i did appoint a press secretary who i thought would serve the press well, be uncontroversial and would be able to speak in a manner that the press would accept as being authoritative. so i was keep to build a good relationship, let me not pretend anything otherwise. but i thought too close a personal relationship was probably not for me. >> one of your colleagues, lord patton, used the word "demeaning" in this context. is that a term which you would associate yourself with? >> i'd prefer undignified. i don't think it's the role of the prime minister to court the press, and i think it is a little undignified if it is done too obviously, if it is dope. but if it is done obviously, i think there are clear downsides to that over time. ..

my own fault that the relationship with the press was not very close. i just indicated why i thought it ought not to be and that was not very -- sins sections of the press. if i may i would like to -- i have not come to complain about my press coverage 16 or 20 years ago. that is long since gone. i have moved on from that. i don't want to waste my time or yours complaining about that. i can explain why it was more

hostile. firstly i didn't inherit the naturally close affinity my predecessor had earned with the press over a long period of time. i didn't have it. it was self-evident. on a human level, from the point of view of the press, they have a prime minister they don't know and a prime minister who seems to be keeping his distance more than a believe he ought. is perfectly understandable to be hostilet believe he ought. is perfectly understandable to be hostile about people you don't know of-they were less well-informed about some of the things we did at that time and it worsened after 1992. i would not claim the press were

especially hostile or especially supportive but neither were they hostile. they observed a more even position. the sort of position i think is correct at all times. >> you referred to your base -- would it be fair to say that you were sensitive about what was written by the press? >> it certainly would be. i wouldn't deny that at all in retrospect. it is certainly true. i was much too sensitive about what the press wrote. in retrospect god knows why i was but i was. i think you can explain that in human terms if you pick of the paper each day and read what you believe you are doing and do you believe you are, it is a basic human emotion to get a bit ratty about it and i did and friends who are herds that were kind

enough to carry it in public as it became more widely known. it is an old chestnut but not something i denied. i was too sensitive. if i may put it in context, at the time there was a source of wonder. i woke up each morning and opened the morning papers and learned what i thought and i didn't think. i said i hadn't said and what i was about to do and wasn't about to do. >> i have had the same experience. >> it is interesting. it goes on quite a long time. [talking over each other] >> i hope not. i hope it is not going on too long but it is a bit wearying and i confess that i probably overreacted to that. my overreaction was a human overreaction.

as prime minister you need to know what is being written because people believed it and you need to try to counter it and most crucially of all you are likely to be asked about it if the prime minister questions and in those days we had twice a week, not once although a crucial period. what appears in the media and the written press is likely to the staple fodder for the questions you get at trimesters question time. it is a practical need. >> the testimony from earlier today from british prime minister john major. back live to testimony from the british phone hacking case. investigators are about to hear from labor party leader ed miliband. >> i truly declare war of term the evidence i will give will be the truth, told truth ahe whole

nothing but the truth. >> you provided a statement. let me be short -- are you happy to confirm this is the formal evidence? >> yes i am. >> energy and climate change between october of 2008 and april of 2010 -- developing the overarching fought on the first page of your statement of this >> if i could get a word in edgewise unwanted thank you -- the approval for me to be able to give evidence to the inquiry.

i'd provide -- to develop those points. we have a fantastic tradition of the press. phone hacking only happened because of the rigor and dedication of parts of the press. is important for the recommendations that come out of the inquiry to uphold freedom of the press and those great traditions. secondly the compelling evidence being put to this inquiry particularly the evidence of jerry mccann, way the press deals with individuals who don't seek celebrity and i hope that can be put right by recommendations to this inquiry. it is right to acknowledge that the failure to get to grips with these issues earlier is a collective failure of the

establishment. the press, the police who didn't investigate properly and the politicians who were at least aware of what was going on and didn't speak out. fortunately i think is right to say right at the outset that an organization like news international has great power and politicians are reticent about speaking out, myself included. there came a moment that i felt it was impossible not to speak out. i knew at that moment -- i did do that. i think it was the right thing to do. the final thing i want to say is no politician is going to give you a blank check and you wouldn't expect that. i know that from reading the evidence. there was a huge responsibility on politicians to make sure -- this was echoed by john major

this morning -- make sure your recommendations do not end up on the dusty shelf somewhere that you yourself have remarked. >> the second shelf -- we thought was the bottom shelf. >> i remember reading that. i want to echoes something you said at the beginning of this week. attorney bradford in his testimony that any prime minister -- this will be very difficult. i will do everything i can to work across party basis to assure that your recommendations provide a framework for the future. >> i am grateful for that assurance. i have spoken lately of the second shelf but actually there is a serious point that this is not an area of the law with which i have been particularly familiar in my practice either the bar or the bench but i have

been very disturbed to read that sins the war there have been repeatedthings the war there ha repeated attempts to seek to address is which all of the end have foundered. i would be very disappointed if the amount of effort not just public money the personal public money as well but intellectual efforts, auld the participants and all who have given evidence and why i have thanked everybody. obviously thought about the issues if all that effort was wasted and didn't achieve something. i am not entirely reassured by the repeated, and that the faco fact the inquiry has made

efforts but i think the effort requires greater repayment. >> i concur with those remarks. >> moving on to question 2, the second page of your statement, the third paragraph, the theme of press freedom with sensibility shall collect evidence we recently heard as well. in the last sentence you say you think the public interest is best served in respect on both sides in dealings with each other. the question is how would you promote that statement? >> this is an important question. i have written a lot in thinking about my evidence. i said at the outset my primary interest in the work of the inquiry was to protect the

innocent victims. i want to reaffirm that before i talk about this relationship. it is important in context. having said that, i think we should be seeking a relationship in our democracy of mutual respect. let me tell you what i mean by that. respect from politicians for a free, fair and strong press is very important. and individual politicians and deference, a sense of fair play and being able to get one's views across. , a long way from the ideal. there is a mutual culture of contempt from the press. we think politicians are straight with them and behave badly and from politicians who think we are not going to get a fair hearing.

this is important because excessive closeness -- why do politicians seek the closeness? sometimes it is the way of getting a good hearing? there is a flavor of that from participants. the idea is we are at long way away from it. the biggest injustice needs to be put right by the inquiry in relation -- a great thing if in the work the inquiry does it can help to improve that relationship. >> thank you. can i move on to what you say

and the question 11 which is 2-3. when you deal with the issue of the media's impact from political base, the diversity of opinion. a number of witnesses have spoken about this, inflation or fusion of news and comment. do you think that is a significant problem? what would you do about it? >> this is one of the trickier issues. the code that first arose -- i did not realize -- the code is very radical on this point in saying there should be separation of fact and comment. my honest view is i think it is

not something that is necessarily going to lend itself to a regulator read -- regulatory solution in quite the same way as other things that appear in the code around privacy or harassment or inaccuracy distinct from -- are treated. it is very difficult to see how you can overregulate and i should say at the outset i am not in favor of statutes or regulations to assure balance. or content in the sense of having a balance like you do to the broadcasters. i hope that one out, might be that if we have a body charged with looking at these issues and upholding the code they can at

least seek to raise standards as witnesses suggested an annual report on these issues. i would say in accuracy is a problem in the code and there should be a remedy for inaccuracy. if we would accept that. >> thank you. the next paragraph under question 11 on this page you make it clear that you see journalism as a public interest in doing that. they expressed to you what may influence your thinking that they should have no influence on the quality of their argument. are you able to differentiate the message and the messenger given what one would describe as the undertow of power which some

say has happened. >> there is no question that the press has an influence on the parameters of public debate in this country and any country. it will be incredibly naive not to acknowledge that. in the way they report things, they reflect the views of their readers and we should be clear that some of the things politicians dislike, some of its shapes people's use. it is inevitable. we have what i would call a partisan press in this country. more center-right than center-left. obviously that is the case. anyone who says they don't have an influence on the overall terms of public debate would be wrong. in your discussions you have looked for the express deal or implied deal.

it is much less about that in my experience. is much less about at and more in terms of public debate. we might talk about whether politicians spoke out about the press, the effect of politicians not speaking out. that is the way i see the issue. >> thank you. going back to the earlier point in your statement, paragraph iii at the top, that is where you detect any difference between politicians in government and politicians in opposition. you had experience of both. particularly interested in politics and politicians and opposition and whether there are differences weather standards should apply or consideration

might pitch. >> i have experience as adviser in opposition and obviously adviser in government and nuclear power. to observe the ministerial coat of health and support to do that by your secretary or principal private secretary or office. i hope i carry some of the habits of the government into opposition. from experience of government,

the useful -- in terms of them coming in to opposition. and broadly in a written answer, similar things should apply leica clause i judicial role -- quasi judicial role. >> we have it the other way around from mr. blair. and mr. campbell is that having been in opposition for 18 years and get the message of the nation a more pro-active way the labor party carried into government to the approach developing opposition was of mistake. i think that is how he put it. it was the other way around to make it the same thing.

probably a greater degree of in formality. and informality in opposition. and more wary about what might be right or wrong and the approach i tried to take as leader of the labor party. >> questions -- quesf

points and there was a half a question is in which way rightly, two factors at work here. >> there is the factor that politicians were in my view wary of taking up the issue of redress and system of complaints the way that worked for a variety of reasons before coming back in my view to a single one which we were confirmed about the impact it would have on policy that took it up. as mr. blair put it it would distract attention -- it all amounts to a similar -- similar idea. if we take an 800 pound gorilla

do that advisedly. the second part of it which is if you like the correct motive which is equally important to bear in mind of, on the opening remarks i made, we are held to account by the press. the press's job is to hold us to account and that is a very important job the press has and part of it is dealt or worry in the mind of politicians are we seeking to curtail people who regulate us by regulating them. you have these two different motives which were both at play, briefly a third motive for the labor politician which in number of witnesses talked about so i don't need to dwell upon.

labor is better for the past issued, 1992 and all of that. >> to what extent do you give weight to the chilling effect argument, the unintended consequences of regulation which we heard from one or two witnesses. >> would you please explain the question? >> the chilling effect. you have -- >> that is always something when we are scrutinizing proposals, we must look carefully at. i know it bears heavily on the remarks you have made about the dilemmas you face at the inquiry but i don't feel the fear of a chilling effect should be a reason for inaction. it mustn't be used as an excuse for inaction. got to make sure we preserve

what is good, there is no reason why we should not chill and justifiable invasion of privacy that cannot be justified in the public interest. >> the second deck that you made under this heading on page 6819, regulated framework applying to what was ineffective to managing or providing the affective phone hacking and enforcement by police at criminal law. at this point, why is it not be effective enforcement of the criminal law and the efficient and effective remedy for further matters? >> this is the burden without personalizing it of the

exchanges with the stand, which is the nature -- the crime committed among others, is it a crime committed? it should be dealt with. >> i take a slightly different view on this. when i look through the evidence which i read it is absolutely chilling evidence in my view but i wasn't as aware of the comprehensive nature of the grievances done to them. number one, accuracy breached and number 4 harassment and number 5 intrusion and number 9 reporting of crime, number 10 clandestine devices and subterfuge. not all those things are illegal. we do not want the police policeing a number of these issues but in no way move

swenson's, adding to the grief about the disappearance of their daughter. this cannot just be put down to police to do their jobs in a way that some witnesses have suggested. >> i will ask about my speech at analogy which sometimes strikes favor and sometimes doesn't. can we really allow people to say that it is not the fault of the person driving the car for speeding but the police for failing to prevent this? and the best in the world, the police will inevitably prioritize crime and the deputy assistant commissioner mr. clark put it to me forcibly, hacking

is undeniably odious but doesn't kill people at a time he was looking at terrorist threats. >> that is an additional point to the point i was making. i believe in the police having all the resources in the world thrown at the legality which we would not want that remains m a mcca mccann's and margaret what senate the whole bunch of people who came before you and cases of other people know about and just -- you know the list better than i do which were not necessarily based on legality. >> i agree with the additional point but collecting them together, the first point you make relates to the concentration of media relationship in a small number of hands taking across different forms of media which increased

the importance in the eyes of some politicians and increased conflict between politicians and public interest, many on good terms. do you think concentration of media ownership lies at the heart of the problem you have identified rather than other elements to it? >> i think it is part of the problem and part of the solution because part of news international's sense of power without responsibility which is what i believed it was came from the fact that they control 37% of the newspaper market before closure of " news of the world". we cannot divorce the questions of ownership and monopoly from concentration of power. i don't think we can divorce

those questions from the behavior of some parts of the press and at in the sky platform, and we got that as a big concentration of media power and i think part of the arrogance and i use the word advisedly, mild form of the word leaders will came from that. ..

close relationships but i think -- i think good the recommendation but make important in a way makes the point more easily. what's good about the transparency being introduced in politics is it is a sort of task, really, if you don't want to in the newspapers engage in the relationship. and i think that's probably, certainly in my view, a good thing. >> thank you. as you say, the recommendations which you begin to advance in the middle of the page we'll -- i plan to go on now to your answer to question seven which is area 621 and annex a the list of your meetings and direction with editors starting on the

28th of september, 2010, which was two or three days after your elected to be leader of the opposition, is that right? >> that is correct. >> it's apparent from a quick scrutiny of the list, as with everyone, you see a range of editors and not just in the newspapers who might be expected to support you, and again, it's difficult to identify patterns. we can see, for example, the labor party which immediately post dated your election, you saw mr. wallace, first of all, and mr. meyer, mr. harding, and mr. marin, on the next page, this is page 06581. there's one phone call with

rebecca brooks on 2010, on the third of march, 2011, there was a phone call with james murdoch. can you remember what was it was about? >> he rang me, it was on the day by news corp., i think he rang me to brief me on what the undertakes meant. >> were you surprised to see his call? >> not overly surprised. i mean, i didn't -- i hadn't had my formal meetings with james murdoch during that time the leader of the labour party. >> the opposition was well established on the the competition commission we believed to be take place continue to be our position.

>> on july, 2011, this is page 06854, we you have a phone call with with the editor of the "daily mail" there hadn't been there if any previous interactionsactions with him, again, we can see from the date the scandal had erupted. can you remember the subject matter of the call? >> i was i was giving the speech the next day which said the pcc was a needed to be put out of the misery. and it clearly, i thought mr. bacre had an interest in. i believe the editor of the independent really to give them -- what i was saying and about these issues.

>> can you remember what his reaction was to what you told him? >> i think he didn't agree with me at that point. it was -- it needed to be put out of the misery. >> fair enough. and then the further discussions with mr. dacre we can see on the first of november 2011 web and first of december 2011, page 60856, the meeting -- and the other one was the first of december last year. >> yes. >> it is difficult to remember what might have been discussed on a particular occasion. in the event you were able to assist . >> i can. i think on the first of november, i was giving an article to the "daily mail" about the feature i gave on

responsible capitalism and how we changed the way i we briefly chatted about the and the article ended up appearing. the first of december, was a more general chat. i believe it was at his office. >> had you had discussions with editors about the issues which concern the missing inquiry. >> yes. those discussions may be confidential, in which we didn't hear about them. does a general message emerge with they're saying you can help us. >> i know you're going to be hearing from her later on, she has has undertaken a whole serious of conversations of editors. the process over the last few months. the conversation i had would have been at the time of last summer, really, with the

editors. i think i had -- i had lunch with mr. dacre you maybe emitted we discussed the toothless poodle question when -- the 25th of july. we discussed the issues was how the press was going to move forward at that event. and i would have had some other conversations. >> questions on that theme. it annex -- contacts with news international papers between september 2010, and the 14th of july, 2011, there are fifteen phone calls, after that there's only one and that's with mr. harding, including --

excluding one social interaction mr. meyer and attending by mr. harding. i don't know if we draw any . >> yes. be. >> i think it's fair to say, i didn't have particular good relations with international news befores phone-hacking in particularly the -- improve to post phone-hacking. and, you know, our relation -- or contacts would be much more limited. i do say, i'm no sense because two decades back i'm not engaged in relationships with the foreign newspaper i am engaged in relationships with, you know, you would expect me to do at the

time. >> thank you. now, section a, question a. move away from that. find a different question. i'm grateful to you for complying this. do you think t a good idea it is kept and then made public or is it just window . >> definitely. i think that it acts as a check in a way what politicians do in the engagements they have and transparency, the good thing in this respect, and it means you make a judgment, not just about the invitation that you receive, but with accepting it. i hope i would make the judgments in any case. but i think it's quite a bit reinforcement. i think --ic there's a question

about the political editors. i think the lest that previously published that didn't include lists -- i think you got make a proportionate. if you make it every single accommodation with every journalist, you're going to get in deep bureaucratic waters. >> there is a relationship between the poll population and journalist -- politician and journalist to follow because it's important for them to get the message across and journalists -- the reason i ask the question because i'm conscious of plols policy and the way it's not working out. i wonder whether you fear there is a risk it might become sub subterranean in the sense you the editor, but one of your staff that meets a representative of a journal of

press and how you deal with that other than by cultural change? >> i think it's -- the contacts go on have gone on will continue to go on as we speak. and, you know, many of those contacts. i think that's inevitable, the bad thing you -- that's a good thing. because i want people to know about our views, my views and parties would say the same. if i decided to take a appropriator on a holiday with me, you know, i don't want to do that. but, you know, it's a -- it's a good backstop of transparency. i think that's the way i will put it. >> and that is what -- that isn't reality. it's intellectual check and that requires the rigor of understanding what lies behind

it. it isn't just a piece of paper, which therefore, is exactly the same message your staff would understand. of course, they must have contact to get the message across. but equally being balancinged, being appropriate comes into the whole message. is it a fair message of what the sort of thing does? >> very well. indeed, precisely. >> it's been only the theme of transparency, you say in question a on top of page 06822. is the only way to minimize the, risk. it is necessary and sufficient. is that a correct understanding of where you're coming from? >> just a second to remind myself of this.

yes, but i hope when we come on to recommendations for the future i can indicate what i think our immediate policy -- i have a position on this. i believe that we should not take poll tissues out of media policy completely but as i say any my evidence, question five, there should be a higher bar in relation to politicians going against the authority's decision. i think i suppose the transparency is important, and in the relation to media politician on specific idea. big ideas. >> thank you. are you returning to that question, right? question nine now, this is the influence the media had on the content and timing of government's decision making on policy and operational issues, effecting the media. you say the particular need for

the the reality or the perception of undue influence being exercised by interested parties, and moving on to the next paragraph, i said it a number of times news international tony blair said we pay attention to the abour. are you saying it remains in the realm of perception of undue influence or in the past to reality? >> i read a lot of evidence. the way i very specifically view this i believe we are looking for needs andrew march after the phone-hacking with the scandal both, i said in the interview, that we were too close in the sense that it meant that when there were abuse by the press, we didn't speak out.

the consequence too close, but now different people i refer to you your other evidence different phrases for that word to unhealthy. a whole range of other adjectives being used. other ways of thinking about the issue. but it was a sense of fear, i suppose. in some sense or unwillingness or worry or anxiety about speaking out on the issues. [inaudible] of the public any other organization in our other life being in what happened that actually be taken earlier. >> there's a page 6610 in the section of your interview with mr. mar on the tenth of july, you define too close, you said in the following respect we

didn't speak out on some of the major issues. and mr. marr summed it because mr. murdoch was too powerful. >> actually, that's mr. marr's question. he says, actually, he says, indeed because you're making a judgment about you would support what you can -- i think that's changed. do you feel, you remember of course even at that stage labour was too close to news international or not? >> i think the sense in which i think too close whey mean by too close i think is really the term we didn't speak outen the issues where there was increasing evidence of news international's behavior.

i think rebecca brooks to the committee in 2002, 2003, where the police were raises. and, you know, i think the whole question of abuses by the press by some sections of the press was if a sort of a kind of come part meant losed -- compartmentize something knew about. and had a sense of but it was just needed for government opposition the place you were going to do. partly it relates to -- so you said at the beginning, which is the history of looking into the area and without success. >> so even as late as 2008 to 2010, part of the thinking which

may underlay what mr. blair said in which you cited was that the bound government in your view? >> well, i mean the browne government did -- about some of the things to change the lobby system. it was getting at the main issue. now he said yesterday, he didn't feel he had a main -- mandate to deal with the main issue. that issue was off the table, basically. a couple of questions in relation to the brown period. if i can describe it another participate and the first question is this, were you aware of off the record briefings against tony blare and other prime minister and particularly

. >> and i believe in 1999 he left. left the government in 1999 one of the reasons he left was because of operation. i can't point you to direct evidence. one of the things he did was he briefed including within the government. on damon mac bride the cabinet minister, i raised a specific concern i had with mr. browne i believe in september of 2008 within about some of the mcbride's evidence. >> okay. that's as far as i think i need to take. that point. did you feel, look at the this period, that the government in particular mr. brown was obsessed with the news in the press or not?

>> i think the the permanent campaign i think it was his phrase. and in politics, the permanent campaign the media i think in a way makes the public campaign part of the -- i didn't think mr. brown was any more obsessed about it than mr. blair or anybody else, really. >> and moving forwards, then, the period when you were in opposition. the piece in the nighttimes which -- "new york times" came on the first of september, which is twenty five days before you became leader of the opposition. were you aware that mr. brown had tounge the cabinet secretary

seeking inquiry following the publication of that piece? >> the prime minister? i think yeah, i must have been aware of it. i must have, aware of it. i definitely blame -- let me refigure my memory. i knew after the election he sent me something in the bundle after this. he discussed having a publishing inquiry before the election as i understand it. i believe i found it after that. i can't recall having conversations about it before the election. i remember his speech when he talked about the the inquiry. that was july. i couldn't have known about it. i didn't know if it was public at the time. was it public at the time? >> it wasn't public at the time, but the consideration given to the public inquiry before the election took place in march of

2010, and it was involved and . >> which election are we talking about mr. or the general election. >> i think he was talking about the election. i think we were talking about that event. just a sound about subsequently. there was a further request mr. brown made in september, the 7th of september, 2010. >> i don't think i know about it. it's hazy. i don't think i know about it. >> getting back to the new "new york times" piece, i was in the middle of a period for you, did you -- did that piece come off the radar or not. >> yes. from the guardian and in september which had words from me in it about the allegationses

and -- allegations surprisingly because of the nature of the allegations was about the prime minister andy coulson and what the implications were for him. i don't think i read the piece, i think i read "the guardian" i remember being being on the campaign tour, and i definitely, you know, caught the andy coulson part of this. >> it didn't cause you to ask for a public inquiry or anything. >> no. >> moving forward to the next year, asked me to put you news corporation summer party on the 16th of june, 2011, when you met rupert murdoch, the question is did you raise the issue of phone hacking with him or any other senior news corporation

executive. >>. >> i i say on question fifteen. just for convenience. i explain it. i recall a short conversation with rupert murdoch a few minutes before the party. with i believe i should have raised the issue of phone-hacking with him. which is something i should have said. why because in retrospect and i called for inquiry or review later to do in april, there needed to be an inquiry set before the police inquiry. i think it was too much business as usual as news international about the change very soon after . >> can you remember how long you stayed at the party, approximately? >> i can't remember. i really can't remember.

>> okay. those are the questions i've been asked. there's one final question from a participant. he draws to attention a text message with mr. adam smith sent to mr. mitchell, the other way around, mr. schmich l to mr. smith, on second of february, 2007, we can bring -- prfn we can bring it up on the screen for you. on the file. come up in a minute. there we go. it says i did tell the labor letter what was thinking.

whether you assist on the matter. you can tell us where we are on in the chronologies, this is the second of february. what's happening at this time? >> the bid is not being rereferred to the competition. it was understood at that the time undertaking were not being considered. they were not forly enough to paroling element in march of 2011, if that helps. it may be that you have no rex or maybe you do. >> i didn't. i don't think i met -- i'm pretty sure i didn't immediate fred micel. -- michel. meeting of the opponents of the bid proponents of the bid i don't know. >> be careful because times he referred to people recipients of

that provides information which actually means a member of that person's staff. >> well, we simply don't know. i've been asked to bring that to your attention. you've addressed it. so that deals with those items. and as i look forward in your statement to question 13, which questions about mr. tom he was recruited by you in december 2010, there's one of your two communications advisers, is that correct? >> correct. >> can you tell us, please, about the recruitments process in a nutshell.

who was primarily responsible for it and how it was undertaken? >> well, it was a sort of to be a word of mouth process of my chief of staff by then chief of staff, myself, we were looking for people who could assist us with the media. what we were looking for? we were looking for people who had knowledge of the political lobby. you heard about the political lobby and the nature of the lobby. and that's very, very important. i think some of you understand the rhythms of the lobby. somebody who could project stories. and people who could project stories. we hired two people. third ily, somebody in line with my political opinions. i became the leader in september i believe there were people from the daily in december, it must have taken us a couple of months

or so. >> we'll leave the british phone-hacking at this point as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. the reminder continues live online at c-span.org. we will preexample the regular question of questioned time for more from the leveson inquire with testimony from deputy prime minister and prime minister david cameron will answer questions on tuesday at 5:00 a&m eastern on c-span2. with politics and public affairs. on weeknights watch key public policy events and the latest non-fiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. more debate is expected to

nomination and the farm bill lawmakers will break for party caucus lunches between 12:30 and 2:15. live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for your faithful love. you are the one who instructs nations and shapes the destinies of humankind.

help our lawmakers today to grow in grace and in the knowledge of you. equip them to be servants of the people, so that day by day our citizens may more clearly reflect your image. grant that our senators will shine as lights in this dark world to lead others to you. may they love expectantly, knowing that you will provide serendipities, wonderful surprises of your goodness, to help them navigate through life's inevitable challenges.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 12, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the senate is

considering the nomination of andrew hurwitz of arizona to be a united states circuit judge for the ninth circuit postcloture. there's every expectation that time will be yielded back and the confirmation will take place soon. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. senators stabenow and roberts are working on an agreement for amendments to the foreign bill and we'll notify -- to the farm bill. h.r. -- the clerk: h.r. 436 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. mr. reid: i would object to this matter proceeding at this time. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the

bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be tkeuts -- dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: last week the president said the private sector is doing fine. well, the fact is the private sector isn't doing fine, and the president's comments made me wonder what private sector he may be talking about. since he took office, we've had 40 straight months of unemployment over 8% and more than 23 million americans are either unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for a

job altogether. last month's jobs report said the economy added only 69,000 jobs. far, far below what forecasters had predicted. that's the obama economy and it's not doing fine. and with a debt the size of our g.d.p., the president's recent push for even more government spending is equally out of touch. taking more money out of the private sector, out of the hands of businesses and job creators or borrowing it to pay for yet another stimulus has consequences. we need to reduce the size and scope of government, not expand it. we need to put in place a progrowth policy to allow the private sector to flourish. that's why republicans have been calling for years for comprehensive tax reform and for both parties to sit down and begin the process of reforming

entitlements. that's how we'll get our fiscal house in order and help the economy grow as well. but without presidential leadership, it simply can't happen. controlling only one chamber, republicans in congress can only do so much. the republican-led house has passed budgets while for three and a half years the democratic-led senate has refused to do so. and they passed 28 job-related bills over in the house that our democratic friends here in the senate refuse to take up. for our part, senate republicans have continued to pursue a projobs agenda, and i would encourage our democratic friends to join us before the administration's spending and debt spree forces us into the sort of economic spiral we currently see facing folks over across the atlantic. and they can start by working

with republicans on our commonsense amendments to the farm bill. the president may think the private sector is doing fine or that the government isn't big enough, but those in rural america are definitely not doing fine. the biggest threat to farmers in kentucky and across america are this administration's job-killing regulations. that's why republicans are calling for votes on commonsense amendments that would either eliminate or prevent future job-killing regulations from going into effect, which would provide the necessary relief for american farmers and give a boost to rural america in these challenging economic times. last year while visiting atkinson, illinois, the president blew off one farmer when he asked about cost deregulations. the president said don't always believe what you hear. either the president doesn't know what his administration is doing or he doesn't want the

american people to know it's his policies that are hurting farmers all across the country. it's either one or the other. here are just a few examples of this administration's policies that are suffocating the american agricultural industry and the republican amendments we want the senate to take up. last fall the department of labor attempted to regulate the relationship, believe it or not, shared between parents and their kids on family farms. the proposed rule would have prohibited those under age 16 from manual labor like stall cleaning, using a shovel, using a battery-operated screwdriver. many people in my state consider this the type of manual labor that are widely referred to as saturday morning choice. senator thune is offering an amendment that would require the department of labor to consult with congress before implementing such regulations.

the e.p.a. wants to lift the ban that prevents washington, d.c. bureaucrats from regulating nonnavigable waters. the expanded federal jurisdiction would bring the e.p.a. and their red tape and taxes into the backyards of millions, literally millions of americans. the economic impact would be disastrous. congress passed a navigable ban to protect families, small business and farmers from washington bureaucrats trying to seize control of their water or their land. the u.s. supreme court twice affirmed the limits of federal authority under the clean water act but apparently the e.p.a. believes they are above the other two branches of government, and senators paul and barrasso are offering two amendments that would stop the e.p.a. in its tracks. the e.p.a. is considering a regulation that would require farm and ranch families to take as yet undefined measures to lower the amount of dust that

occurs naturally -- i'm not kidding you. lower the amount of dust that occurs naturally and is transmitted into the air due to agricultural production activities. it's hard to go through this and maintain your composure. things such as combining, haying, moving cattle, tilling a field or even driving down a gravel road, failure to do so would result in a substantial fine. senator johanns is offering an amendment that would prevent the e.p.a. from issuing any new rule that regulates agricultural dust. i kid you not, mr. president, they want to regulate agricultural dust. finally senator crapo and senator johanns are offering an amendment that would help farmers across the country

manage their unique business risks associated with day-to-day operations. the amendment would prevent unnecessary capital from diverting away from job creation and invest in businesses that was never intended by the dodd-frank act. this would protect farmers in businesses and ultimately help save american jobs. in these extremely difficult economic times, rural america is already struggling to get by, and they simply can't be bothered by an overreaching federal government that has literally no idea of the unintended consequences of its policies. these five commonsense republican amendments i have outlined, along with several others, put an end to numerous job-killing regulations, and each of these amendments, mr. president, deserves a vote. now, mr. president, on another matter.

today i rise to discuss events in the country of burma. every year since 2003 i have come to the floor of the united states senate to introduce the burmese freedom and democracy act, and every year introduction of this bill has been accompanied by a somber message to the senate that reform in burma is nowhere in sight. that's what i said every year going back to 2003. this year i'm pleased to say though the bill's language is the same, the message is far different, as is the legal effect of the legislation. in a remarkable turn-about of events over the past 18 months, burma has made dramatic changes for the better. in response to these developments, the administration recently decided it will ease many of the economic sanctions against burma through exercise

of its waiver authority. and as a result, this year's burmese freedom and democracy act would effectively renew only a handful of the sanctions against the regime and would preserve the administration's flexibility to use its waiver authority. in 2008, the burmese junta put in place a new constitution, a very flawed document. it does not ensure civilian control of the military. in fact, the charter may only be amended if over 75% of the parliament vote in favor of such changes and one-fourth of the seats in parliament are reserved for the military. in november 2010, burma held an election under this new charter which was universally dried as being neither -- derided as being neither free nor fair. the party of nobel peace price laureate aung san suu kyi, the national league for democracy, refused to participate due to

the unfairness of the electoral process. restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly were manifest and there was a prohibition against political prisoners such as suu kyi running for offers. not surprisingly the junta-supported party won over three-quarters of the nonappointed parliamentary seats. the new government took office april 1, 2011. shortly after this seemingly unpromising election, some signs of change began to appear. suu kyi was freed after years under house arrest. by july 2011, she was permitted to leave rangoon for the first time. in august she visited the new capital and met with the new president. in september 2011, the government lifted its prohibition against major news web sites and dropped anti-western slogans from state

publications. that same month the regime announced it would suspend action on a controversial dam to be constructed by china in kuchin state. the program was strongly opposed by advocates and leaders. as part of its reforms, the legislature permitted a bill that allowed suu kyi to participate in the april 2012 bielection and made it possible for her party to reregister after having technically lost its party status for boycotting the november 2010 balloting. in january of 2012, a score of political prisoners was released and a prosecutorial cease-fire agreement was reached with the koran, appearing to end one of the longest-running ethnices disputes why thdisputes in the . in april 2012, burma held elections to replace people who

had assumed cabinet roles for the first time since 1990, the n.l.d. participated in the election. of the 45 seats that were orientation the n.l.d. contested 44 and won 43. suu kyi herself won a seat in what was clearly a dramatic victory for the opposition. this spring for the first time in a quarter of a century, suu kyi was granted a passport and traveled outside burma. thus, in a mere 18 months, suu kyi has gone from political prisoner to member of parliame parliament. that in and of itself is a remarkable change, and it reflects more broadly the wide-ranging reforms that have occurred in the country. in response to the burmese government's efforts on may 17, the state department announced that it would undertake a number of administrative steps to ease sanctions against burma.

these include removing both the investment ban and the financial services ban against burma, except in transactions involving bad actors. in addition to suspending certain economic sanctions, the administration announced it would exchange full ambassadors with napita. i support each of thighs steps taken by the state department. what causes the burmese government to initiate these democratic reforms? it's hard to know for certain. but sanctions seem to have played an important part in bringing the government around. no country likes being viewed as a pariah and the burmese regime seems no different. when visited burma back in january, the one thing i heard from all the government officials with whom i met -- the president, the foreign minister, the speaker of the lower house -- they all said, we want the

sanctions removed. suu kyi herself publily stated a -- publicly stated a few months ago that "to those who ask whether sanctions have been effective, i would say yes, because this government is always asking for the captions to be removed." so sanctions have been effecti effective. if sanctions had not been effective, this would not be such an important issue for them. all of that is from suu kyi herself. so, mr. president, some senators may reasonably ask, why are we removing the sanctions -- why are we moving this sanctions bill again if burma has made such dramatic, positive steps? well, there are several reasons, and let me lay them out. first, the burmese government still has not met all the necessary conditions to justify a complete -- a complete repeal of all existing sanctions. despite the unmistake unmistakae

progress, now is not the time to encourage further government reform or to revisit sanctions if that became necessary. as suu kyi herself has cautioned, the situation in burma is not -- not -- irreversible. serious challenges need to be adariesed. -- addressed. violence in kuchin state remains a problem. numerous plilt prisoners remain behind bars. the constitution is still completely undemocratic, and the regime's relationship with north korea, especially when it comes to arms sales www.pyongyang, remains an issue of grave concern. as i noted, reviewing the burmese freedom and democracy act would leave intact the import ban against burmese goods, thus maintaining leverage the executive branch can utilize

to help prompt further reform. reauthorizing this measure would permit the executive branch, in consultation with congress, to calibrate sanctions as necessary, thus preserving flexibility. second, the renewal of this sanctions bill will not affect -- will not affect the administration's current efforts to ease sanctions, as announced on may 17. let me repeat that renewing the burmese freedom and democracy act will leave undisturbed the process for suspending sanctions announced three weeks ago. in part, for this returning the state department supports renewal of this measure. in fact, a vote for reauthorization of the burmese freedom and democracy act should be seen as a vote in support of the administration's easing of sanctions and a vote to support reform efforts in bauer ma. -- in burma. as a practical matter, renewal

of the burmese freedom and democracy act would entail, number one, extending for another year the bang against burmese -- the ban against burmese imports; number two, continuing authority for financial services sanctions, but leaving in place the authority the administration needs to proceed with the easing -- the easing -- of such restrictions; and leaving untouched the strags's ability to ease -- the administration's ability to ease the investment ban, which is part of a separate bill. finally, renewal of the bur niece freedom and democracy act has continued bipartisan support in congress and the support of suu kyi and the democratic opposition in burma. there are unfortunately too few issues where the administration has sought to work with congress in a bipartisan manager, mighty few in fact. but on the issue of sanctions rethorks the state department -- reauthorization, the state department and i are in full

agreement. i also know that my long-standing partner on the other side of the aisle on burma, senator feinstein, shares my sentiments about reauthorizing this measure. as for the -- as for burma's democratic opposition, i spoke with suu kyi just a few days ago. she told me she believes the burmese freedom and democracy act should be renewed. now, if burma stays on the path that it seems to be on to reform, it will require significant help in reforming its economy and in developing business practices that encourage enduring foreign direct investment and corporate responsibility. a great deal of work must be done as burma looks ahead to hosting the association of southeast asian nations in 2014 for the first time in half a century. burma seems -- seems -- to be on

the right path to reform and reauthorization of the burmese freedom and democracy act places the united states squarely on the side of reform and of reformers. for the reasons i've laid out, i believe a renewal of this measure is the right step to take. burma has made great strays over the past -- great strides over the past 18 months and congress should recognize those strides. at the same time, congress should not be fully satisfied with recent reforms, as much more work remains to be done. now, mr. president, in closing, i'm introducing the renewal of the freedom and democracy act originally passed in 2003 for myself, senator feinstein, with whom i have worked on this over the years and referred to in my remarks, senator john mccain, who has been very active in this arks met with suu kyi this past year, senator durbin, and nor collins, who had the opportunity

to meet with suu kyi just the week before last, all of whom are active and interested in this issue, and i ask that this resolution appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before my friend leaves the floor, i express my appreciation really from our country for his tireless efforts in focusing attention on what's been going on in bur mavment he's come to the floor and given numerous statements to focus ateption on this. finally he got some fraction, that's why -- finally, he's gotten some traction. that's why progress has been made in burma. senator feinstein has also been very focused on this but no one has been to the floor as much as senator mcconnell talking on this issue, and as a result of that, we've made progress. it's been slow, but it's been

deliberate. and i think we can see a new day for that country. mr. mcconnell: thank the snoer from nevada. -- thank the senator from nevada. mr. reid: i will talk about a number of things now. first, i want to mention my friend, the republican leader, talked about the fact that the president has done nothing to create jobs. mr. president, we've all heard that long-standing joke. in fact it wasn't a joke. i represented a young man who murdered his parents. and the joke during that period of time was, i guess now your defense is going to be he's going to claim he is an orphan? nothing novel or new or unique in the experience i had representing that young man who killed his parents. but the republican leader's remarks reminds me of that. he is saying that the problem

with this country is obama. that's -- that's like the fact that someone kills their parents and then claims they're an or feafnlt the republican-- or orphan. republicans have blocked bill after bill after bill. these job-creating bills have been introduced. simply, mr. president, every one of these with rare exception has been stopped on a procedural basis by the republicans. then the republican leader cites nonrelevant republican amendments that they would like to offer on the farm bill as a way to create jobs. but it's precisely these no nonrelevant, nongermane

amendments that keep the senate from doing its work, its job-creating work, like the farm bill. the farm bill has 16 million people, mr. president, that work on farm programs. we haven't done one in five years. the highway bill is something where w we encouraged republicas in the house to work with us on that. we live in a world that's imperfect. we live in a country that's imperfect. but let's give credit where credit is due. president obama found this country in a deep hole when he was elected three and a half years ago. the administration had a he replaced lost more than 8 million jobs, about a million jobs a year in the prior administration. and president obama has had 27 straight months of private job creation. so i think we serve and he deserves -- so i which we deserve and he deserves some

credit for the work he's done in that regard. so i really strongly object to my republican leader's remarks. it's just simply wrong, and if we had some cooperation from my friends on the other side of the aisle, as we say, we would have a lot more jobs created in this country. but my friend has said that his number-one issue is to defeat president obama. and that's happened here. we simply haven't been able to legislate appropriately because of that mantra. mr. president, technology has changed our world. that is an understatement. it's changed the way we shop, the wait we bank, even the wait we travel -- even the way we travel. changed the way i would get information. that's an understatement. now, mr. president, it was about 10 years ago or so i decided to sell my home here in the subur

suburbs, and i was stunned by one of my boyce telling me, hey dad, you want to find out what other homes have been selling for? give me about a minute. and they pulled up on the computer every home in that area that had been sold in the last two years -- when, how much. and even more detail than that. how can you do that? well, mr. president, that was ten years ago. that was in the dark ages of technology. there's so many things that can be done now. someone can go online, go to amazon, you can buy virtually anything in the world on that one web site. i met with one of the -- i met with someone a couple of weeks ago, and he had gone to work with google when they had 15 employees. and he talked with us about the tremendous problems they had

starting this company. they were wanting to give people information. and i'm not going to go into all the detail, but it was difficult to get the google that now exists. it wasn't there when they had 15 employees. they were working all night long trying to shut down some computers and keep others going. it's amazing what we have on the computer. everyone can do it. who wrote that song? what's the name of that play? what's the capital of uzbekistan? go to your -- go to your whatever you have and get it in a second. the way we get information and the way it's shared has changed so dramatically. it has changed the way our country protects ourselves. that isn't something people understand as well as we go into amazon. but the way we protect our country has changed, and it's

changed the types of attacks we must guard against. some of the top nation's security officials, including general martin demsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; general david petraeus, four-star general, now head of the c.i.a., one of the nation's greatest patriots, and leon panetta, skraeufrd, have said -- secretary of defense have said the most malicious cyberattacks and threats to our country not north korea, not afghanistan, not pakistan, but cyberattacks. we've already seen some things that have been kind of quiet to some but not those in the security field. we've seen cyberattacks on our nuclear infrastructure, our defense department's most advanced weapons, and the stock exchange, nasdaq, had an attack. and most major corporations have been attacked. they spent huge amounts of money

just protecting their product and their operations from that collapse as a result of cyberattacks. cyberattacks don't threaten only our national security, they threaten our economic security. these attacks cost our economy billions of dollars every year, millions of dollars every hour, and thousands of jobs. so we need to act quickly to pass legislation to make our nation safer and protect american jobs. the defense department, department of homeland security and experts across the intelligence community have issued chilling warnings about the seriousness of this threat. mr. president, i can't stress enough how concerned people who understand security feel about this. just a few days ago senator mcconnell and i received a letter from a remarkable bipartisan group of former national security officials, democrats and republicans.

the group includes six former bush and obama administration officials, michael chertoff, who had been a circuit court judge, a judicial scholar, became head of the department of homeland security during some difficult times we had as a country. paul wolfowitz who has been advising presidents for decades. admiral mike mcconnell, general hayden, that's who signed the letter. i can give a short tkeus certation of -- dissertation of every one of these individuals about what they know about our country. it presented a danger in stark terms, as stark as i can imagine. this is a public letter, mr. president, this is what this

one letter says -- quote -- "we carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been averted with intelligence that existed at the time. listen to that, mr. president. they're admitting that 9/11 could have been averted with the tools we had at hand. they go on to say we do not want to be in the same position again when cyber-9/11 hits. it is not a question of whether this will happen. it is a question of when. end of quote. mr. president, this isn't my saying this. this is general hayden, head of the c.i.a., had a briefing many times about the things going on during the iraq war. james cartwright, defense department expert william lynn iii.

this eminent group called the threat of a cyberattack imminent. what does imminent mean? it means now. they said it -- quote -- "represents the most serious challenge to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age 60 years ago." let me re-read that, mr. president. they said it represents the most serious challenge to our national security since the onset of the nuclear age 60 years ago. they said it. i didn't. the letter noted that the top cybersecurity priority of safeguarding critical infrastructure: computer networks control our electrical grid and our water supplies, our sewers, our nuclear plants, energy pipelines, communication systems and financial systems and more. every one of these, senator mikulski, she is the one who

said it is important we do this. we went in this classified room. we had a briefing on an example of what would happen in new york city if they took down the computer system to run that electricity. it would be disastrous not only for new york but for our country. these vital networks must be required to meet minimum cybersecurity standards. that's what these prominent americans believe, and so do i. the letter was clear that securing this infrastructure should be made part of any cybersecurity legislation this congress considers. i believe that also. general keith alexander, director of the national security agency, said something very similar. this is what he wrote to senator mccain recently -- and i quote -- "critical infrastructure protection needs to be addressed in any cybersecurity legislation. the risk is simply too great considering the reality of our

interconnected and interdependent world." end of quote. general alexander is one that, a voice among many, many. the president of the united states, president obama, two chairmen of the 9/11 commission, the director of national intelligence, general clapper sp-rbgs -- the director of the f.b.i., robert mueller. they have all requested a call to action. now. they believe an attack is imminent. mr. president, the attack may not be one that knocks down buildings and starts fires we saw on 9/11. it will be a different kind of attack that is even more

destructive. the officials of the buck -- bush and obama administrations agree on the urgent need to protect this infrastructure. that's only part of it, mr. president, and yet some key republicans continue to argue we should do nothing to secure critical infrastructure. we should just focus on the military. virtually every intelligence expert says we need to secure the systems that say we the lights come on, inaction, that is not an option.

senator rockefeller is now the chair of the intelligence committee. they joined together and proposed one approach to address this problem. this legislation is not something that's theoretical. it's not an issue paper. it's legislation. their bill is an excellent piece of legislation and it's been endorsed by many members of the national security community. it's a good approach that would make our nation safer. but there are other possible solutions to this urgent challenge. unfortunately, the critics of the bill have failed to offer any alternative to securing our nation's critical infrastructure. the longer we argue over how to tackle these problems, the longer our power plants, financial systems and water infrastructure go unprotected. everyone knows this congress can't pass laws that don't have broad bipartisan support. there's 53 of us, 47 of them. so we'll need to work together on a bill that addresses the concerns of the lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. but for that to happen, more of

my republican colleagues need to start taking this threat seriously. it's time for them to participate productively in the conversation instead of just criticizing the current approach. there's room for more good ideas on the table, and i welcome to the discussion any republican generally interested in being part of the solution. national security experts agree we can't afford to waste any more time. the question is not whether to act but how quickly we can act. mr. president, i put everyone on notice, we are going to move to this bill at the earliest possible date. i would ask the business for the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the following hour will be controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, before i talk about the

reduction in tax credit which brought me to the floor, i want to address myself to the leader's remarks. i had the privilege of sitting on the intelligence committee. the leader put his finger on what should be a singular focus on the part of the senate. we've been warned about the threats in the cyber domain. it's timeto act. there are plans that are concrete and have great support. we should act as soon as wefnlgt i want to thank the leader for bringing that to our ateption. mr. president, i rise today to talk about a very important issue for the economies of both my state and the entire nation. that's the future of the wind power industry. and a future that is at risk i might add if congress doesn't he extend the production tax credit for wind. such inaction jeopardizes u.s. jobs and threatens what's a real bright spot for american manufacturing.

many of us know -- i think all of my colleagues know -- that we've seen the wind industry grow by leaps and bounds over the last few years. according to the wind energy industry association, the industry has atracked an average of over $15 billion annually from 2001 to 2011 and private investment in our wind sector in the united states. in 2009, that figure was $20 billion when 10,000 megawatts, the highest annual total today, of wind were installed. 75,000 hardworking americans find good-paying jobs in the wind sector, and there are 6,000 of those jobs in colorado. so, mr. president, i am not unbiased on this, but when you look around the country, nobody should be unbiased. those jobs have a positive ripple effect in all of these comments communities where they're based. just over the last four years wind represented 35% of all new power capacity in our country.

second only to natural gas. and with technological advances, wind turbines are now generating 30% more electricity per turbine, which means you're producing more energy while driving down costs. and this also means that all americans from the great plains to the eastern shores have access to more affordable, reliable and secure clean energy. that's a win-win. and it's little wonder that our constituents arconstituents aret we extend the wind production tax credit. i want to just say that this industry and the good news that's coming out of it couldn't have come at a better time for our manufacturing base which has seen relentlessly tough times over the last few years. the wind energy is cutting across the grain and is creating manufacturing jobs at a time when many companies are outsourcing jobs. this chart here gives you a great picture of what's been happening all over the country. you see every sector in the

country we have wind manufacturing jobs. at the end of last year you the wind energy included almost 500 manufacturing facilities that spans 43 states. we have wind projects if a vast majority of states, 38 out of 50. last year alone over 100 different wind projects were installed, ranging from a single turbine to over 4,000-megawatt capacity plants. back in 2005, that's just seven years ago, mr. president, we had only five wind turbine manufacturers but with steady and consistent growth and government policy support and certainty, the number of domestic and international manufacturers here in our country grew to 223 at the end -- 23 at the end of the 2011. mr. president, that's a key factor, the certainty that's been provided that will help this industry continue to grow jobs. and at a time when our economy

is still coming back after the 2008 recession and we're facing stiff competition from other countries, the wind industry is a dynamic example for how we can grow manufacturing jobs and investment in our country. when i started out, mr. president, i mentioned the wind production tax credits, known as the p.t.c. it's been a key factor in this growth. it's been central to this young industry and it is still a very young industry. it's success here in america by helping make wind energy -- it's still being commercialized more economically. however, this critical tax credit expires at the end of this year. and unless we act now in this congress to extend the wind production tax credit, we risk losing this industry as well as the jobs, investment, and the manufacturing base that it creates. -- creates to our competitors in china, in europe, and other

countries. that's the last thing we needs and our economy needs. so i've come to the floor to urge us, urge congress, to keep our country an open marketplace for innovative industries and new investments. the united states is on the cutting edge of renewable energy technologies ans on a path -- and on a path to further secure energy independence. and we have to maintain that momentum by passing an extension of the wind production tax credit. mr. president, in fact, it's so important this extension that i'm planning to come to the senate floor every morning until we get our act together and extend the p.t.c., not just for colorado but for every state across our country. and i plan to talk about the importance of wind energy in a different state every time i come to the floor. i look forward to talking about your great state, the great state of delaware.

i've heard every day from coloradans who have incredulous that we haven't acted to extend the tax credit. we need to be reminded that american jobs are at stake if we fail to act. simply put, if we don't extend the p.t.c. as soon as possible, the wind industry will shrink significantly in 2013. estimates are that we could lose almost half of the wind-supported jobs down from 78,000 in 2012 to 41,000 in 2013. and if we fail to extend the tax credit, total wind investment is projected to drop by nearly two-thirds, from $15.5 billion in 2012 to $5.5 billion in 2013. that's simply unacceptable. mr. president, luckily, i'm not alone in this effort. there is a strong bipartisan support in the senate, in this

chamber, for the extension of the tax credit. and, mr. president, yes, this is one of those occasions where we're talking about legislation supported by members of both parties. senators grassley, the republican senator from iowa, along with myself and seven other democrats and republicans introduced a bill earlier this year to extend the tax credit, and senator jerry moran, the republican senator from kansas, and i led 12 members from across the country and both sides of the aisle in urging our senate leadership to work with us to extend the p.t.c. as soon as possible. yet we haven't seen that happen, mr. president. instead of addressing what's a bipartisan proposal, that's been a proven job creator, congress has been caught up in partisan fights. let's work together to create jobs and strengthen our economy as well as our energy security.

let's pass the p.t.c. as soon as possible -- asap. so i'll be back tomorrow. i'm going to talk about specifically the importance of the p.t.c. to my home state of colorado. we are home to thousands of renewable energy jobs, including high-paying manufacturing ones. but that would change literally overnight if the p.t.c. is not extended. mr. president, for the good of our economy, i ask you and all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, work with me, let's work together to get the p.t.c. extended. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the sphoer from nebraska. -- the senator from sneb. mr. nelson: i rise trade to speak about an amendment that i am proposing to the 2012 farm bill. before i speak to that i would like to associate myself with

the leader's comments about the importance of taking care of our cyber defense, putting our putt- putting ourselves in the position to be able to deflect and deter cyber attacks, from terrorists and otherwise, against industries and the federal government. as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee of the senate armed services committee, cyber command is part of our responsibility, and the leader is exactly on target with his comments about the need to move forward to protect our country against future cyber atarks which we encounter daily, recognizing that we perhaps do know what we know but we're in that unfortunate position of not knowing what we don't know. and to modernize and to move

forward is absolutely essential to be -- to maintain vigilance against cyber attacks in the future. now, the amendment that i'd like to talk about today and like to propose is about fairness. it is about fairness for america's farmers and ranchers and fairness to all taxpayers. first, i had neat that one of the key elements -- i'd note that one of the key elements of the 20 ^12 farm bill that we drafted in the senate and is now on the floor about reform. in particular, the bill reforms a program of federal subsidies that have gone to farmers regardless of whether farm prices are high or low. these subsidies are known as direct farm payments. they were established by the 1996 farm bill as a way to transition producers away from the government-controlled system of agriculture to more market-based agriculture. these direct farm payments,

which are outdated government subsidies, were supposed to be temporary. the 2012 farm bill takes the necessary step to eliminate them and remove them from the future. when this change is enacted, farmers won't be paid for crops they aren't growing on land they aren't planting. eliminating direct payments will save $15 billion over ten years, which will be used for deficit reduction. producing in my state understand that given our nation's fiscal problems, we have to have shared sacrifice to get the debt and deficit under control. as we end these outdated subsidies, the farm bill establishes that crop insurance will be the focussal point of risk management -- the focussal point of risk management by strengthening crop insurance and expanding access so farmersre

not wiped out by a few days of weather or bad prices. crop inurns is a shared -- crop insurance is a shared, public-private partnership that maintains the safety net that we all need to sustain american agriculture. in my efforts to identify other areas where shared sacrifice for deficit reduction can be pursued, i am now proposing an amendment to eliminate another set of government subsidies which are unnecessary and should be eliminated. these subsidies go to just 2% of the nation's livestock producers. they receive substantial taxpayer-paid subsidies for grazing on public lands. in the interest of fairness to all livestock producers and the taxpayers, we need to reform federal grazing subsidies. my amendment would require that ranchers may grazing fees based more closely on market value for

their region when grazing on public lands. today the 2% of livestock producers grazing on public lands pay far below market value that other producers are paying. given our huge federal debt and deficit, we can no longer afford to heavily subsidize an elite group of ranchers to raise their cattle on public lands at the taxpayers' expense. these ranchers receive a special deal -- federal welfare, so to speak. but they don't need it and most ranchers can get -- can't get and taxpayers shouldn't be paying for. it's a matter of fairness to level this playing field, and it will help balance the budget as well. this 2% of the country's ranchers have grazing rights ogee public lands that cost the government in lost income $144 million a year to manage.

the government -- but the government collects only about $21 million a year in grazing fees from ranchers according to a 2005 study by the government accountability office. that leaves a net cost to taxpayers of more than $120 million a year. losing $120 million of tax money per year isn't fair to taxpayers, nor is it fair to producers who then are required to subsidize their competition. this report also found that two agencies that manage most of the federal grazing lands -- the bureau of land management and the u.s. forest service -- actually reduced grazing fees during years when grazing fees on private lands increased. get that. the federal government reducing fees on public lands when fees are being raised on private lands. the g.a.o. found that from 1980

to 2004, b.l.m.'s and forest service's fees fail by 40%. statement statemenat the same time, greec -- once going one direction, the other is going another direction. furthermore, the g.a.o. found that if the goals of the grazing fee were to recover expenditur expenditures, b.l.m. and forest service were charged $7.64 and $12.26 per annual unit month. that's much higher. get this -- much higher than the current $1. $135 per annual unit that ranchers pay. that's not fair. the g.a.o. stated that the

formula used to calculate the fee includes ranchers' ability to pay and is not -- quote -- "primarily to recover the agency's expenditures or to capture the fair market value." no kidding. that's what they said. that's what they think this program is all about. in nebraska, it costs livestock producers who get this special deal about $1.35 per cow to graze on public land. but it costs other producers who don't graze on public land an average of $30 per cow to graze on private land just in northwest nebraska. and it coftsz an average of $38 for cow on private land across all of northern nebraska. that's according to the university of nebraska's agriculture economics department. i'd note that i'm aware that others before me have tried to reform federal grazing fees and they're saying to me right now,

good luck. but given today's critical need to get our nation's fiscal house in order, it is time to bring grazing costs on public lands more in line with what it costs producers to graze on private lands. there is no fairness in this disparity. i urge my colleagues to join me in work to go improve the 2012 farm bill reforms by ending this unfair and outdated federal grazing subsidy. doing so would bring fairness to all livestock producers and have the add the benefit of saving taxpayers more than $2 billion over the next decade, savings that could help pay down the national debt and reduce our deficit in the meantime. with that, mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity, and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first, mr. president, i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. mr. president, in a short while, i think after noon, we will be officially back on decreasing of what is dubbed the -- back on consideration of what is dubbed the farm bill, the agricultural reform and food and jobs act. this is something we do every five years to be able to secure the safest, most affordable, reliable food supply in the world. we're very proud of what our farmers and ranchers do. we also have the largest investment in land and water conservation that we make as a country on what working lands is made through the farm bill, protecting our great lakes, the chesapeake bay, supporting our

farmers who have environmental challenges be able to manage those, their land. very important investments. important investments in nutrition for families that need temporary help, certainly as many, many have during this economic downturn. and other exciting opportunities that create jobs. the presiding officer, i know, cares very deeply about manufacturing, as do i. one of the areas in which we are growing the economies is making things, bringing it together in something called biobased manufacturing, something i will be talking more about as we proceed. the idea of using agricultural products to offset chemicals, offset oil, we expand upon that in opportunities in what we call the farm bill. bottom line, mr. president, this is a jobs bill. 16 million people work in this country.

there's not too many bills that we have on the floor that have the number 16 million. 16 million people work in this country because in some way we are related to agriculture and food production. it may be processing, it may be production, it may be in the sales end, 16 million people work in this country because of agriculture in some way, and it's important we get this right. we also have our major trade surplus in this country coming from agriculture. so we're producing it here and then we are selling it overseas. and i certainly want to make sure we're focusing on exporting our products, not our jobs. and the shining star of that is in agriculture. what we have seen just in the last few years, a 270% increase in agricultural exports in trade. so this is a big deal for us, and it's part of why this is a

jobs bill, and very important to us. we also know that we need to reform production, agricultural policies. so this bill is very much about cutting subsidies as well as creating jobs. what are we doing? well, we have taken a different view in this farm bill. rather than focusing on protecting individual programs that have been there for a long time, we focused on principles. what is it that we need to do to have a strong economy to support our farmers, whether it's a weather disaster like we've had in michigan or whether it's a disaster in the markets in prices, we don't want any farmer losing the farm because of a disaster beyond their control. and we all have a stake in that. there's nothing more risky in terms of a business than agriculture when you are at the whim of the weather and other market forces. and so we want to make sure that we're there. but we also know that for too

long we've paid government money to folks that didn't need it for crops that didn't grow. we're not going to do that anymore. this is huge reform in public policy, where we are moving to risk-based management, we are focusing on those things that we need to do to cut the deficit and strengthen and consolidate and save dollars, but also provide risk management. so we are in fact in this bill reducing the deficit by $23 billion. now, we've not had the opportunity to have in front of us a bill on the floor that cuts the deficit with strong bipartisan support around policies that make sense, that we agree to. and this is an area in which we've come forward. in fact, i'm very proud of the fact that our committees in the fall, when the deficit reduction effort was going on, were the one group in agriculture that came forward with house-senate bipartisan agreement on deficit

reduction. and, in fact, if every committee had done that, we would have gotten to where we needed to go. i want to thank my friend and ranking member, senator roberts, for his strong leadership, as well as the chairman in the house and ranking member in the house for our joint efforts in that way. but when that didn't happen, we decided we were going to keep our commitment to deficit reduction and move forward on policies that would achieve it, and we have done that. $23 billion cuts, we do that by repealing what's called direct payments that go to a farmer regardless of what's happening, whether it's good times or bad. in fact, we replace four different farm subsidies with a strengthening of crop insurance and additional risk-management efforts when there is a loss by the individual farmer, the county. we focus on loss. and as i indicated, we will support farmers for what they plant. we strengthen payment limits in

terms of where we focus precious taxpayer dollars. and we also took a scalpel. we looked at every part of the usda programs. we looked for duplication of what made sense, what was outdated, and we actually eliminated 100 different programs and authorizations within this policy, this farm bill policy. again, i don't know very many committees that have come forward with that kind of elimination. now that doesn't mean we are eliminating the functions, the critical areas of supporting farmers or ranchers or conservation or expanding jobs through renewable energy or our nutrition efforts, farm credit, other beginning farmers, all the efforts that were involved in, we're just doing it in a more streamlined way. we are cutting paperwork. we want, in rural development, which affects every single community, every town, every village, every county outside of

our urban areas, we want to make sure that part-time mayor can actually figure out rural development and use the supports that are there to be able to start businesses, to be able to focus on water and sewer infrastructure or roads, but that it's actually simple and available and doable from their standpoint. and so we've spent our time together working together to come up with something that makes sense for taxpayers, for consumers of food in our country, for those who care deeply in every region of our country about how we support farmers and ranchers, and for those who care very deeply about our land and water and air resources on working lands and how we can work together to actually do that. mr. president, we're moving forward now to the next phase of our farm bill consideration. senator roberts and i are

working closely together to tee up some amendments, republican and democratic amendments so we can begin the process of voting. we know there's a lot of work to do. colleagues have a lot of ideas. we know that certainly some -- i will support some. the process of the senate is to come forward and offer ideas and debate them and vote. we are working hard hopefully to tee up some votes this afternoon or tomorrow that would give us the opportunity to move forward, knowing that there is a lot more work to do, that we have a lot of ideas that colleagues have and that we will continue to negotiate, certainly moving forward on a final set of amendments. but we think it's important to get started. i want to thank all of our colleagues that came together on the motion to proceed. it was extraordinary, after a strong bipartisan vote in committee, we're very appreciative of the fact that our colleagues are willing to give us the opportunity to work together to get this done with such a strong bipartisan vote on

the motion to proceed. i also, before relinquishing -- and i might ask in terms of the time left on our side. thank you. i also notice that my colleague from south dakota is here. i want to personally thank him for his leadership on this bill, with extremely important provisions in the bill both on risk coverage, the proposal that we have to support farmers who have a loss came from a very important proposal senator thune and senator sherpd brown put forward -- sherrod brown put forward along with other colleagues. it is a foundation of what we are doing to work with crop insurance for farmers. senator thune has been pivotal in a very important part of conservation that ties, what we call sod saver amendment, that will tie the protection of prairie sod land, prairie land

to crop insurance, that if you're breaking up the sod that in fact there would be a penalty on the crop insurance side. it's an important way of bringing together accountability and crop insurance and protecting our native sod. among many other things that senator thune has been involved in leadership related to this bill. this has been a strong bipartisan effort. i thank my colleague from kansas. we have been a partner in this effort, and i look forward to having the opportunity to bring all of our amendments to the floor, to give people the opportunity to move forward in good faith. it's going to be critical that we move forward in good faith so that we can begin to vote, begin to have the debates to move forward and get this bill done. all of the policies that we talked about actually end on september 30 of this year with

very disastrous results for farmers and ranchers if we don't get this done. they need economic certainty. mr. president, the 16 million people that work because of agriculture in our country are counting on us to get this done so they can make their decisions on what they're going to plant moving forward, how their business is going to work. and they're counting on us to get it done. i'm proud of the efforts so far in really coming together and having folks in it; just a wonderful bipartisan effort to really get to work on this. thank you, mr. president. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that justin posey be granted floor privileges for today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: and i ask to engage in colloquy with my republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i came to the floor -- i come to the floor

with senator ayotte to talk about national security. reductions amount to $984 billion to be distributed evenly over a nine-year period, or $109.3 billion per year. what we're talking about is $54.7 billion in reductions will be necessary in both the defense and non-defense categories despite the fact, despite the fact the defense funding constitutes just 20% of the budget. as my colleague, senator mccain, and ayotte are well aware, the sequester disproportionately affects defense spending putting our security at risk. it has been almost a full year since the act was passed and congress needs an understanding from this administration as to the full effects of sequestration on national security funding. senator mccain and i along with senator sessions, others, senator ayotte called on the administration to detail the impact of sequestration on defense accounts. this information is necessary

for congress to address the deep and unbalanced defense cuts that are expected under sequestration which are in addition, i might add, to the $487 billion in reductions that were carried out last august. little information has been made available from the administration about the planned cuts to defense, should give all of us pause about our nation's security if sequestration proceeds without any modifications. in a letter to senator mccain and senator graham this past november, secretary panetta said that over the long term sequestration means that we will have the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest fleet of ships since 1915 and the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the air force. if sequestration were to go into effect, we risk turning back the clock on our military strength to where it was during the early 20th century, before world war ii. that clearly cannot be app allowed to happen if we hope to

have a future in which we are secure and prosperous and at peace with the world. i wish to turn to my colleagues. i want to turn to my colleague, senator mccain, who is the ranking member of the armed services committee. he's been a leader in calling attention to this cloud of sequestration cuts looming over the defense department and its threat to our national security. obviously somebody who mostly, the foremost experts here in the united states senate and certainly when it comes to the issue of national security, and someone who has been raising the issue of sequestration and its impact on our national security interests now for some time. but i would ask senator mccain if he might comment in his observations with regard to this issue and its impact on national security. mr. mccain: i thank my friend from south dakota and appreciate very much his leadership on this issue. and my friend from new hampshire, senator ayotte, who has done a preliminary study on

the effect of these sequestrations on our defense industries and jobs and employment in states across america. in fact, she has been asked by the conference of mayors to give them assessments. and one of the problems we have is not only sequestration itself, as my colleague from south dakota just mentioned, but the american people don't fully understand the impact not only from a national security standpoint, but from an economic standpoint. and i apreert and admire our -- and i appreciate and admire our secretary of defense who continues to say that sequestration would have devastating to our national security, the effects would be draconian in nature, and he has described it in the most graphic and i think accurate terms. but we don't know exactly what

those impacts would be, and, unfortunately, the secretary of defense and the defense department have not given us in information as to what those impacts would be. the american people need to know and they deserve to know what these impacts would be. that's why we put in a requirement that the secretary of defense send to the congress and the american people the exact effects of these -- of this sequestration, which he has refused to do so up till now. and that's -- and since we have not taken the bill to the floor and it may not be signed until the end of this year, that's why i have an amendment pending on the farm bill to seek that same reporting, because members of congress, elected representatives, and the american people deserve to know the effects of sequestration. and, one, they need to know from

the interests of our national security, but they also need to know, i would argue to my friend -- they also need to know from the impact on an already-faltering economy. and i want to thank the snoer -- and i want to thank the senator from new hampshire who is has done more on this issue. she's given every member of our conference a rough readout os ts to what the impact would be in our states. but obviously the snoer from new hampshire and i don't have access to the same database that the secretary of defense has as to these draconian effects. so, you know, we are facing -- just in summary, i would say, mr. president, that we are facing what is now known as a fiscal cliff -- the debt limit, which needs to be raised, the sequestration issue, the expiration of the bush tax cuts, and several other yo issues whih

we're all going to now address in the lame-duck session. that is a utoabtopeian significance -- that is a utopian vision for a lame-duck session which are not justified by hoamplet and one of the aspects of that sequest strairks the reason we need to address it now, is because the pentagon has to plan. they have to plan on a certain budget. they can't wait nil the end of this year or early next year when it kicks in, until january 2, i believe it is, of 2013 in order to ajunio adjust to it. one, we need the information and, two, members of congress need to know that the sequestration issue must be and should be addressed. i thank senator thune not only for his outstanding work on the farm bill but also for his leadership on this important issue. i'd yield, if i could, to my friend from new hampshire, who

has done probably more in-depth study of this issue and its impact on the defense industry in america and jobs, employment, than any other member. ms. ayotte: i thank senator mccain for his leadership as the ranking republican on the armed services committee. no one knows these issues better in the united states senate, i would say, than john mccain. and so it's an honor to be here with him and also my colleague, senator thune, who i serve with on the budget committee and who's been very, very concerned about the impacts of sequestration often our national security. and i call the sequestration the biggest national security threat that you've never heard of. and the american people need to know this threat to their national security, to the protection of our country, which is our fundamental responsibility under the constitution. so i fully support the amendment that senator mccain has

brought forward on the farm bill, that he championed along with senator levin on the defense authorization, because we can't aford to keep -- afford to keep hiding the details of what will happen to our department of defense and our military if sequestration goes forward. and just to be clear, as senator thune has already identified, the department of defense is taking significant reductions in the proposed 2013 budget from the president. the department will take approximately $487 billion in reductions over the next ten years. that already means a reduction of approximately 72,000 of our army, a reduction of 20,000 of our marine corps, but what we're here talking about today is an additional $500 billion to $00 billion in rye ducks coming in -- $500 billion to $600 billion

in rye ducks coming in january of 2013. here's what we do know. as senator mccain and senator thune have already talked about our secretary of defense has warned that these cuts will be devastating, that they'll be catastrophic, that we would be shooting ourselves in the head if we did this for our national security, that we'd be undermining our national security for scwen reagan administrations, and this is when it means, what our service chiefs have told us so far abo about. for our army, what they have said is an additional $100,000 reduction in our a.m., 50% coming from the guard and reserve. yes, that would result in our ground forces being back to the level of 1940 before world war ii u for our navy, our current

fleet is 285. the navy has said previously that we need 313 ships. what the navy has said their preliminary assessment is if sequestration goes forward is our fleet will have to sh rirve between 2230235 ships. at a time when china is investing more and more in the navy, where we have shifted our defense focus on our latest national security strategy to the asia-pacific region, it would make that shift in strategy a mockery truthfully if we allowed sequestration to go forward. and we've heard the same from our marine corps. what the marine corps has said about sequestration, every member of congress should be concerned about waingdz up because the assistant commandant of the marine corps has said that if sequestration goes

forward, it is an additional 18,000 reduction in our marine corps and that the marines would be incapable of conducting a single major contingency operation. think about it. the marine corps of the united states of america, incapable of responding to a single major contingency operation. this is at a time when the threats to our country have not diminished. this is not a time when we still have men and women, as we sit here today, who are serving us admirably in afghanistan, and, by the way, o.m.b. hags already said that the -- has already said that the ward fund willing not be exempt from sequestration. that's at risk as well. we owe it to our men and women who are in the field right now that toik sure that they have

the support they need and deserve from this congress. when we look at where we are, this is not just about our national defense, but you would think that being about our national defense, our foremost responsibility in congress, would be enough to bring everyone to the table right now to resolve this, regardless of whatever your peat affiliation is. but this is also an issue about jobs because the estimates are in terms of the job impact in this country, a george mason university study estimates that over a million jobs will be lost in this country over one year over the sequestration issue and that's just looking at research and development and procurement. let's talk about some of the states that will be impacted because every one of my colleagues represent a state in this chamber that will be impacted by the jobs at issue.

we look at where our economy is right now and yet we continue not to address this fundamental issue of sequestration when a million jobs are at stake. for virginia, the estimate is 123,000 jobs. florida, 39,000 jobs. ohio, 18,000 jobs. north carolina, 11,000 jobs. connecticut, 34,000 jobs. pennsylvania, 36,000. in my state small state of new hampshire, it is projected that we lose 3,300 jobs u so that's a conservative estimate. so not only is this an issue of our national security, but we're talking about our defense industrial base and once we lose much of the talent in that industrial base, it doesn't necessarily come back. we have many small employers who won't be able -- who will go bankrupt and won't be ail to come back and once they're gone, we lose their expertise. in fact the c.e.o. of lockheed

are martin has said recently the very prospect of sequestration is already having a chilling effect on the industry. we're not going to hire, we're not going make 13ebnotgoing to n incremental training because the uncertainty associated with $53 billion of reductions in the first fiscal quarter of next year is a huge disruption to our business. and to my colleagues who think that we can kick this can down the road until after the elections, please understand that when it comes to jobs, these defense employers have a responsibility under federal law -- what is called the warren be act -- to notify their employees if they're going to be laid off at least 60 day before a layoff will occur. and twha means is that there could be hundreds of thousands

of notices going out likely before the election in november, letting people are across this country know that they may lose their job because congress has not come forward and addressed this fundamental issue to our national security right now. so in conclusion, i fully hope -- and i know that senator thune is supportive of this -- i am the cosponsor of a bill along with senator mccain and others that comes up with savings to deal with the first year of sequestration. and i would ask every member of this chamber, let's down and resolve this. we do need to cut spending and we should find these savings. it is important to deal with our debt. but let's make sure that we find savings that don't devastate our national security or undermine our national security for generations or hollow out our forks as our chairman of the joinjoint chiefs of staff has sd

about sequestration. and i will urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's sit down now and resolve this issue on behalf our most important responsibility, which is to protect the american people from the threats that still remain around the world and are very real. we have seen it with iran trying to acquire the capability of a nuclear weapon. it still remains a very challenging time, and we need to protect our country from the threats that we face. and so i thank my colleague, senator thune, and i turn it back to him and thank him. mr. thune: you mentioned that you and i both serve on the budget committee. this perhaps could have been avoided had we passed a budget that dealt with entitlement reform. the reason that we have these huge cuts, these steep and unbalanced cuts is because we

punted under the budget control act and this triggered these cuts in spending, half of which come out of the defense budget. so proportionalit proportionalio be a real issue. why would you gut the part of a budget that from which you get the radio sources to keep your country safe and secure. but frankly it comes back, in my view, to the fact that for three consecutive years the budget committee on which you and i both serve has failed to produce a budget, spelling out a more reasonable plan for thousand deal with these challenges as hopped opposed to having this budget fall on our national security interests. and so i am a just curious as to your thoughts with regard to the reason why we are where we are today. ms. ayotte: i would say, you're absolutely right. it's outrageous that it's been over 1,100 days that we have not

had a budget in the senate and that we haven't -- our bucket committee that we both serve on, we're anxious to resolve the big picture of fiscal issues facing our country. if we did that function of budgeting, we wouldn't be in that position where we've put our national security at risk because we're not taking on the big picture fiscal issue to reform, get our fiscal house in order in washington, make sure that we reform mandatory spending, so that those programs are sustainable and available for future generations, and here we are. i mean, it's real a stownding to me not only do i serve on the national armed services committee, but i'm the wife of a veteran, and it is astounding to me that we would put our national security at risk rather than putting together a budget that is responsible and proportional and that's -- that is one of the underlying reasons

why we find ourselves in the position that we are right now. and i would ask my colleague from south dakota, you know, the president has a responsibility as the commander in chief on this very important issue. that is such an important and weighty responsibility as president of the united states to be commander in chief. and where has th the president n on these issues? mr. thune: i would say to my colleague from new hampshire that the point that you just made earlier, statements that have been made by the president's own defense secretary about what these cuts would mean, it just speaks volumes. it is absolutely pretty stunning when you look at the impact this would have on our national security budget and the fact that at least to date, the president has not weighed in on this argument. in all, i think what you are saying and what senator mccain was saying earlier and what i'm simply saying is, at least show

us your plan. at least be transparent with us and the american people. because if we are going to do something about this, we need to know how they intend to implement this. and so the transparency issue is really important in all this and -- and asking them to just tell us, tell us what -- how you're planning on making these reductions to me seems like a critically important part of -- of not only informing the american public but giving congress a pathway, if there is one, to address this and perhaps redistribute these reductions. but to your point, when you start talking about $1089 billion reduction to take -- $109 billion reduction to take effect january of next year, half of which comes from defense, on top of -- on top of -- half a trillion dollars in cuts to occur over the next decade that were approved as part of the budget control act, that is a huge chunk out of our national security budget. and so -- and i think your poi point, the senator from new hampshire made an excellent point as well, and that is this is not -- this is obviously a national security impact first

and foremost and i have always maintained, if you don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. if you can't defen defend and pt the country, the rest is all secondary. but there is a huge economic impact, as was pointed out not only by the study you mentioned but also by the congressional budget office who recently in speaking about the fiscal cliff that hits us early -- the first part of -- january of next year, could cost us 1.3% in growth, which according to the president's own economic advisors, would be 1.3 million jobs. now, if the national security issue does not get your attention, certainly you would think the economy and jobs issue would and yet -- yet we are hearing silence, crickets coming out of the white house. and so i would hope that he would weigh in to this debate. certainly at least provide us an idea about how the administration intends to implement this and hopefully a plan about how to avert what would be a catastrophic impact on our national security interest, as has always been emphasized by his own defense secretary. ms. ayotte: i would say as well,

one of the important issues is -- and i would ask senator thune what you think about this. is this not so important when we think about the impact on our national security that we sit down now, we hear from the president now tha, that membersf both sides of the aisle sit down now instead of kicking this down the can because of the elections. because what i have heard from our employers is that they will have to make decisions now that could impact our defense industrial base. and we're talking about shipbuilders, we're talking about experts, small businesses that work in this area that once those jobs go away in terms of if a small business that's a supplier on one of our major procurement programs, a sole supplier, which happens quite often, that -- that expertise goes away, we don't immediately pull that back. and so we're talking about thousands and thousands, an estimate of a million jobs. and the private sector can't

wait for us to resolve this till after the elections. they need us to resolve this now. our military, in my view, can't wait till after the election and nor should our military be put in that position. they should know that we're going to resolve this because we want to keep faith with them. we do not want to hollow out our force. we do not want to put them at risk. and so on a bipartisan basis, to me this is a critical issue to resolve before the election. i wondered what your view office that. mr. thune: i will say, mr. president, to my colleague from new hampshire, and i again appreciate the fact that her leadership as a member of the armed services committee on this issue on national security issues, but also as a member of the budget committee, where we serve together, this is just critical that we do something soon. and the reason for that, as -- as the senator from new hampshire mentioned, is when you try and do something in the haze of a lame-duck session of congress, that is want an appropriate time -- that is not

an appropriate time in which to legislate on an important issue like this, particularly when there's other important issues to deal with. it seems to me at least that we ought to provide as much certainty as we can to our -- our military, to the leaders of our military who have to make these decisions. and, secondly, to the people w who -- who build these things. i mean, the people who are building these weapons systems and -- and could experience many of these reductions that will impact jobs. and as you mentioned, there's a warren act requirement to they notify people if they're going to lay people off. there's got to be some lead time for this, and that's why getting a plan from the administration that lays out in specific terms and in detailed terms exactly what they intend to do with regard to sequestration is really important to this process and as matter of just a fundamental transparency i think for the american people and for the congress. but clearly there is a -- a

need, in my view, at least, for us to be dealing with this in advance of the election, not waiting, not punting, not kicking the can down the road, as so on which is down around here. and i appreciate the leadership of the senator from arizona, the ranking member of the armed services committee, and my colleague from new hampshire in -- in raising and elevating this issue and putting it on the radar screen of the united states senate in hopes that actually something might happen before the election. but that will require that the president of the united states and his administration get into the game and -- and so far we haven't heard anything from them with regard to how they would implement sequestration or what suggestions they might have that would avoid and aer have what would be a -- avert what would be a national security catastrophe if these planned or at least proposed reductions go into effect the first of next year. i see the senator from arizona, the ranking member of the armed services committee, is -- is back. any closing comments before we wrap up this section? well, let me just say again to my colleagues in the senate and

particularly to the senator from arizona, the senator from new hampshire, thank you for what you're doing on this issue. i hope that we are successful in the ends, that we can -- in the end, that we can get some greater transparency from the administration about how they intend to implement these reductions and that we might be able to take the steps that are necessary, was pointed out on a -- as was pointed out on a bipartisan basis, because this is not an issue obviously that affects one side or the other, it's an issue that affects the country -- entire country when you're talking about our national security interest and the great jeopardy and risk that we put them in if we don't take steps to address this. mr. -- mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate in a colloquy with my colleague from south carolina, senator graham. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, senator graham and i -- and i know that there's others who would like to join us -- join -- come to the floor on the issue

of the almost unpress defen -- t unprecedented release of information which directly affect our national security, in fact, the most important programs that we are engaged in, including the use of drones in our counterterrorism activities and, of course, the highly classified cyber attacks that have been made on the iranians in order to prevent them from achieving their goal of building nuclear weapons. i can't think of any time that i have seen such breaches of ongoing national security programs as has been the case here. the damage to our national security has been articulated by

many both in and outside of the administration, including the most damaging that we have seen, including our director of national intelligence saying that it's the worst that he's seen in his 30 years of service in the issue of -- in the area of intelligence. all of the ranking and chair members of the intelligence committees, the armed services committee, foreign relations committee, and homeland security committees have all described in this most strongly terms what damage has been done by these -- quote -- "leaks." among the sources that the authors of these publications list, the sources that they -- they list -- and i'm quoting from these publications --

quote -- "administration officials," "senior officials," "senior aides to the president," "members of the president's national security team who were in the white house situation room during key discussions," an official who "requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program." and i'm quoting all of these from the publications. quote -- "current american officials who would not allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified and parts of it continue to this day." several sources who would be -- quote -- "fired" for what they divulge presumably because they divulged what was classified or otherwise very sensitive. one author notes -- and i quote -- "over the course of 2009, more and more people inside the obama white house were being read into cyber

programs previously only known by an extremely tight group of top intelligence, military, and white house officials, even those not directly involved. as reports from the latest iteration of the bug arrived --" talking about the signary tack on iran -- "the latest iteration of the bug arrived, meetings were held to assess what kind of damage got done and the room got more and more crowded. some of the sources in these publications specifically refused to be identified because what they were talking about related to classified programs or ongoing programs. one of the authors specifically observes that some of his sources would be fired if their identities were revealed. and as always with this leaking which goes on in this town, although not at the level that i have ever seen, i think we need to ask ourselves first is, who benefits. certainly not national security.

not our military and intelligence professionals or our partners abroad, who are more exposed as a result of these leaks. i think the answer to the question "who benefits?" you have to look at the totality of circumstances. in this case, the publications came out closely together in time, they involved the participation, according to those -- according to those publication, the participation of administration officials, and the overall impression left by these publications is very favorable to the president of the united states. so here we are with a very serious breach of national security -- in the view of some, the most serious in recent history -- and it clearly cries out for the appointment of a special counsel. i would remind my colleagues and

my friend from south carolina will reminds our colleagues that when the valerie plame administration -- investigation was going on, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued strenuously for the appointment of a special counsel at that time. and later on, i'll read some of their direct quotes. so it obviously is one of the highest breaches of security that this country has ever seen, because of ongoing -- ongoing -- operations that are taking place. by the way, our friends and allies, especially the israelis, who have compromised on the stux operation, the virus in the eye rain yaiin theiranian nuclear pf

course, they feel betrayed. of course, they feel betrayed. now, can i say i finally understand that our colleague, the chairperson of the intelligence committee, is going to come over to object to our motion to -- for the appointment of a special counsel, the same special counsel that was appointed at other times in our history and ahead of her appearance after the statement she made about how serious these breaches of intelligence were. it's a bit puzzling why she should object to the appointment of a special counsel. and i would ask my colleague from south carolina to place two outstanding individuals and prosecutors to investigate that still places them under the authority of the attorney general of the united states. the attorney general of the united states is under severe

scrutiny in the house of representatives. the attorney general of the united states may be cited for contempt of congress over the fast and furious gunrunning to mexico issue, which also resulted, by the way, in the death of a brave young border patrolman brian terry in my own state. he was killed by one of these weapons. that's how serious it is. i think that mr. holder, for his own benefit, would seek the appointment of a special counsel. i would ask my friend from south carolina. mr. graham: i think it would not only serve mr. holder well but it would also serve the country well. we're setting a precedent. if we do not appoint a special counsel -- and these two u.s. attorneys. i don't know them at all. i'm sure they are fine men. but the special counsel provisions that are available to the attorney general need to be embraced because it creates an impression and, quite frankly, a

legal infrastructure to put the special counsel above common politics. and the precedent we're about to set in the united states senate if we vote this resolution down is that in this case, we don't need to assure the public that you don't have to worry. the person involved is not going to be interfered with. that in this case, we don't need the special counsel, that there is no need for it. well, to my colleagues on the other side, how many of you said we needed a special counsel, peter fitzgerald, who was not in the jurisdiction. illinois wasn't the subject matter of the abramoff -- excuse me, of the valerie plaim leaks -- plame leaks that happened here in washington. when peter fitzgerald was chosen as special counsel, they said that was a good choice. chosen under the special counsel provisions which are designed to avoid a conflict of interest.

what is the problem here? for us to say that we don't need one here is a precedent that will haunt the country and this body and future white houses in a way that i think is very disturbing, senator mccain. because if you needed one in valerie plame, and you needed one in jack abramoff, a lobbyist who infiltrated the highest level of the government, why wouldn't you need one here? is this less serious? the allegations we're talking about here are breathtaking. go read mr. sanger's book as it describes operation olympic games. it reads like a novel about how the administration, trying to avoid an israeli strike against the iranian nuclear program, worked with the iranians to create a cyber attack on the iranian nuclear program and how successful it was.

it literally reads like a novel. what about the situation regarding the underwear bomber case, a plot that was thwarted by a double agent, and you could read every detail about the plot and how dangerous it was and how successful we were in stopping it from coming about. how we got bin laden, sharing information with a movie producer, but telling the world about the pakistani doctor and how we used him to track down bin laden. mr. mccain: i add revealing the name of seal team six. mr. graham: well, and that takes us to the bin laden information, and in the book, there is a scenario where the secretary of defense goes to the national security advisor, thomas donlan, and says i have a new communication strategy for you regarding the bin laden raid,

shut the f up. but the drone program, a program where the president picks who gets killed and who doesn't. this is breathtaking, certainly on par with abramoff and plame. i think the biggest national security compromise in generations. and for our friends on the other side to say we don't need a special counsel here but they were the ones arguing for one in the other two cases sets a terrible precedent and we're not going to let this happen without one heck of a fight. senator obama wrote a letter with a large group of colleagues urging the bush administration to appoint a special counsel and to have an independent congressional investigation on top of that of the valerie plame c.i.a. leak case. he also joined in a letter with his colleagues, democratic colleagues, urging the bush administration to appoint a special counsel in the jack

abramoff case because the allegations are that mr. abramoff had access to the highest levels of the government and that extraordinary circumstances existed. well, what are we talking about here? we're talking about leaks of national security done in a 45-day period that paint this president as a strong, decisive national security leader, and the book in question, not just the articles, is there any reason to believe this may go to the white house? look what happened with the scooter libby prosecution in the valerie plame case. the chief of staff of the vice president of the united states eventually was held accountable for his involvement. is there any reason to believe that senior white house people may be involved in these leaks? just read the articles. but this is a book review by mr. thomas riddicks of the book in question by mr. sanger. and throughout, mr. sanger clearly has enjoyed great access

to senior vows officials, most notably to thomas donlan, the national security advisor. mr. donlan is the hero of the book as well as the commentator of the record of events. it goes on and on talking about how these programs were so successful. and here's the problem. in the house, when a program is not so successful like fast and furious, that's embarrassing to the administration. you can't literally get information with a subpoena. so you have got an administration, an attorney general's office who is about to be held in contempt by the house for not releasing information about a fast and furious program that was embarrassing, and when you have got programs that were successful and makes the white house look strong and the president look strong, you can read about it in the paper. and all we're asking for is what senator obama and senator biden asked for in previous national

security events, events involving corruption of the government. a special counsel be appointed with the powers of a special counsel, somebody that we can all buy into. and if we set a precedent of not doing it here, i think it would be a huge mistake. mr. mccain: would my colleague agree that one of the most revealing aspects of this entire issue from program to program that leads to enormous suspicion would be that probably the most respected member of the president's cabinet who stayed over from the bush administration, secretary gates, was so agitated by the revelation of information about the bin laden raid that he came over to the white house and said to the president's national security advisor that he had a new -- quote -- "communication strategy, and he responded by

saying to the national security advisor shut the f up. that is a devastating comment and leads one to the suspicion that things were done improperly in the revelation of these most important and sensitive programs that were being carried out and are ongoing to this day. so i would ask my colleague what is the difference between the biden-schumer-levin-daschle letter to president bush in 2003 where they called on the appointment of a special counsel. biden, vice president biden on how the white house should handle libby. i think they should appoint a special prosecutor. in 2003, then-senator biden called for a special counsel on -- 34 senators and

then-senator obama requested the appointment of a special counsel to lead the abramoff case. i was involved heavily initially with the abramoff case, and i can tell my colleagues that even though there was severe corruption, there was certainly nothing as far as a breach of national security is concerned, and yet they needed a special counsel, according to then-senator obama, to investigate abramoff but not this serious consequence. so i guess that my unanimous consent resolution will be objected to, but the fact is we need a special counsel because the american people need to know , and i do not believe that anyone who has to report to the attorney general of the united states would be considered as objective. mr. president, i ask additional additional -- unanimous consent for an additional three minutes.

mr. graham: if i may respond, i want to introduce into the record the letters written by senator obama and senator biden regarding asking for a special counsel. what's the difference? i guess the difference is we're supposed to trust democratic administrations, and you can't trust republican administrations. i guess that's the difference. it's the only difference that i can gleam here. certainly the subject matter in question, senator mccain, is as equal to or more serious in terms of how it's damaged the nation, and in terms of the structure of a special counsel, if you thought it was necessary to make sure the abramoff investigation could lead to high-level republicans, which it did, and if you thought the valerie plame needed special counsel to go into the white house because that's where it went, why do you not believe that that would help the country as a whole? appoint somebody we all can buy into. give them the powers of the special counsel. that's what you urged before when the shoe was on the other foot. this is a very, very big deal,

and we're talking about serious criminal activity. apparently the suspects are at the highest level of government, and it was done, i believe, for political purposes and not to appoint a special counsel would set a precedent that i think is damaging for the country and is absolutely unimaginable in terms of how you could differentiate this case from the other two we have talked about. to my democratic colleagues, don't go down this road. don't be part of setting a precedent, of not appointing a special counsel for some of the most serious national security leaks in recent memory, maybe in the history of the country, while at the same time most of you are on record asking for a special counsel about anything and everything that happened in the president bush administration. this is not good for the country, and i would introduce these two letters. mr. mccain: mr. president, i appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, and i'd like to say as if in legislative session, i

ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of a resolution regarding recent intelligence leaks which means the appointment of a special counsel, which is at the desk. i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i have served on the intelligence committee for 11 years now, and i have seen during that time plenty of leaks, and i have tried with every bit of my energy to demonstrate how serious an issue this leaking matter is. in fact, i teamed up with senator bond, our colleagues her senator bond, of course, and i sponsored legislation to double,

double, mr. president, the criminal penalty for those who leak, for those who expose covert agents. so i don't take a back seat, mr. president, to anybody in terms of recognizing the seriousness of leaks and ensuring that they are dealt with in an extremely prompt and responsive fashion. what is at issue here is whether or not we're going to give an opportunity for u.s. attorneys, professionals in their fields, to handle this particular inquiry, and i see no evidence, mr. president, that the way the u.s. attorneys are handling this investigation at this time is not with the highest standards of professionalism. now,