohio. he is now working at the consumer financial protection bureau and the president wants him to be the director. what is this bureau? created by the dodd-frank financial reform bill, it will put in place for the first time in the history of the united states an agency of government focused on making certain that families and consumers know what they're signing when they get into financial transactions and to stop those who were exploiting americans and american families. the consumer financial protection bureau. we have a ton of agencies that work with the financial institutions. some of them are good close friends of those institutions. this would be the one agency of government on the side of consumers. i know a little bit about it because i heard a speech once from elizabeth warren.

elizabeth warren, a harvard law professor, one of the most articulate spokespersons for consumer rights in america and the watchdog on the bailout funds that congress gave to the banks, gave a speech once and said, you know, we ought to have one agency that says to the american people, here are the tricks and traps you might find in a mortgage or a credit card agreement. and here's something we shouldn't allow under the law of america. i liked it so much, i went up to her afterwards and said i'd like to introduce the bill. she and i worked on it, we introduced it, put the first bill in. and it gained support, popularity to the point where when we came to the floor with the dodd-frank bill, senator chris dodd took my idea and i will say improved it dramatically -- did a great job -- and included it in financial reform. my hope, the hope of many people, was that elizabeth warren, the person who conceived this idea, would head this agency. she was stopped cold.

the banking interests and financial institutions in america said not only "no" but "heck no," we're not going to allow her to be the head of this agency. she worked at it, trying to get it up and running, get the rice people in place and eventually went -- get the right people in place, and eventually went on. and i won't pursue what her next effort will be. you can read about it anywhere in the people. but she were the -- she was the inspiration for this and richard cordray was by her side when they put this agency together. the banks hate the consumer financial protection bureau like the devil hates holy water. the idea that there would actually be an independent agency look over their transactions and their legal instruments and informing the american people when they've stepped over the line is something they find unacceptab unacceptable. let me tell you about another person working over at the consumer financial protection bureau. her name is holly petraeus. if the name rings a bell, it

should. her husband, general petraeus, has probably been in the forefront of keeping america safe since 9/11 more than any individual, serving both republican and democratic administrations. he has risked his life serving his country overseas. he is completely committed to our men and women in the military and he's currently head of the c.i.a. his wife -- his wife is cut from the same cloth. she believes in the military in her heart and soul and she has worked at the consumer financial protection bureau to stop predatory lenders who are taking advantage of military families. that's the kind of work that can be done there and is being done there, but they don't have a director, they don't have a leader. so last week we brought richard cordray's nomination to the floor. it's been here for a long time. no one -- no one -- has argued that this man is not extremely well qualified for the job. he is. the vote came up, another republican filibuster, he fell

by the wayside. just what the banks want. make certain -- they want to make certain that this bureau does not have a leader and can't use its resources effectively. they're doing everything they can to cripple it. well, mr. president, if that were the end of the story, two bad filibusters last week, hold on to your hats because here we come again. this week we're going to have ambassador mari aponte, president obama's choice to represent our nation as u.s. ambassador to el salvador before the senate. we know ambassador aponte is more than qualified for this assignment because she's already performing that job with distinction. president obama appointed her by recess appointment nearly a year ago. let me tell but some of the things she's achieved in a year as our chief diplomat in el salvador. first, she persuaded el salvador to send troops to assist the nato training mission in

afghanistan in august. this is the first time -- the first time -- any latin american country has put troops on the ground in afghanistan in support of american troops. this represents a significant achievement for el salvador. 20 years ago, the people of el salvador were struggling in the midst of a bloody civil war. today they are strong enough and stable enough to help others around the world in afghanistan establish their own stable democracy. ambassador aponte has proven to be very effective, advocating for the u.s. interests in latin america, a region immediately on our doorstep and with whom we have many strategic interests. ambassador aponte has helped to advance america's security interests in latin america by expertly negotiating an agreement with el salvador to open a new jointly funded electronic monitoring center to fight transnational crime. what are we talking about here?

drug dealing and terrorism. such gang and narcotics-related crime impact both our nation, central america, and the world. this skilled diplomat is able to work now as a reassess appointment by president obama to ensure that el salvador remains a strong ally in the fight against these dangers. she has already proven herself to be an accomplished diplomat in a short period of time. she has a long history of public service and experience in both the private and nonprofit sector. one of america's greatest strengths is that we're a diverse nation. ambassador aponte helps demonstrate that strength to the world. she is one of the few puerto rican ambassadors serving our nation. but despite everything that i have just said to you, her nomination has been met with unjustified resistance on the republican side of the aisle. in 1998, ambassador aponte was appointed by then-president clinton to be ambassador to the

dominican republic. this withdrew her nomination in 1998, 13 years ago, after a miami newspaper reported allegations that a former naturalized cuban-american boyfriend from the early 1990's was actually a cuban intelligence agent who was trying to recruit her. the f.b.i. looked into the matter. they investigated it. aponte cooperated completely and she also severed all her ties with this individual. she was never the subject of any f.b.i. investigation or ever accused of any wrongdoing despite her full cooperation with the federal bureau of investigation. ultimately the f.b.i. found no evidence to support the allegations against her. none. when president obama looked at ambassador aponte's record of public service, he nominated her to serve as america's ambassador to el salvador in 2009. once again, the critics raised the same allegations about her former relationship, even though

they had been thoroughly investigated and dismissed and discredited by the federal bureau of investigation. senator demint, south carolina, objected to her nomination. he was the only senator objecting. so this time around, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator john kerry of massachusetts, along with senator menendez, our own hispanic senator on the democratic side from the state of new jersey, made an unprecedented move. they said to senator demint of south carolina, we will allow you to personally review the f.b.i. files on ambassador aponte. so senator demint appeared to raise a new objection to aponte at that point. and listen to this one, mr. president. this objection, new one, by senator demint stems from an editorial that the ambassador wrote in a popular el salvadoran newspaper in june about lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender pride month. the article was entitled, "for the elimination of prejudices wherever they exist." her op-ed disavowed violence and hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation, urging education and understanding. those are hardly radical ideas. most members of the senate, at least let's say many members of the senate, have given speeches along these lines. well, the senator from south carolina calls this op-ed provocative and argues it's disrespectful of el salvador's culture and that it inflamed tensions with an important ally. there is no evidence to support what he said. none. to the contrary, el salvador itself had already taken before she published this editorial steps towards more equal rights with the passage of decree 56 in may 2010. that law prohibited all forms of

discrimination by the government of el salvador based on sexual orientation, just what the ambassador had asked for in her editorial. decree 56 was signed one year before ambassador aponte wrote her article, four months before she was sworn in as ambassador. the record's there. el salvador reaffirmed its national commitment to equality again last june when it joined the united states and more than 80 other nations in signing the declaration for the elimination of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community during the human rights council of the united nations. let me also note that ambassador aponte wrote that op-ed pursuant to cables from the state department that went out to all ambassadors across -- around the world suggesting they write pieces or hold a similar related event. in fact, similar editorials to what ambassador aponte wrote were written and events were held at american embassies and

posts all around the world. why is one senator picking on this ambassador? quite simply, the nomination of the united states ambassador to a strategically important ally like el salvador, it's no time for a politically -- political debate that has little or nothing to do with time-honored and accepted principles in the united states and around the world. ambassador aponte deserves a vote in the senate based on her work, her achievement, and her demonstrated ability to effectively advocate for the u.s. and el salvador. she's been thoroughly vetted by the f.b.i. and the state department, as every nominee is. she has passed two separate top-secret security clearances. she has shown that she's able to work with salvadoran leaders and achieve things way beyond what many believed could be achieved because of her skill. mr. president, we live in challenging times. our ambassadors are the eyes and

ears of america around the wor world. some of the posts they serve in are very dangerous. look at what ambassador robert ford has been doing in syria amid that country's upheaval. blocking qualified and talented americans from serving in posts in el salvador or any place in the world is not in america's best long-term interest. during a recent foreign relations committee markup, which you intended, relating to ambassador aponte's nomination, chairman kerry offered senator demint another opportunity to review all the materials that we have regarding ambassador aponte. i hope he took advantage of that offer. should he still oppose her nomination, i disagree with him, of course, but respect his rights in the senate. he can register his vote along with the other senators, but i certainly hope that this critical and important nomination will not be unfairly

held up and discredited with another filibuster. mr. president, it's time for the senate to move beyond filibusters to work in an effort to try to solve our problems. mr. president, there was a recent survey of how many families in america have an immediate member of the family who is serving in the military. the number is one of the lowest in history. it turns out that families that actually know someone or have someone serving in the military are a small, small percentage of this great nation. my family has a nephew serving in afghanistan with the 10th mountain division. not long ago as a college student he worked as a doorman here in the senate. michael is now serving overseas in afghanistan. and i think about him all the time. i send him boxes of things. i don't know if he'll have any use for them or enjoy them, but it is my way of reminding him

that we don't forget him. i'm sure he gets plenty of stuff. i'm sure some of that must be a joy for him to seevment but more important than any material sent to him, i hope, is an expression of how we feel about him, feel about the sablingifies he is making, as so many others are make, thousands around the world, as we meet in the safety of this senate chamber. we ask an awful lot of our men and women in uniform. we ask them to risk their lives for america. many come back injured, some don't return, having given that promise and that pledge. they make a sacrifice which many of us have never been asked to make. and i think about that in terms of the debate we enter into this week in the united states senate. we are trying to turn this economy around because so many are out of work, businesses are struggling. the president has put forward a jobs bill and has been pushing for its passage. we've considered a lot of parts of it. one part relating to veterans we actually agreed on. i'm glad we did.

when it came to all the others, the millions who are out of work in america, there's still wide disagreement. we hope to finish up this matter this week and head home for the holidays, where we all want to be. but, unfortunately, we are embroiled in a political fight again. and the fight is over something very basic. it is this: should we ask the wealthiest in america to pay a little more in taxes so that we can provide a payroll tax cut for almost 160 million americans? that's it. what we hear from the other side of the aisle over and over again is "no." you cannot impose a new burden on the wealthiest in america. you cannot ask anymore sacrifice from people who are already earning at least -- at least -- $1 million a year. i thought about that and i thought about my nephew and so many like him who sacrifice

every single day for this great nation and to think that we couldn't ask the wealthiest among us to pay a little more in taxes to help us get out of this recession and put america back to work. those two things, unfortunately, are in sharp contrast. i think it's time for us to pass this payroll tax cut. it's desperately needed. we need to maintain our employment insurance because we still have too many americans out of work. things are getting better, slowly, but too slowly. and in the meantime these people are looking every single day for a job while they do their best to keep their families together, to keep their families with the basics in life, to make sure they pay the rent and the mortgage, the utility bills. the first casualty in many of these families is health insurance. can you imagine raising children not knowing if one trip to the emergency room will be something you could never hope to afford?

unemployment benefits allow people to keep their families together and to continue looking for work. i urge my colleagues, before we consider leaving for the holiday season, let's get the job done. president obama has made it clear: he will not allow us to go home until we get this job done. extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. maintain unemployment benefits for those millions who are counting on them, to put bread on the tail and keep their families together during -- on the table and keep their families together during a very difficult time. and let's pass a spending bill. we agreed on loments of what we would -- we agreed on the limits of what we would spend. let's pass it now in a bipartisan fashion. i hope we can reach that point. one last point, mr. president. i now hear the senate republican leader come to the floor and tell us all the problems we've had is about an oil pipeline.

i didn't know that until last week. i wish he'd have spoken up a lot earlier. that an oil pipeline, the keystone pipeline has to be part of any deal, he says. said at one point that it may even create 20,000 jobs. i'm quick to remind my colleague that there are 14 million americans out of work and 160 million counting on this payroll tax cut. 20,000 jobs are important. i'd loo love to see every -- i'd love to see every job we can responsibly bring to this country. let not stop the business of this government, let's not stop helping the economy recover over one issue, whatever the issue may ib. whether it is a pipeline oar whatever it may be. we owe it to the people to respect them to show that we will do our best to keep this country moving forward and to do in in the name of so many of our men and women in uniform who are sacking today as we meet in the safety and security of this chamber. mr. president, i yeefd. -- mr. president, i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president, for the last few weeks the senate has been engaged in a familiar exercise. the democratic majority urged on by the president offers up an increase in spending to be paid for by an increase in taxes. if anything, this familiar refrain should cement in the minds of the american people that president obama and his

congressional allies remain committed to a policy of tax and spend. let's not mistake any of this for a carefully designed stimulus spending or tax policy. no, the series of tax-and-spend proposals brought to the senate floor during the past few months were designed for political reasons only. it remains unclear what any of this has to do with job creation. in fact, i suspect that much of this bread and circus routine is meant to distract the attention of families and taxpayers from the president's mediocre record on job creation and economic growth. for months the senate has been asked to consider higher taxes, including surtaxes on the so-called rich to pay for whatever the democrats have settled on as their spending idea of the weak. most of those ideas were sold as stimulus even though they include things like an infrastructure bank, which would be a brand-new g.s.e. to gobble

taxpayer resources just like fannie and freddie and which would take years to get off the ground. most of the ideas have been designed to appease democrat constituencies, mostly unions, and to construct campaign season talking points of attacking republicans for failure to increase taxes on the evil rich in order to pay for the democrats' spending sugar highs. the focus on politics has become such a priority for the president that he is now in the unusual position of making a raid on social security's trust funds, his principal policy objective. at first to pay for the very massive new stimulus plan of the president's, the democrats wanted to limit deductions for people earning $200,000 or more, which in september was evidently how they defined the so-called rich. next came a proposed surtax of 5.6% on people earning $1

million or more to pay for the president's stimulus scheme. we can't be sure, but i suspect that this jump in the income threshold for the democrats' tax increases came when high-income democrats and high-income jurisdictions like new york, california, and new jersey made it clear that this is where they had to part company with the president. next came a surtax of 0.5% on high-income earners to give funds to states to help pay mostly union workers. and then came a surtax of 0.7% on those earners to help pay for a new fannie and freddie called an infrastructure bank. this is followed by a surtax of 3.25% on those earners for a payroll tax expenditure. finally came a surtax of 1.9% on those earners for the payroll tax expenditure.

mr. president, the pattern is clear. democrats roll out their stimulus spending plan of the week, find out how much it will cost and then find out what surtax to slap -- to slap on high earners, including business income recipients. that is how we get tax proposals with rates of 5.6%, then 0.5%, then 0.7%, then 3.25%, and then 1.9%. who knows what comes next. never mind that businesses across this country have been clear that massive uncertainty about the current administration's policies, regulations and tax increases is holding back their hiring, job creation and the economy. people are uncertain about what their future health care costs will be, what their future energy costs will be, what their future regulatory environment

will be, and what their future taxes will be. given past few months of tax rate roulette being played by the democrats, is it any wonder that families and businesses are uncertain and pessimistic about the future. these tax rates have nothing to do with designing optimal tax policy and everything to do with scoring cheap political points and growing an already bloated federal government. these tax rates have nothing to do with engineering greater wealth or income equality through the tax code. these tax rates have nothing to do with creating a foundation for growth in jobs and the economy. they have everything to do with paying for politically favored, poll-tested stimulus spending. in the president's $800 billion-plus stimulus in 2009, we were told that the measures would be temporary and we would -- quote -- "pivot" later to

fiscal austerity. but the promised pivot never comes. still today we were told to spend more now and pivot later on but the promised pivots never come. unfortunately, unless we pivot, we will run off the budgetary cliff and face the deficit and debt crisis plaguing europe today. these tax rates recently proposed by democrats have nothing to do with long-term economic growth and more to do with the president's vision of government as the benevolent allocator of people's hard-earned income. not content with his average deficits being close to 25% of the entire size of our economy, which we have not seen since the years surrounding world war ii, the president and my democrat friends here in the senate want to permanently enshrine a european-sized government in the american economy. they don't just want additional infrastructure spending. they want a brand-new government

bureaucracy free of congress to tax and spend. they want an all-powerful, unchecked government czar to control the provision and costs of consumer credit cards. they want an overzealous e.p.a. to control allowable sources of energy, no matter what the costs of their policies. and they want an activist labor department to control how workers and companies can bargain to control where you can operate a business and to push people into their union voting base, whether they support the union or not. the president's pursuits are not those of someone who thinks that in certain instances government is constitutionally authorized to act and can occasionally do some good. his record is that of someone who is confident that in most cases government techno crates can do better things with america's hard-earned incomes than americans can do for themselves. mr. president, when you look at the variable menu of recent tax

rates proposed by democrats, you have to ask whether once enshrined into law the 5.6% rate or the 0.5% rate, or whatever happens to be their flavor of the week, is where my friends on the other side of the aisle would leave things. i have every reason to doubt that they would stop at those rates and every reason to believe that they will work as hard as they can to keep increasing those rates, demolishing businesses and jobs as they go. i have every reason to believe that the current president will stick with his commitment to quo spread the wealth around" and ask the so-called rich, who can be people who earn as little as $200,000 according to democrats, to pay -- quote -- "just a little bit more." so where will they stop? what is the optimal tax the rich rate of taxation? economist peter diamond who was nominated by the president to

serve on the federal reserve board has proposed in recent writings that -- quote -- "tax policy needs to be socially acceptable" and then finds it acceptable to go on to say that the so-called optimal top tax rate, orate of tax, could be -- or rate of tax, could be as high as 73%. the current top marginal tax rate on earnings in the u.s. economy is around 42.5% when you combine income tax rates of 35% with the medicare tax and average state taxes. and to counteroffer the top percentile of tax filers is about $45,000 according to the analysis. when you consider the liberal conventional wisdom about how businesses operate, the american people, it seems to me, should be fearful about where the democrats tax hike proposals might lead. the bottom line is that the sky's the limit. consider "the new york times"

december 9 editorial tucked in between advertisements for jewelry, properties and baubles, that only the truly megarich could afford, where the liberal press offered the following guidance on tax policy -- quote -- "the latest democrat bill to cut the payroll tax blocked by republicans on thursday called for a 1.9% surtax on income over $1 million. more important for any savvy business owner, a surtax would have no bearing on hiring decisions. if new workers are profitable before tax, they will be profitable after tax, even if the employer has to pay slightly more of the profit in taxes." unquote. this perfectly encapsulates the understanding of the economy by folks who have never run a business or tried to turn a profit. the liberal notion is that business owners are immune to basic economics and their hiring decisions are entirely

unaffected by tax rates -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senator's time has expired. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent to go for a few minutes more. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: with this view in mind, it is not hard to imagine proposals for taxes upward of 73%, because those megarich business owners simply won't flinch. the democrats' burning desire to increase taxes seem to confuse income and wealth. they abhor the wealth situation of the megarich even though they love the campaign contributions flowing from them. they seem to think that massive increases in income taxes will cure the growth in inequality observed over decades in the u.s. and in many foreign economies. some of our nation's wealthiest individuals like bill gates and warren buffett join this chorus and call for higher taxes on others even though they channel large portions of their wealth to private foundations, revealing their preference for resources to be allocated in the private sector rather than by the government.

even our president calls for more taxes on himself even though he could write a check to the i.r.s. at any moment. he calls for a buffett rule even though he paid a tax rate of 23% in 2010 which according to a congressional research service analysis means that the president violates his own idea of the buffett rule by paying a lower tax rate over 10 million more moderate income taxpayers. mr. president, the past few months have witnessed a variable menu of tax rates offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle. they claim that these tax increases will secure equality, economic growth, job creation and more. those claims are false. the evidence is clear that the recent proposals from democrats have been more of the same -- tax and spend, move toward a permanently larger government and design politically motivated bills that they know will fail in the congress in order to hone

election-year talking points. mr. president, we need to be clear with the american people that these proposals might be good for government, but they will do little to cure the ills of our economy. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, last thursday marked the fifth time this year that the majority has initiated a vote on the so-called millionaires' surer charge, a tax that primarily affects small businesses. in order to pay for a piece of legislation. notably, thursday also marked the fifth time this year this tax increase failed to pass the senate, which suggests, of course, that it is being used for political purposes. president obama and his supporters have argued that the tax increases they support like

the millionaires' surcharge will not affect anyone but the wealthiest americans and that those people will have to start doing their fair share because they can -- quote -- "afford it. they repeat the phrase shared sacrifice. in a recent campaign speech in kansas, president obama took the class warfare argument to a whole new level, injecting his speech with false economic moralisms and evoking which he calls the you're on your own economics of republicans and suggesting that the breathtaking greed of a few -- these are his words i am using -- has been crushing the middle class. the president's object seems to be purposefully conflating all upper income taxpayers with those reckless few who helped cause the financial crisis and ignoring, i might add, those in congress who also helped to create that crisis. the president's rhetoric is not only wrong-headed, in my view, it's irresponsible, and i'd like to make three points in response. first, the president of the united states should not be pitting americans against each

other. class warfare has no place in american debates. it's divisive and it's unhelpful to national discourse. it's especially unbecoming of the president who is the only person elected to represent all americans. he should speak for all americans, especially in times of high unemployment and high economic uncertainty, not pit them one against each other for short-term political gain. america is not a caste society. there is no former class structure ingrained in our way of life. the opposite is true. that's why millions of people left the old country, left europe and elsewhere to come here for economic opportunity and compete in our free markets. why doesn't the president offer encouragement about america's strengths and its future rather than playing into some americans' fears? in other words, why don't -- doesn't he run the kind of campaign he ran in 2008, one based on unity and hope? the answer, i'm afraid, is

because the president's record during the last three years doesn't inspire much hope. a massive stimulus spilled with special interest goodies, a government takeover of health care, a failed cap-and-trade agenda and an e.p.a. power grab and more new job-killing regulations than one can count. obviously, the policies of the last three years have not left americans in better shape than they were three years ago. indeed, about 3/4 of americans say the country is on the wrong track. as columnist charles krauthammer wrote in a recent column, and i quote -- "obama has spent three years on signature policies that ignore or aggravate" -- end of quote -- structural problems such as high unemployment, weak growth, vast debt and our strained safety net and dysfunctional tax code. so the president can't run on his record and he doesn't want voters to focus on how his policies may have prolonged our economic troubles or that his

party controlled washington for the first two years of his presidency. his way out is to claim others. but rather than stir up resentment and unease, i suggest the president focus on strengthening opportunity for all americans. and that gets to the second point, which addresses the assertion that upper income taxpayers aren't doing their fair share. this is patently false. let me provide a few instructive numbers. according to i.r.s. data, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of total income taxes but earn only 20% of total income. in other words, the top 1% earns 20% and pays almost double that in their share of federal income taxes. the top 2% of taxpayers pay almost half of all the taxes, 48.68%, to be exact. it only earns a little under 28% of the total income and pays

almost 50%. so the top 2% paying almost 50% of all the taxes. and this isn't a fair share? this isn't doing their part? the top 5% of taxpayers pay 58.7%. they earn just a little over one-third of all of the income. and in fact the top 5% pay more than the top -- bottom 95% total. the top 5% pay more taxes by far than the rest of the 95%. and they're not doing their fair share? the top 10% of taxpayers pay almost 70% and still earn less than 50% of total income, 45.7% to be exact. the bottom 95% of taxpayers pay 41.3%. they earn 65.3% of total income. so the bottom 95% -- this is a big chunk of american taxpayers -- are earning a lot

more in percentage than they are paying in percentage of income taxes. the joint committee on taxation estimates that 51% of all households -- which includes both filers and nonfilers -- had either zero or negative income tax liability for the year 2009. such progressive taxation is, in fact, shared sacrifice. the united states has the most progressive income tax code of any country among developed nations. so the argument that top tier earners aren't doing enough just doesn't hold water. and somebody needs to call the president on this false argument of his, because it attempts to pit one group of americans against the other. when in point of fact, the president, of all people, should be unifying americans. the third point is related to who actually would pay this millionaires' surcharge that the

president advocates and our colleagues have been urging us to vote for yet again. this proposed tax increase will presumably be trotted out again and again. it can't get the votes to pass, but it makes a nice political charge. the president and his supporters claim it would only affect the wealthiest of the wealthy. well, the fact is this tax would crush small business owners. many small businesses are organized as pass-through entities. that means that they pay their taxes as individuals. they are not organized as corporations. they don't pay their taxes as corporations. they pay as individuals. so when the plumbing company or the air conditioning company pays taxes, that small business owner pays them as an individual , and therefore he pays at the individual income tax rates. if you're in one of the top two rates -- and 50% of small business income is reported in those top two rates -- you're

going to get clobbered by this surtax on millionaires. and these are the very businesses, the most successful small businesses, that create many of america's new jobs. according to the national association of manufacturers' december 5 weekly report, "small and medium-sized payrolls, those with less than 500 employees, accounted for the bulk of the net new jobs continuing a familiar trend. this was good for both the goods-producing as well as service-producing sectors." there is a lot of data showing that many of these job-creating small businesses would be slammed by a millionaires' surcharge. for example, "the wall street journal" editorial reports that the joint committee on taxation has estimated the taxpayers will declare $1.2 trillion in business income in 2013. of this reported tax income, 34% would be on returns with modified adjusted gross income in excess of a million dollars. as the journal notes, that means that about $400 billion in

business income would be subjected to the so-called millionaires' surcharge tax. and who pays that? as the journal writes, the treasury department examined i.r.s. data in 2007, found that 392,000 tax returns with income above a million dollars, 311 million of which were classified by the treasury department as business owners. so 80% of the payroll tax surcharge will fall on these small business owners. that is a direct tax on job creation. what could you think of that would do more harm to creating jobs in america than imposing a brand-new tax right on the people who are, we hope, going to create the new jobs coming out of this recession? and remember, too, the taxes are already set to go up in 2013 when the current tax rates expire. and on top of that, business investors will also face a 3.8%

obamacare investment income tax surcharge set to begin in 2013. how is taking money away from these small businesses going to allow them to expand and hire more workers? john mackey who is co-founder of the wildly successful whole foods chain wrote an op-ed last month explaining from his point of view what policies can help and harm job growth. he writes, i quote -- "100 years ago, the total cost of government at all levels was only 8% of our gross domestic product. in 2010, it was 40%. government is gobbling up trillions of dollars from our economy to feed itself through hire taxes and unprecedented deficit spending, money that could be used by individuals to improve their lives and by entrepreneurs to create jobs." end of quote. so, mr. president, policymakers would do well to listen to the advice of entrepreneurs like john mackey about a real growth agenda.

americans are counting on job creators in the private sector to help turn the economy around by putting capital at risk and hiring new employees. relentless class warfare and obsessing over income redistribution are not real policy prescriptions. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record at the conclusion of my remarks the op-ed piece by charles krauthammer which i mentioned. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to speak about the vote that we're going to have this afternoon, and it has nothing to do with mr. eisen's job as ambassador. it's about why he hasn't been confirmed to this point. the president announced mr. eisen's nomination to be ambassador to the czech republic -- a senator: could i ask the chair? the presiding officer: the

senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i apologize for interrupting my colleague, and i won't for long, but i think my colleague wants to speak on the subject of the nominations that are going to be contained within an hour of debate equally divided, and so i want to make certain that the comments of the senator are going to be part of that time period. so if i could ask for my colleague, i believe we're almost at the hour where we have to go to executive session, report the two nominations. then i would be happy to yield to my colleague to speak first if he would like. would my colleague agree with that? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm willing to do that, but i thought i maintained the right to the floor by -- mr. kerry: mr. president, i will -- the senator will -- i ask unanimous consent that after we move to executive session, the senator from iowa be the first to speak on the time period allotted to the republican -- to the opponents. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: mr. president -- the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, department of state, norman l. eisen of the district of columbia to be ambassador extraordinary of the united states of america to the czech republic. mari carmen aponte of the district of columbia to be ambassador extraordinary of the united states of america to the republic of el salvador. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the president announced mr. eisen's nomination to be ambassador to the czech republic on june 28, 2010. on september 20, 2010, i provided public notice of my

intention to object to the nomination. in other words, as i always do when i put a hold on something, a bill or nomination, i put a reason in the congressional record so that everybody knows that it's me, i'm not a secret holds guy. the reason for my objection is not related to the substance of his duty as ambassador. i objected to his nomination because of the way mr. eisen handled the controversial firing of gerald walpen and the congressional inquiry into that firing. mr. walpen was the inspector general at the americorps. mr. eisen was at the white house counsel's office at the time. any effort to undermine inspectors general raises serious concerns with me. an inspector general that does

his or her job runs the risk of losing friends at any agency as well as maybe the white house. but congress must not sit idly by when an inspector general is removed improperly. after the president abruptly removed inspector general walpen from office, there were allegations he was fired for political reasons. so i started an investigation. there was evidence the removal may have been motivated by the desire to protect a friend of the president, sacramento mayor kevin johnson. the inspector general and the cncs management were clashing over an inquiry into misuse of federal grant money at a charity run by johnson. there were allegations that the grant money was used to pay for personal services for johnson, such as maybe washing his car.

there seemed to be evidence of that. mr. there were allegations the grant money had been used for political campaign work. so what would you expect an inspector general to do? the i.g. was pushing aggressively to require johnson to repay the federal grant money that his charity could not account for. the inspector general was also pushing to have johnson prohibited from receiving future federal grant funds. this caused, as you might expect, a political uproar because some people feared that might prevent the city of sacramento from receiving federal stimulus dollars during the financial crisis. all of this background cried out for further investigation. i also learned that mr. eisen personally delivered an ultimatum to inspector general walpen. he demanded the inspector general resign or be terminated within one hour. at the time he delivered the ultimatum, no notice had been

given or provided to congress, as is legally required under the inspector general reform act. the i.g. act requires the president to tell congress the reasons for removal of an inspector general 30 days before taking action. that's what the law requires. ironically, i cosponsored this provision with senator obama before he became president obama. the goal of that provision is to make sure that congress is aware of why an inspector general is being removed. we need independent inspectors general. they should not be removed for political reasons, so we need to make sure congress is informed of the reasons for getting rid of an inspector general. mr. eisen's one-hour ultimatum was an attempt to avoid that provision. if the inspector general had resigned under that pressure, congress would not have received

any notice and the reasons for his removal would have remained a secret. but inspector general walpin didn't resign and the are president began the process of removing him with 30 days' notice. at first the notice said he had lost confidence with the inspector general. senators from both political parties agreed that was too vague. so mr. eisen provided a second more detailed explanation. the second said that the inspect general had been -- quote, unquote -- disoriented at a board meeting, and essentially implied he might be senile. so here i give you another reason for my hold on mr. eisen. during that interview with the congressional staff on june 17, 2009, mr. eisen refused to answer at least 12 very direct

questions. i wrote to the white house counsel's office immediately after the interview. i listed the 12 questions he refused to answer and asked for written answers. i never got a satisfactory reply. so i had to gather the facts independently. so mr. eisen did provide some information during this interview that very day in 2009. the problem is, the information turned out to be not true. eisen tried to assure the staff that the firing was not politically motivated. he claimed that the agency's bipartisan board of directors unanimously supported the removal of the inspector general walpen before the president had decided to remove him. he also claimed that the house conducted -- quote -- "an extensive review in response to concerns raised by the board about walpen's fitness for the

office. he said this review was prompted by that incident of may 20, 2009 board meeting where it appeared that the inspector general was disoriented. when congressional investigators interviewed eye witnesses, however, their accounts delivered slightly. at a minimum, all agreed that the inspector general lost his train of thought during the presentation. others described it as being more serious episode. the chairman of the board of directors suggested telling the white house about what happened. no one on the board objected. so he went, met with mr. eisen in the white house counsel's office. now, think about that, would you please. if you think the inspector general might be suffering from some mental incapacity or illness, why would you run straight to the white house counsels office? it seems to me you would talk to his family or the people who worked with him every day about your concerns. that would be the only way to find out if there had had been

similar incidents or if it was a one-time occurrence. instead the chairman of the board asked mr. eisen at the white house counsel's office to look into it. according to mr. eisen, he conducted --, quote, unquote -- "an extensive review" which formed the basis for the president's decision to remove walpen from office. however, our investigation finds no evidence that mr. eisen reviewed -- review be consistented of anything more than simply asking the cncs management to describe their complaints about mr. walpen. unlike the congressional review mr. eisen did not interview each of the board members present at the may 20 meeting. he also did not interview the other office of inspector general employee who was present with mr. walpen during that board meeting where they said he was disoriented.

instead, eisen merely collected from the agency details about routine disagreements with the inspector general. now get this -- none of the evidence the agency provided to the white house related to mr. walpen's mental capacity to serve even though that was the question that supposedly prompted the review in the first place. mr. eisen accepted the agency's version of those disagreements without even giving the inspector general a chance to respond. obviously any agency going to have -- is going to have some clashes with an inspector general. at least if that office operates as a truly independent and aggressive watchdog. mr. eisen did not provide mr. walpen or anyone else in the office of inspector general taunt to reply or give their side of the story. mr. eisen took action based upon

incomplete information provided only by agency organizations -- officials who had adversarial relationships with that inspector general. he told congress that the may 20 incident was the reason for moving the inspect -- removing the inspector general but mr. eisen failed to give inspector general walpen or anyone close to him a chance to tell his side of the story. to put it as simply as possible, that's just not fair. on june 17, 2009, i wrote to white house counsel gregory craig listing 12 specific direct questions that eisen refused to answer that day. question four was this: which witnesses were interviewed in the course of mr. eisen's review? end of quote. end of the question. this question followed a more general question about what

mr. eisen did in the course of his review. his answer to that prior, more general question included the claim that he conducted witness interviews of the board members. however, he refused to specify which witnesses or how many witnesses he interviewed. then he resorted to talking points rather than answering specific questions. he replied along these lines: one, we did an extensive review. two, i'm not going to get into the details. and three, all of the board members agreed, including the republican board members. mr. eisen clearly led the staff to believe that the president's decision was based in part on the unanimous agreement of the board that the inspector general should go. that was false. the account of eisen's interview

is based on memories of both house and senate staff present at that time. also present was a career law enforcement agency from the executive branch detailed to my oversight and investigation staff whose recollections confirmed this account as well. in short, mr. eisen's back of candor and cooperation cannot be mistaken for a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. there was no miscommunication. attempts to remove an i.g. must be evaluated with strict striewty. when administration officials -- scrutiny. when administration officials are asked to provide information to congress, i expect to rely on those officials to provide the unvarnished truth. evidence that a witness may have misled congress is extremely

serious. just last month, mr. eisen finally admitted to his earlier statements were not true. he sent me a letter that i have here, and i ask permission to put it in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: he sent me a letter on november 20 this year admitting his answers were -- quote, unquote -- inaccurate. he also admitted in a meeting with me that the key straf findings were correct. he said he did not intentionally provide false information and he has apologized. i'm sure he sincerely regrets the way he handled the questions especially since it has led to the difficulty in his confirmation process, and probably if we had had that letter as we asked for it late last year, he would have been confirmed at that particular time. now, after my meeting with him this year, i accepted his apology about the false or,

quote-unquote -- inaccurate statements and agreed to provide to confirmation with the 60-vote requirement. the majority leader didn't agree with that so he decided to invoke cloture instead. so i will oppose cloture because i'm still posed to the confirmation. my opposition was always based on more than just one or two false statements. lack of candor is broader than whether a particular statement is technically true. it includes his failure to be forthcoming and responsive to those questions that were asked on june 17, 2009. his evasiveness caused house and senate staff to spend much more time and resources uncovering the truth. if he had just answered a few simple factual questions, that wouldn't have been necessary. for example, in relation to the one-hour ultimatum, he refused to answer specific questions about his june 10, 2009 conversation with mr. walpen.

he would only say that he disagreed with certain aspects of mr. walpen's account without specifying which aspects. word games and evasiveness of that sort are incompatible with being a candidate in a forthcoming witness and ought to be incompatible with a person representing the united states as an ambassador. my reasons for opposing his nomination also include all of the other circumstances surrounding the way that mr. eisen handled mr. walpen's removal. mr. eisen, his attempt to force the inspector general to resign with a one-hour ultimatum would have amounted to a constructive removal. he would have evaded the congressional notice requirement if it had been successful. however, inspector generallualitinspector generalwd even filed a lawsuit to try to

keep his position. he did not win his lawsuit because ultimately the white house did comply with the technical requirements of the 30-day notice provision. after the controversy erupted, the inspector general was placed on administrative leave until 30 days after the second, more detailed notice to congress. that is why waltman lost his lawsuit but that does not change the nature and the fact that norm eisen attempted to evade the statute. he tried to force a quiet resignation and, this, remove the inspector general from office without the 30-day notice to congress that the law requires. because inspector general -- because inspector general waltman did not yield to the pressure, no court had a chance to rule on whether that would be appropriate. i'm also opposed to this nomination because of the way the white house decided to avoid these issues last year with a recess appointment. the senate confirmation under

the advice and consent clause is one of the strongest checks on the executive branch power. recess appointments are meant to fill vacancies that arise during a long recess, not to bypass the confirmation process. this vacancy arose on january the 20th, 2009, yet the president waited 18 months before making an appointment. there had already been a lot of controversy over mr. eisen's actions at the time of his appointment. the white house should have known that there would be issues with his confirmation. rather than listening to my concerns, the white house decided to bypass congress. president obama rewarded mr. eisen by using a recess appointment to install him as acting u.s. ambassador to the czech republic. mr. eisen has had several opportunities to address my concerns last year. he was scheduled to meet with my staff on december the 16th, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. at approximately 11:15 a.m., the

white house postponed the meeting until 2:15 p.m. at approximately 2:00, the meeting was canceled by the white house office of legislative affairs without further explanation. by calling off a face-to-face meeting in favor of a recess appointment, the white house sent the message that the president is not interested in hearing the concerns of republican members of congress. once he had his recess appointment, mr. eisen did not seek to meet with me or my staff again until that appointment was about to expire at the end of this year. only then did he apologize and admit that the statements in his staff interview were not accurate. now, remember, our president at the time of his inauguration made a commitment to be the most transparent of any administration in our history. so in summary, mr. eisen took action on behalf of the

president that ran afoul of the inspector general reform act. mr. eisen only listened to the agency's complaints about the inspector general rather than conducting a fair, thorough and responsible investigation. and then he misled congressional investigators about his review and about the true basis of the president's decision to fire the inspector general. he admitted in this letter to me that he provided inaccurate information but claimed that it was unintentional. this is the second time in the last two months that an official from this administration has done that. the deputy attorney general just withdrew a letter sent to me on operation fast and furious earlier this year because of its, quote, unquote, "inaccuracies." i'm afraid there's a pattern developing here in this administration about not bein being -- leveling with congress in its constitutional responsibility of oversight.

when we ask for information from the executive branch, i expect, and i think i can speak for a hundred senators, we expect honest, forthcoming and truthful answers. we can disagree on policy. we're all entitled to our opinion but we're not entitled to our own facts. getting the facts straight should not be like pulling tee teeth. we need to send a signal that congressional oversight matters. we need to send a signal that there are consequences in misleading congress. it should come as no surprise to anybody that's -- that's doing -- it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that doing our constitutional job of oversight is very important to this senat senator. i know that ambassador eisen recognizes that. i got that very clearly from him in our last meeting in october. i don't like interference with people in either a republican or

democrat administration that don't cooperate with my investigations, and i'll bet ya every senator would say that. therefore, for the reasons i just gave, i ask my colleagues to oppose cloture and oppose this nomination. i yield the floor. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i'm shortly, momentarily going to yield time to the senator from new jersey, but before i do, i just want to say very quickly -- i'm not going to make all of my comments right now -- but i'd say to my colleague from iowa, first of all, i have great respect for his diligent approach to these issues. and he has been tremendously

receptive to a continuing dialogue on this. i want to express my gratitude to him for that. when asked, he met with ambassador eisen and he has certainly listened to the facts as they were presented by others who had a different point of view about them. and obviously every senator here always does draw their own conclusions. but i think -- i first of all want to thank senator grassley for his willingness to agree to have these votes that we will have today and to move forward with some resolution with respect to this. i understand he has chosen to oppose the nominee. i would simply say to him, and i think to others, sometimes in these processes, sometimes in the questions for the record, as we call them, where people provide written questions, and even in the interviews, there

are miscommunications, misinterpretations, misstatements that are not intentional and not meant to somehow mislead or deceive somebody. i would simply say to the senator, i know that he has met with ambassador eisen and we've now heard why he intends to vote "no" on this. but let me just say that i am convinced that several different individuals and entities have thoroughly investigated and examined the removal of the inspector general walpin and they have found that there was no wrongdoing. the foreign relations committee looked into it in conjunction with the consideration of his nomination, and the homeland security committee examined this issue. it was, in fact, litigated in

federal district court and before the d.c. circuit. none of these entities, not one of them, found that either the president somehow acted wrongly or illegally or inappropriately in connection with the removal of mr. walpin from office, and, to the contrary, the u.s. district court specifically rejected mr. walpin's claims that he was improperly removed from this position and they dismissed his lawsuit. our friends, senator lieberman and senator collins, both of whom enjoy strong reputations for both independence and integrity within the senate, stated their belief as ranking and chair of the homeland security that the president met the letter and spirit of the inspector general reform act. and -- and i do believe there was some miscommunication. i've talked to the senator from iowa about it. i think it was unfortunate. i wish it had been cleared up earlier.

but i believe that it was genuinely a miscommunication, not an intentional act, and i appreciate the fact that mr. eisen has apologized to senator grassley for his sense of that miscommunication, a difference between review and removal and a sense of what may have happened in the course of that. but i also appreciate senator grassley's willingness to look beyond that and to enforce his principles as he is privileged to do as an individual senator but also to allow the senate to try to do its work here today. i will say a few words about mr. eisen and the job that he is doing, an outstanding job, in prague on our behalf, but first the senator from new jersey is here to speak about a different nominee and so, mr. president, i would yield up to 10 minutes to the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. i've come to the floor to address the nomination of an extraordinary woman, a qualifi qualified, talented latina, to be the united states ambassador to el salvador. now, unfortunately, some of my republican colleagues have made ambassador mari aponte a target of inside-the-beltway politics, where the political points gained from bringing down an administration nominee supersede the value gained from having a superior ambassador promoting and guarding american interests at a critical time. born in puerto rico, ambassador aponte became the executive director of the puerto rican federal affairs administration in 2001. she served as director of the national council of la ras is a, the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. she has presided over the hispanic bar association of the district of columbia and the hispanic national bar association. she has excelled in her field.

she's won the respect of their colleagues and the diplomatic community. so let's look at the record. nearly two years ago, i chaired the nomination hearing for ambassador aponte to serve as president obama's ambassador in san salvador. at that time, one of my republican colleagues objected to her nomination because he was not given access to her f.b.i. file to review information about a personal relationship ambassador aponte had with a cuban national some 20 years ago. pursuant to precedent, one democrat and one republican reviewed that file. i was the democrat, and there was nothing, nothing in the file to substantiate the concerns raised by my colleagues. on this issue, i take a back seat to no one when it comes to promoting democracy in cuba and opposing the castro regime or anyone who sympathizes with the despotic regime, and i certainly would never for a moment let down my guard when it comes to

that regime. and i can assure every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if i had any concern about ambassador aponte and that she had been somehow her relationship with that cuban national or if there was any relationship with the castro regime in her background, i would not be supporting her today. but, mr. president, this is a respected american diplomat who has been on the job and served this nation with distinction. in the 15 months since ambassador aponte was sworn in as the u.s. ambassador to el salvador during a recess appointment, she has impressed the diplomatic establishment with her professionalism, won the respect of parties, both right and left, in el salvador. she has won the respect of civilian and military forces. she has won the respect of the public and private sector. she has won everyone's support and fostered a strong u.s.-salvadoran bi lateral relationship --

bilateral relationship that culminated when president obama announced el salvador as only one of four countries in the world and the only country in latin america chosen to participate in the partnership for growth initiative. most importantly, ambassador aponte has been an advocate for american national security and democratic values. as a result of they are advocacy, el salvador is again a key ally in central america and its troops are the only one from a latin american country fighting alongside american troops in both iraq and afghanistan. ambassador aponte has consistently fought efforts by cuba and venezuela to gain influence in central america. and as a result of her negotiating skills, the united states and el salvador will only a new joint electronic monitoring center jointly funded, by the way, that will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime. this is a record of