vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this, the ayes are 92, the nays are 4. the motion to concur -- the motion to concur in the house amendment to accompany s. 3187

is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i now move to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 341, s. 2237, a bill to provide a temporary income tax credit for increased payroll and extend bonus depreciation for an additional year and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? i made a commitment to proceed to a five-year flood insurance bill following the farm bill, and we've done that. it's the right thing to do. it is an extremely important piece of legislation. so that commitment i have lived up to. i had hoped that the broad support we have for this extremely important bill will allow us to reach an agreement and finish the bill in a relatively short period of time.

as everyone knows, the senior senator from arkansas has had some issues with the bill. i have suggested they've a vote -- that he have a vote. in talking to my republican friends, they don't have a problem with that, to give him a vote. unfortunately, as happens around here more often than i would like, we haven't been able to reach agreement because of a really small group of republicans who are stopping us from doing this. so my options are really very limited at this stage. i can file cloture and put at risk our ability to complete action on student loans and the transparency bill. and that's what it -- and the transportation bill, and that's what it would do. because if we file cloture, we're going to have a cloture vote on this thing on thursday and i would have to file cloture twice because there's the bill and there's the substitute, which everybody agreed was the right thing to do to move

forward on the substitute. that's two votes, a the leas at0 hours. the flood bill is a very, very important piece of legislation. it's not something we have to complete the day after tomorrow, but it is something we have to complete a month from now. so i can file cloture and put at risk these important pieces of legislation, meaning the transportation bill, student loans -- it puts everything at risk. or i can give supporters of this bill time to try to come to an agreement on limiting the number of amendments. i really believe that the right thing to do is to give the people who want this bill passed -- democrats and republicans -- people who support this extremely important piece of legislation a day or two to

figure out if they can get something done. i hope they can. i really, honestly do. so i'm not filing cloture on this bill tonight, as i had actually contemplate. i hope that my republican friends will work with us to get this bill done. it's -- mr. president, this is a bill that deals with flood insurance. i've spoken to a number of republican senators, including senator vitter, who was the person that has spoken out on this more than anyone else, and he acknowledges that there may be a few amendments -- relevant amendments that we should have on this bill. i don't care. that's fine with me. let's set up a list of amendments and finish this bill. so i hope we can get that done. i really do. this is -- we shouldn't get in a

legislative morass on a bill that is extremely important for the country. no matter what part of the country you live in, dry deserts of nevada, this is an important piece of legislation; the wetlands of florida and louisiana, a very important piece of legislation. so i hope we can get this done. mr. president, let me just say another word or two. i'm really pleased to say that we're close to an agreement to prevent student loan rates from doubling for 7 million young men and women. that would happen at the end of this week. so i appreciate the leadership of president obama -- he's pushed forward on this for a long time, he's given many, many public statements in this regard, he's been talking to statements around the country; he was in new hampshire yesterday talking to students; they waited in the rain to hear him talk, and he's been working with leaders in congress to ensure that students won't pay

the extra $1,000 to get a degree. i would remind my colleagues that republicans, including the speaker, my friend, were willing to give up 0en this issue just a few weeks ago. we're not willing to give up on this issue, and i am a glad that my republican colleagues have agreed we shouldn't give up hon this issue. we don't want to let the rates double. leader cantor even said that republicans were done legislating. but with the president's leadership on our persistence and the help of my valiant republican friends, we're going to be able, with a little good luck, protect 7 million students. i appreciate the work of the chairman of our committee, senator harkin, senator jack reed has been very, very hard on this, and other senators, and i'm leaving a few out, and i'm certainly not doing that intentionally. so i would hope that we --

everyone understands the legislative issues we have to work toward the end of this week. i hope we can get it d i hope we don't get trapped in one of these senate procedural bogs where we're going to have to be here friday, saturday, you know -- i hope we don't have to do that. there's no reason we have to. but we do need a little bit of cooperation. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the. the presiding officer: from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that my short comments here appear immediately after the vote on the final passage of the f.d.a. bill and prior to the remarks just made by the distinguished majority leader. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, today with final passage of the f.d.a. safety and innovation act and the reauthorization of the f.d.a. user fee agreements, we have helped both the f.d.a. and the biomedical industry. this legislation is now headed

to the president for his signature and will ensure that the f.d.a. can approve drugs and medical devices, protect patient access to new therapies and preserve america's global leadership in biomedical innovation. it will keep patients safer but modernizing the f.d.a.'s inspection process for foreign manufacturing facilities. while also improving access to new and innovative medicines and devices. it will reduce drug of the dos for consumers by immediating the approval of lower-cost generic drugs and help mitigate drug shortages. finally, by improving the way f.d.a. does business, increasing accountability and transparency, u.s. companies will be better able to innovate and compete in a global marketplace. mr. president, with the f.d.a. safety and innovation act ready to be signed into law, we have taken an important step to improve american families' access to lifesaving drugs and medical devices. as i have said throughout this

garrett, the bipartisan process that produced this excellent bill has been a shining example of what can be achieved when we all work together in good faith. i worked very closely with my colleagues both sides of the aisle as well as industry stakeholders, patient groups, and consumer groups to solicit ideas and improvements on the critical provisions in this bill. we have a better product thanks to everyone's input. mr. president, my colleague, ranking member enzi deserves special recognition here. i want to extend my sincerest gratitude to him. without his strong leadership and cooperation on this open, bipartisan process, we would not have had the exceptional consensus measure we have today. so i want to thank senator enzi for his partnership and collaboration throughout the past almost year and a half. and i want to specifically thank the staff of rank member endias they have worked for countless hours throughout this process to build consensus for this legislation. i want to thank frank maciarola,

chuck clapton, melissa path, grace stunts, katie spangler and ronnie swinehart. i sincerely thank them for their tireless efforts and commitment to this cause. i want to thank the help committee members as well as other senate members and their staff who were thoroughly engaged with this process from the beginning as part of the bipartisan working groups. each has contributed significantly to this legislation, and i'm sincerely grateful for their contributions. i'd also like to recognize chairman upton and representative waxman as well as their staff who worked tirelessly to reconcile the differences between the senate and house bills. i'd like to thank my staff on the help committee who have spent many a night and weekend with senator enzi's staff, other members' offices and our colleagues in the house, working to come to consensus on the critical policy issues in this legislation. i want to, first of all, thank

our staff director, pam smith. i especially want to note the tremendous work done by janelle cystiordini through this last 15 months or more on pulling people together, working on weekends. how she does it and still has time for the twins is remarkable, but she does it and has done it remarkably well. and i want to thank janelle for her great leadership. elizabeth youngman, kathleen laird, kate frischman and everyone griffitch. i want to thank our former staff director, dan smith, who left the committee as staff director a couple of months ago, but he was very much involved in this until the time of his departure. mr. president, i also want to thank the congressional budget

office for their knowledgeable and capable team that was willing to work around the clock sometimes to estimate the budgetary effects of this legislation. finally, we owe an normal news debt of gratitude to the staff members in the legislative counsel's office. specifically stacy kearn sheer and kim tamboor. there was tremendous efforts by their team to draft and redraft in this measure and work overnights and over weekends. i thank them profusely for their dedication. this bill's final passage is a victory for the millions of americans who need medicines or medical devices, a victory that would not have been possible without the dedicated work of our senate family. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'd like to congratulate senator harkin, senator enzi, their staffs and all would have worked for 15 months on this important piece of legislation.

i watched the senate for a long time. it's always been a little messy. it's always a little complicated. there are always disagreements. that's the purpose of the senate, is to work out arguments. but over the last few months this senate has done a much better job of operating in the way the american people expect us to operate. we're all here to try to get results after we state our positions. and this bill especially affects the health and the safety of millions of americans, almost every american family is affected by the prescription drugs and the medical devices that we're talking about in this piece of legislation. so, i'm glad to see this happen for two reasons. one, because of the result. and, two, because of the way the senate has worked, and it's a fine example of what i thoep see happen -- what i hope to see happen more often. i also would like to thank the majority leader, senator reid, and the minority leader, senator

mcconnell, for creating an environment in which we could have a large number of amendments, a lot of debate, a lot of discussion. that's what we're supposed to do. i think all of us appreciate that very much and want to create an environment where they can provide that kind of leadership. mr. president, i'd like to ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, earlier this week, on monday at the library of congress there was a celebration, a 150-year celebration of the creation of land-grant universities, the national academy of sciences and the assemblage took a moment to throw a bouquet to andrew carnegie for creating free public libraries. i'm on the floor to ask this question: what was in the water in washington, d.c. 150 years ago, in 1862, and 1863? during the two years after the telegraph dispatched the pony

express in 1861, congress and the president enacted the moral act, creating land-grant colleges, authorized the transcontinental railway, reducing the time for getting from new york to san francisco from six months to six days; as well as the national academy of sciences, they also enacted the homestead act. they agreed on a conscription law with teeth, a national banking act, establishing a national currency and a new internal revenue law. and they created the department of agriculture. to top it off, at the end of 1863, on december 2, the last section of the statue of freedom was put in place on the top of the capitol dome with a great celebration. mr. president, if i were the republican national chairman, i might suggest that this transforming burst of governing was simply a matter of turning the government completely over to republicans and sending home after -- half the democrats.

by the end of the 37th congress in 1863, southern democratic united states senators couldn't have struck any of these laws because their states see seed from the union -- seceded from the union. according to the senate historian that left 28 senators voting. 12 democrats and 9 aoupb -- unionists, oppositionists or senators who call themselves the know-nothings. perhaps this burst of energy came because it was the brilliance of a new president, abraham lincoln, or maybe a congress who was more efficient in those days. the moral act that created land-grant colleges passed both the senate and the house in the same week in june of 1862. the president signed the bill into law two weeks later. the national academy of science was introduced on february 20,

1863. it passed the senate and the house and was signed by the president all on the same day, march 3. back in those days, the president would oblige the senate by traveling down pennsylvania avenue on the last day of the session and sit in an office out here waiting for bills to be brought to him for signature. maybe, mr. president, it was another condition, the absence of 24-hour media and of special interest groups and of instant communication on the internet. or maybe it was that members of congress had more time to think great thoughts while they were traveling to the session. it would take senator sam houston six weeks to travel from his home in texas to washington, d.c., to occupy a senate desk. no doubt it helped that there was a crisis -- the civil war. americans have always risen to our best, it seems, in the midst of a crisis. and making the crisis worse, many thought the new president

was incompetent. in january of 1863, a former supreme court justice, benjamin r. curtis, reported -- quote -- "general agreement on the utter incompetence of the president. he has shattered days and foolish." this is from david donald herman's book lincoln. the editor of the senate commercial was more explicit. he wrote that president lincoln was a -- quote -- "awful, woeful ass. if lincoln was not a damned fool, we could get along yet." the president in turn considered many of his generals incompetent, and he and mrs. lincoln were suffering personal crisis, grieving the death of their son willie. the war crisis clearly did help pass the transforming legislation in 1862 and 1863. one impetus for the passage of the law created grand-grant colleges was to provide military training. among the first assignments for

the national academy of sciences was to find some way to protect the halls of the union navy from corrosion. general dodge told president lincoln that the transcontinental railway was a military necessity even though representative justin moral a visionary for other things said he saw no need for the railroad to go farther than the silver mines of nevada because it would be traveling through uninhabited territories. the war caused the bickering republicans who were remaining in congress to pull together. the editor of "the chicago tribune" explained -- quote -- "if we fail, all is lost: union, party, cause, freedom and the abolition of slavery. let us first get the ship out of the breakers and then court-martial the officers if they deserve it. so, mr. president, it helped to have a crisis. but, unfortunately, the formula

for passages of transforming legislation 150 years ago is not so neatly explained as a crisis plus a brilliant president, plus a high-minded congress, efficiently enacting big ideas developed in washington, d.c. the real story is much more american than that. as has usually been the case, these big ideas came from outside washington, and they took a long time in coming. and enacting them into law was also a long and messy process. jonathan baldwin turner's address before the illinois teachers institute in 1850 proposed the creation of an industrial university 12 years before the enactment of the morrill act. representative morrill introduced the idea in 1857. after much struggle it passed in 1859, but president buchanan vetoed it. two years later morrill succeeded. even though the obstructionists

southerners were gone, eastern and western republicans argued vigorously over land grants and where the new transcontinental railroad should go. the roots of the national academy of sciences can be traced to a group of cambridge scientists meeting in the 1850's or philosophical organizations before that or even back to benning pheupbl franklin. california -- benjamin franklin. california entrepreneurs, spectators and politicians were the ones who persisted in the 1850's until in 1862 the pacific railroad act became law. so the formula for success for these transforming laws 150 years ago was typically american. big ideas, bubbling up from around the country, plus entrepreneurial persistence plus a crisis equaling transforming results. now how does that formula apply today to improving the american condition? well, to begin with, we have a

handy crisis. washington is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. and by this rate, by 2025, that year, every penny of tax revenue will go from medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the national debt with nothing left unless we borrow more for national defense, national laboratories, national parks, research or education. and a second crisis many fear is that our country simply may be unable to compete with the emerging asian economies. so what transforming steps should the united states take to meet these new challenges? my own view is that rather than creating new institutions as america did in the 1850's and 1860's, it would be much wiser for us to spend our time making the institutions we already have work. let me discuss just two examples. first, our basic governmental

institutions. the new foreign minister of australia, bob carr, a great friend of the united states, said recently in washington, d.c., that the united states is one budget away -- one budget deal away, he said, from reasserting its preeminence in the world. he means of course that the world is watching actually hoping that at the end of the year the united states will demonstrate that we actually can govern ourselves by resolving the fiscal mess we have in a way that reforms taxes, controls spending and reduces debt. to do this, mr. president, we do not need a new government. we need for our newly elected president, whether his name be romney or obama, to lead. president lyndon b. johnson's press secretary george ready defined presidential leadership as number one, seeing an urgent

need; number two, developing a strategy to meet that need; and number three, persuading at least half the people that you're right. we don't need to change the rules of the united states senate. we simply need a change in behavior. less playing of games and more getting of results. the new congress, next year's congress, whether it be republican or democrat, must make its goal to dispute, amend, debate, vote upon the president's proposed agenda, and then to help the president succeed. because if the president succeeds, whether he's republican or democrat, our country succeeds. we might well remember the words of that chicago tribune editorial writer in 1862 who said, "let us first get the ship out of the breakers. then court-martial the officers if they deserve it." the second institutions we should refurbish and make work

are our colleges and universities, all 6,000 of them. not just the land grant universities that we celebrate this week. again, we don't need new institutions. we just need to reassert the greatness of the ones we have. our universities, along with our national laboratories, are our secret weapon for innovation. and innovation is our secret weapon for producing 25% of all the money in the world each year for just 5% of the world's population. we -- we americans. the list of what it would take to strengthen our colleges and universities is short and it's mostly agreed upon. first, stop sending home every year 17,000 of the 50,000 international students who graduate from u.s. universities with graduate degrees in advanced science, technology, engineering and mathematics. give them a green card and let them stay here and create jobs for americans. next, double funding for advanced research as the

american -- as the america competes act, which passed with huge bipartisan support in the senate has authorized. third, repeal the federal medicaid mandates that force states to spend money on medicaid that otherwise would go to higher education. this has resulted in dramatic decreases in state support and increases in tuition to try to maintain quality in higher education. next, while congress is repealing the medicaid mandates, it should literally cut in half the stack of regulations that hamper institutional autonomy and waste dollars that should be spent on students and research. and finally, mr. president, the institutions themselves should look for ways to save money such as full utilization of facilities during the summertime, such as three-year degrees for some students and reforms in teacher tenure. in the 1960's, mitt romney's

father, george romney, offered this advice to the big three detroit automobile manufacturers. mr. romney said -- quote -- "nothing is more vulnerable than entrenched success, nothing is more vulnerable than entrenched success. the big three didn't pay attention, and you see what happens. it's good advice for universities today. now, mr. president, in conclusion, i'd like to say a word about the carnegie libraries. my experience in life is that most ideas fail for lack of the idea, or to put it positively that a great idea eventually carries itself into reality. andrew carnegie's great idea was building public libraries. all of us know of their importance. i remember the time "the new york times" wrote an article about me and they said mr. alexander grew up in a lower middle-class family at the edge of the tennessee mountains. and i remember calling home

later that week to talk with my mother who was reading these loanians -- thesalonians, gathering strength for what she thought of as a slur on the family. she said son, we never thought of ourselves that day. you had a library card from the day you were 3, a music lesson from the day you were 4. you had everything that you needed that was important. andrew carnegie's gift and the federal laws 150 years ago creating land grant universities and the academy of sciences and the transcontinental railroad and the homestead act all have this in common. they were not command and control federal government actions from washington, d.c. they were big ideas that when implemented empowered americans to do things for themselves, to travel, to own a home, to educate themselves and to learn by using a library. for example, my empowered mother

took me to the a.k. harper memorial library in maryville, tennessee, when i was 3 years old to get my library card. mrs. alexander, the librarian said to her, we don't give library cards to 3-year-olds. well, you should, she said to them, and they did. so on this anniversary for the congressional enactment of transforming and empowering ideas, there should be more hope than despair. we still have most of the great universities in the world in our country. they still attract most of the brightest students from everywhere. insourceing brainpower and creating wealth. according to a recent survey by the harvard business school of 10,000 of its alumni about u.s. competitiveness, if you're in business in this country, it's still hard to beat america's entrepreneurial environment, proximity to customers, low level of corruption, access to skilled labor, safety for people

and property and protection of intellectual property. we have a remarkable system of government in our country created by geniuses that many countries struggle to emulate. so why should we not celebrate this anniversary by taking steps to ensure that 25 or 50 or 100 years from now we have even more of the great universities in the world? and one more thing. let me read exactly what australia's foreign minister bob carr, a friend of the united states, said in his speech in april. he said this -- "america could be one budget deal away in the context of economic recovery, one budget deal away from the -- from banishing the notion of american declinism. think about that, minister carr said. one budget deal. an exercise of statesmanship up the road in the context of an

economic bounceback and all of a sudden with energy independence crystallizing, with technological innovation, resurgence of american manufacturing, people who spoke about american decline could be revising their thesis. that is the foreign minister of australia, our friend talking to us, hoping that we get our act together at the end of the year and -- and make that one budget deal. so, mr. president, as we celebrate the transforming legislation of 150 years ago, why not take the advice of our friend from australia? why not take advantage of our opportunity at the end of this year to enact a budget that would reassert americans' preeminence in the world. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the ansar from arkansas.

mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. as the son of a master sergeant in the air force, i grew up in a family that had values rooted in military tradition and patriotism. but you certainly don't have to be from a military family to love our country. we are encouraged to have a sense of american pride in our daily lives. i remember reciting the pledge of allegiance and singing patriotic songs that reflect the love of our country. students continue to do this and learn these values passed down from generations of americans before us. we have special days that recognize the people and symbols important to our country. two weeks ago, we celebrated flag day, and next week we celebrate independence day. the three weeks between these patriotic holidays is known as honor america days. you most likely won't find this on your calendar, but congress

established these days and adopted it into u.s. code to encourage gatherings and activities that celebrate and honor our country. while these days are not widely recognized, one of the ways americans demonstrate our devotion to our country is by supporting our men and women in uniform. these troops have made enormous sacrifices to defend our country and our interests across the globe. these heroes are a shining example of the spirit, commitment and bravery of our nation. during my time in congress, i have had the opportunity to travel and meet with our troops across the globe and thank them personally for their sacrifices to make our world a better place. these men and women are always in my thoughts and prayers. i thank our military personnel and our veterans for their valued service and offer my sympathy to those families whose

loved ones have given their all in the defense of our nation. this includes the family of arkansas soldier army master sergeant gregory childs. master sergeant childs died on may 4, 2012, while serving in afghanistan in support of an operation enduring freedom. his family and the community of warren, arkansas, paid their respects to master sergeant childs who as a father, son, brother and friend in a very moving ceremony. master sergeant childs graduated from warren high school in 1992. he considered it an honor to serve his country in the military. for 20 years, he served his country in locations around the globe from bosnia, germany, colombia, and two tours in afghanistan. he excelled through the ranks of the noncommissioned officer corps and earned one of the

highest ranks that he could attain. i ask my colleagues to keep his family, especially his young daughter courtlain, and his friends in their thoughts and prayers during these difficult time. i humbly offer my appreciation and gratitude to this patriot for his selfless sacrifice. as the home to literally thousands of active duty military personnel and even veterans, arkansas has experienced more than its share of grief and sacrifice for loved ones who serve our country. our state has a rich history of service to our nation. troops stationed in arkansas have served our country honorably even before it was admitted to the union. our men and women have always been willing to do their part to serve and to protect. our troops stationed in arkansas and our committal facilities at the little rook air force base and the 188th fighter wing are some of the best assets in our military. arkansas' active duty personnel

and national guardsmen have time and again proven their dedication, perseverance and commitment to excellence defending this country. as we plan our independence day celebrations, let us remember the service men and women who embody the ideals that make our country great. i know my fellow arkansans share my gratitude and appreciation for our military personnel and their families who sacrifice at home while their loved ones are away. and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, thank you very much. i rise to talk about a couple of amendments that were included in the legislation we just voted on here this afternoon in the united states senate. it was the food and drug administration legislation but it included two very important

amendments that deal with combating legal drug abuse here in this country. i want to start by thanking my colleagues, senator schumer, klobuchar, grassley and enzi for helping to promote and develop this legislation over many months. the legislation addresses what is called synthetic drugs. and i also want to thank them for helping to see it through to passage as an amendment today. senator grassley actually shared with me the story a few weeks ago of a young man from iowa, david mitchell rosega who at 18 years old sadly took his life after using a synthetic drug, one that's known as k-2 or spice, synthetic marijuana which he had purchased legally at a had local shopping mall. in recent weeks, we have seen lots of news accounts of some of the savage acts that have been committed by people high on these synthetic drugs such as the widely reported cannibalism in miami, florida. i sauteed there is another horrific story out there about a

man in waco, texas. we have seen lots of deaths reported in my home state of ohio due to synthetic drugs. just very recently, we had a report of the columbus, ohio, police having to shoot two men who were high on what are called bath salts. one was shot fatally. there is synthetic marijuana out there but also synthetic stimulants, synthetic hall use any generals -- hallucigens. unfortunately they are not illegal. we need to act and we are doing so through this legislation today. as i said, one of the drugs is called spice. it sounds like an ingredient you would find in the kitchen, something benign you would find on a shelf somewhere. the same with bath salts. unfortunately, they are not benign at all. they are not what you think they are. they are dangerous compounds that can cause tremendous devastation, and we need to be sure that we get the word out. users are led to believe they

are getting a legal version of something that mimics marijuana or cocaine or l.s.d. or any other illegal street drug that's what's under schedule one of the food and drug administration. this means these are synthetic drugs. but because these synthetic drugs are legal, users think they are safe. they produce adverse reactions that are truly unexpected and sometimes bizarre, and like the street versions that are on schedule one, at the federal level, the drug enforcement agency and the f.d.a. have both concluded that none of these drugs have any currently accepted medical use in treatment in the united states. so it seems to me it's appropriate for us to list them under schedule one, and again, that's what this united states senate did today following the house of representatives. because they are legal, they are accessible, particularly on the internet. i have googled a number of them, including k-2. it's very alarming to see how easy it is just to purchase them and how they're advertised.

it's time to put them on schedule one just like the street drugs. by doing so, we actually give the d.e.a. the ability to prevent these drugs from being distributed throughout the united states or imported into the united states, and it also allows them to pursue the manufacturers of these drugs. a lot of families have suffered from synthetic drugs and sometimes those families come to me. i've done a lot of work over the years in prevention and education of substance abuse, started a coalition back home that continues to do great work in greater cincinnati, been involved in encouraging community coalitions around the country and i'm hearing more and more about these synthetic drugs. families come to me because they're hoping something positive will come out of the tragedies they've experienced, that the word will get out through these tragedies, and other young people and adults won't lose their lives. i heard one such story here on the floor of the united states senate. it was about a family in riceville, tennessee, the family of caleb tanner hibson.

tanner was a student majoring in exercise and health science. after graduating he wanted to study for an advanced degree in physical therapy. decides studying this that field he was an avid athlete, played competitive baseball and was into hiking and canoeing but all that promise was cut off on march 8 of this year when tanner died as a result of a cardiac arrest after ingesting alcohol and a synthetic at a party in chattanooga, tennessee. he was 22 years old. that drug is easily purchased on the internet. in fact, it's identified on the internet as being a research chemical. his cousin, brandy white, with us was the one who told me about this incident here on the floor of the house of the senate. brandy actually works in the leadership office and i appreciate her sharing the story with me.

my heart goes out to her family. she said she called tanner's mom to tell her about the legislation. when we got it onto the bill and called her again today to tell her the legislation had passed. and although it's almost comfort when you've lost a son, it's some comfort and i appreciate the fact her family is going to share that story so other young people won't make the same mistake. again, this legislation puts these dangerous drugs in what's called schedule one, we just don't want one more young person to make one more bad decision. and to die or have a serious health problem as a result of thinking these synthetic drugs are safe. because washington hasn't put them on the list to tell people they are unsafe. if we want to do right by the safety and the health of our children as well as our communities, closing this loophole was common sense, and bipartisan along the lines of

along the lines of what my colleague said about how we ought to be operating here in the united states national senate. i'm proud to see bipartisan support for an amendment i introduced along with congressman hal rogers in kentucky and senator whitehouse. there is a prescription drug abuse problem throughout the country but in ohio we've been hit hard by this and one of the issues i had found in going to a town hall in southern ohio was the fact the state prescription drug monitoring programs couldn't communicate and operate across state lines. this town hall i did with director gil gorlakowski, the director kindly came to important smith, ohio in july, 2011, in southern ohio, an area that's been a center of prescription drug abuse and interstate drug trafficking, right across the river from kentucky and near west virginia, so it's an interstate

area. prescription drug abuse has devastated the county in which portsmouth sits, as well as other counties in the area. because of the hard work of the community leaders and federal and state law enforcement there has been some momentum. we're beginning to turn things arou -- around, pill shops are being closed. one critical tool they told me they needed was prescription drug monitoring programs across state lines. this is a database that a lot of states used to monitor prescription drug abuse. so when someone goes to ask for a prescription, the person who is responsible for implementing the program or someone who was at a farm soir a doctor knows what prescriptions this person has already received, these are very effective programs. 48 states have them. one territory has it and they work well within the state but they don't communicate well between the states with each other. and, again, in a place like

peida county, where you have interstate traffic, this legislation now will protect our community and ensure that if someone gets a prescription in ohio and goes across the state to kentucky and tries to fill it and they reach their limit in ohio and that there will be a database available. so it succeeds. i'd also like to thank the alliance of states for prescription drug monitoring program which has played a critical role in promoting these national interoperability standards. again, these are examples today where the united states senate acted to try to make our communities safer to help ensure that young people can achieve their god-given potential. and working together, we have been able today to help ensure the health and well-being of our communities. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president, ask con scene the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to i period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous

consent the senate proceed to calendar number 434, senate resolution 473. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 434, s. res. 473, commending rotary international and others for their efforts to prevent and eradicate polio. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. durbin: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions submitted earlier today: senate resolution 506, 507, 508, 509, and 510. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to their consideration en bloc. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consen durbin: i ask unanimousce resolutions be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table without any

intervening action or debate and nay statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, june 27. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized, that the first hour of debate be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we will continue to debate the flood insurance bill tomorrow. i hope we can come to an agreement to complete action. we will also consider the transportation bill and student loan extension before the recess later this week. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

i could've told you at the beginning of the year the republican primaries and the republicans look feeble, that there would you nominate and the

republicans would rally around the nominee and the true nature of the razor to really help, that it would be close. i would've told you to meet you at the data in romney's surging obama's flagging, this is a raise. and all to you at the next phase is going to be. the media will become more alert to the fact that governor romney has completely evasive about his position, has been all over the lot on many of them have nice try to play a game of hide and seek with the american people. i think the news media will be challenged to challenge him to be more forthcoming and the story will be that for a while. that is the nature of the business. >> look behind the process when you want all my masseuse vanceboro to the white house and the c-span video library.

>> sunday, award-winning author and historian david patrice that is our guest on both tvs and depth. the great american pastime, baseball has resulted in a dozen books, including 1920, the year of the sixth president.

>> next, you look at the supreme court ruling on the immigration law firm "washington journal." it is 35 minutes. >> host: representative paul gosar, republican of arizona serving first term in the first district. thanks for coming in. what is your reaction to the decision? >> guest: is overall very, very good. the book of what arizona wanted, we got. it is going to take some caution in how we apply that, but i think it is striking on the other three, i think what the court allowed is the interpretation for congress, do not remand to state, but actually work with the state to

allow them to be incorporated into the enforcement and we will be working on that. >> host: you look at how this will play out on a goose on the ground basis, what it means for law enforcement, legal immigrants and citizens of your state who are turned about being pulled over. >> guest: and number of things for the administration, homeland security come to 287 she contacted arizona was a retaliatory aspect. postcode didn't back. >> guest: the program is a law enforcement with regards to law-enforcement policy. yesterday, homeland security revoked contracts in arizona, state and they were going to continue those. that is the wrong aspect because i think what the supreme court gave up a hint of trying to get people to work together, utilizing resources altogether

collaboratively between federal, state, local and community law enforcement. >> host: representative paul gosar serzone and natural resources committee, oz oversight and government reform. if you'd like to talk about the supreme court decision yesterday, collis. republicans at 202-737-0002. 202-737-0001. independent callers, 202-628-0205. headline in "the wall street journal." arizona ruling helps obama court hispanics. you have the political implications of what this could mean? >> guest: i do think there's an pandering going on to the hispanic vote. but we also are is a rule nation of laws and we need to pull those laws. i think there's a groundswell of people that are having problems that we see picking winners and losers and not giving the law

costs. i think it comes back to a comment made by one of my colleagues, trey gaudi about justice. she does not see who she is giving justice to. she is weighing the scales, win the argument back and forth and she carries a sword that is swift and given across the board when she gets justice. that is what america wants to say his return to a set of laws that are common sense. >> host: let's take a look at what the supreme court decision from yesterday means. they upheld the immigration status check, also called to show your papers stop, reparations for start down. one of the requirement for registration papers. another is a criminal offense for the go anagram seeking or holding jobs. also the arrest of suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. we get that from "the new york times." what does that concern you the

most? >> guest: i think the implication that allows arizona to us for immigration database is a win. how do we apply that is going to be something different. if you go further and will limit the other striking down, the congress is allowed to almost an invitation that if we choose to imply that states could have a bigger role in it, that we could. that is some mean that we took as an invitation and were actually going to work on that. >> host: dan is a republican caller in maryland. >> caller: thank you. as i understood it, the supreme court was once again basically said they could not take the job both the federal government, but they did they did what happens if the government fails to do their job or refuses to do their job. a prime example what's happening in florida where they get to eat

verify, what is legally allowed to vote. right now they give the information. so our election could be based on a lot of noncitizens voting. who knows they could even cost the election. also, i would like to know who is standing up for the people waited in line to get them. everybody talks about coming in now, people who run over here illegally, but nobody talks about the people waiting in line to get an. >> guest: well,, i have been one of those because one of the things we've always said is we had to report good behavior. why does it take so many attorneys in so many dollars to come into this country the right way? that is the party is broken and we have to look at what has facilitated that choking off of coming in the proper way. that is a part of the solution we thought for and is very well articulated from arizona.

>> host: gambian port richie, florida. good morning. >> caller: hi, i see a lot of -- there's supposed to be illegal immigrants working for this kind needs. not everybody knew they were here. so let stop the non-sense now. we all knew they were here. arizona has said that problem. they have to handle the problem the way they want to do it. there's been murders and everything. the people here already, the ones i see a florida work very hard. their break in their back in these bosses are exploiting them. that is what the problem is. that they are here already, their children are here. you can't take and throw them out. everybody knew they were here. it has a lot of everybody passing the buck around. like i say, they work very hard and they're starving to death over there. so you know, i believe legal immigration also.

but like i say, unit they were here, everybody knew they were here. now that there's no jobs here, they sent them all overseas and they want to throw them out. >> host: a lot of people come here seeking the american dream and are here, like the kids who work at or, the dream act kids who come here with their parents. what do you think? >> guest: my grandparents came here to this country as immigrants. one french and the other slovenian and they came for the american trained, but they came in the right way. there is a part where the caller talks about what to taking advantage of not only of employer sanctions for we can take a business license away for exploiting and utilizing folks in those jobs parameters. but just because you work hard doesn't give you a right to defy rule of law. one of the problems we have here is that we have had administration after it illustrations will build no trust with the american people in regards to the rule of law.

but we need to do is uphold that because they knew no other justice to other people, not people coming and for those here illegally. we have to have a policy that secures our border, is fundamental in our constitution. once we have that we can start restoring some of the promises and trust we actually built with our citizens. i've always built upon a little saying. trust is a series of promises kept. but why should arizona trust the federal government would have been kept in a promises to us? >> host: what is your thought on the president's change of policy regarding kids who come into the country illegally hoping not to get deported? pasco i think it's a lack of leadership. it defies congress' role. you know, we are begging for a leader that will comment and bring people from both sides of the aisle together and start one up the sleeves and start getting action. this country needs it and demands that and is begging for

that. i thought it was an overreach of a political misstep by the president in pampering and i don't know that will pan out particularly when you look at some of the fallout. >> host: it is simply absurd to have border lies the renewal as the won't enforce them. abolish the laws are enforced on. >> guest: absolutely. that is what we say on the one. if you like the loss, change them. but do it consistently constitution. >> host: independent caller in wisconsin, hi. >> caller: galactica add-on. thanks for c-span, god's gift to cable television. i have a couple of quick suggestions and questions here. first of all, would it be legal for arizona to set up a bus depot and if people don't have the documentation, send them to

a sanctuary state, send them into to washington d.c., on thursday. i don't know if you legally can do that. and if someone is pulled over and i doesn't want them, let's say they are pulled over for speeding, how do you get these guys that can record if you don't really know who the heck they are? you give them a court date and they won't show up for court. why should they show up for court? when i lived in chicago i worked for a company that had majority of the workers were illegal immigrants. and the owner of the company would deduct withholding from these guys and know when that they are not filing their taxes -- i mean, because you get to know these guys. you know they don't want us to ask out or be involved with the government at all, so the blast was withholding money from their checks and then not paying it to the government. i mean, if i go into an emergency room for treatment, can i just instead of getting

built by the emergency room.reason staff, can't i just say well, i am here illegally, you have to treat me and i really have no address. i mean, identifying herself as a fact of life. >> host: you brought up a lot of points. i first want to get clarification. me talk about passing illegal a legal immigrant senators on a, what purpose do you think i was there then why would you send to d.c. or someplace else? >> guest: it would place the burden on washing to d.c., you pronounce it with cisco or anyone in chicago or any sanctuary states or cities. it would place a burden on them but they seem to believe that word and should the bourne disproportionately by texas, california, arizona, the border states. postcode let's get a response from congressman gosar. >> guest: i don't think i would be permitted by the law of

two vast amount of arizona because as the court ruled, we would have the ability to look at immigration status, but would have to turn this over to the federal -- to i.c.e., so that wouldn't be possible. second of all, you can't hold detainees like our previous speaker attacked about based upon the parameters of which you held them for, like drunk driving or jaywalking. does it have to be very similar in their application had been held. so you won't be able to hold them across the board. you bring up a very good point about the quang tri a sanctuary cities and predicaments, they say that they're sovereign. they don't say that the state of arizona is sovereign in its application. if the state can try an illegal for crimes and execute them, that was one of the scalia argument, that the state does have some autonomy and sovereignty in which to enact its size.

i think this is going to be one of those things that arizona's leader and thank god they're hundred years old this year celebrating. they kicked and screamed coming into this union and now they're asking questions again and i applaud that because that is what leadership is about, pursuing an answer for an unratified question. >> host: are caller from wisconsin product tracking people who have been pulled over, let's say knops or post them over and identifies the fact they are here illegally, and but then how do you keep track of repeat offenders? >> guest: that is part of the problem, when you see the break down, kind of like highlighted with the department of homeland security reneging on pulling the 287 g program from arizona, it's hard to work in a collaborative aspect. that is what i think america wants and so does the supreme court hinted at this, working together, local law enforcement

of federal law enforcement computer lysine and massapequa mainstream america really want. >> host: republican caller calling now. >> caller: is always good to talk to you. you have full this morning. congressman. i have a question for you. in the brain by the obama administration to set aside the state of arizona,din its ability to access information from the federal government, do you believe that your own attorney generalshould bring forward an action against the federal government that says, you do not have that ray to attack a state? unesco to every state and equal access to all information and a

balanced approach, congress included to finding. would you feel that at this point your secretary of state and attorney general and say, is that it's basically a content of court by the federal government to say, while you have ruled on menace, we will do this against that state, even now you're the supreme court of iowa and have ruled on menace has to be appropriate. here's what we'll do is the federal government. we will preempt the state in the 50s of access of information. i just don't see why there should never be any action like

that in the federal government were not approved by the congress and that is -- that is my question. >> host: >> guest: when they retaliated with the 287 g, it was very wise in our government will do it sitting down for time warner, attorney general, secretary of state and defining those roles as to why the retaliatory aspect again arizona based upon this administration. this is anything new. you look at the administration. i know we're looking at fast and furious and, you know, the dream act. this administration likes to pick winners and losers and i think it is time we continued the prospect of making sure we are rewarding good behavior that is working together. i would expect that. i am in no way, shape or form involved in that decision, but it seems to me that is another step by the administration.

>> host: twitter, sasha writes on how many players about time than? >> guest: i don't have those facts, but i think that from the standpoint of having it on the books and they were very firm about that state legislature and the governor were firm about withholding not because they look at this as a severe problem that has many parts and they wanted to make sure that they were equitable across allowing justice to the search for everybody this part of the problem. hosts are representative gosar, the supreme court decision yesterday. >> host: we know the eyes of the world will be upon us. we know the critics will be watching and waiting. hoping for another opportunity to continue their the cola sold against our state. i have faith in our law-enforcement, our brave men and women in uniform have been trained that they are able to enforce this law efficiently,

effectively and in harmony with the constitution. civil rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally committed to up hold and the rule of law while ensuring constitutional rights of all in arizona are protected, including prohibiting law-enforcement officers framed solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing this provision. in fact, under my direction, senate bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and emphasized the importance of civil rights are protected. >> host: that's jan brewer yesterday reacting to the supreme court decision. look at the news accounts. the headlines from los angeles time. supreme court rejects most of the immigration laws in the "chicago tribune" goes with the court. draw the line on immigration.

we read these here for the museums. headlines around the country. representative gosar, is the governor of arizona should carry sugarcoating this? >> guest: i really had stated where he felt -- i agreed with governor brewer, that to me that this is where we needed to have base and had the ability to check immigration status and the court upheld that. how to proceed from there? will be a little cautious. the other three struck down, once you read beyond the highlights of the striking down, it is also an invitation that says if congress against the state that the jurisdiction and involvement that they can sit in that unratified immigration is a constitutional, congressional act to modify will actually pursue that because we believe in working with all parties working through our lives. constitution demands that is

having some collaborative task specs are working together. >> host: stacy a useful tool in the arizona constitution. legislatures will consider the mets have faith that the last, the right groups are fearing bias. watching to see how states move forward on this issue. let's hear from bruce, democratic caller wisconsin. good morning, bruce. >> caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. the question has been framed incorrectly for years now. we need to ask, how many people do you want here and when you want to get there? we have a population of 315 million. we have population 100,000,000,030s, to undermine the late 70s, projected to be 450 million by 2050. we don't have enough oil or water resources are short. the places to recreate or crowded. i would like to see this aster

both presidential candidates. i supported obama, but i'm upset with his stance on immigration. i would like to hear how many people as you think we should have in america and my midget like to see us get there? , my kids to be out of have grandkids. thank you for taking my call. i'll hang up and listen. >> guest: it is something that we said and that is part of the discussion with america about immigration is that not only are you a country of laws, but those laws can actually dictate how many you bring him in any given year. you know, would bring over a million people if i'm not mistaken every year into this country through immigration and that's really cool integration. we bring in more people than any other country that i know of. i may be wrong, but i doubt that. that's part of the discussion with america and america wants to be involved in that discussion. what we want to do is uphold laws and promises kept. that is why were insistent on

securing borders, notebooks coming in and leaving. >> guest: let's go to bob in dover plains, new york. independent color joining us now. what is your reaction to the supreme court decision yesterday? >> guest: >> caller: good morning. you know, i was glad they upheld the end of this file, but i'm curious to what the congressman asked about a sitting president and attorney general announced today that they will cooperate with the state trying to enforce immigration laws that are federal laws on the books to pander to a voting electorate that soulmate, from my understanding, 20% of the population in this country. we don't come into a city since pick and choose which laws to obey and not obey and i am wondering why the president and his attorney general would

disallow our country to be overrun by people granted. we have faded since are being nickeled and i am death, paying higher taxes for schools because of all the legal children and the health cares go in and hospitals are getting cared for and against a payment bill. i am just wondering, you know, what congress feels about all that. >> host: let's look at the attorney general's reaction to the supreme court decision in him a look at the congressman's reaction. attorney general holter said while i'm pleased, the government raised regarding section two, remained concerned about the impact of section to come which requires one person person officials to verify the reason to suspect the person is here unlawfully. we will closely monitor the impact of sp 1070 to ensure

compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring one-person agencies and others to not implement the law in a manner that is the purpose or effect of discriminating against latino or any other community. >> guest: well, i look at this and i see coming you know, the federal government, particularly this administration, this has become much for a poignant about picking winners in the season on enforcing the rule of law. i find it egregious as a member of congress i use a govnment i.d., not only here within a voting card, but also on a pin i have no words today. if that is good enough for a member of congress, it's good enough for the rest of this country and that is the part we find ourselves in florida and arizona as well and voting about who can come to the polls with a valid i.d. but i'm very -- but this administration in regards to

picking and choosing. one of the subjects will talk shortly is about fast and furious. in arizona we gave guns to the alex and international criminals and drug cartel criminals without tying mexico about working with arizona folks and not doing proper detective works. i made a statement earlier. i am tired of this administration like in arizona arizona as the stepchild in the united states. but i am proud of arizona for the giveaway to call it out about the legality of holding this administration, mr. holder is one of them responsible for actions, particularly my enforcement. >> host: a story. the contempt vote is scheduled for thursday. a crucial day for the obama administration are the same day the supreme court is expected to announce the decision to help your case, the house of representatives scheduled on whether to hold attorney general general holder in contempt of

congress. a lemon that that could be go home for fourth of july. you think this is a distraction? >> guest: i think this looks exactly what the administration is beckoning for and they're going to get it. i don't think mr. holder will comply with congressman i sat in the oversight committee and i want to supersede. i find it very odd that we are always looking at the rule of law or reciting it, but we whored ourselves above it. mr. holder and the president are no exception to the rule. the rule of law is that everyone will be held at the same contacts. this could be very interesting week and i think it won't be a great week for the president and this administration. >> host: republican collar, hi. >> caller: hi, i don't even know where to start actually, but i'm wondering at what point all of these children became such wonderful dreamers.

i remember in 2007 that the marches with literally tens of thousands of young mexicans driving the american flag and you can still find it on youtube, but joe bacher was watching it and he made the comment, kind of reminds the wind at british were coming. the latinos are going to win. you know, that's like nobody is saying. they talk like these are all just wonderful. and it was the valedictorian. how many of them are gang members? how many of them have reinforced children by the time they are 16 that we are taking care of? you now, also, there is the thing that nobody will talk about. i don't believe we can save many friends here that are hispanic, the one thing that nobody will mention is that it is part of

the mexican culture. i'm not talking about the hispanics in america. but in mexican culture to go to drink and drive them because none of them have cars when they're in mexico, the first thing they want to do is get a car and drink and drive in america. there are 12,000 americans. you could look it up, get killed every year by people here illegally, drinking and driving. mrs. krantz, the wife of the rancher and arizona that was killed with hate coming out of her catholic church on a sunday morning by a man that was here from mexico, driving while drunk. >> host: lawrence talks about the fact that she sees a lot of immorality among immigrants. what do you think? ..

congress should be serving. what do you think about what should happen to these young people? >> guest: i think the first thing you have to do is -- before i came to congress i was the federal government from the states and people on main street america. you can't solve a problem until you know the magnitude of the problem. we have all these estimations

and guesses. first thing you have to do is that is being flooded you turn off the water and that is one of the things arizona has demand is to enforce the law and secure the border. that is the status case number one. then we can have the discussion about what is it that is out there because we know it isn't going to get worse but the problem is every time we get a promise is that the federal government backs out on the agreement with the american people. >> host: let's hear from lee, democratic color in houston, texas. >> caller: good morning. my question is this: why is c-span saying that the "show your papers stop quote part of the supreme court ruling is bill law? that is not what happened. you have to be detained or arrested in order to go through that process. police on the street cannot stop you for a traffic violation and ask you to show papers.

that isn't what losses. the wall that would have said that is down. oh-la-la never from showing your papers but in order to check somebodies beepers, and you have to be detained or arrested. >> host: let me share how "the new york times" is looking at this issue. this is what is upheld is the provision requiring the police to determine the interventions that this. if they suspect they are in the u.s. illegally the court unanimously said tamed the centerpiece the one the critics have called is show me your paper provision. they left the door open to further challenges. the provision requires state law enforcement officers to determine the integration status of every one they stop or to arrest if they have reason to

suspect the individual might be free in the country he legally. however what is not allowed any more is arresting someone without a warrant because they are suspected of being deported or they cannot make a state crime for immigrants to hold jobs without proper documents. it's also thrown out making a state crime for immigrants to fail to register with the federal government. let's hear from brandon, independent call in dover delaware. >> caller: how were you doing? good morning. i would like to make a couple comments. first i would like to know is there any way that you can put or make a suggestion to other states that before high school kids graduate that they would have to take their state because i live in delaware but i graduated in arizona and i went as a senior and before i graduated they said it was a policy that i had to take orders on the history which i thought was very interesting because in delaware before you graduate you

don't have to take anything like that. i know it's not and should be because the matter of kids graduate from their high schools without even knowing their state's history. >> guest: i've always been one that our education system is failing miserably and we need to have some changes. but one of those things is that legalizing the states and the local communities as an incubator for the greatness of an education and really starting to reward excellence. i dirty told the lee you have to have government aspects of education as well as what you're history you have to know where you came from before you can go forward and it's a great idea. i caution the mandate though. i'm terry stage right oriented so to add the federal policy that is where we go astray but i think it makes common sense. >> host: this ruling says being illegal isn't illegal. >> that's how you look at the interpretation of all.

being he legal is illegal. being a participant in this government means that you -- partial to that and i think that is a core problem in some of the of the things we look at like birthright citizenship aspects to being born here is what the military action predicates your actual being a citizen here. i think a lot of it the discussion has been unresolved and that as we we are in a quandary as we have had the leadership that's decisive and brings everybody together. >> host: final tweet does anyone think the drilling of stop racial profiling you know they would keep doing it. do you see that as a concern? >> guest: that was the application that was one of the cautions that we don't have racial profiling and one of the things we have said all along is even though we are highlighting this on the southern border this is by no way shape or form the only aspect of the illegal

immigration coming in this country. we have seen issues of this coming from europe and asia from indonesia so this is a whole process of immigration that we need to review and look at. >> host: did we lose the last call? tampa florida, are you there? go ahead. >> guest: thank you. staten island when all the americans come through and you can see the statue of liberty it does give me your tired and poor. but that means thai year and poor honest people not criminals and degenerates, and the exact almost exact match from illegal immigrants and stuff in the country almost exactly matched the unemployment in that side of its. so it kind of seems like it's the problem. we all have to wait on immigrants, our parents and

stuff and family in the past everybody had to wait in line not just jump across the border and allowing the president to go with congress to just do all these decrees seems pointless. >> guest: not only pointless but also define the constitution and re-establishing what the administration and this president sees as his right and that is where the congress needs to step in and make sure we balance that and having three or five government justice execs and legislative. there has to be a balanced coming and we have skewed that lately but it's been skewed all the way through history so what we have to do is this is a time of reckoning we have to get the balance back. >> host: representative paul republican of arizona representing the first district he serves on the natural resources committee also oversight and government reform.

you were in arizona yesterday, took a red light to be here yesterday. thank you. >> guest: it was a nice surprise to see the cool weather today. those comments took place earlier today on washington journal. shortly after that, we heard more about yesterday's supreme court ruling on the arizona immigration law. senator john kafeel came to the floor of the u.s. senate to givd his opinion for t about five minutes. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i didn't hear all the remarks of the senator from kansas but i think what i have to say will follow on directly. i saw a copy of the "newsweek" magazine and a picture of president obama and the title was "the imperial president." the theme of it was this president seems to believe that by executive order or executive action ex-im polydo what he wants to do -- he can simply do

what he wants to do. when the president takes the oath to see that the laws of the country are faithfully executed, that's a requirement of his job. our three-branch government has the legislative branch and president jointly deciding what the law is to be when congress passes laws and the president science them into law -- the president signs them into law and has the president to execute those laws. he doesn't do it personally. he does it with the department of justice. if it's something relating to national parks, the interior department, and so on. but the department of justice has a big role to play in this as does the department of homeland security in respect to immigration laws, because the department of homeland security has now taken over all of the immigration functions and that relates to customs, to issuing visas and of course enforcing the laws against illegal immigration as well. and so it's not up to the

secretary of the department of homeland security or the attorney general or the president to decide whether or not to enforce a law of the country. that's their responsibility. and then the supreme court resolves differences about the meanings of the statutes, their application and whether or not they're constitutional. earlier this week, yesterday the supreme court determined the constutionality of a law that the state of arizona had passed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration in my state of arizona. it's a serious problem there. about half of all the people who cross the border do so in the tucson sector. and the results of that on arizona have been devastating over the years, the damage to the environment, creating forest fires; the problem of the people who try to cross the border in the summer and end up dying in the desert because it is a very harsh environment; the people who are brought across the border by unscrupulous smugglers

who badly mistreat them, who hold them hostage from their families in central america who mistreat them brutally. in many cases the problems of crime law enforcement has to deal with. the hospitalization and medical treatment they are required to receive under the law. all of these things have had a dramatic negative impact on my state as a result of which the state legislature said to the extent that the federal government is not enforcing the law in our state, we will try to help fill that gap in cooperation and coordination with the federal government, and they passed sb-1070. the key feature of that which was this cooperation between law enforcement was upheld by the united states supreme court. now, what has been the obama administration's reaction to that? the obama administration has reacted by saying we don't like your ruling, and, therefore,

we're simply not going to cooperate with the state of skwra*z -- the state of arizona as we have been in the past or any other state that has laws like arizona even if you, the supreme court, says that it's constitutional. now, the petulence and the arrogance of this are something the american people have to judge, but from a law enforcement perspective, this, to me, suggests that the administration is creating some very serious problems. it was one thing for the administration to say as to 800,000 or 900,000 primarily students who came here because their parents brought them here illegally were going to find a way in effect to suspend their deportation so that they can go to school or work here. we're just going to not apply the law to them and it's one thing for the obama administration to say that, which it did last week. it's quite another for it to

say, by the way, we're going to treat all the other illegal immigrants here the same way, that 10 million to 12 million people who have been in the united states for a whaoeurblgs who crossed -- for awhile, who crossed the border some time ago. in effect, that's what the administration has said. even if local law enforcement, like the phoenix police department, sees somebody weaving down the road in the manner of a drunk driver, stops the individuals, determines they are driving while intoxicated, they have the right to then say may i see your driver's license. if the individual cannot produce a arizona driver's license, that is already a violation of arizona today, but if he says here is my card from the mexican embassy, that may be reason for the officer to say maybe you're not here legally. in addition to violating arizona law by driving while intoxicated and not having an arizona driver's license, i have reason to believe you may not be an american citizen.

ordinarily that individual, that person's name is called in to a federal data base. i think it's up in vermont or new hampshire. and there is a verification. either the individual is or is not in the united states legally. then if the person is not here legally and hasn't been convicted or accused of a major crime, they're turned over to immigration and customs enforcement or i.c.e., the part of homeland security that is supposed to take these illegal tkpwrepbts and decide -- illegal immigrants and decide what to do with them. in most cases they are removed from the united states or deported. now the administration is saying we're not going to do that anymore. we don't even want to know whether the individual is an illegal immigrant. we're not going to check and we're not going to allow you access to the data base to check. up to now the phoenix police department or maricopa county sheriff can call that data base and say we have the name of this individual. is that person legal or not. the administration is saying it is not going to allow arizona to

check. the presiding officer: the time of the senator has expired. mr. kyl: this is a condition which cannot be allowed to stand, where the administration is not enforcing the laws of the united states, congress is going to have to take what action we do. to take to ensure that the a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

the presiding officer: the mr. president, i rise today mr. conrad: mr. president, i rise to answer allegations made by "the washington post" in a front page story in yesterday's edition. here's the story: high-level talks then changes to holdings. first i want to say i have great respect for "the washington post." in many ways "the post" is a national treasure. but even great newspapers make mistakes. and in yesterday's story, they made assumptions that are simply wrong. the story said my wife and i shifted savings in her retirement accounts from mutual funds to lower-risk money market accounts on august 14 of 2007. that is true. they showed that we made those changes a day after a call from treasury secretary hank paulson to me. that is also true.

but their suggestion that the two are related is absolutely false. they have made the same error in logic that we studied in college. the case in faulty logic involved an observer who noted that people were fainting and street pavement was melting. that led the observer to conclude that melting pavement caused people to faint. of course that was wrong. it was 106 degrees outside. the proper conclusion was that heat was causing pavement to melt and people to faint. that error in logic was about causality, and that is precisely the error "the washington post" made in their story with respect to me. what the "washington post" missed in their graphic -- and to be fair to them, they largely had the correct context in the story. if you read the whole story, it was fairly balanced.

what was not balanced was the graphics that accompanied that story. let me show you the graphic. this is from "the washington post" of yesterday. here's a picture of immediate. quite a nice picture. i appreciate that. it says "senator conrad, chairman of the senate budget committee, was in contact with paulson about the nation's economy during the crisis." that's true. they then show a time line with only two points on the time line. they show august 13, secretary paulson called me at 4:30. and they show the next day, august 14, that my wife and i shifted from her retirement accounts, money from mutual funds to lower-risk money market funds. that's true. what they've not shown on the time line are what was happening in the previous days. so let's go back to the friday

before. here's what happened on the friday before. the dow jones industrial average dropped 200 points within minutes of opening -- of the opening bell and closed the day down nearly 400 points. that's not on the time line of "the washington post." if they were going to be fair -- and i don't begrudge them writing the story. i think if i were the editor i would have certainly written the story too. it certainly has an appeal. there are members of congress talking to people in influential positions and then changing their holdings. but to be fair, you've got to provide the context within which those decisions were made. and the context within which my wife and i made our decisions is pretty clear. the friday before the market drops nearly 400 points. what the "washington post" also didn't put in their time line is

their headline on that friday. "credit crunch in u.s. upends global markets." and in that story, the friday before, they showed that in the weeks leading up to our decision to diversify our investments in my wife's retirement account, the market had dropped in two days more than 500 points, leading up then to the friday where the markets dropped almost 400 points. and "the washington post" in their story also didn't put on the time line what the headlines were in their own paper on the weekend leading up to our decision to make these changes. this is just one of the headlines: "looking for footing on shaky ground," talking about the turmoil that we saw globally. so the truth is that what made

my wife and i decide over the weekend to shift some of her retirement accounts from mutual funds to less risky money market accounts was what was happening in the markets themselves. that is what led us to make these decisions. the paulson call was not about markets. notes from my staff indicate that secretary paulson was calling a number of members about the importance of raising the debt ceiling. the secretary of treasury was not calling me to give me stock market tips. he wasn't talking to me about the stock market. he was talking to me about the need for a debt limit increase. so i want to say clearly and unequivocally to my friends at "the washington post" and anybody who read this story the call from secretary paulson had

nothing, had nothing to do with my wife's and my decision over the weekend to shift some of her assets into less risky money market accounts. those decisions had everything to do with what was happening in the marketplace itself which was widely reported even on the pages of "the washington post." and what was happening in the markets was readily available to every investor. we were not shifting my wife's retirement accounts based on some secret inside information. it was -- let me get back to the headlines, if we could. it's "the washington post"." credit crunch in u.s. upends global markets." stock markets in the two days leading up dropped 500 points.

in the days leading up before we made our decision, the market dropped almost 400 points in a day. "the washington post"'s own story. they had a big story. this is the story showing the dow jones industrial average dropped 200 points within minutes of opening and dropped almost 400 points for the day. why didn't they put that -- if they wanted to be fair, why didn't they put that on the timeline? that's what i asked them to do. i didn't ask them not to run the story. i asked them put in the context in which the decisions were made. be fair. so the fact is there is nothing mr. paulson could have said to me about market risk that have been more persuasive than the drop of 400 -- almost 400 points in the market the previous friday. that provided all the motivation that my wife and i needed, along with the 500-point drop that had

occurred several weeks before, that provided all the motivation we needed to make a decision to move some of her retirement assets to lower risk investments. to "the washington post," i respect you, i have had a very good relationship with you for a long period of time, but your story was unfair to my family, it was unfair to me, and fundamentally it was unfair to your readers, because the graphics you supplied with the story failed to provide a full or fair timeline and the full context that led to our decision. in fairness to you, if you read the whole story, much of the context is there but the graphics -- which, of course, is what most people are drawn to -- have none of the context and don't have a timeline that in any way is fair. finally, i just want to say i'm retiring. this is not going to affect me for the future, but the notion

that members of congress should just stick with whatever investment decisions they made when they began investing or be accused of trading on insider information is to me absurd. our trades should be public knowledge, and they are. how did "the washington post" know about these trades? because my wife and i reported each and every one of them in our financial disclosure. so trades of members should be public, absolutely, and they are. "the washington post" and others should monitor for evidence of insider trading, and they do. but they should also provide context to their readers so they can fairly judge if all of us have taken action or any of us have taken action with our investments that are dishonorable. i have not, and that is the truth. truth.

here's how it would run there would be the republican and primary, and the republicans would look feasible.

but there would be a nominee and the republicans would rally around that nominee and the nature of the race would reveal itself which is there was going to be close and i would oppose the the media would eat that up and say romney is surging, obama is flagging. i will tell you what the next phase is going to be. it's going to be the media is going to become more alert to the fact that he has been completely evasive about his positions have been all over and have tried to play a game of hide and seek with the american people, and i think that the news media will be challenged to challenge him to be more forthcoming and then the story is going to be that for a while. this is the nature of the business.

explore the heritage and literature culture of missouri state capitol jefferson city with c-span's local content vehicles and book tv on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous we like to show the visitors when they come into the archives at the library. this is a book about harriet

tubman and it's called harriet tubman, the moses of her people coming into the special thing 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman leave her mark on their and that's really the most famous autograph if you want to call it that of what we had here in page library. obviously she couldn't read or write so she left her wine on the cross. senator john mccain along with other republican senators told a briefing today on the obama administration's national-security weeks. senator mccain and the other gop senators are calling for an independent investigation

regarding the week. this is about 30 minutes. >> good morning. i am joined by my colleagues, senator saxby chambliss who is the ranking republican on the intelligence committee, senator john cornyn who is obviously involved as a member of the armed services committee and the judiciary committee and senator wicker who is also a member of the armed services committee. senator gramm was unable to join us. i think it's important for us to recognize the gravity and the seriousness of this issue. according to senator feinstein, the chairperson of the intelligence committee, i quote her. these disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs, and put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future

each disclosure puts american lives at risk and makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners and threatens eminent and irreparable damage to the national security in the face of urging threats worldwide he. that is an indication of how serious this issue is. and i understand immigration and health care and a number of other issues are getting the american people's attention, but unfortunately these leaks go on and on and on. so, in "the new york times," mr. singer in his book says almost every single member of the president's national security team is generous enough to sit down and talk through their experiences more than once related to classified or ongoing

programs. the book describes the administration use of drones in yemen and journalist daniel climate writes, quote, when i quote president obama and other key characters i do so only if that is relayed to me by the stores and personally hurt it. the notion that my white house were purposely released classified national security information. it's wrong and people i think need to have a better sense of how i approach this office and the people around me approach this office. let's see how the people around him approach the office. according to, again, david sanger almost every single member of the president's national security team was generous enough to sit down and talk through their experiences

more than once. as an example of how incredible, how bizarre this entire situation is as one anecdote i would like to quote. in his book mr. sinner depicts a curious meeting that occurred in the fall of 2009 in pittsburgh at the g20 economic summit and this is mr. sanger's book. there was a dinner organized with a number of other reporters and several of obama's political aide including david axelrod and rahm emanuel. it was mostly politics and the economic downturn. but just as coffee was being served, a senior official in the national security council tapped me on the shoulder. after dinner he said i should take the elevator to the floor of the hotel where the president

had his suite we will talk about iran, he whispered. obama was not back at the hotel will be gathered that evening outside of the sweet, but most of the rest of the national security staff was president and armed with the intelligence that had been collected over many years of iran secret site as they leave it out on the coffee table on the hotel suite. it would be useful if it ever had to hit. there was clear from the details of the united states had interviewed scientists had been inside the embrum facility we spent an hour reviewing the evidence, well, maybe the president of the united states wasn't present fifa. when obviously the notion that the white house would purposely release classified information

as offensive and is contradicted by the facts and two thank that to people appointed as prosecutors from mr. holder's office overseen by mr. olver is also. we need someone who the american trust and we need to stop that are in danger in the lives that are in danger of people serving our country with fowler and courage and disarm a lot better and throughout these books both of these books and the other information that has been the latest which saying that the cia was vetting weapons let me go into syria are always have the the end of the day one purpose or one effect and the allied states look like a leader of the

national security. i've never seen anything like in the many years i have been here. and yet seen the leaks and you've seen things happen that endanger the national security. but on a continuous and ongoing and relenting basis that puts in the words of senator feinstein that puts american lives at risk is of the highest priority and requires the appointment of a special counsel. senator chambliss. >> i've been involved in excess of ten years. i dealt with intelligence leaders who are partners of the united states, and virtually every part of the world. and i can just tell you there are partners that are very concerned about what is happening in washington right now with respect to these leads and the reaction of the administration.

whether this town is known for the leaks from time to time we've never seen the number of leaks coming out of the intelligence community, nor have we seen the level of the leaks that are now being reported in virtually every paper in the country. it seems like almost on a daily basis even though we may not be, but for the president of the united states to come out and say that it is offensive to him to think that his white house was intentionally leaked frankly it offends me to no end with the president ought to be saying is that this is very damaging to the country and we are going to do everything we can to get to the bottom of it what it involves my white house or wherever in the intelligence community but for him to be publicly from this perspective. let me just quote some of the

statements that appeared publicly in these articles and in a couple of books that are out there right now. first of all, president obama is quoted from inside the situation room. the situation room is located in the white house. you do not go in the situation room unless you have the highest classified rating. so somebody within the situation room who is associated with the national security council obviously is quoting the president. second, the obama aide quoted as to what transpired in the situation room senior administration officials were quoted time and time again in these articles. the national security adviser is quoted as talking about a covert action program. we as members of the intelligence committee can't

even confirm whether these programs exist and yet you have the national security adviser talking about a covert action program. three dozen current and former administration officials within the intelligence community were interviewed according to one of the articles. david axelrod who is not a part of the national security team was apparently in the situation room on a number of occasions this is a political and advisor to the president. and then lastly, the deputy national security adviser goes on good morning america and is quoted as saying we have the device talking about the bomber's we of the device under control. this is all classified information and yet we have folks in the white house going on tv and talking about it.

while these are part of new stories these are direct accusations with the white house with respect to some of the more direct and some are indirect. we all know that this town is about politics, but this is about republicans pointing the finger at the white house. these are news reporters just like you folks in this room. very professional. but out to get a story that's quoting white house officials on disclosure of classified information. i have no question about the competence and integrity of the capability on the two u.s. attorneys who had been dominated now by the attorney general to investigate coming into this is in florida, to investigate only two of the supposedly is. one is the iran issue the introduction of their gaining nuclear capability, and second, the issue of the underwear

bomber. there are other weeks in addition to that and if you notice what they said yesterday is that he has had the oig investigate those scenarios or weeks that the attorney general is not investigating. now, do we really think in spite of the capability of these two u.s. attorneys that when you have somebody that is appointed by the administration are they really going to be unbiased in their investigation of the administration that appointed them? one of these individuals work on the obama campaign and was involved in the vice president's selection so he was not just a casual volunteer in the campaign. he obviously was a pretty important member of the campaign. i was told by the attorney general when he called me friday two weeks ago to see that he was claimed to name these two u.s. attorneys to the investigation

that after the course of this a conflict of interest developed, then he would consider the appointment of a special counsel. well, guess what, the more we find out about the folks that are going to be doing the investigation, the more common sense determination there is a conflict of interest today and because that conflict of interest exists the special counsel should be appointed. senator cornyn? >> on agree with senator mccain and senator chambliss and a special counsel should be appointed for the simple reason that is at ministration cannot be trusted to investigate itself. since 1999 when the independent counsel statute expired a special counsel provision has been created, and unfortunately as currently written, the special counsel, these two u.s.

attorneys, political appointees of the obama administration are tasked during the investigative reporting to guess who, the attorney general eric holder who hasn't demonstrated any sort of independence on his behalf as the chief law enforcement officer of the united states. i won't go into the long litany of those, but many of them are in the news this week and have been since the administration started. but the call to your attention the double standard under which our space print operated during the time president bush was in the white house. during the plame affair, patrick fitzgerald insist upon a letter from james acting attorney general after the attorney general ashcroft was accused devotee dingell of the investigative authority of the department of justice to the special counsel and declined to exercise any sort of supervisory

control over mr. fitzgerald the special counsel. so that was an independent investigation. this is not. if in fact the attorney general holder and the administration continued to promote this pretense of independent investigation my hope is that congress will take up the responsibility to do what is constitutionally authorized and obligated to do and that is to investigate this matter ourselves. i've talked specifically to senator collins and senator lieberman of the homeland security governmental affairs committee there would have jurisdiction over some if not a substantial portion of this coming and my hope is that we will have a truly independent investigation because you cannot investigate yourself and plame you have no conflict of interest which the administration and the attorney general are claiming.

>> where is the outrage in this administration? where is there any indication that within the obama administration officials are outraged at the criminal leaks of classified information that put our agents and friends at risk? here is what has been disclosed obviously by members of the administration. classified details of the navy seals to kill osama bin laden. missions in pakistan, a double agent and it is no use to us in the future. the drone of pravachol, the cyber war involving iraq and

overt operations in africa would treat all of these sensitive pieces of the administration have been spread out in a book by mr. sanger coming and we have yet to hear any outrage from the president of the united states, and he ever had fenestration in my memory, a democrat or republican would have been absolutely apoplectic looking for the culprit, chongging to find out who were the people that actually committed these criminal weeks. instead, the president is offended that someone would suggest such a thing and frankly members of the administration are sort of smuggling that information has come forward and that appears to make the

president seem tough. as peggy noonan said last week, the national security doesn't exist to help the president's winning elections. it's not a plaything to advance one's prospects, and yet this administration seems more interested in advancing the prospects of the president's reelection and being now reached by the criminal weeks. this is a bipartisan concern at least in the senate. senator mccain quoted chairman feinstein. she says this has to stop. when people say they don't want to work with you in the united states because they can't trust us to keep secrets that serious. and senator feinstein further said that as she led the sanger

book, her heart stopped. you learn from the book than i did as chairman and the intelligence committee and that's very disturbing to quote the chair of the intelligence committee this is not going to be adequately investigated unless we have an independent special counsel. there's a lot going on in this building this week and a lot going on the rest of the year. we had a reaction by the administration that have health care coming in 48 hours trying to wrap up the fourth of july as a member of things that we need to get done the rest of this year. there are people in the city that are hoping the issue of colonel weeks the investigation

will go away. it will not go away. we continue to press a simple and adequate investigation and we hope that by partisanship will prevail in the independent counsel will be afforded. it is announced yesterday the polygraph [inaudible] with. >> i think they are important and i would point out that the professionals in the intelligence community, not political appointees are besides themselves. they are just distraught because of the the trail of things like the inside informant the ponder

where bomber the doctor that obviously has been in pakistan has been just sentenced to 33 years about the team six and other methodologies which compromises with their ability to carry out future missions from so the professionals that are outraged and and the director of national intelligence believes that his realm of authority this is the best and most that he can do is increasing the polygraphs and the checks on information that may have been leaked an independent counsel to look at how all this happened. >> the administration by appointing the u.s. target now this would make this move more quickly information is emergency security means if you believe

that a prosecutor one of whom was it has credibility with the american people. this investigation by these prosecutors could take months if not years and already i would like senator cornyn to comment on that somehow think that you're going to get an objective assessment and an effective and unbiased investigation from an attorney general held in contempt of congress with of the american people. >> eric holder and the attorney general has to make a base

decision at the beginning of this administration, whether they are going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the country or whether they're going to be a political arm of the white house. time and time again, given the opportunity to make that choice, the attorney general has made the political choice so there is no credibility and that's why we believe an independent investigation is so important. >> if this is a bipartisan concern, why are the democrats sending a fair state -- >> senator lieberman has called for the appointment of an independent counsel and clearly everything senator feinstein and others have said in my view life itself that direction. it's a tough town. there are pressures brought to bear to call for an independent counsel. the fact is that senator obama and senator biden because the independent counsel in the

valley plame case. it was a terrible thing, but when you look at it and its consequences as compared to these, there is no comparison. >> how does the admin administration get tougher? >> at the lowest level. they've done good with a private in the army. but when you look at where this comes from, how does a person get brought up to the presidential suite and a brief buying, quote, national security personnel unless the europe the highest level. a private doesn't bring people to the presidential suite to brief them on iran. so all i can tell you is that the level of prosecution is minuscule as compared to the level of what is obviously where these came from.

>> on thursday the house is going to vote on eric holder. do you think that if they do vote [inaudible] >> i don't know to tell you the truth because they are separate matters, but what it does is when many attorney-general of the united states is held in contempt, whether republican or democrat it is obviously a tremendous blow to the individuals credibility. >> [inaudible] what happens then? >> i guess we will continue to push for it and do everything that we can. the second thing is that senator -- i will let him speak at this may rise to the level of a congressional investigations. and obviously that may have something to do with the majority in the congress. >> the point is we need to get to the fact sand follow them wherever they may lead.

while we can't change the fact that we have republicans and democrats and independent woman, i think all of us are saying like senator lieberman say that this is more important than politics and this is a lot our national security about disclosing sources and methods of our intelligence community to jeopardize the information and safety and security lonely of our intelligence operators, but also our allies that we depend upon to protect americans in a very dangerous world. so it's all about independent and i agree with senator mccain if we are not going to get the kind of answers that the american people deserve out of the attorney general and out of this administration i think it falls on the congress to its own independent investigations through whatever structure of the leadership might deem appropriate. >> let me add to that. you know, roger made a good point where he said where is the outrage coming out of the administration.

is it going to take one of our resources not just having his life in danger but being injured and who knows what else may happen to somebody out there before this administration gets serious about this and does, god forbid that happens was it going to take to get them out reached about this? >> are there things that congress should be doing legislatively to crack down? if so, what are they? >> in the intelligence community we are working on our intelligence authorization bill right now. we have already had briefings with director miller, the fbi and general petraeus and we are going to continue to work on that to try to figure out a way, and i commend chairman feinstein. she is very strong on this. we want to figure out the right kind of provisions the we can put into legislative language that are going to do what we can

legislatively to begin to do a better job on an oversight standpoint making sure that this doesn't happen again or not least discourage people from committing the leaks in the future. but that still doesn't address the current situation. >> the expressed strongly. can you comment on that? >> i don't know. i really don't know. that's why we need to have an investigation. i'm not ready to invite someone kick. i would like to the to the administration that covered this issue senator chambliss will tell you was 1917. it's clear that this whole legislation and the situation has changed a lot since 1917. so that needs to be updated. finally, i would like to say again i know many people in the intelligence committee

professionals that have been working in the intelligence committee from many, many years who were literally risked their lives in the service of their country. these professionals are outraged to a degree that the likes of which i have never seen. because we are putting their lives in danger. but the underwear bomber double agent added a lot of family members in yen in who were in danger. the doctor is now in jail in prison for 33 years. sources of ongoing operation is unprecedented in the years that we have been involved in this issue, which is a long time. yes? >> the congressional investigation means the steps are not enough? >> [inaudible] >> will course not.