this is why we need this legislation. this reauthorization helps take care of innovation and safety so consumers and patients don't have to worry. it permanently authorizes programs that have helped make medicine safer for millions of children, upgrades the f.d.a.'s tools to police the global supply chain and reduces the risk of drug shortages of the kind we saw recently that senator klobuchar spoke of this afternoon. when supplies of cancer medications run low. this is a matter of great urge enzi. the current f.d.a. reauthorization -- excuse me, the current f.d.a. authorization will expire in just a few short months and if we allow that to happen we put at risk access to new medications as well as america's ongoing global leadership in biomedical innovation. failing to reauthorize would cost us thof us jobs and more fink slips is not what we need. if new user fee agreements are not authorized, the f.d.a. must lay off nearly 2,000 employees.

because that doesn't happen overnight, layoff notices would startgoing out out as early as july. we're moving forward with a timely reauthorization to save those jobs and ensure the f.d.a. continues to make progress. this is an all too rare display of bipartisanship across both chambers. this legislation was unanimously approved by the house committee and found strong bipartisan support in the "help" committee here in the senate ably led by chairman harkin and ranking member enzi. mr. president, there's a reason members of the house and senate of both parties are in such strong support of this reauthorization. the american economy's always been driven by innovation and some of our most extraordinary innovations have come in the biomedical sector. in the years ahead, it's my faith, my hope that we will see more and more narrowly targeted drugs created specifically for certain kinds of patients or very specific diseases. and the life cycle of innovation -- this is different than the last few decades when blockbuster medications were used and then developed aa very

wide scale across the country or world. but it is an equally feat of innovation that lies in the years ahead and one that's only possible because of amazing advances in technology, the mapping of the human genome and the disassociation across many labs and small start-up businesses of the machinery, the mechanics and the capabilities to innovate in the discovery and development of pharmaceuticals. we have to develop to continue to support and continue this sort of innovation in order to stay competitive, mr. president, in the global economy. the f.d.a. continues at the moment to keep pace with many of our global competitors in terms of their review time for new drug applications but we are at real risk of falling behind. one recent example that i paid close attention to, the blood thing drug berlenta, was manufactured by a company, developed and discovered by a home company in my state, astra zeneca. it was approved in july of 2001. but prior to that approval, three countries, including the e.u. and canada, had already approved the drugs month or even

years before. this delay and approval in some certain cases can be bad for patients who rely on these medications and bad for the competitiveness of the united states. so i'm glad that this reauthorization, mr. president, clearly aways some of the conflict and the underbrush and will reauthorize and strengthen and streamline the review time line for new pharmaceuticals. not only will this provide the kind of predictability and certainty any business needs to succeed but it helps make sure the f.d.a.'s essential regulatory process keeps pace with scientific innovation. in my home state of delaware, there's more than 20,000 jobs that directly rely on biomedical research and innovation, but around the country, it's more than 4 million indirect and more than 675,000 jobs that directly benefit from this area. it's also, frankly, one of our strongest export areas of growth for the long term, so we need this reauthorization now. in my view, moving forward with this legislation also means finding the fine balance between speed and safety, between getting treatments to patients without delay and being certain

these new drugs will be effective and safe. in a recent editorial, the "the washington post" noted, "this time around, the balance appears to be tilting slightly toward faster approval. that's good." i agree. safety is paramount, but with today's technology and the in addition in addition's century of experience, i think we -- f.d.a.'s century of experience, i think committee with move more quickly to put innovative treatments in the hands of patients who desperately need them. the prescription drug user fee act originally passed by congress in 1992 and reauthorized every five years since, is what allows the f.d.a. to collect user fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers and provide a stable and consistent funding stream that has steadily decreased drug review times by nearly 60% since it was first enacted. it's provided access to a faster and more predictable time line to over 1,500 new medicines since it was first enacted and deserves to be reauthorized to help expedite approval for breakthrough medications to treat rare and widely experienced diseases. mr. president, in closing, the f.d.a. is the oldest comprehensive consumer

protection agency in the federal government. its relevance has not decreased with age. in fact, quite the opposite. as our researchers and scientists have made major break throughs in care and technology for treatment, the f.d.a. has continued to serve as the con do conduit between innovators, physicians and patients. we trace -- we face, mr. president, tremendous hurdles in treating devastating diseases of all kinds and in addition to an shen puzels, such as cancer, that continue to allude us, there are new challenges cropping up every day. one example would be the need for move drugs to treat bacterial infections resistant to antibiotics, so-called super bugs. i've joined with senator corker and you as the gain act to spur development of these specific types of drugs. this is one of many examples of the kinds of innovations that will solve the medical mysteries of the 21st century, ease the suffering of millions of americans, secure high-wage and high-skilled jobs in the biomedical research field and ensure our competitiveness globally.

so, mr. president, let's continue work not guilty the bipartisan spirit that has carried this reauthorization thus far -- working in the bipartisan spirit that has carried this reauthorization thus far to passage. thank you, and i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. at 5:30, we will be voting on the nomination of paul watford for the ninth circuit court of appeals and i would like to say a few words about him at this time. but before i do, i think members might want to consider the fact that the ninth circuit is by far the busiest circuit in the nation. it has over 1,400 appeals pending for a three-judge panel. that's the most of any circuit. it's over two times the average of other circuits combined. the judicial conference of the united states has declared each ninth circuit vacancy a judicial emergency. so today we are, in fact,

filling one of the seats which is a judicial emergency. the candidate is paul watford, a ninth circuit nominee with stellar credentials and support across the political spectrum. i'm delighted that cloture was vitiated so the vote will be directly on his nomination and it is anticipated that he will be confirmed without controversy. mr. watford earned his bachelor's degree from university of california berkeley in 1989 and his law degree from ucla in 1994, where he was editor of the ucla law review and graduated order of the coif. after finishing law school, mr. watford clerked for ninth circuit judge alex kaczynski, an appoint of president reagan.

he then clerked for judge ruth bader ginsburg on the united states supreme court. following his two clerkships, he spent a year in private practice at the prestigious firm of munger, tolls and olson and then moved into public service as an assistant united states attorney in los angeles in 1997. there he prosecuted a broad array of crimes, including bank robberies, firearms offenses, immigration violations, alien smuggling, and various types of fraud. he later served in the major fraud section of the criminal division, focusing on white-collar crime. among his many cases, he prosecuted the first case of an on-line auction fraud on ebay in california. during his tenure as a federal prosecutor, mr. watford appeared in court frequently, typically several times per week.

he tried seven cases to verdict and he worked on numerous ninth circuit appeals, arguing four of them. in one such case, a cocaine dealer had already convinced a state court that a drug seizure had violated his fourth amendment rights. mr. watford prevailed on appeal in forcing the dealer to for fit fit -- to forfeit over $100,000 in drug trafficking proceeds. in 2000, watford rejoined munger, tolls and olson, where he is currently a partner. he's one of the -- this is one of the premier appellate law firms in california and paul watford specializes in appellate litigation at the firm. like most major law firms, munger's docket is dominated by business litigation. thus, the focus of mr. watford's work has been appellate litigation for business clients.

for example, he representeddersd verizon communications in a consumer class action case. he represented the technology company rambus in two complex patent infringement cases. he also represented shell oil on an antitrust case. mr. watford and his colleagues at munger won a 9-0 reversal on behalf of shell oil in the supreme court. he has also represented numerous other american businesses, such as coca-cola and berkshire hathaway, as well as business executives and municipal government agencies. in total, he's argued 21 cases in the appellate courts and he has appeared as counsel in over 20 cases in the united states supreme court. so he is well equipped. his extensive experience as a prosecutor and private

practitioner, including his specialty in appellate work, will serve the ninth circuit extremely well. mr. watford is also regarded by attorneys on both sides of the aisle, including conservative republicans, who praise him for his keen intellect and fair-minded approach to the law. he's been endorsed by two former presidents of the los angeles chapter of the federal society. one, jeremy rosen, says that watford is -- and i quote -- "open-minded and fair and a brilliant person and a gifted appellate lawyer." the other, henry weissman, says that -- quote -- "although he does not agree with president obama on many issues, he completely agrees with his nomination of paul watford." so that's a good thing. daniel collins, who clerked for justice scalia and serves as an

associate deputy attorney general in the bush justice department, says that watford -- quote -- "embodies the definition of judicial temperament -- very level headed and even keeled." 32 supreme court clerks from the term when watford clerked for justice ginsburg have written in support of the nomination. these include clerks from every justice on the court at that time, including all of justice scalia's clerks from that year, as well as several from justices rehnquist, thomas and kennedy. i find that quite amazing. a group of over 40 former clerks for judge kozinsky have also written in support of watford's nomination. this group includes numerous individuals with unquestionable

conservative credentials. many clerked for justices rehnquist, scalia, alito and kennedy. several, such as steve angle, charles duggan, and ted uliotte, also served in the bush administration, including in the white house counsel's office and the leadership of the justice department. watford also has strong support in the business community. the general counsels of leading american corporations, including google, mattel, verizon, sear corps have also written in support of mr. watford. they say watford is -- and i quote -- "exactly the kind of individual that any plaintiff or defendant, person, business or government would welcome deciding their case." in short, paul watford is truly

both an excellent and distinguished choice for the ninth circuit. he is extremely bright, he is experienced at the trial and appellate level, and in both civil and criminal cases. he is uniquely respected for his intellect and judgment, and he has broad support across the political spectrum and in the business community. maybe this is the reason why cloture was vitiated. he is not filibusterrable. and i really hope that people see the fine and keen intellect that this man is and he should have a very large vote. if confirmed, he would be one of just two african-american active judges on the ninth circuit and the ninth, by far the busiest circuit in the nation, urgently needs him to begin his service.

as i said, the ninth is a judicial emergency. this will fill one vacancy. so i urge my colleagues to vote at 5:30 -- in 15 minutes -- for mr. watford's nomination. i yield the floor and i thank the chair. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today we're tbg to turn to the nomination that the senator from california has just referred to, paul watford, to be circuit judge of the ninth circuit. i'm disappointed that the majority leader has brought this nomination to the floor. the reason i say that is that there are at least ten nominations on the executive calendar that might fall into the category of consensus nominees. six nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in the

committee and clearly are not consensus nominees. mr. watford falls into this category of not being a consensus nominee. i will oppose mr. watford's nomination and ask my colleagues to oppose the nomination as well. my opposition to this nomination is based upon substantive concerns that i have regarding mr. watford's views on both immigration and the death penalty. mr. watford partnered with the american civil liberties union and the national immigration law center in two cases to oppose arizona's 2010 immigration bill. in the first case, friendly house, a class action lawsuit, mr. watford served as cocounsel for most of the plaintiffs, including the class action representative friendly house.

the friendly house complaint attacked the arizona law on a variety of grounds. he argued the law violates the supremacy clause, violates the equal protection clause by promoting racial profiling, that it violates the first amendment by killing the speech of non-english speakers, violates the fourth amendment, and it violates due process by inviting racial profiling and employing vague definitions of public offense and other statutory terms. in the second case, united states v. arizona, mr. watford served as cocounsel on an amicus brief filed by friendly house plaintiffs. this brief covers most of the arguments raised in the friendly house complaint, but in

addition, it asserts that arizona -- quote -- "fails to account for the complexities and realities of federal immigration law." end of quote -- because individuals lacking immigration registration dumen documents art at risk of constant and repeated criminal prosecution. yooblg thai do not believe thatn attorney should be held responsible for the legal positions he advocates on behalf of a client. of course, there are some exceptions to that general rule. for instance, if the legal positions are far outside the mainstream of legal theory, are frivolous or indicate a level of incompetence. however in this cairks -- howevn this case, mr. watford adopted those legal theories as his very

own. on july 14, 2010, mr. watford gave a speech analyzing the constitutionality of the arizona law. his speech concentrated on why senate bill 1070 is unconstitutional, and he recapped many of the arguments he made in the friendly house case. moreover, despite the fact that he discussed his views on immigration publicly, he nonetheless declined to answer many of my questions during his hearing before the judiciary committee. for instance, i asked about an argument in his brief that the arizona statute prohibiting illegal aliens from soliciting work somehow violated the first amendment. the nominee responded that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on questions related

to -- of whether the illegal immigrants were entitled to constitutional protection other than those contained in the fifth, sixth, and 14th amendments. again, remember, he had already given a speech on this topic, so i was disappointed that he would not share his views on these important topics. with regard to the death penalty, mr. watford assisted in submitting an amy crus brief to the -- amicus brief in bays vs reese on behalf of a number of groups who oppose kentucky's three drug legal induction protocol. iits plurlt opinion, the court rejected the argument raised in the brief. ultimately, kentucky's three-drug protocol was upheld on a 7-2 vote in the supreme court. at this hearing that we had for mr. watford and in follow-up

questions, mr. watford gave the standard response that he would follow supreme court precedent regarding the death penalty. yet it's very curious to me that he would go out of his way to provide his services to a case that would undermine the death penalty. furthermore, his concessions that he would give consideration to foreign or international law in interpret being the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment clause makes me wonder how he would approach this issue. i have other concerns on positions this nominee has taken as well as some of his presentations. i'm generally willing to give the president's nominees the benefit of the doubt when the nominee on the surface meets the requirements i have previously outlined but i don't think that this nominee meets these requirements.

finally, republicans continue to be accused of obstruction and delay when it comes to judicial nominations. this comes even as we have now confirmed 145 of this president's district and circuit court nominees. that, of course, is during a period when we also confirmed two justices to the supreme court. the last president who had two supreme court nominees had only 120 confirmations, so this argument of obstruction, of delay, of unfairness just doesn't hold up. i want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the obstructionism, delay, and filibuster which they perfected. the history of president bush's nominees to the ninth circuit provide some very important examples. president bush nominated nine individuals to the ninth

circuit. three of those nominations were filibustered. two of those filibusters were successful. the nomination of carolyn kuhl and william jerry meyers languished for years before being returned to the president. a fourth nominee, randy smith, waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the president. after being renominated, he was finally confirmed by a unanimous vote. president obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the ninth circuit. only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote. after that vote failed, the nominee withdrew. if confirmed, mr. watford will be the fourth nominee of president obama nominated to serve on the ninth circuit. those four confirmations took an average of about eight months

from the date of nomination. for all of president obama's circuit nominees, theage of time for nomination -- the average time of nomination to confirmation is about 242 days. for president bush's circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days. now, given this history that i've spelled out, one might wonder then why president bush and his nominees was treated differently and so much more unfairly than president obama's nominees. i will put the remainder of my statement in the record. i'll yield the floor, and i would suggest an answe absence a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be tevmented. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to calendar number 400, the food and drug administration food and drug administration act be vitiated. the motion to proceed be agreed to, harkin-enzi substitute be agreed to, the bill as amed by the harkin-en disee substitute be considered original text for purposes of further amendment and the majority leader at that time be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, based on this, we'll have a vote that

will start in five minutes. that will be the only vote of the day. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: i yield back all time and ask that the votes start now. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 61, the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the cloture motion to immediate to calendar number 400 -- that was a few hours earlier today. madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that the foarns relations committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1905, the iran threat reduction act, and the senate proceed to its consideration. that the johnson-shelby substitute amendment which is at the desk, the iran sangsz accountability act as reported by the banking committee be considered the johnson of south dakota-shelby amendment at the desk be agreed to, the substitute amendment, as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: serving the right

to object, and i will not object. i would like to thank both leaders for the hard work in getting this i believe one of the more important sense of the senate resolutions achieved here as we know, it's very difficult. i think wording -- words matter, and i think the fact that this amendment points out that -- that this resolution points out that we need a comprehensive policy that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy and military planning capabilities and option that this objective is consistent with the one stated with president barack obama in the state of the union address where he said -- quote -- "let there be no doubt, america's determined to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and i will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." i think this is an important resolution. i thank the majority leader. i also point out that the final part of it says that, "nothing in the act shall be construed as

a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against iran or syria." first of all, it's not an authorization but second of all i wonder if we ought to include canada, maybe brazil and the couple other countries along with that since this resolution contemplates no way anything concerning syria. but i guess we'd probably throw it in. i will not ask for unanimous consent to amend to add canada, although the canadians are very upset because they have no teams in the -- in the finals of the national hockey league stanley cup championship series. so we'll guard against that in other ways. again, i want to thank both the senate majority leader and the republican leader for the work that they did and also our friend, senator menendez, who also was very important factor in getting this done. i do not object. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: one, to the majority leader, weldon. i think -- to the majority leader, well done. i think we're going to be able to vote on a resolution that states the policy of our president very clearly. to senator menendez, great job on the sanctions. i hope you understand why i wanted to put in all options of the i hope sanctions will work but this is a clear statement by the united states senate backing up our president that when it comes to iran having a nuclear capability, there will be more than sanctions on the table. and the iranians need to know that. i hope and ray we can end this peacefully -- pray we can end this peacefully for israel's sake, for our sake, for the world's sake. but as we approach the beefing up the sanctions, and the banking committee, with senator menendez' leadership and kirk and others, have done a great job, shelby, if you're on the banking committee, you did a great job. i don't even know who's on it. the bottom line is i think the sanctions were really well drafted, will enhance the president's hand, so to speak. but we cannot leave this debate

without making a very simple, unequivocal statement. the goal is to get it right. and if sanctions can lead to getting right, god bless. if the sanctions will not get us to where we want to go, everything's on the table, including the use of military force, because this country, republican, democrat, are not going to allow the iranian regime to develop a nuclear capability that will put the world into darkness. so to everybody who negotiated this outcome, thank you very much. i yield. the presiding officer: hearing no objection, so ordered. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 1905, an act to strengthen iran sanctions laws for the purpose of compelling iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and other threatening activities and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the

question is on passage of the bill, as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the bill as amended is passed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements related to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would -- before we leave here this evening, madam president, i must mention the good work done by the banking committee, senator johnson has been a stalwart on this issue. he and shelby have worked together. it's been very heartwarming. i appreciate senator menendez, who has been a loud voice in making sure we do something on this legislation that he has so -- feels so strongly about. madam president, the most important thing for me is iranians need to know that we mean business, particular willing with the next --

technically with the next round of international negotiations taking place day after tomorrow. so i'm glad that we've resolved our differences and everyone realized how important it is to advance these measures and prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. they should be aware that we -- there's still near we can do but i'm very happy that -- there's still more that we did k do but i'm very happy that we were able to get this done. mr. johnson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i rise to briefly discuss today's unanimous bipartisan approval by the senate of the iran sanctions accountability and human rights act. with this action, we are adding additional tough, targeted sanctions against the iranian government, making it clear to the iranian government that they must stop their illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons or face increased pressure on their

economy. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that a longer statement of mine and the bill plus a summary be included in the record following my remark. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: the bill the senate adopted today passed the banking committee earlier this year by a unanimous bipartisan vote. among its other provisions, this legislation will have important effects because it requires intensified targeting of iran's revolutionary guard corps, sanctioning energy and uranium buying joint ventures with iran and mandating sanctions for those who supply iran with weapons and other technologies used to commit human rights abuses. including those used to impose

an electronic curtain of censorship on iran's citizens. in addition, this legislation gives the president additional authority to sanction the assad regime in syria. madam president, today, the senate has shown that we can still act in a bipartisan way on important priorities. i want to thank every member for supporting passage of this bill today. in particular, i want to thank all the members of the banking committee for their work, including ranking member shelby, senators menendez, kirk, schumer, and brown. in addition, i want to thank majority leader reid for his determination to get this legislation through the senate. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the house to quickly come together on a final

bill that the president can sign soon. it is important that congress acts swiftly so that we can continue to put pressure on the iranian regime to end its illicit and illegal nuclear activity. again, i thank all my colleagues for their support of the iran sanctions bill today. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, first, let me thank the majority leader for his doggedness in making sure that we could come to an agreement that sends a clear message to iran before the p-5 plus one talks take place this week. his commitment made a difference. and let me thank the chairman of the banking committee, senator johnson, who, in an agenda that is incredibly full with all the challenges that the banking committee is taking up, made sure that the whole effort on

iran sanctions had a priority in the committee and worked to get the strong bipartisan unanimous vote that came out of the committee that gives us the foundation to move forward today. so i want to thank both of them. and i think, madam president, today the senate sends a clear message to iran as it prepares for the p-5 plus one talks in baghdad and basically that message is provide a real and verifiable plan for completely dismantling your nuclear weapons program or washington will further tighten the economic noose. the obama administration is moving forward on full implement a of the menendez-kirk central bank sanctions and the u.s. congress is ready with additional measures, such as sanctions on the national iranian oil company and an

iranian energy joint venture that will further isolate the regime. i think iran's supreme leader has a choice -- either come to baghdad with a real plan to terminate iran's nuclear program or we'll make our own plan through sanctions and other necessary measures to ensure iran fails to achieve its nuclear ambitions. and lest anyone think that this is necessary, madam president, as negotiators head to baghdad this week for the p-5 plus one talks, this bill is another tool that will demonstrate to iran that the u.s. is not backing down and that buying time just thinking that you can go and talk without subtan active, meaningful -- substantive, meaningful concessions here is just not going to work. and in case anyone has doubts as for the need for this legislation, the record is

pretty clear. in recent weeks, the international atomic energy administration has been subject to iranian delays and deception over access to the partan facility, a facility they claim has no connection to their nuclear program but which scientists believe may contain a blast chamber used to test explosives that can trigger a nuclear blast.

companies tourn aro a woar sanctis on satellite compaes that pvialig ss to the -- satellite services to the iranian regime but fail to prevent jamming of iran of transmissions by other users of

other satellite services company. sanctions on financial messages service companies tt pvi services to sanctioned iranian financial institutions, in position of liability on parent companies for actions of their foreign subsidiaries, and sanctions on energy joint ventures with iran related to the development of petroleum resources. and those are just some. so this is perfecting legislation an -- legislation and i'm so thrilled we're seeing it today. finally, i would like to comment on one on one particular section of the bill to make sure there's no ambiguity. section 5 of the managers' amendment preempt any conflicting federalr state law but only as they pertain to the eligibility for attachment and execution of certain blocked assets of e state of iran identified in the section. for judgments against iran for

the execution of terrorist acts, including the marine corps barracks bombing and in lebanon in 1983 which killed 241 u.s. servicemen and the khobar towers bombing in saudi arabia in 1996 which killed 19 u.s. servicemen, nothing in this legislation alters any other applicable law. and as someone who authored these provisions, i just wanted to be sure that there was understanding on the record. iran should, in addition to stopping its nuclear weapons program, which is in the national interest and security of the united states, shunted be able to a-- should not be able to avoid having its assets attached in pursuit -- and pursued and executed upon as they kill americans -- had been part of killing americans abroad. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: i ask i be recognized for five minutes and after that senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i'll be brief. first i want to thank our chairman, senator johnson of south dakota, for being so steadfast in bringing this to the floor. he worked in tandem with senator shelby, who i thank as well. senator menendez has been a true leader on these issues and has been the lead sponsor of many of the pieces of legislation to tighten the economic noose on iran. and i want to thank my friend and colleague, senator graham from south carolina as well, for being so constructive here. i'll be brief. if there's -- we've had a lot o divisions between democrats and republicans, but on the iss of making sure that iran does not have a nuclear weapon, we're united. the threat, the speerfn iranian nuclear weapon can bring democrats and republicans together, will continue to, and i hope the iranian government

recognizes that. because we are going to continue to tighten and tighten and tighte that just about all of the civilized world is against her ining a nuclear weapon. the inians can't talk about it why shouldn't they have it when evybody else has it when the kind of saber rattling and verbiage that comes out of that regime to what they might do to israel or other countrihows that they're really not a ma -- mature enough nation to be possessing this god-awful power. an theoint i want to make here tonight is this is another step forward. we are tightening further the sanctions. we will continue to tighten them so that the answer for iran, if theyersist with movin fwa

on producing nleea e chaos for the iranian leadership and rtunaty for many of the irania people. let iran beware. this is just another step. we will not stop. we are united as two parties. we are united as a nation and we are united as a family of nations to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power. that would represent a disaster to the nations of the world and one we cannot tolerate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i want to reiterate and underscore the words of my colleague, the senior senator from new york, about how important the iran, tightening iran's sanctions are to israel, to the united states of america,

and to the stability, really the stability of the world. allowing nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that's as unstable as iran and hostile to so many of our values and our -- i mean most people in the world, not just the united states. not just israel. not just the democratic world. how problematic this is for the entire world. that's why i'm pleased with the work that chairman johnson and ranking member shelby, chairman tim johnson, ranking member shelby, senator menendez, senator graham and others, that this continues to send the important message to iran that we will continue, we will increasingly tighten sanctions. threatening to iran the stability of its economy and helping iran to understand that this will create difficulties for that regime and having any

support of its people with economic consequences. it could happen as we tighten sanctions he. as senator mccain said, we know we take nothing off the table. we want a diplomatic solution with these sanctions. we want iran to recognize it's in their interest not to have nuclear weapons. that's the best thing for all of us. again, taking nothing off the table. i thank my colleagues for their work on this. madam president, i ask that the remainder of my comments be separate in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i rise to bring attention to a problem plaguing many aging communities in ohio and throughout the industrial midwest. we in this country have a rich manufacturing heritage, none richer than ohio. we're the third leading manufacturing state in the country, trailing only in production, trailing only states two and three times our size: texas and california. we built an infrastructure in this country that defines the

landscape in the modern world. in ohio, plants and places like middle town and youngstown, ohioans made steel beams that built our skyscrapers, railroads and pwrepblgs. and -- bridges. and at smelter sites, ohio workers process metal to shore up the economic foundation of 20th century america. but it's revealed a disturbing series of recent reports in "usa today." former lead smelter plants have left behind a terrible legacy. elevated lead levels in the soil and in the air and surrounding playgrounds and schools, especially in poor areas of our cities, many of these potentially contaminated place are in underresourced aging areas where homes are not necessarily good shape, where neighborhoods are plagued with many other pblems too. yesterday i met with angelina and jeff in cleveland in a property that is within breathg distance of an old lead smelter site.

what's even more troubling is that many families like the shefftons didn't know this threft existed. they are -- threat existed. they are parents of five. one of their sons was diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels. parents threes -- like these and thousands of others are worried about the health and safety their families. a national newspaper report found lead levels and soil near this smelter plant in cleveland ñxceed 3,400 parts per million. theage of lead level is only 19 parts per million. as a fearnl and grandfather. i'm particularly disturbed by these reports. we know at that lead isn't broken down when it lingers in the ground t can earned our groundwater. children can absorb it in the baseball die mofnedz. for too long regulators have overlooked toxic sites in our

communities. that's why i'm urging the federal government to take action. a called ton the senate environment works committee to hold a hearing on what we can do to address this. we need to prioritize testing near schools and playgrounds in those neighborhoods close to abandoned sites. i am asking the e.p.a. to take immediate action to review sites that have not yet been tested smed theals not enough. after the results come in, we need to take action to clean up residual conteem nation. last week the c.d.c. lowered by half the recommended allowable limit for lead exposure to young children so we must ramp up our efforts to address the problem. this problem link earlsering in our soil. we need to address it now. too many young lives are depending on our action. too many children in too many urban school districts suffer from behavior problems, suffer from intelligence proficiency full, because they've had far too high content in their blood of lead levels innd that retards groanl, ricts

learning, causes behavioral problems. it is a serious, serus public health problem. it's the paint on our -- on the walls in these old homes and it is the lead, it is the lead and the pnt ohe walls, it is the lead in the soil in their homes and neighborhoods and playgrounds. it really does call for real action from state and federal governments and local communities. i yield the floor. mr. moran: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from can cap. mr. moran: thank you. i walk up this morning in kansas with some sad news. one of our late legislate ors, bob beth he will, a 30-year member of the kansas house of representatives, died in a car wreck late last night. the kansas legislature has had a difficult session and finally concluded, i believe, after 100 days, of the legislative session this year's work in topeka and

one of our central kansas legislators in the drive home from topeka back to alden, kansas, was involved in a one-car accident, a fatality. i rise tonight to pay respect to my friend and former colleague, bob bethel, and express my respect and gratitude for his public service and my care and concern, in fact my love, for his wife lorraine, family, and friends. bob bethel -- i suppose you could call hirple call him a gt politician. he called a great politician because in topeka he was someone whose voice was listened to. but nothing about bob bethel really was a politician. bob bethel was a person who was a baptist minister in his small

hometown. he loved god greatly, that was the focus of his life. he loved the people that god created in his community and across kansas and in fact became the administrator of a nursing home because of his care for senior citizens. and it was that extension of his care for seniors that caused him to want to serve in the legislature. to extend that opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the people he cared for in his profession with public policy decisions that were important to them and their future of their families in to topeka, kansas. again, i would say that there's nothing political about bob bethel. he was -- he was respected and someone that everybody enjoyed being around, but it wasn't because he as a politician calculated what the right answer was or how to get along with people or took a poll to discover what the issues were that people supported; it was just that bob bethel in his love of god had a love of human beings, of citizens of kansas.

and so you would see bob bethel with a smile on his face at every parade, at every community meeting. he was somebody that, i think, sometimes in our lives elected officials, you may see people walk across the street sometimes to avoid the political conversation. but again there was nothing political about bob. he just was a guy who cared about people and it showed. people enjoyed being around here and loved the conversation, and he worked hard at being a constituent service-oriented member of the kansas house of representatives. it is so sad for us to lose such a person, and i hope that lorraine and family and friends in alden find comfort in the belief that god will care for bob bethel in the live here after. they believe that in their lives. their focus was the love of others. it is a role model for all of us

to make sure we focus on the things that really matter, not the public opinion polls. not the calculation of how to get along with people. but the idea that we in public service are given an opportunity to make a great difference in the lives of others. it ought to be that motivating factor, the one that bob bethel exhibited throughout his life that we should exemplify. my wife and i extend greatest sympathies and care and concern to people across kansas, especially to the family and folks who know bob so well in his home district, the 113th house of representatives district in kansas. and our prayers and thoughts are extended to them, and we praise god for the life well lived of one of his servants, bob bethel. i yield the floor.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 468 submitted earlier today by senator blumenthal. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 468

recognizing may as national pediatric stroke awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 469 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. s. res. 469 honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of small business concerns in the united states during national small business week which begins on may 20, 2012. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: it's my understanding we're ready to act on this resolution. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the resolution. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. brown: i ask that we act on the preamble. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the preamble. all those in favor say aye. those opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the preamble is agreed to. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, may 22, that following the prayer and pledge, the skwr-ps -- the journal of

proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired and the time for the leaders be reserved for use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized, that the first hour following the remarks of the majority leader and the republican leader be equally divided and controlled between the two sides with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. further the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:00 p.m. -- 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, lastly, it is the majority leader's intention to resume the motion to proceed to calendar number 400 s. 3187, the food and drug administration user fees legislation. when the senate convenes tomorrow, at 2:15 the senate will resume consideration of the bill. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

at eastern on c-span.

on washington journal tomorrow morning we'll talk about race, politics wasn't 2012 campaign with the democratic strategies. republican senator johnny joins us to look at the government's role in the housing market. we'll discuss middle east diplomacy with mark who was ambassador to mar rock koa. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 8:00 a.m. eastern. -- 7 a.m. eastern. next a hearing on terrorist financing since 9/11. we're hear from the department of terrorism and financial intelligence. the house homeland security sub committee is 40 minutes.

the committee on homeland security sub committee on counterterrorism and intelligence will come to order. it is meeting today evolution of al qaeda and state's sponsor of terrorism in regards to terrorism financing since september 11th. now recognize myself for opening statement. i'd like to welcome torch today's hearing of the sub come examing the united states' government approach to combating terrorist financing more than a decade after september 11th attacks. i look forward to hearing from today's expert witnesses. and i mean expert on the unique roll of terrorist financing and what it plays in the war on terrorism, and on the evolving trends in this field. september 11th hijackers used united states and foreign

financial institutions to hold, move, and retrieve their money. they depot pos ited money by wire transfers and travelers checks from overseas. they kept funds in foreign accounts which they accessed through atms and credit cards transactions here in the homeland. according to the september 11th commission, the plot cost al-qaeda somewhere in the range of $400 ,000 to $5 00 dollars can which $300 ,000 here in the united states. after the attacks, united states publicly declared the fight against al-qaeda financing was as critical as the fight against al-qaeda itself. the charge of the united states intelligence and law enforcement communities was clear. if we choke off the terrorist's money, we limit their ability to

conduct mass casualty attacks. within months of the attacks, the department, defense, the fbi, the cia, and perhaps most importantly, the department of treasury launched a swift, and unprecedented crackdown on domestic and charter international financing. i'm pleased some of the people who are responsible for that are sitting on the panel today. since then the treasury's office and finance office has played a critical role in dual aims of care guard in the united states financial system in gating right nations terrorist facilitators, money lawyeredders, drug, and other national security threats. the department of treasury and the intelligence community successes against al-qaeda financing and fundraising is without question. in 2005, the 9/11 commission issued a report card that evaluated progress the

government made in implementing that group's recommendations. it gave the government an a minus. not too many at this day. it give it an a mous. minus. the best mark on scoafort card. despite our successes, this is important, we can't become come place it. al-qaeda and the affiliates don't expand. are highly sophisticated. and they continue to take advantage of the united states and international financial systems in order to skirt international sanctions. the united states military and counterterrorism efforts have largely dismated core al-qaeda leadership in afghanistan and pakistani and the groups under significant financial strain and the struggling to secure steady financing to plan executed attacks against the united states homeland and western

interests. the terrorist and the enemy we face, the terrorist enemies we now face are more diverse, diffused, and decentralized than ever. al qaeda and their affiliates included that to bring america down. they will attack with colt smalr .. and the role of al-shabaab and kidnapping for ransom and

extortion. the facilitators were particularly savvy and skirting u.s. restrictions and terrorist financing and have been charged in a number of high-profile criminal schemes. as a former united states attorney in philadelphia i initiated investigations into hezbollah's fund-raising activities that included attempts to transport stolen laptop computers, passports, sony playstation systems, a separate intricate hezbollah scheme illustrates the interconnectedness where a lebanese bank laundered money from colombian drug cartels and mixed it with proceeds from used car sales that were bought in in the united states have been sold in africa. the cache was then moved back into lebanon and poured into hezbollah's offers. clearly these groups are highly innovative and motivated and we must be up to the challenge. terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism turning to

criminal activity to set up additional networks to require logistical support -- support and to raise financial resources is another evolving trend which could point to future activities of terrorist financing. given this shifting trend and the relatively low amounts of money required to undertake in and attack the united states government may need to recalibrate some of its tactics and examine how the intelligence of law-enforcement communities and i believe also the financial entities, the private financial entities, will adapt their strategies in order to address remaining vulnerabilities and combating terrorist financing. i thank the witnesses for taking the time to be with us today and i look forward to hearing from this distinguished panel. the chair now recognizes the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee on counterterrorism and the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, for any statement he may have. >> thank you mr. chairman. just briefly in reference to

your opening statement, we have learned in prior hearings that hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization, a shiite muslim group committed violent jihad acts as a proxy for venezuela, for syria, and for iran. they have a presence in the 20 country region of latin america. additionally they have a presence in 15 american cities, including four major cities in canada. we have also been told that we are not to be too concerned about this, that their activities are limited to fundraising. i see the fund-raising activities by a terrorist group as an act of terrorism, at least in a preliminary way. so those are some of the concerns that i have that in the interest of time, i will submit

my opening statement to the record so that we can get to the expert witnesses. thank you for being here. thank you mr. chairman. i yield that. >> other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today on this important topic. dr. jonathan schanzer is the vice president of research to the foundation for the defense of democracies. he worked as a terrorism finance analyst at the united states department of treasury, where he played an integral role in the designation of numerous terrorist financiers. dr. schanzer has also worked for several other united states-based think-tanks including the washington institute for policy and jewish policy center in the middle east forum. he studied middle east history in four countries and was recently earned his ph.d. from kings college in london where he wrote his dissertation on the u.s. congress efforts to combat terrorism in the 20th century.

mr. john casssara enjoyed it 26 year career in the federal government intelligence and law enforcement community as an expert in anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. he worked at the department treasury's financial crimes enforcement network and this was the first institution set up to take on the issue of terrorist financing. and at the united states financial intelligence unit. he was detailed to work in the office of terrorism, finance and financial intelligence at the department of treasury and the department of state spiro baer international narcotics and law enforcement affairs and anti-money laundering section. that had to be quite a business card. during his law enforcement investigative career mr. casssara conducted a large number of money laundering, fraud, intellectual property rights, smuggling and diversion of weapon in high-technology investigations. just a the scope of that demonstrates that numerous

schemes that are possible. these investigations took place in africa, the middle east and europe for a variety of federal agencies including directing the first truly international task force serving as an undercover arms dealer. mr. dennis lormel is a president ceo of dml associates a full-service investigative consultancy. mr. said they retired from the federal bureau of investigation 2003 after 30 years of government service and almost 28 as a special special agent for the fbi. in december 2000 he was appointed the chief of the fbi financial crimes program. following the terrorist attacks of 2001 mr.'s lormel established and directed the fbi terrorist financing initiative which evolved into the terrorist financing operations section within the counterterrorism division. since leaving law enforcement he is provided risk advisory consulting services and is served as an adviser advisor to

the congressional anti-terrorism -- terrorist financing task force. and the honorable sue eckert is a senior fellow at the thomas j. watson institute at brown university where her research is concentrated on making united nations sanctions more effective through targeting and combating the financing of terrorism. prior to joining brown university, ms. eckard was employed at the institute of international economics and from 1993 until 1997, ms. eckert was appointed by president clinton and confirmed by the senate as the assistant secretary of commerce or expert administration. repeatedly, she served on the professional staff of the house of representatives committee on foreign affairs and in addition she has worked with business groups and served on numerous working groups and committees addressing security and take allergy issues. i am very grateful for this panel. you bring in expertise on an issue which i think is

dramatically underappreciated by most americans. few realize the importance of this as we conduct investigations and do our best to protect not just this nation but western interests from around the world from terrorist activity and threats. a critical element is the ability to understand how they are funded, how they are supported and how they operate. we have seen it for markedly changing capacity for them to do it. you have been at the front end of this and we really need your insights to understand how things have evolved and what we ought to be looking for to continue to do the best job that we can to be on top of the ability to control their ability to carry out acts of terrorism against us. so at this point, i appreciate your being here. we are going to be called again to votes at 11:50 but we wanted to get the benefit of your testimony and we will do as much as we can to probe on questions as soon as we complete that so i will ask you to do your best to focus on the essence of your

testimony and see if we can stay within the five minute period so the chair now recognizes dr. schanzer to testify. >> chairman meehan, ranking member higgins and members of the subcommittee on that for the foundation for defense of democracy i thank you for the opportunity to testify. i based my testimony today on my experience and as an analyst where i worked from 2004 to 2007 and was directly involved in designating several terrorist financiers. mr. chairman after the september 11 attack the u.s. treasury immediately went to work on covering response. on september 23 president george w. bush issued an executive order designating terrorist entities that threaten america. that list quickly grin became a powerful tool for capturing tears. the 9/11 commission reports in 2004 gave treasury high marks for endeavors but in denying terrorists the use of the formal banking sector we have driven terror finance underground and we are now victims of our own

success. terrace have adapted in part by cheaper plaza cost al qaeda and the arabian peninsula just $4200 to place two bombs on cargo planes in october 2010. the group bragged openly of this underscoring that it's nearly impossible now to stop such low cost operations. other terrorist groups rely on kashmir going with carriers delivering suitcases full of cash and terrorist masterminds. others engage in money laundering and legitimate business to further finance terrorist activities. broadly speaking terrorist financiers are increasingly shifting to criminal activity. earlier this year u.s. authorities indicted a network of money laundering cocaine deals a more exposing 30 khobar -- car dealerships. senator dianne feinstein noted how the taliban rise heavily on profits from the heroin trade to finance its operations. if this trend continues its reasonable to assume criminal could investigations will play

an increasingly prominent role in u.s. efforts to counterterror finance. for its part treasury must continue to issue destinations even if fewer family to capturing cash. the naming and shaming the terrorist financiers let them know they are being watched and that helps us down the flow of cash on the homeland or against allies abroad. designations can also expose key notes of terrorist groups. that has been critical in exposing al qaeda's relationship with iran. in july 211 treasury designated al qaeda leader al surry and five others to pakistan the gulf and iraq. treasury declared his network operates as part of a quote secret deal and quote between al qaeda and the iranian government. in january 2000 the treasury designated for other operatives in iran. all of them including osama bin laden's son serving on al qaeda's executive council. of course none of this comes as a surprise to the 9/11 commission sing concern over the

al qaeda relationship noting it requires further investigation by the u.s. government forgot the treasury is doing just that and it shares its findings to the designation process. remarkably, treasury's robust counterterrorism program is the only one of its kind in the world. none of america's allies come close to our human and financial resources to combat terror finance. this can be blamed on a combination of tight budgets and a lack of political will. though the international financial action task force recently beefed-up its standards, it allows members to sell and operated according to recommendations and enables states like saudi arabia to give themselves high marks regardless of the realities. the system is full of holes and tears predictably gravitate to the areas of weakest authority. looking ahead, treasury policy shop the office of financial crimes and needs to prompt allies and adversaries to do more to combat terror finance

but for the short-term the most glaring challenge is the threat of a nuclear iran. on this front treasury is at a real impact. tehran faces tougher sanctions and ever foreign and the regime is cash-strapped that tehran continues to push forward with its nuclear programs. though she reportedly funded -- finds it increasingly difficult to bankroll to the extent it has in the past. we nag -- maybe pass a former economic can prevent a nuclear grandpa event the grandpa treasures efforts have nevertheless been instructed to demonstrate it properly applied banks can truly diminish the ability to finance terror. mr. chairman and many other challenges on the terrorism financing front that i do not have time to address today so if there's anything you wish to discuss i would be happy to answer questions and i thank you for inviting me today. >> thank you. very grateful for your testimony. the chair now recognizes mr. casssara to testify.

>> chairman meehan, ranking member higgins and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. it is an honor for me to be here. while there are no simple solutions to all the challenges identified by the subcommittee, delete there are three realistic and cost effective steps we should take. mr. chairman i believe he used the term recalibrate tactics. i think that is a very good way of putting it. i have broadly categorized my proposed recalibration if you will s. transparency, technology and draining the swamp. the three are intertwined and complementary. i elaborate upon them in my written statement. because of time constraints i will just briefly summarize them. let's begin with transparency. shortly after is the september 11 terrorist attack i had a very interesting comp or station with a pakistani businessman involved in the grey market and the underworld of crime. he told me something i will

never forget. he said mr. john, don't you understand the criminals and terrorists are moving money and transferring value right under your noses? but the west does not see it. their enemies are laughing at you. his words infuriated me because i knew he was right. i worked overseas for years with frequent travels to the arabian peninsula, africa, south asia. i became intrigued with the opaque indigenous but very effective ways of transferring money and value so different from our own. for example the pakistani businessman was referring to various forms of what we loosely call trade-based money laundering. it involves the transfer of value via commodities and trade goods. in addition to simple but effective customs fraud, trade-based value transfer often provides counter valuation or a way of balancing the books in many global underground financial systems, including some that are used to finance

terror. without going into detail in some of these trade dates values schemes are found in cool wallet networks, most other regional forms of alternative remittance systems, the afghan transit trade, suspect international lebanese hezbollah networks, trading syndicates and non-bank lawless regimes in the horn of africa. now in theory, spotting anomalies in trade data and overlapping these anomalies with financial data transportation data and travel data would allow us to kind of peer into these underground networks through the backdoor. when a buyer and seller are working together, the price of a good or service can be whatever they wanted to be. there is no invoice and this is a very simple example. this pen, a nice pen. let's say costs roughly $50.

the buyer and seller via a false invoicing overvalue this to say it's worth $100. simply, similarly they could undervalue $10 or even 1 dollar. now why is this important? well, that most money out of the country, participants import goods at overvalued prices or export goods that undervalued prices. to move money into a country the participants in good -- goods at overvalued prices. for the most part, all this avoids financial transparency reporting requirements. we are not picking this up. this vulnerability is what osama bin laden himself once called cracks in the western financial system. i once had a conversation with an iranian in dubai and i was talking about this type of money laundering, trade manipulation, over and under invoicing and he said to me, mr. john, money

laundering? but that is what we do. precisely. at its the way of life out there. is the way they do business. in order to help combat the trade-based money laundering the department of homeland security immigration and customs enforcement or i.c.e., established the world's first trade transparency unit or tt you. there are approximately eight in the western hemisphere and more are planned. congress can help promote transparency by ensuring they have sufficient resources, systematically examine trade fraud in the united states for reasons of national security and to enhance revenue. rtt you should be encouraged to further expand the tt a network overseas, particularly in areas where our adversaries operated and we should also promote trade transparency overseas by building it into the u.s. trade agenda. let me briefly switch now and talk about technology. over the last few years,

there've been tremendous advances in the amount of data collected and available. just a few examples include financial trade and transport data, comedic haitians and social networking are growing exponentially. industry calls this record information big data. concurrently there've been advances in data warehousing, data whining and advanced analytics. i'm not technical person however i'm excited about some of the new tools and resources that have been recently developed to exploit big data and helped the help the modern criminal investigator. yet those tools are not in our investigators hands. not at the federal, state or local level. i am convinced the only way we are going to realistically stay abreast of some of these challenges we face in financial crimes, in terror finance, is the technology as a force multiplier. doubtfully are talking about financial data, we have to talk

about treasury financial crime enforcement network. it is mandated to collect, analyze and disseminate financial intelligence. it is the gatekeeper and should be the u.s. government's premier financial crimes resource. however, is a documented in my first book, hide and seek intelligence law enforcement and stalled war terror finance, fen/phen has never lived up to its early promise and potential. the expertise and managerial will simply not exist to fully exploit the data are good. >> we are going to get called. the bulwark developing in our follow distance. let me ask if i can come is there quickpoint you want to make an summary? >> i referred to committee to my statement and my statement elaborates on these points. >> anybody who is watching these hearings should appreciate the tremendous amount of work that went into the written testimony which is far more expansive and i think lays out for those who were studying this issue.

let me turn to you for your five minutes before -- and does -- then ms. eckert. you may want to push your buttons. >> he sorry. i appreciate the fact you are having this hearing and i admire you for your desire to continue this. it's very heartening to see that the committee wants to address this topic. it's very in -- important. i was in the unique position on 9/11. i was in a position of leadership and the fbi were i got to follow the money and i saw first-hand in the three years use proactive techniques. one of the things in being proactive, how we succeed is to look at financial information agile intelligence, tactical and

historic standpoint furtherance of investigative initiatives. we did it then and the government is doing it today and they do we can do things better than how we do it and i hope the committee can come going back and looking and assessing the government on some of these issues. in any event let me start the private sector in terms of perspectives, and perspective is very important. the government and private sector one of the things we have to look at is bank secrecy act secrecy information and how we and initiatives and quite frankly when you secrecy act you are looking that it going to in terms of who, what, where, when and how went when it comes to

the private sector they are interested in the house. the government is interested in the wise so we have to blend those terrorist and you said it in your statement mr. higgins said it and i have heard it by how and smaller denominations of money is being used, and so the government is more challenged in going back to the financial sector, is possible to identify terrorist financing but it is not probable in the lesser amounts that are used, the more the importance of the partnerships between the begin bringing the why and how together to be able i testified on october 3, 2001, and i was asked specifically the biggest

vulnerabilities in the financial said the biggest vulnerabilities correspondent banking and money services business look at this little differently and i say that basically twofold. you have criminal problems, facilitation -- crime problems are fraud and money-laundering and money laundering in the greater context of all being laundered back the facilitation tools would be things like wire transfers, correspondent banking, i'm sorry, a legal, we looked at wire transfers, correspondent banking and shell companies. those who think they take advantage of. it illegal money remainders to

me is the biggest problem we have in who their clients are in customers are that have illegal money remittance operations. that is the way that the future. we have tremendous capabilities and we are getting away from cache. the more we get away from cash and the more like cash these machinations become, the more vulnerable we are to money laundering and i think if you look at africa as a flashpoint that terrorists are using these mechanisms to be able to think there are some one in particular is. they partnered to strategically transaction monitoring have really done a tremendous job in dealing with human smuggling. we can do the same thing it

takes a more concerted efforts of those are the things we need my written statement, i put certain things that we need to do. >> let me say one thing. unfortunately there are six minutes left in the boat that i struggling with how best i think they're going to give me, so what i'm going and then i'm going to have to reconvene with the rest of the committee. let me go to ms. eckert's testimony and i will give you a closing comment and we will work from there but i want to make sure you get your opportunity to hit the essence ms. eckert so the chair now recognizes ms. eckert. >> mr. chairman thank you for the opportunity to be here and i want to commend you and the committee for focusing on this vitally important issue.

i don't think enough attention has been 10 years with experience and and terrorism is a very opportune time to have a number of recommendations so i am that i am part of that we are looking at. the effect is less of sanctions for example against comments in the testimony today are primarily focused focus right now in terms of some financing of terrorism but i think it's important to pay attention to some of those because they have the potential to weaken what is a and nationally. so what i would do is just very briefly offer a couple of points

the cft measures. first is i think it's we need an hands still a great deal we don't know as my colleagues have been talking about is very important to focus on. we need to understand differences in terms of not only terrorist organizations but how they move in storefronts. we need going to pass the only metric we have had are the the amount is frozen. those can be misleading. we haven't seen steady progress with regard to that, but are not the information that we the

private sector provides ample as one of my colleagues has said and it is not analyze, except when it gets to so i think there's an awful lot that the current system to be able to discern patterns that could assist financial institutions and identifying terrorist financing. the second major area is collaboration and information sharing with the private sector. the central role in this is the private sector. governments don't freeze them, the private sector do. there we have all talked about the need for greater collaboration but i think this partnership so far has been a pretty and there is more that can be done. security clearances for certain individuals and financial institutions. the british have done it and what we need are law and other

countries. we cannot do u.s. has fatf has played an important more needs to be done to provide assistance to other countries to be able to put in place the necessary legal administrative and enforcement mechanisms on the financing of terrorism. further years later, you know a lot focused on some of the positive things and not limitations of the current approach and whether or not we are focusing on how the

terrorists still focused primarily on the formal financial sector and i think we really need to take a what we are doing now and in my testimony this time to save recalibrate so i'm pleased about the same thing. in short there has been an impressive global of movement of funds to the global sector sector financial situations but al qaeda and other groups have adapted and they continue funds. in order to be effective we have to genuine partnership. thank you, sir. >> thank you each for your testimony and as i am very frustrated that we was a very dynamic schedule over in the house, i am going to at this point in time recess the committee and i have to be

candid in saying it's not likely we are going to be i'm hoping that we will recess and look reconvene at a point in time that will be convenient for you and us and i'm hoping you would still be able to participate. the issue we are discussing is too important this forum and i think you have laid the groundwork to have a jumping off point service to each have given to our we began this process, was vital to the but it is a continuing ability for us to adapt as our enemy has adapted that is going to allow us to you understand it. we have got to communicate this and do it effectively we will

follow up but at this point objection the committee and the subcommittee is in recess subject to the call of the chair. will consult with the minority in order to provide when we will convene. thank you for your testimony and i look forward to following up with you at another forum in which we can develop these issues far more

a both nations are tremendous trading partners for the annie, and we signed a free-trade agreement meant that will lead to hundreds of thousands of american jobs. there are companies that in mind

that titian usaid health invest in and get going in the 60's and seventies to deal with food and hunger that today are employing thousands of americans in america. as part of the global enterprise. we know we can get ahead of this problem and we know sub-saharan africa for instance doesn't have to be mired in extreme hunger and poverty and in fact can be the next economic frontier helping us grow our economy and create jobs at home. that is what the chinese are doing and that is what other countries are doing and some of them are investing in those places and it is what we need to continue to do because we have a very proud and effective legacy. was aware talking with rajiv shah head of usaid the agency for international development. call 2-027-372-0002. let's look at usaid admissions and its money. here is where money that the

usaid worked with ends up going to. we covered afghanistan, haiti, kenya and also jordan and pakistan and african countries like tanzania and the south africa republic. what is this money being spent on? >> we invest primarily in a few subjects. one is in food security and the new alliance of president obama announced on friday and that we discussed at camp david with the group of aid to leaders around the world. it was an effort to say look up we are going to attack hunger and poverty we cannot do it alone. we need other partner countries investing with us in a few years ago president obama got the country to invest $22 billion to tackle this problem. on friday we said we also need the private sector. we need american companies like dupont and others to make investments that will help reach small-scale farmers in ethiopia and tanzania and many other countries you mentioned. we see the results of that.

we see when we partner with american firms in haiti and local farm farm cooperatives we can double or triple rice production and help nations move out of poverty and not be as vulnerable as they have been in the past as we saw after the tragic earthquake. we have seen in bangladesh for the first time in history the poorest state in bangladesh, state with more than 40 million people as a result of partnerships with american universities and american sciences have not produced enough rice to feed themselves and they and their first-ever they have the first-ever surplus in decades. this partnership is part of a program that president obama launched called feed the future panettiere top priority. it's efficient, an effort to partner with the private sector to eliminate hunger around the world. and it is one example of what we are able to do when we invest with focusing clearly around the results. >> host: let's get to the phone. ann joins us on the democrat line from waldorf maryland.

>> caller: good morning and thank you for having -- i'm very concerned about how the commodities market here in chicago upset the few shortages in other countries, and i'm not talking about hedging. i'm talking about the speculation in which the investors are not required to actually physically take the session of some of the soy, corn, wheat, rice and i have just noticed that there is a connection between food and stability and some of the food riots we have seen and the speculation that goes on here, which is very unfortunate and i hope your guests this morning can address this issue. thank you so much. >> guest: thank you. that is an outstanding question because it's absolutely true that when we see food rises spike considerably, we know that populations that are vulnerable around the world suffer

dramatically. in many sub-saharan african countries where we work for our feed to future program a typical family will spend 60 or 70% of their total disposable income securing food for their children and for their families. we spend about 10% here in the united states buying food for households. what that means is that food prices double or triple all of a sudden kids aren't eating, mothers aren't eating and kids are not going to school and family suffer dramatically. it is a inconvenience and a significant one but in other parts of the worlds it leads to come as you point out, to food riots and failed states and in some cases famines. we saw that in 2008 where a major commodity price spike left to the reversal of of the trend. the trend was over four decades come every year fewer people were going hungry. that changed dramatically in 2008. 100 million people were pushed into a condition of extreme hunger and extreme poverty because of price spikes.

we know that we need to have a more stable, global price structure. we know these countries need to be able to produce more food themselves and participate in an integrated food economy and we know that the consequences of not addressing this issue now are dealing with the high cost in blood and treasure and resources of failed states and famines and the price of things that are moral outrages that required immediate and very costly intervention. >> host: rashad is the head of usaid the agency for international development. event talking about a new alliance for food security and nutrition announced on friday as the g8 countries that president obama talked about it. here are some of the details, and agreement between g8 african nations in the private sector and target sub-saharan africa. kickoff in tanzania and ethiopian the goal is to get 50 million people out of poverty within a decade.

g8 nations in the private sector are kicking in money. rajiv shah, talk to us about private sector involvement and why we look to them for so much capital. >> we look to the private sector because they bring more than capital. they bring technology and logistics capacity. they bring the ability to organize ruddock supply chains and reach hundreds of thousands of farmers. the reality is we know how to end hunger in sub-saharan africa and that is why the president could boldly claim that we are going to work with international partners taking 59 people out of hunger and poverty but it's not going to happen with public investment alone. the president was quite clear that we will need our global obligations and continue in a difficult fiscal environment prior tories are on public investment in this area and demand as much from our african partners and others but ultimately the small-scale seed companies and not to printers that are creating drought-resistant or disease-resistant feed varieties

that can be used by small farmers to help detect -- protect themselves and eliminated famine and hunger rest during poorer rainfall comics companies like dupont that are investing in soil science and improved production in ethiopia and will reach 50,000 farmers. companies like unilever who have committed to this process a significant amount of global supply from sub-saharan african farmers and thereby create markets for those farmers to grow themselves out of poverty and cassava farmers in nigeria for example that produce a product called sorbitol. those are the kinds of public/private partnerships. actually by doing the work this way free stretch american taxpayer dollars. for every tax dollar we spend, we leverage two to $3 from other g8 country partners and we leverage two or $3 from other private sector partners so a dollar of american investment can unlock six or $7 of results

and outcomes in sub-saharan africa because of this innovative new approach. >> host: let's hear from andy on the independent line in el paso, texas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i can only attest to what this young man is saying, the miracles that have happened over the span of my lifetime. i am 64. my first memory is war footage from korea and if you visit today, the business auld you will see an economic year ago. that couldn't have happened without our help. those folks are our best friends and they are a among our most loyal allies in the same thing with the japanese and the taiwanese. the help that they have done for us, and i think we can count on them when we need friends. they don't suspect our motives. we didn't go there to -- we went there to help. they have not forgotten us.

>> guest: well, i very much appreciate that question because you are pointing out basic realities. we had a choice in the 1960's. we could have invested in a bright and integrated and connected future for the south korean people and a real sense of partnership or we could have avoided that. that was our choice at that time. because we chose to help them build roads and universities, to help them improve their agriculture which is really the focus of our efforts for about 15 years. and wean themselves off of food aid and produce more food themselves. because of those basic decisions we made, today they are a dynamic economy. just this year they hosted the major international summit with president obama on nuclear disarmament. that is the value of having partners that are connected to us in a fundamental way. one i had a chance to visit there last year, i saw so many people who would come up to me and describe their own personal

experiences of seeing their families not go hungry or not starve because they were getting american food aid or many of them had the opportunity to go american universities because of our partnerships. the best universities in the world and as a result of that, they have gone back and helped to grow is a stronger and more stable society that is now the bulwark of stability -- stability and peace in that region. we have an opportunity today. we can make these kinds of smart targeted investments and ensure that the world as it comes together is both connected to american values and safe and secure and economically prosperous, or we can retreat and let others define the future. president obama and save terry clinton have been very clear on this issue of how we do the former. >> host: rajiv shah, albuquerque new mexico, john on

our democrat's line. good morning, john? are you with us? let's go into fairfax virginia. ritch, republican caller. hi rich. >> caller: good morning, how are you? everybody wants to do what is right in the world but it comes down to priorities and i guess not my issue, but my concern is that we have people here this country that received the same help that we send overseas all the time. i watched a show on 60 minutes last night. tel aviv is in the midst of a recession and is doing extremely well. you look in the middle east and all the countries over there not doing very well. i don't understand why it is always on our back. why does the united states have to go out and take care of the rest of the world?

that is pretty much a general comment that i have and maybe you can provide feedback that will help me understand. i know it's only 1% but why we should do more when we have so much that needs to be done in this country? thank you very much. >> guest: you know there is a sentiment you were expressing that is very important. these are tough times here at home and that is why when president obama and secretary clinton asked us to reimagine what our work around the world could be like, we took a tough is this like approach to reforming the way we work. we have introduced evaluation so that we now know the concrete results of our investments generate an country after country. we ever structured the way we do procurement. people don't often talk about that but if we can save 20, 30, 40% on different ways in terms of the operations of how we work, we can actually save the american taxpayers resources and we know known this area for me

save money we save lives. times are tough and that is why we have insisted on these reforms. we have insisted on delivering concrete results when we make investments and i would just note that you know, if the united states steps back, others are already stepping up. africa is one of the few places in the world where you can visit a village where someone will say that they have the teeth and on on abiding admiration for president clinton, president bush and president obama because of the strong legacy that we have had in a bipartisan way around making these kinds of investments and trying to make the world a better place by putting our values first. we see the results of that. if we step back now we will be seeding doubt world to other nations like china and others that are stepping up their engagement in their investment in offering people a very different picture of what the future would look like. >> host: we have a comic coming in. foreign security is -- and needs

to be increase coming from the dod budget i reduced spending on arms. rajiv shah, tell us about funding levels and how you justify getting what you need from congress. >> guest: well, the entire budget for the state department and from the united states agency of international development is just over $50 billion it comes in the foreign appropriations act. i have been proud to know that there has been strong bipartisan support for some of these initiatives that we are describing today, the feed to future program that specifically is funded out of an account called the development assistance account which is about $2.5 billion a year. of course compared to our overall federal budget, this is less than 1% of what we do as a nation in terms of our spending and are budgeting. but the returns on it are

tremendous. if you look at just one program, our malaria initiative which was started by president bush and continued by president obama, that effort spent about $660 million a year and has saved approximately 220,000 young children in sub-saharan africa on an annual basis. there used to be about 1 million kids who died because they got malaria and they got sick and passed away. now they are sleeping under insecticide treated bed nets and they are getting better medications where they come into the clinics and they are surviving. what that means is countries that are persuasively that the forefront of the battle against islamic extremism and terrorists threats to the united states are now and a deep partnership with our country. they are seeing our values and community by community, they have a deep affection and appreciation for the united states. the president of tanzania was just here and tanzania has seen a 28% drop in the children who

die under the age of five because of our targeted investment in global health. he will tell you as you walk through those villages, those communities are forever associated with a proud value-driven way with the united states. and the threat of islamic extremism will not threaten those villages because of that engagement. you know that is a vision of success that we want continue to replicate and that is much more efficient than the alternative. >> host: usaid was started in 1961 by president john f. kennedy. is the first u.s. organization focus on long-range economic and social development aid from foreign countries. it is found in 100 developing countries and partners with over 3500 companies and over 300 volunteer organizations. annapolis, maryland, brent, independent caller. >> caller: good morning mr. shaw and good morning greta.

i have a question i've had for about 30 years and it never got an answer. i am curious, you might actually know, at what point does the human population exceed the ability of the planet to feed it? >> guest: that is a question that has been asked every decade for the last several centuries and the reality is, there was a time in 1968 when associated just -- sociologist wrote a population bomb redacting with a tremendous amount of data and clarity that three to 400 million people in south asia would essentially starve to death because population outstripped the planet and the region agriculture production and productivity. the reality was, scientist named after norman borlaug invented a new form of wheat in mexico. is a scientist for the university of minnesota working in mexico. he invented a new form of wheat and that red -- led to the green revolution which helped in some

cases quadruple the yield in india and bangladesh and pakistan and other parts of south asia and help save hundreds of millions of lives. for that effort he won the nobel peace prize and the presidential medal of freedom in the congressional medal of honor. all of these examples are examples where we have overcome the stresses and pressures that you are describing by investing in smart technology and by improving -- proving that our own capacity to innovate and improve production has avoided widespread starvation. so we expect the same to take place over the next several decades here and in the next frontier in this battle against hunger in sub-saharan africa. hajj good question on twitter, is the problem of hunger the result of poverty? it? it seems food is available to those -- >> guest: the reality is, we know that 90% of calories that are consumed in the places in the regions where they are

produced. we know that we have enough food commodities today to feed the world. but we also know that a typical african farmer who is generally a woman, generally working on about one or two acres of land and generally producing enough food just for her family and a be a little bit of extra on the local market, if their production goes up considerably, we know with certainty that they will move their families out of poverty and extreme poverty and that will set off a chain reaction where economies can diversify and grow in a more high-growth manner, creating a more stable and more peaceful and more equitable world. that is really the aspiration of this effort. >> host: annapolis, maryland, joe a democrat. c. that was just a portion of the conversation with rajiv shah and we will show it in our -- in its entirety tonight at 11:45 eastern.

..