nuclear weapons. .. >> as long as nuclear weapons exist, we must have a safe, secure and effective arsenal. so what we're going about now is, first, right-sizing our weapons complex so that it can support a small, an increasingly

smaller arsenal, but it can support a secure and effective arsenal. now, on the question of, you know, the kind of big threat -- i've kind of forgotten -- >> yeah. >> the great nuclear threat. what is the greatest nuclear threat. >> oh, the greatest nuclear threat, again, i would say it was one of the principles underlaying the nuclear posture, and in some sense i suppose it supports the notion that we must be very concerned about what is happening with nuclear weapons in the hands of there terrorist. and that is the greatest threat as far as, you know, we have said, what president obama says. the greatest threat is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, which is why -- it's what motivates, what really drives his prong initiative. that is, get the number of nuclear weapons down and

eventually eliminate them, and then you eliminate -- along with other work you have to do, we haven't even talked about the fissile security and always work that's been done with the nuclear security summits, but that's the other important piece of this on the non-proliferation side. you have to wrestle with all the aspects of nuclear capability in order to get the numbers down and eventually eliminate nuclear capabilities. that's how decisively you deal with the terrorist threat over a great number of years, but -- >> thanks, rose. alexei? pick anything you want. >> the united states are not mod everybodyizing -- modernizing their nuclear forces, that's true. because the strategic nuclear resources have a life cycle of their own, and american forces will enter the modernization stage after 2020. then already there are plans to modernize land-baseed, sea-based leg of triad -- >> not the or warheads though.

>> delivery systems, sure. russia is organizing now because we are out of phase with the united states in our cycle of the lifetime of weapons. we are modernizing at present. what is the reason for modernization? the technological progress goes forward. weapons are withdrawn from service. according to the treaties, you have, you are to keep a certain number of weapons at lower ceilings, hopefully, but for quite a long future. and within those ceilings, the weapons ought to be modernized. there is no other way. i think that's a natural process. negotiations take care of ceilings of real numbers, limitation, some specific limitations, transparency, but they do not change the mode of operation of nuclear forces which exists objectively. with respect to nuclear threat, i agree with rose that the

greatest nuclear threat is nuclear weapons, weapon or two in the hands of terrorists. after that i would say that the greatest threat is the probability of nuclear clash if south asia -- in south asia, between india and pakistan. those are the greatest rell threats that we may -- real threats that we may be facing. with nuclear disarmament, i do not believe that it will work by the model of join the club or get on the bandwagon. it's not going to work like that. because each nuclear weapons state has its own reasons for having nuclear weapons, and they will negotiate their limitation only if it receives something in response. for instance, pakistan has nothing to negotiate about with the united states. whatever united states do, pakistan is not affected by them. pakistan's interests lie elsewhere. same great britain and france have nothing to negotiate with

the united states. they are allies. so i think that the expansion of the, of the number of states participating in nuclear arms limitation is rather going -- will go through a number of additional forums like india negotiating with pakistan, like tea and israel negotiating -- north korea and israel negotiating their nuclear weapons within the context of regional security arrangements, with china negotiating primarily with the united states. our talk today have given a good reason to expect that. united states negotiates some limits on ballistic missile defense deployments, and china negotiates some transparency and certain limiting obligations to its offensive nuclear forces. because as general said, if united states continue with ballistic missile defense, china will build up. so in order to prevent it, limit american bmd, and limit chinese

weapon. >> we're not going to limit bmd. >> no? [laughter] >> well, actually, that's a good note -- [inaudible conversations] >> but rose killed the buzz, but i think very accurately we're not going to limit bmd, therefore -- >> i understand. >> -- which is a wonderfully partisan position that -- [laughter] anyway, general yao, please. and then we're going to have lunch. >> china is modernizing its nuclear arsenal for purposes. one is to make it more survivable. second is to make it more, to have more trading capabilities to enhance penetration. and the third is to make it more safe. civility, survivability, penetration. and the biggest nuclear threat for china, i think china is

still under maybe very, very remote, potential possibility of nuclear conflict or nuclear attack. so far as nuclear threat is concerned, that is still the top threat in china's mind. >> great. well, thank you. thank all three of you. thank you. i think we, we've itemized a lot of the work that analysts and especially diplomats and policymakers are going to have to do, and that was our objective. so, please, join me in thanking these three. [applause] and if i'm not mistaken, we're

going to lunch, and there'll be signs guiding you. it's a fairly good walk, and then nrc chairman macfarlane will speak with us at lunch. thank you very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and taking a break here, the carnegie discussion will be back after the break for the keynote speaker, the chair of the nuclear regulatory commission, allison mcfar lane. and we expect the group to return in about 30 minutes, about 12:40 eastern time. going to take a look at capitol hill now. congress is back from spring recess. the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern. they're going to be working on judicial nominations and nominations for noncabinet-level positions. debate could also start sometime this week on gun legislation. and over in the house, the house

returns tomorrow to work on hydropower projects and legislation to limit the national labor relations board. you can watch of the house live on c-span and the senate live here on c-span2. and later today we'll take a look at defense policy in asia with the undersecretary of defense, ashton carter, live from the center for strategic and international studies. we'll have that at 3 p.m. eastern. and president obama is on the road today. he's headed to connecticut to talk about gun legislation at the university of hartford. we'll have his remarks live at 5:45 p.m. eastern, and that'll be on our companion network, c-span. and news from london today about the death of margaret thatcher who died at the age of 87. she was the longest-serving prime minister of the 20th century, and c-span has covered many events over the years with baroness thatcher. we have them online at c-span.org. as the tributes to her come in, president obama had this to say:

way things used to be. it's got a wired division, and it's got a wireless decision. and, in fact, it issues an annual report required by congress on the state of wireless. and the hidden assumption or the implicit assumption behind that congressional direction is that the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market. that, in fact, in the world of broadband these two have increasingly converged. >> one thing that stands in the way, for example, of the telcos pushing out their network is unlike the cable companies, the telcos are beholden to a special

tax, and this is sometimes called the legacy regulations, by which the telco has to maintain a two separate network; a copper network for our grandparents who insist on having a copper land line telephone, and a broadband network. and the problem with that is that this is a diversion of their resources, and it's not any kind of trivial diversion, it's a significant diversion. be they were freed from those obligations -- if they were freed from those obligations, they would have billions of dollars to go back and invest and expand in their broadband networkings. >> finding a road map for developing broadband in the u.s. tonight on "the communicators" at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> we'll return to the discussion on nuclear policy hosted by the carnegie endowment in about 30 minutes, but first a look at the secretive military commissions at guantanamo bay and how the military commissions act is being used today. this is from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: this morning on our your money segment we look at

the total cost of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. our guest, linda bilmes, is at the harvard university school of government where she's a public policy senior lecturer, and she's created a new report that puts the cost of the wars at perhaps between $4-$6 trillion all told. linda, thank you for being with us. what were the major conclusions of this report? dig into the dollars for us. >> guest: i remember back in 2005 when the newspapers were full of the war, and at that point our troops were facing a terrible situation. the costs were rising, we were sending more troops, more equipment, more weapons every month, and i was trying to look for a number just to figure out how much this was all costing, which i sensed was higher than the government figures. because the government figures didn't include the cost of taking care of veterans, the cost of borrowing money for the

war, the cost of economic consequences to the war and many other costs. and so i've been studying this issue since then. and in my latest paper which came out last week, the three main conclusions are that, first, the war will cost a minimum of $4 trillion, and a trillion is quite a lot of money. and secondly, that the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits for our veterans will continue for decades, for the next 30 or 40 years. and, third, that this financial legacy of debt will have a significant impact on our national security budget, because it will force us into a series of trade-offs that we may or may not feel comfortable making. >> host: linda bilmes is our guest, harvard university school of government. we have a special line set up for people who served in iraq

and afghanistan, if you're active military or veteran, you can give us a call at 202-585-3883. our other phone numbers, republican, 202-585-3 881. democrats, 3880. independent callers, 202-585-3882. and, again, iraq and afghanistan veterans and active military, it's 202-585-3883. let's look at some of the money breakdown that's analysis by our guest, linda bilmes. most expensive wars in u.s. history as we look at the financial legacy of iraq and afghanistan. $2 trillion in direct layouts so far, and it added $2 trillion to the national debt. and as our guest said, the estimated total costs over the next four decades, $4-$6 trillion. and then there's the fatalities, cost in terms of lives, 6, 658 as of about a month ago when

this report came out. linda bilmes, talk to us about what happens after the war, you know, in terms of the cost of taking care of veterans and how that is laid out over time. >> guest: well, one of the things that we know is that wars always have long-term costs. for example, after world war i the peak year for paying disability benefits was in 1969, more than 50 years later. and for world war ii, the peak year for paying disability benefits was in 1986. and for vietnam we haven't even come close to reaching the peak year for paying disability benefits for vietnam veterans. so in this case we'll have the same phenomenon, except that it's a much larger number. we have a much higher percentage of veterans who are receiving medical care, higher survival rates, more generous benefits, much more complex claims, much

higher percentage of veterans who are claiming for disability compensation. and all of that means that there is a legacy, a legacy of cost that is accrued but not yet paid that will add another trillion dollars onto the money that we have already paid out for the war. so while the country is kind of turning the page i feel emotionally on some of these wars, we're not turning the page in a budgetary sense, because we have decades more to pay. >> host: when we talk about veterans of the wars of afghanistan and iraq, we're talking about 1.5 million who have been discharged to date, and you can see here some more details. the financial legacy of iraq and afghanistan, those who have been treated by the va for medical conditions, over 800,000. and then over 700,000 have filed va disability claims.

linda bilmes, reflect on those numbers for us that we're seeing there. >> guest: well, these numbers reflect a great deal of suffering. we've fought these wars with a very small percentage of the population. we've fought the wars with our small, all-volunteer force as well as with a very significant contingent of national guard and reservists who had not anticipated being in the wars and with heavy reliance on contractors. so we have a significant number of young men and women who have served for very long tours of duty, 12-15 months, and who have served two, three, four or more tours. and when they come home, they are simply not the same. there are a number of things, some small, some larges that have gone wrong. and we know that there has been a tremendous toll of traumatic stress disorder. there are 253,000 troops who have had a traumatic brain injury of some kind, and the

cumulative effect of these years of war has taken a very significant toll. so we see both within the pentagon very high costs for the tricare system, for active duty troops who are serving and their families and their children as well as for those who are discharged and veterans, as well as very high social costs for the parents and spouses and families of those who have served. and this has been very different than in previous wars where we've had a larger percentage of the population that has been involved in the wars. >> host: jimmy's our first caller, south dakota bend, indiana -- south bend, abe, democrats' line. >> caller: good morning. i guess my thought for the same old same old same old, but with the u.s. military presence in 139 countries on dod's web

site, do you think it's kind of a symptom of the disease rather tan the disease itself? i mean, there's already rumblings, people every day i'm hearing we need to go and clean house in north korea, and we need to go over there to iran and just dismantle iran, turn it into a glass factory. what do you think about eisenhower's quote when he warned that the military industrial complex will bankrupt america, trillion dollar wars, a paid volunteer military which is kind of a jumbo shrimp oxymoron? how do you have a paid volunteer army? anyways, the symptom or the disease. we're going broke, we just can't afford all these militaristic actions anymore. >> guest: well, jimmy, i think that as you pointed out, general eisenhower said it best. and general eisenhower and many of those who are our senior military officials are those who were most cautious in the first place about going into iraq.

and can it's the military -- and it's the military that has paid a disproportionate amount of the price. but the question that we will face in the future as a result of the debt that we have compiled, piled up for iraq and afghanistan, is that the military may be forced to make a number of choices that are not necessarily first choices. the cost of having personnel in the military, the cost of end strength has become extremely high. the cost of military pay and benefits and health care may be the right choice, but we have not figured out a way to pay for i. so all of this has not only been expensive, but we have been paying for it by borrowing money, and this has added another $2 trillion onto our national debt which has led to additional consequences. >> host: we're talking with linda bilmes, here's the recent report from harvard's kennedy school. the financial legacy of iraq and afghanistan: how wartime

spending decisions will constrain future national security budgets. and it puts the cost estimates of the wars in iraq and afghanistan before, between $4-$6 trillion. ted's up next, new york. democrat. hi, ted. >> caller: hi. thank you for c-span. two brilliant women that i have the opportunity to talk to this morning, so thank you for that. i don't know why we're so shy about not putting on some kind of a flat tax, a war tax. i look at the debt crisis in this country really as an emergency. everybody is, you know, laying back, taking it nice and easy. to me, it's a, it's an emergency -- we're at, we have a national debt emergency. and not to institute some kind of a flat war tax, i don't know the exact number. 5% on all income? a war tax that should have been put in at the outset to have the beginning of this which, you

know, i don't know, in my opinion, this war was the greatest boondoggle in american history. and i just still can't get over, and i can't even get my arms around the idea of going, the decision to go to war and george bush and dick cheney. but i don't want to digress. maybe there's a 50-cent or a dollar-a-gallon gas tax, war tax that needs to be put in place. >> host: let's get a response from linda bilmes. >> guest: i think the caller raises an excellent point, which is that when you go to war, there are two decisions. there's the decision to go to war, and there is also the decision about how to pay for that war. and in this case the united states broke precedent with the way we had financed all of our previous wars in which we had raised taxes, issued victory bonds and added various fees and surcharges to pay for the wars.

in this case, in the case of iraq and afghanistan, we have borrowed all of the money that has paid for the wars, adding $2 trillion to the national debt. but it's not only the debt itself, but the fact that the burden has not been shared throughout the population. so not only did we have a war where a very small percentage of the population was fighting it, but we had a war where, actually, no one in our generation is actually paying for it. we've transferred the financial burden of the war to future generations, and we transferred the fighting of the war to a very small percentage of the population. finish -- and this has not happened before. this is a unprecedented method of paying for a war in american history. >> host: andy in iowa, democrats' line. hi, andy. >> caller: hey. randy. >> host: okay. >> caller: thank you for having this conversation. it's been needed for some time.

my point is that george bush rolled back his tax cuts when he decided to go to iraq. this was totally irresponsible. and my point would be a vat tax. are you still there? >> guest: yes. >> host: yes. >> caller: would be a vat tax would be my first option for paying for it. >> host: okay. linda bilmes. >> guest: okay, yes. well, the caller is correct that we cut taxes in 2001 at the time we invaded afghanistan, and we cut taxes in 2003 at the time that we invaded iraq. and that, as i mentioned before, was unprecedented in u.s. history. the only previous time that we did anything similar was in the revolutionary war when we borrowed extensively from the french when we were colonies. i have long advocated that we have a veterans trust fund which is money that would be, that

would be appropriated at the same time that we appropriate money for war, because we know that there are long-term costs associated with taking care of those who fight the war. and the additional benefit of setting aside some percentage of appropriated dollars -- maybe 25 cents per dollar -- for a veterans trust fund would be that it would actually price a war closer to what it is really going to cost. that would, hopefully, be a disincentive to go to war, but more importantly, it would be, it would be more accurate and more transparent to be appropriating closer to the full cost of war at the time that we take the decision to use our military force. >> host: let's hear from henderson, new york. marshall is a democrat. hi, marshall. >> caller: hi. i'm glad you can have me on tonight -- or today. i think that with the way the

taxes and everything are, i was a wounded veteran myself. my son is in the marine corps. he's done five tours in iraq and afghanistan, and i have a nephew that's been in afghanistan for the last year. and i believe in my heart that the people in the united states should fund this with taxes and don't have a problem with it. because i know what it was like when i came home, and it wasn't pretty. so i hope you people do something about it. thank you. >> host: thank you, marshall. >> guest: well, marshall, first of all, thank you for your service and for the service of your, your son and your family. i agree with you. i think that the american people want to be supportive. i sit here at harvard at the kennedy school, and virtually every day i have an e-mail from someone in the country saying i want to do manager, i want to help our -- something, i want to help our veterans. i have an extra room in my

house, what can i do? i think there is a groundswell. and i actually agree with you that, if asked, i think the american public wants to be helpful. however, what we have now is a situation where the funding has simply not been set aside. we have put this war on the credit card. and so taking aside the decision of whether or not we should have been there in the first place, we have a decision going forward about how to pay for it and how to insure that our veterans are well cared for. now, the leadership in the department of veterans affairs has been very strong. they have tried to expand benefits. we have enacted another, rightly so, we have enacted a new g.i. bill. we have expanded a number of conditions such as agent orange from previous wars to be easier for veterans to apply and claim. and all of that has been a sort of welcome change of attitude by

the country and by the va. however, we have not changed our financing mechanisms or our disability claim system as quickly as we have changed our philosophy in terms of embracing and trying to be helpful to those who have fought the wars. >> host: linda bilmes is the harvard kennedy school's daniel patrick moynihan senior lecturer in public policy. she serves on the labor department's labor advisory committee on veterans, and employment outreach and training. and she also sits on the council on foreign relations. she's the co-author of the book "the $3 trillion war: the true cows of the iraq conflict." we're looking at the cost of the iraq war and the afghanistan war. ms. bilmes and her group who did the financial legacy of iraq and afghanistan, this is a harvard kennedy school report, put the cost estimates at between $4-$6

trillion over the next decades. let's look at the cost to date for iraq and afghanistan veteran care. we can see here the va medical care, $24 billion. disability benefits, $35 billion. social security disability insurance hits a $4 billion price tag. and then we see va-related services coming in at over 70 billion, total spent to date $134 billion. linda bilmes, you also put the medical benefits for the next 40 years $836 billion. relate this to wars. we had another veteran call in talking about his care when e came home -- when he came home. how does this compare to past wars and veterans? >> guest: well, wars always have long-term costs, and veterans disability benefits always peak decades after the war. but in this particular war, we have had a much higher, much

higher incidence of utilization of health care and claims for benefits. and this is for a variety of reasons, both because we have expanded the number of claims that veterans can apply for and also because veterans have been applying in record numbers with very complex claims. for example, in vietnam the average disability claim for three conditions and the average disability claim for iraq and afghanistan claims for eight conditions. and this, again, is related to the fact that the tours of duty are long, that there are many repeat tours of duty, that we have higher survival rates, that we have much more expensive and better medical care, that we are keeping many people alive who would not have you survived in previous wars, and the whole environment in terms of people's willingness to step up and claim for mental health conditions and related conditions as changed.

-- has changed. and that's all for the good, that's all progress. however, it carries a very high price tag. so what we have seen so far is that of the two and a half million troops who have served, only about 1.5 have been discharged and become veterans to date with 56% of those having been using the va health care system, 50% claiming for disability benefits and also very high utilization among the active-duty troops and their families in the tricare system. and that tricare system has also expanded as we have expanded into include reservists and guards who have fought alongside the active-duty troops in this war with very high utilization, for example, from the children of active-duty troops. and all of these things leads to a very high price tag which will continue over a long period of time. it's important to note that this

is a promise that we have made. these are claims that need to be paid, and if this was a private sector business, we would consider all of these legacy veterans costs as a kind of deferred compensation. it would show up on the balance sheet as a deferred compensation. but because of the way that the u.s. government does its accounting, it actually is an accrued liability for the united states of another trillion dollars in veteran benefits that doesn't actually show up anywhere. you can't find it in the government account. but it's there, and the question is how will we pay for it, and how will we insure that in a period of austerity and in a period when there is a lot of pressure on the budget, how will we insure that we're not cutting back on this promise that we have made to the veterans. >> host: if you're a veteran of the wars of iraq and afghanistan or active military and have served there, give us a call at 202-585-3883. robert's our next caller in oxford, pennsylvania, incompetent line.

hi -- independent line. hi, robert. >> caller: good morning. i appreciate the program, and i just want the say thanks to all those vets out there that put their life on the line every day for our safety and our welfare. but talk about the cost of the wars and everything, have you had anyone ever actually looked into the fact or tried to find out how much profit has been made through these wars by different organizations or corporations in and how much money could have been saved had everything that was used in the military was manufactured here in the united states of america, giving our people the work and the opportunity to provide like the shoes and the socks, thinking the military uses? it seems to me like we're just cutting our own throats. we talk about we need to pay for

the war, well, the war probably would have been able to be paid for had we had good, high-paying jobs manufacturing the war materials and everything. and i was just wondering, has anyone ever investigated to find out who makes the profit in the war? >> guest: um, i have a couple of points to make about your excellent question. the first point is about the economic costs of the war. and when you go into debt for things like investing in this country; building roads, investigating in education, that produces a net benefit to the country. but most of the money that has been spent on the iraq and afghanistan wars has not been that kind of spending. it's been the kind of spending that actually has detracted from the macroeconomic strength of the united states. and there have been a number of specific costs, for example, the price of oil which was $23 a

barrel for the 20 years before we invaded iraq, and after the invasion of iraq increased welcome back a couple of year -- within a couple of years to $140 a barrel and has not really gone down below $100 a barrel since then. not all of that is attributed to the wars, of course, but that is -- the wars were one of the factors that put a lot of pressure on oil prices. oil prices going up was money that transferred out of the united states at that time mostly to middle eastern producing countries. there have been costs of the war which have been borne and paid for by those who who are caregis to wounded veterans coming home. there have been enormous costs of the war which have been in the form of payments we made to foreign contractors. there have been enormous costs of the war in reconstruction costs to iraq where we've spent

about $62 billion and afghanistan where we spend about $87 billion, much of which has been wasted or gone into profiteering by a number of companies. now, all of those things add up to the fact that these wars have been bad for the u.s. economy. these wars have not produced a net benefit to the u.s. economy. they have been funded by debt which has been purchased, our debt primarily by china and japan and other non-americans. and we have waged the war if such a way that the -- in such a way that the economy has not benefited. all of those things together make it a sort of bad investment in addition to the fact that it has been expensive and, in many ways, a bad decision in the first place. >> host: this is our "your money" segment. we're looking at this report by linda bilmes from harvard kennedy school, the financial

legacy of iraq and afghanistan: how wartime spending decisions will constrain future national security budgets, and she's estimating the total costs of the wars between clash 4-$6 trillion. one more call, natasha's in troy, michigan, republican. hi, natasha. >> caller: yes. i have a question and a comment i'd like to make. i was wondering if the private contractors, is that amount included in your trillions of dollars? and is there any place that we could find the amounts of money that were paid to private contractors? now, excuse me, but i do have one other question or a comment i'd like to make. in regards to how things get done in washington, and that is when someone tried to look for tom delay to kill him, our government quickly put up a huge visitors' center and made it

impossible for anybody to access any of the legislators. they are only concerned with themselves. they don't care what we think about in this country and the monies that are spent, because they don't even take a discount or a cut in their pay. thank you for listening, and i -- >> host: let's get a response from linda bilmes on the questions that she put forward. >> guest: if response to the caller -- in response to the caller, i would point you to the excellent reports of the special inspector general for iraq who was stuart bowen and the special inspector general for afghanistan, currently john sopko. these special inspector generals have for the reconstruction money put together very detailed reports that detail the corruption, waste, profiteering that we are all so familiar with. and they're pretty comprehensive reports in which they describe a

great deal of money that has been wasted. and these are large amounts of money. for example, we spent in afghanistan $87 billion. if you compare that, for example, to the national parks budget, we spend $2.5 billion a year on all the national parks put together. so $87 billion is not an inconsequential number. however, those numbers, those reports on the reconstruction funds are only a very tiny piece of the $4 trillion that have been spent, at a minimum, on the wars. and a trillion dollars is a lot of money. if you had a stack of a billion thousand dollar bills stacked up, that would be about 350 feet high. that goes about two-thirds of up the washington monument. if you had a trillion thousand dollar bills stacked up, that's 65 miles high. it's an order of magnitude larger.

so we need to keep in mind that although there has been prof -- profiteering, there has been corruption, there have been a number of companies that have done well from the war including, by the way, the health care companies that serve the tricare system in the defense department, the big money is simply the money that we have spent to fight the wars, to operate the wars, to produce the vehicles, to take care of the veterans to date. and the huge legacy of the wars, the payments that are yet to come. in addition to the fact that we have to pay interest on the money that we have borrowed for these wars. >> linda bilmes, harvard university school of government, public policy senior lecturerrer, thank you so much for talking with us this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> we return now to the ronald reagan center in washington, d.c. where the carnegie endowment for international peace has been holding a discussion on nuclear policy. and coming up, the keynote

speech by the chair of the nuclear regulatory commission, allison mcfarlane. she was sworn in as chair of the rnc last year. she replaced gregory yachts coe who resigned. [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm here to give you all indigestion. finish we've had an interesting morning, we're going to have an interesting afternoon. our luncheon speaker is dr. allison macfarlane who has been chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission since last

july. the president recently announced he was nominating dr. macfarlane for a full term, and she was explaining to me over lunch that if congress doesn't act by june 30th, she turns into a pumpkin, but we trust the senate will get its act together. dr. macfarlane is a geologist. she is the first geologist at the nuclear regulatory commission. this is completely appropriate since a lot of the problems facing the industry right now are geological in the business, the nuclear business. people say you know you're in trouble especially when the specialist they call in is in geochemistry. the nuclear field is learning about new branches of science it wishes it did not have to deal with. dr. macfarlane comes to the nrc from george mason university and before that from mit, and actually, more importantly, from the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future which was convened after the obama

administration pulled the plug on yucca mountain, as a study commission to figure out what to do next. and i'm sure we'll get into that in the q&a session. and without further ado, she will have some opening remarks, i'll ask some questions, then we'll turn the audience loose. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, matt. thank you very much. okay. so it's an honor to be here today and a pleasure. for many years i have attended this conference and having the opportunity to stand on this side of the microphone is, indeed, a true pleasure. so i thank you very much for the invitation, guys. and it's also a real pleasure because i have so many friends in the audience, and it's really

wonderful to see you all. this is a fantastic opportunity every couple years to get together and have discussions about very important issues around non-proliferation, etc. as always, the agenda for this year's conference reflects a number of timely and significant topics. many, of course, related to non-proliferation. it's been very interesting for me to come to the nrc which plays a very important role in fulfilling u.s. non-proliferation objectives through various aspects of its mission. as you're well aware, since the 2010 npt review conference there have been renewed emphasis on insuring a mutually-reinforcing balance between the three pillars of the npt; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. today i'd like to touch on the

important role of regulators in insuring safe and secure use of nuclear materials, thereby supporting the peaceful use of these materials. the benefits of nuclear technology are far reaching. it's important to remember that although proliferation concerns with nuclear power get a lot of attention, other peaceful uses of nuclear materials in commercial enterprise, in medicine and in academia provide important societal benefits. the civilian nuclear landscape has the potential to change considerably in the coming years. some countries, as you know, are seeking to expand small existing nuclear power programs, others are developed countries that have identified a need to diversify their energy mix, still others -- which the iaea says have expressed at least some interest in nuclear power -- still have significant

work ahead to establish the basic critical infrastructure. and, of course, the advent of small modular reactor designs could lead to the introduction of nuclear power many places with -- in places with small or regional grids that may not otherwise have considered it. the development of any major new technological advancement can come with competing or conflicting objectives. nuclear technology can improve people's health and livelihood, as we know. it's, therefore, understandable that governments would want to put access to these technologies on the fast track. however, if these goals outpace the development of regulatory controls, safety, security and environmental protections are jeopardized. it's essential that we emphasize the responsibilities that accompany the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful

purposes. regulatory bodies like the nuclear regulatory commission have a critical role to play in this discussion which is inextricably linked to the peaceful uses commitments under the non-proliferation treaty. regulators provide a critical function in the global non-proliferation regime by insuring the safe and secure use of nuclear materials and technology. we need to do more to dispel the notion that regulatory controls are a bureaucratic impediment designed to limit or hinder rightful access to peaceful uses when, actually, the opposite is true. for instance, strong and effective regulatory controls enhance the efficiency with which nuclear materials can be safely and securely used. a lack of export controls can delay shipments of nuclear materials in reaching their destinations or allow them to fall into the wrong hands. absent regulatory oversight of nuclear power plant construction, the final product

may not adhere to the codes and standards necessary to insure that a plant is constructed and operated safely. and failure to provide proper training to medical technicians can lead to patient or worker overexposures. each of these scenarios not only impacts access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology, but has security and non-proliferation implications as well. and to that end, i believe regulators must play a significant role in the npt community. regulatory per speghtives must be -- perspectives must be part of a broader government nuclear security, safety and non-proliferation policy decision making. the highest levels of government must make nuclear safety and security a priority everywhere. regulators must have confidence that their decisions will be given due weight by country leadership while preserving your

independence, something i will touch on more in a moment. this is a key element in insuring that these issues maintain a direct connection to the broader non-proliferation regime. and that the rights and responsibilities associated with peaceful uses are duly considered and well understood. many countries with established regulatory programs are already in a position to increase their involvement in these important discussions. for countries embarking on new programs, we have on obligation to provide insights about the regulatory development necessary to make that program safe, secure and successful. all countries that wish to use nuclear technology for commercial purposes must develop the appropriate infrastructure to insure the safety and security of their program. this includes a strong, independent, well--funded regulatory body. for countries considering

nuclear power, responsible development also includes an industry that is responsible for first line safety and security, recognizing the importance of quality assurance in all aspects of a plant's construction and operation. on a related note, i believe that all countries considering nuclear power need to consider the ultimate disposal of their nuclear waste at the beginning of their planning with a clearly-defined strategy for waste management and disposal integrated into the licensing process. in addition, the establishment or expansion of nuclear power programs must include input from all interested parties in a transparent and open dialogue. within the regulatory community, we have networks available for emerging countries to receive the assistance necessary to establish an effective regulatory infrastructure;

thereby, facilitating the safe and secure use of materials and technology. we also work together we merging countries to make sure that they have a common understanding of their obligations related to importing and exporting nuclear materials so that these materials are appropriately protected. in the united states, the nrc plays an important role in implementing u.s. government non-proliferation objectives. we apply iaea safeguards at our licensed facilities, we maintain a roe bust security program -- robust security program at all the facility, and we are responsible for licensing the import and export of nuclear materials and technology for civilian use. we are also actively engaged internationally with our regulatory counterparts, providing bilateral and multilateral assistance to emerging countries. in fact, after i'm finished here today, i'm flying to a conference in ottawa to meet

with my international regulatory counterparts. the nrc's international engagement plays a significant role in informing our work. there's a lot to learn from what others are already doing. this has been proven to us time and again, particularly in the area of operating experience. conferences like this are also important for the same reason, and i just want to note that there are quite a few folks from the nrc attending this conference. and i see a table full of them over here. [laughter] regulatory bodies provide an essential perspective in the global non-proliferation discourse. it's the absence of regulatory controls that impede access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology, not the other way around. the more we are able to advance that message, the greater the chances will be that nuclear materials are being used safely and securely worldwide. this, in turn, will contribute to continued successful

implementation of the npt. i'm thankful for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you today, and now i'm looking forward to my discussion with matt and my discussion with the rest of you, so thank you. [applause] >> thank you. dr. macfarlane, you talked about a strong, independent, well-funded nuclear regulator. you're now running on 94.9% of your budget, the rest is sequestered. i'd like to ask about two questions. one is what we can expect from nuclear power wannabe countries with less mature political systems after fukushima where we had an advanced industrial society with a mature government that seemed to confuse the policy goal of heavy use of nuclear power with the safety goal. if they can't get it straight, what do we hope for from third

world countries who may want to buy a modular or full-scale reactor where they have no background in this legislation? >> well, as i said, that's why i made these remarks to really emphasize the importance of a well-funded, government-backed independent regulator. there are quite a few assistance programs, bilateral assistance programs, multilateral assistance programs, assistance programs through the iaea that are available to help countries establish a good, independent regulator. and i think that's, i think we're seeing that in action in most places. >> okay. let me ask about the united states where we're hoping to build modular reactors and export them. and i hear the manufacturers say that one of the benefits is the nrc approval is the gold standard. is the export product becoming regulation? can nrc regulations become an

american export product? >> i don't know that it's an american export product. i think, you know, certainly we work with a number of other countries and provide assistance to a number of other countries, but we have a model, a particular model. but i think other established nuclear countries' regulators also adhere to the similar principles that we do, that you have government buy-in to safety and security as top priorities. that you have a body that is backed by the government, that you have a body that is free from undue influence from industry and the government, whoever's regulated, that you have a body that is well funded and well staffed. and i think you find that in many locations. >> in the early days of nuclear power, the united states exercised great influence because there was u.s. origin

nuclear material, there was u.s. origin technology. >> uh-huh. >> the united states no longer dominates those markets the way it used to. will the united states, how can the united states continue to be a player in technology questions, non-proliferation questions as its role in international nuclear commerce declines? >> i don't think it's just the commerce piece of it that bears on the u.s. participation in the discussions. i mean, i think the u.s. will always be an important player in these discussions. and i don't, i can't really comment too much on the commerce piece of it, it's not part of our business, but we certainly have a lot of work at the nrc, you know, dealing with import/export, dealing with materials security at the facilities that we regulate. so there is, i think, the u.s. still has a big piece of it. >> with do you run into this

issue that if it's a piece of business an american supplier is seeking to do with a foreign country, if we don't do it, someone else will, somewhat with yet weaker controls? >> you know, that's a concern. but we, you know, we try to emphasize that it's important to have these controls. that they, as i said, they certainly advance progress in a lot of these relationships, not impede it. ..

in the late 60's really it has been sort of an active program so we have a long and rich history as you know in dealing with many of these issues. and i do want to also point out that the u.s. is the only country in the world that actually has an operating deep geologic repository. it's not for high-level waste but it is for transferring weight. it is indeed a repository so we are the only country with that actual experience. >> we have a long history, a long history as you say but we haven't moved the ball to far forward. do we have anything to learn from other countries on this? >> yeah certainly think we do in here i speak of the former blue ribbon commission member. i had the opportuniopportuni ty on the commissiocommissio n to travel to a variety of question -- countries the u.k.

france and look at what they are doing and what they are thinking about and the blue ribbon commission learned a lot of lessons from looking at other folks and what they are doing and codified those weapons into the report that we issued. >> what is your impression of the impact of that report and the progress you have made toward either implementing those recommendations are finding substitutes to move the ball forward? >> i think you know the administration came out with a strategy. i know there is activity in the senate and we will probably be hearing from them soon on this issue and certainly i think the onus now is on congress and the administration to move forward. and i hope they do with all great and good speed. >> apart from that the nuclear regulatory commission has a proceeding going forward to reform its waste confidence proceeding which means how will

the united states continue to do business without a repository? can you tell us exactly what that means and how that is progressing? >> sure. so last june i think it was the d.c. circuit court of appeals handed out a decision which remanded three parts of the nrc's competence position. it's added we need to go and think about what would happen in the case of spent fuel pool leaks and what would happen in the case of no repository being available. >> that's more than a possibility. for the near-term it's a certainty. >> well there is no repository available right now that is correct. i remain optimistic that there will be but that is my personal view. i think then we have the commission looked and decided not to appeal the issue and to

work quickly to resolve it, these three issues in particular and so we established, we took a number of staff to a waste confidence director and said you're all working on this for the next few years. we asked that they do this within two years so by september of 2014 we should have a final issued waste competence decision and they are working diligently. we are on schedule to do this. in the meantime, we have the commission said that licensing activities and relicensing at two but these can continue but that no finalized license extensions can be given until the waste competence position as result. >> the fourth blue ribbon commission, you were an advocate for the idea of greater use of

dry casks of perhaps unloading from the spent fuel pools to lower the level of risk and do more than fuel the casks to reduce the risk of attack etc.. the proceeding you just described is among other things i would imagine to determine if the dry cask can be saved for decades to come. when that is behind us should we be moving things more rapidly into dry casks or should we use the industry current practice is other countries look to us for our practices to fill the spent fuel pools as much as they will safely hold and moving them only as central? >> at the nrc this is actually an active area of study now and you know, after the fukushima accident we had a near-term task force who issued a report within three months which had 12

overarching recommendations. the commission prioritize those recommendations into three tiers and this particular issue occupies some of the tier 3 activities and the commission is going to begin to look at this and staff are going to begin to look at this issue and see what you know what the boundaries are on it. and so this is something that is an act of research for us. >> let me shift gears slightly. i had the distinction of working for "the new york times" one of the first days of being publicly hacked by the peoples liberation army. i would like to ask about nuclear plants and cyberthreats. how do you know when a reactor is protected adequately? is such a fascinating field and it took the nrc years to get regulation out the door. how do you know when you are looking at the computers at a reactor or other nuclear facility whether they are secure or not? >> first you should realize that

the computers with a nuclear reactor are not connected to the internet so hopefully that will give you some sense of calm but actually the nrc in 2009 issued the cybersecurity rule for power react nurse. and the final implementation of this rule will occur somewhere between 2014 and 2017 depending on the particular plants of the different reactors. nonetheless there were basically eight steps that they have to work through. these plans had worked through seven of those steps and they were to complete those seven steps in the past december 2012 and we are now in the process of inspecting what they have done. so we have been thinking through this and we also have the cybersecurity team dedicated to anticipating these issues as they come along so we are taking this very seriously and now we

have developed this very recently a roadmap for fuel cycle facilities dealing with cybersecurity issues for research and test reactors for byproduct materials like you see for this set of folks as well. see this as a six to eight year implementation. math. >> a lot of the reactors. >> but at the end of eight years in the computer field it's hard to imagine the standard-setting years ago is still being developed. is this like checking boxes this that and the other thing or are you putting processes in place? okay, all right. may i ask what the eighth one they are working on is? >> not to be honest with the right now i don't know. it's more complicated longer-term issue that is required more information before they are able to implement it.

>> okay. one more question and then we will go to the audience which is, we have a group of americann manufacturing competitors who would like to build small modular reactors. my theory is these are not really designed for the american market. they are designed for export but we will see. is the widespread adoption of full modular reactors around the world especially in countries that don't have nuclear reactors now, is this positive for proliferation, negative four proliferation, neutral for proliferation and how does it fit? >> you know it's not my job to evaluate some of these questions but -- >> you are intellectually designed. >> willie will issue design certification if and when we get application. we are expecting the first application the summer of 2014 from the bmw m. power when it

was funded by the doe. certainly you know on the trade side of this, selling to other countries the one, two, three has to be in place for the bad happens and that is outside of the nrc's sewn. our job is to ensure that the reactors could operate safely and securely under the conditions required for the u.s. so that means in terms of security requirements that we require of all in the u.s. and safety requirements for owl power plants in the u.s.. >> i wonder if boeing has a small airline in the third world is very concerning whether that airline is going to fly it correctly or crash it which will be a black market against the airline but also against boeing. you of course are not going to build these reactors.

your son for going to license them. should we be looking at this with any sense of anxiety that we are hoping to export a new class project that's a little more complicated to run and keep save? >> i don't know that these things would necessarily inherently be more complicated to run than a regular power reactor. >> that's absolutely correct but the places that have no reactors at all and that's the manufacturer school. >> i am glad you brought it full circle back and that's what it's really important before you embark on any kind of nuclear program to have established a regulator that is indigenous and backed by the government and is well-funded and independent. >> okay, very good. i think there are microphones floating around the room. all i can see is light. in the back here, the lady with her hand up. >> jessica varnum from the monterey institute of

international studies. thank you for your remarks. i'm very interested in what you are talking about with regards to the nrc have reached to nuclear newcomers. i teach nuclear energy issues to a number of students who are often from other countries so one of the discussions we have is how is the u.s. involves in this nuclear market and usually there is msn's on the part of the countries that the u.s. is a player and i am curious if you having counter problems and best practice sharing efforts with countries where we don't have nuclear involvement as well so you will use an obvious country where we have part of that contract with south korea and i can imagine there is a lot of interaction going on between the nrc in them. but you know like turkey where there is essentially an entirely russian contract and other countries that don't have a u.s. industry. how do you do that kind of outreach to those countries? is a generally welcomed and just in general what are some of the

challenges that need to be overcome for us to become more effective in this partnership? >> good questions. let me first be clear that we are not -- we are the regulators so we have a specific role that is not industry's role and therefore there are other parts to the u.s. federal government which would have other kinds of relationships, the department at energy and parts of the administration etc. so keeping that aside. the regulatory side day to meet with counterparts from, my counterparts from other countries on a regular basis. bilateral meetings for instance recently i met with the turkish regulator. i also meet with the russian regulators and discuss issues so that is one way i personally can have and my fellow commissioners can have direct conversations with these folks and exchange. we also have a number of programs, assistance programs.

that is where the nrc provides assistance to emerging countries there are other programs like the multinational evaluation program. turkey is not a member of that now but in the future it could be. this is a group who get together and discuss new reactor issues so there is an ap1000 group where you, and this is just for regulators. they are regulators from the u.s. and china and from other countries it ap 1000's it together and discuss issues with construction and operations of these plants. so there are a variety of different things and we also work on the multilateral level through the iaea and the number of other programs like that. there is a variety of ways that we actually doing gauge quite frequently.

>> if i could ask you to elaborate, it sounds like you are doing peer-to-peer consultation at the top. do you send it in specters on exchange? >> we do hand we have exchange programs where we hope inspectors or staff regulatory staff from other countries. we send our staff to other countries, so there are those kinds of programs and there is actually quite a lot of work on the international side and i think many of the nrc staff who are here today are on the international right now. >> do our guys ever defect? [laughter] we have another gentleman in the front here. the microphone is behind you. >> i want to ask you a question from the site. you talk a lot about assistance and about sharing and so on.

if you are thinking about a country and setting up a nuclear commission through the i-a ea should somebody evaluate to know all of these things. on the one hand you can improve them and they can also be used to -- [inaudible] >> i did say the word evaluation multinational evaluation. [laughter] but i understand your question and it's a good one. unfortunately there is no real format you know and i don't think even you would approve of the nrc going around evaluating other countries programs and that is why i think it's more of a peer-to-peer discussion. the iaea certainly set standards for regulatory programs and you know --

no, i mean there is no way in which one can do that. now i know there are some of my fellow regulators from other countries are concerned about this issue and they would like there to be some way of you know having more of an impact on other countries regulators and saying you are doing a good job and you are doing a bad job. on the industry side there is something more like that. there is the nuclear operators, where the industries from these different countries the nuclear industries evaluate each other and i know that they are really interested in engaging even further now with that kind of an evaluation. and i think that would be very help old. so, there is some of that going on but i think you are right. we should all think more creatively about how we can do it. >> should they follow him the nuclear side with the u.s. department of transportation does? they will me grilling about a

foreign aviation regulator. you don't have the resources to regulate airlines and don't have to fly here anymore and just the threat of that puts foreign governments to fund their regulators better. we hope not. we hope not but would there be some equivalenequivalen ce and would it be a good idea here? >> it's an interesting idea and i'm not sure exactly what the equivalent would be but you always want to keep talking. you don't want to stop talking. >> we had a question from over here. we are going to start over there thank you. >> thank you. i informally with the i-a ea and i thank you for your comments. my question was apparently one of the lessons of the fukushima accident was installed fishers in the reactor and i read in the

media that the u.s. industry is opposed to it on the basis of cost so i was wondering what for you is the trade-off with public safety and the cost to industry for adding on additional safety measures? as an aside i was pleased to hear that you're going to my home country canada. this is the only concrete who has expired its regulator. [laughter] since you made a big deal several times which is what the iaea does as well with independent regulators and not the regulator. >> i will elaborate whether the nrc requires -- and dr. macfarlane on the loose side. >> thank you for reminding me. so in terms of the recent decision to filter you sort of presented it as this is what all countries are doing and not necessarily all countries are

doing this but let me just say that what the recent decision from the nrc was twofold. partly there was a decision to issue an order to further harden them so we issued an order last march basically requiring to harden them at all 31 boil water reactors with mark i and mark ii containment designs and so these these -- now we have further enhanced that order and we will within 60 days by saying you want these events to be able to operate under accident conditions so at high temperatures, high pressures and under high radiation conditions. you have to be able to operate them under all of these conditions and this is an order that will be issued. the second piece of what the commission did recently was to

basically require a rulemaking on filtering strategies and other strategies to prevent or reduce the release or filter the release of contaminants from a containment in and accident scenario. >> there is a question over here who has the mic? thank you. i should say also with the mic going over there that there was what the commission ended up doing is saying we won't require them just like that and we may end up requiring some later on. >> i am the vice chairman of the nuclear weaponry project of argentina. i have to say that i don't agree with the canadian solution. [laughter] i strongly don't agree with that

but in the same way the comment of the canadian leak the fukushima accident -- to have and to make and the interesting number of new countries that are trying to achieve nuclear technology which is good news. don't you think that we have the tools may be to make a strong commitment to share with other countries, with those new countries the independence of the promoter of nuclear energy. maybe have the next country where i'm achieving the clear technology and maybe i'm thinking more of the technology issues. don't you think that we have to

assume that kind of commitment may be sharing with those new countries about the importance of independence from the promoters and the witnesses of the japanese body in these issues? >> certainly i think you know it's very important to separate the regulator from the promotional side. in the u.s. our history is that we have the atomic energy commission which was both regulator and promoter and it finally don done us in the 19 70's that this was probably a bad idea. there is a conflict of interest and certainly now we very much encourage at all levels of the u.s. government other countries

to follow that example and to keep very separate the regulator from the promoters. >> we have got time for just one more question. go ahead. >> i'm from iran. thank you for your comments. we are at the juncture where the iranian nuclear negotiations everyone is looking for confidence-building measures. as a purely confidence building measure would you be prepared to do -- for the iranian regulatory? >> i don't operate completely separately from the rest of my government so i would have to take advice from them. >> do we have time for one more? >> i was a nuclear waste is disposed her and my question is regarding iran as well. you have a plant based on the formation coming to my ran 30%

german 30% iranian and 30% russian. construction and design in everything else. the dangers that are taking place or that exist are the risks that exists is higher than fukushima or chernobyl. it's really three times it has been shut down and they blamed the germans on a number of issues. is there a way that the united states can participate or at least get involved in inspecting for helping to inspect these facilities because the dangers are not only -- [inaudible] it's an important issue and as a matter fact there was an article in the "new york times" regarding that so can you comment on that? >> you know only to say that

these kinds of inspections through the i-a ea are very important and -- iaea and there a number of important high-quality regulatory bodies from different countries that are giving advice and support to the iaea and the iaea does an excellent job itself is. >> should the iranians be listening to -- >> that's not my -- to have a few. it is for industry. >> yes. they are a member. i stand corrected. thank you all. thank you for your kind attention. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] this wraps up c-span's coverage of the carnegie endowment's nuclear policy discussion. you can find us in the earlier panel on line at the c-span video library at c-span.org. a look at capitol hill where congress is returning from spring recess today. the senate gavels and at 2:00 eastern time.

.. -------------- >> at all those years which this

country has needed a world statesman? >> i think, mr. speaker, the age of chivalry shall not have gone so long as my honorable friend is a member. and, yes, in response, i do look back with some pride and some satisfaction at our achievements of our country in the last 11 and a half years. >> the fcc, actually, is structured the way things used to be. it's got a wired division, and it's got a wireless division, and, in fact, it issues an annual report that's required by congress on the state of wireless. and the hidden assumption or the implicit assumption behind that congressional direction is that the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market. but, in fact, in the world of broadband these two have increasingly converged. >> one thing that stands in the way, for example, of the telcos pushing out their network is

unlike the cable companies, the elle coes are beholden to a special tax, and this is sometimes called the legacy regulations by which the telco has to keep two networks, a copper network and a broadband network. and the problem with that is that this is a diversion of their resources. and it's not any kind of trivial diversion, it's a significant diversion. if they were freed from those obligations, they would have billions of dollars to go back and invest and expand in their broadband networks. >> finding a road map for developing broadband in the u.s., tonight on "the communicators" at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> they had a very political marriage much like john and abigail, and so she would lobby in the halls of congress. now, she was always very careful to say my husband believes this, and my husband advocates that. but she herself was doing the

pitch. and one of her husband's opponents said he hoped that if james were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep, nor make butter. >> tonight one of the most politically active and influential first ladies, sarah polk. we'll also look at her successors ors, margaret taylor and abigail fillmore, and we'll take your questions. first ladies live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, a look at the secretive military commissions at guantanamo bay and how the military commissions act is being used today. from this morning's "washington journal. ". >> host: jess bravin is our guest, and he's here this

morning to talk about his new book, "the terror courts: rough justice at guantanamo bay." thanks for being here this morning. >> guest: oh, it's my pleasure. >> host: you write about military commissions. what are they and why were they set up? >> guest: well, right after 9/11 there was a lot of head scratching going on in washington about what to do in response to these terrorist attacks. and some people felt they had the hasn't right away. one was to, essentially, resurrect a -- military commissions. these were military trials that were last held after world war ii to try mainly german and japanese military officials for war crimes. and the idea came that this attack on the united states was of a similar magnitude, and the time had come to resurrect the this sort of dormant form of military justice. so that is, in a nutshell, what they were. and we are still working with them today, because they've gone through three different iterations and had a rather rocky history since president bush conceived them in the days after 9/11.

>> host: guantanamo bay, you've been to visit. what to you see there, and how are the military commissions actually operating? >> guest: well, you know, it's interesting, guantanamo pay was actually chosen as a site for detainees after military commissions were designed. president bush put out his order for military commissions in november of 2001. the idea percolated within days of the attacks. guantanamo was not selected until december of 2001, and so although these two concepts are forever linked because every single proceeding in a military commission has taken place at guantanamo, they aren't necessarily linked. you could these, in theory, anywhere in the world or on an aircraft carrier. guantanamo, of course, isn't going anywhere, it's staying put, and they are locked in a sort of bad marriage, if you will, because there are people who are advocates of military commissions and feel their reputation has been damaged. on the other hand, they also are sort of unnecessary for guantanamo because the government has asserted that people captured in a war or

armed conflict can be held regardless of trial, so there isn't a need to try them if you wanted to hold prisoners because they were allegedly fighting against the united states. they're not exactly the same. >> host: explain more about how military commissions are different than legal proceedings we might more commonly think about. >> guest: okay. well, the last time these were held, as we said, were after world war ii, and they were very similar to the way courts martial were held in the 1940s which was not that carefully. military justice, historically, had a reputation for not being a very high form of due process. it was the sort of thing that commanders in the field did to very quickly deal with incidents and restore discipline and move on. and military tribunals or commissions were very similar. basically, the concept was a military commission had jurisdiction, sort of a legal term, for over these enemy prisoners who were not members of the u.s. services, but the military legal branch, the judge advocate corps, basically used

the same types of procedures. the trick that the bush administration had in mind was in 2001 and here in the 21st century to use those same very simple or really lack of rules that the military commissions had in the 1940s here in the 21st century, sort of they were kind of a legal time machine. to create a trial that didn't follow any of the due process rules that had been established in the years since. and that turned out not on the tenable -- not to be tenable, because the military today expected that military commissions would parallel courts martial just as they always had, and as courts martial had become more fair, they assumed they would similarly mirror those changes. that led to a conflict that led to the supreme court and two statutory revisions since. >> host: our guest is jess brain, we're talking about his new book, "the terror court." here are the numbers to call.

republicans, 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. and independent callers, 202-585-3882. jess bravin, you talked about how these are still being used today. how have they evolved or not evolved in the changeover to the obama administration? >> guest: well, it's really interesting because president obama voted as a senator in 2006, he voted against the military commissions act. step back before that, the whole reason there was a military commissions act in 2006 was because the supreme court said that president bush's first idea, the idea of the kind of 1940s time machine, was not legal. so that was struck down, congress enacted a version of military commissions that accorded some additional protections to defendants, some kind of procedures that were, that seemed more fair. president obama, then a senator, voted against that law. he said it wasn't good enough, would probably be struck down. when he became president, he -- there was a big debate in his

administration about whether to scrap this whole project altogether and just use the federal court system and courts martial or to somehow try to fix 'em. and ultimately, the president decided he would try to fix them. he had some studies done and surveys done to see what kind of changes would make them fair enough for him to approve. those were enacted in 2009, and so now we have this third version which the military likes to stress these days how similar they are to regular courts as opposed to how different they are. and they say, don't worry, they're very fair because they're almost as fair as a normal civilian court or military court. >> host: let's go to the phones from and and hear from andy in vernon, new york, who's a republican. hi, andy. >> caller: hi, libby and yesterdays, thank you for c-span. what you're talking about now is the aftermath of the war on terror which started because of september 11th. now, since the national institutes of standards and technology has admitted that

building 7 was in freefall for over 100 feept which is scientifically impossible without the use of explosives, wouldn't the american people be well served in getting a better understanding of the event we spend so much money avenging? >> guest: well, the military commissions are designed to prosecute defendants for past crimes, so war crimes. so the people who have been charged before military commissions are right now khalid sheikh mohammed, a number of other people who are alleged to have helped build the plan to attack the united states on 9/11. there are a number of other charges including someone who's alleged to have orchestrated the attack on the uss cole in 2000 in yemen. and these, and the key for these is that they are defined as war crimes. in other words, violations of the law of war with, not civilian crimes. so the question really for military commissions, and this has continued to sort of dog them, is the weird kind of half war/half not war status that we have, and it's caused some

problems for military commissions in the appellate courts, most recently last year when a conviction was thrown out because the appellate court said it wasn't a war crime if it was a civilian crime. >> host: can you give us more of a feel and flavor to what these commissions sound like, feel like? what actually happens? take us behind the scenes. >> guest: sure. well, there are two courtrooms now at guantanamo bay. one was created out of a former aircraft control tower. of the government spent a couple million dollars to set it up in the mid 2000s, and it's a small courtroom. there's very little space between the defendant and the attorneys and the witness stand and the spectators. of course, to be a spectator, you've got to get to guantanamo, so they're carefully screened, reporters and victims' family members. this is what you might consider the municipal court. it's where the less serious charges are heard. and that courtroom, you know, it looks like, it looks like you're going to traffic court. it's not a very elaborate or

impressive looking space. if you're a reporter covering it, you can either sit in that courtroom or watch it from a remote location via closed circuit feed feed. most reporters find it easier because they can take notes on laptops either at guantanamo or here at fort meade outside of baltimore. so that's the lower court. there's a high security courtroom that was built for really the 9/11 trial. and this one also rather austere looking, it's just a white room, it's much larger. it holds six rows for defendants, and that's actually significant because there are only five defendants, and we should talk about why that is. finish and there the spectators are separated from the courtroom by a soundproof glass wall, and that's significant because the government built that so it could cut the audio feed to the spectators if anything it decided was secret was said in court. there's a 40-second delay sitting in that section, and it's really kind of surreal because you're looking, you're looking at the future,

essentially. in other words, you're looking through the glass at what's happening 40 seconds in the future because what you are hearing took place 40 seconds ago, and it can give you a headache to kind of assemble -- it's like a badly-dubbed movie. and there have been several occasions so far that have gotten a lot of attention where suddenly the sound was cut, and if you're watching on closed circuit, the screen goes blank because a word that the military or government censor thought was inappropriate was uttered. in every case the judge has put those back on the record, and they've always been words like torture or similar types of thing that is the government censor thought were secret. >> host: jess brain is our -- bravin is our guest. robert on our republicans' line, good morning. >> caller: hello. i was wanting to ask mr. bravin about the man who in fort hood shot all those soldiers. we never hear anything about it, and i just wanted to know what happened to that, that trial.

>> guest: well, that's going on right now. that's a court-martial, and that's going on under the regular uniform code of military justice. he's a soldier, the defendant, and, therefore, he's entitled to all the normal protections of a court-martial in the u.s. bill of rights. there were some concern over whether the military judge had appropriately required him to shave his beard or not. the defendant was eventually ruled he could keep his beard. that's going to be just a slow regular type of court-martial proceeding. i assure you, it will be back in the news when there's something to report. >> host: eddie, mission, texas. independent caller, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, thank you for taking my call. i had heard that the detainees in began man toe -- guantanamo -- not all, but a significant number had been cleared for release but have not. i've heard some of them have been held there for years after being cleared. is that true?

>> guest: yes, that's true. there are about 140 or so detainees at guantanamo bay right now, about half of them were cleared for release either under the bush -- mainly under the bush administration, some under the obama administration, but there are a number of obstacles to actually releasing them. most of them are from yemen, and the united states determined that yemen is an unstable country, and it would be dangerous to let these people there, they might fall under bad influence, and yemen couldn't keep an eye on them. the u.s. did not feel comfortable releasing people it had held to an unstable country like yemen. others are from other countries. congress has imposed a lot of restrictions on what the administration can do to remove people from guantanamo, so that is a very strange situation where you've got people who the united states says it either captured in error and were held by mistake, or they've decided they're not a threat to the united states and there's no reason to hold them, perhaps they were just very minor people who were, you know, found carrying a rifle or something. these kind of people, they're stuck there in this limbo, and it's mainly because of

diplomatic and political decisions inside the united states, not because of anything they've done. >> host: jess bravin, in your story that you write in "the terror courts," in your book, you focus on one military prosecutor, lieutenant colonel stuart couch, and you share a lot of his perspective. who is he, and why is he significant? >> guest: well, you know, this stuff is -- when we talk about military commissions, most of the debate we've had, libby, has been really on an abstract or ideological level. let's do something that's tough on terrorists, or let's not do that because it would be un-american to treat people unfairly and what have you. and it's taken place on that sort of abstract level. what i try to do in this book is really go beyond that and say, well, how has this experiment worked? what is it, you know? how have these cases been put together, how have they functioned, what are the costs, what are the benefits, in a sense, of reality? here is what we've been doing up to now and what it portends going forward. stuart couch, a lieutenant

colonel in the u.s. marine corps, turned out to have, i thought, one of the most fascinating stories. he is a career marine officer, rotc from duke university, he became a pilot in the marine corps and later went to law school after the drawdown, and they cut back on the number of pilots they needed, so he needed a new specialty. became a lawyer in the marine corps. he is and was a military prosecutor involved in most of the most serious cases at guantanamo, and he's more than that because for him the mission was personal, too. one of his flying buddies, mike, from the marine corps who had left the marines and become a commercial pilot was a victim on 9/11. in fact, he was the co-pilot on united flight 175 which was hijacked and crashed into the south tower of the world trade center. the fbi said he probably had his throat slit before he was flown in there. so for stuart couch, when he volunteered, it was really a

question of patriot im, it was a personal matter as well, and it was also, be, you know, you're a military lawyer, lawyers are really not the -- they may be front and center here in washington, in the military they're not. they're like a back office operation for an organization that's job is, you know, capturing territory. so if you're a military lawyer, prosecuting terrorists after 9/11 is really your chance to contribute to the war on terror im. so stuart couch, all those motivations were behind him. and he is, like many military officers, you know, he's from north carolina. he is by nature conservative, small c conservative. not a political activist, but he votes republican, he's very religious. not unusual for someone who's a career military officer. and his experience involved in these cases, i thought, was illustrative of what the united states got itself into because he starts out there being given the hardest cases that they had at the time because he had a lot of experience as a prosecutor, and very quickly he discovers

that the system he signed up for is not the one e actually discovered at guantanamo bay. and this happened, actually, the first clue he found out was on his first trip to guantanamo after joining the office of military commissions where he goes down to watch some interrogations and see how they're going. and he sees one through a closed circuit monitor of interrogation room, it's very proper, detainee comes in the, they're polite, they have a cup of tee, it's very -- tea, and it's very nice. and while he's hearing this, he hears this deafening rock music. he goes to see what's going on, he thinks there's some enlisted soldiers having a party. he goes down there, and he finds the music is emanating from a cell where there's a detainee on the ground in some kind of torment as this music is deafening. he looks in there and two kind of, you know, pudgy civilian guys push him out of the door and say this none of your busin. and couch is like what's going on? he has a flashback, and the flashback is to his own

counterresistance training. like many pilots, he was trained about what to do if he's captured by north korea or some country that doesn't respect the geneva conventions. and he saw something that looked like the kind of technique he was taught to resist. that's the first clue. and as he goes on dealing with cases involving senior al-qaeda recruiters or people who were alleged to have trained the 9/11 hijackers, people like this -- almost every case he runs into there is some obstacle to getting justice, usually because of misconduct by the united states; torturing prisoners, that's something that comes up again and again, abusing prisoners, political interference into canceling some cases against people who supposedly may have been very guilty or in pushing to carry trials against people against whom there isn't evidence. time and again couch wants to bring a case and finds it's been ruined by misconduct on the united states' side. and it is an incredibly disheartening thing for him in some ways, but also something, i

think, which shows americans what their military is really made of. >> host: and he was willing to talk to you and share those stories with you? >> guest: he was. and, oddly enough, he was actually authorized to do so. one day when i was doing -- i've covered this for the newspaper as well for many years, and one day when i was working on a story about prosecution, i asked to speak to some prosecutors, and he was one selected to talk to me, and he followed his guidelines, and it turned out there was a lot there. >> host: our next caller talking with jess brain, reporter for "the wall street journal", also the author of the new book, "terror courts." rosanne's in san diego, democrat, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for the book, i definitely will read it. i'd like to start off by saying that this whole gitmo thing and the military commissions is just so disgusting that it's actually hard for me to talk about. i can't even believe that our country is still doing that 12 years after 9/11. and my initial question was going to be about the people that aren't being released even though they've been cleared for

release and why they're still being treated like prisoners, um, who committed a crime. but that's already been answered s so what i guess i would like to ask you is if you have any idea why congress has made such a, made it so difficult for anything to happen with these detainees at gitmo? especially the democrats having -- i'm a democrat, maybe used to be. they were so hard on bush during the campaign about gitmo and torture and military commissions, and you really thought that they were serious. but they obviously weren't serious at all. it was just a campaign issue for them to use. and so i'm wondering if you have any idea why congress has done what it's done when it's obviously so wrong, and if you know of anything that the bush or the obama administration might be doing behind the scenes -- >> host: okay, lots of questions for jess bravin. let's go to him and get a

response. >> guest: well, first, we can talk about what the obama administration's doing in front of the scenes, and that is not adding any more defendants to military commissions. just today the son-in-law of the late osama bin laden is to make a court appearance at federal court in new york. and there have been a dozen or so other foreign terrorist cases that at least in theory could have been brought in the military commission. every time the administration has, instead, decided to send them to federal court. and federal courts, in fact, have had a strong record of imposing harsh punishments on terrorism cases s. so in front of the scenes we can say that the obama administration has not added any cases, and all the people or who are either currently defendants or likely to be defendants, these are all people who were captured in 2004 or before, and it's for a thing they did, you know, ten years ago or longer. so they're not, that can't really be seen as a vote of confidence in the military commission since they're not adding to the case load at all. the question about why is it that they're still here after

obama said he was going to close guantanamo, it's a great question because of the many things that he and his opponent in 2008 disagreed about, one which they didn't was guantanamo bay. both john mccain and barack obama said in 2008 that, if elected, they were going to close guantanamo. so i think that obama was surprised when he got into office and thought he was carrying out a bipartisan, you know, plan. even president bush said he wanted to close guantanamo, that there was this pushback. and i think very early in the obama administration republicans seized on this as an area they thought they didn't trust him, obviously, they voted against him. he wasn't their candidate. they didn't trust him on terrorism, and they made a big deal about he shouldn't be trusted, we shouldn't let him do this because we don't agree with his judgment, and democrats slowly but then quickly joined on. and, you know, i can't read their minds, but it does seem that politically there hasn't been much benefit in making yourself vulnerable to a charge of being soft on terrorism.

there's no constituency that's voting for releasing people held at guantanamo bay. i mean, there are lawyers and so forth, but you don't see a big groundswell of interest in that topic. democrats, clearly, were more uncomfortable imposing those restrictions, but the administration gave them no reason to vote no. the administration put very little political capital into that goal, and as a result acquiesced. remember, in 2009 when the congress imposed many of these restrictions, the democrats controlled both houses of the congress. so the president's own party made that happen. the president decided that his effort was percent spent on health care and -- better spent on health care and other projects than closing guantanamo bay. >> host: how different will the trial of osama bin laden's son-in-law -- which as you mentioned will take place in new york -- how different will that be than what could have happened in a military commission at guantanamo bay? >> guest: you know, that's one of the great mysteries because the rules on paper have changed

somewhat for military commissions from being, basically, no rules to now a whole set of rules. but throughout there have been seven cases that so far have gotten convictions through military commissions. and the results of those cases have been either similar or in many cases much more lenient than similar cases in civilian court. so the outcomes of military commissions regardless of what we think of the rules on paper, the outcomes have been very lenient, ones that defendants could have very little to complain about. in fact, some people would probably not be free today had they not been convicted or made a plea bargain for military commissions. so that's the outcome. in terms of the preceders, we also don't know because, for instance, you're brought into a federal court anywhere in the united states. one thing you know applies is the bill of rights. you know rights against self-incrimination and to a competent attorney and so forth, right in and there is two centuries of case law from the united states supreme court interpreting what those protections mean.

right now in military commissions it is unknown whether any part of the bill of rights applies. in fact, the defense made a motion saying, judge, military judge, please issue a ruling saying the bill of rights presumptively applies, and if the government says it shouldn't, they should have to explain why it shouldn't apply here. the government said, no, judge, don't even rule on that. it's premature, there's no need to get to that question now, and the military judge agreed. so we don't even know what body of law applies in military commissions, whether it's the united states constitution, whether it's -- what elements of international law apply. it's really unknown. and that's one of the reasons proceedings go so slowly, libby, because every question there's a rule book, and we have nowhere to look for the answer. whether people agree with the answer or not, it's kind of set up. these commissions have to litigate and research and fight out a lot of threshold questions that have been answered, for good or for worse, in our regular court system.

>> host: twitter comments, jodi says this is a total embarrassment to the united states that has laws you have to right to a speedy trial. and another comment from monty, what right do we have to hold people in captivity for years without charging them for a crime? >> guest: well, those are great questions. yes, there is a right to a speedy trial under the constitution, but what's speedy is relative. and the federal courts have really felt so far that people captured in military operations, the speedy trial clock doesn't really apply in the same way. and that's, you know, and similarly in terms of holding people who are captured in foreign countries without trial, well, during world war ii we held, you know, more than a million enemy prisoners during world war ii, they were released at the end of the conflict. there's no one -- there's not a lot of debate in wartime countries can hold captured enemy fighters to stop them from fighting. the tricky part here is that it's sort of a war, and it's sort of not a war. i mean, there's not a country that the united states is fighting, there's not -- it's unclear who the united states

would sign a truce with. so there are elements that are like a war, but there are elements that are not like a war, and so these normal guide posts that the country had in the past don't really apply. >> host: jess bravin is our guest, "wall street journal" reporter, talking about his book, "terror courts." rob in kansas city, missouri, democrat. go ahead, rob. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask based upon two facts, one is -- [inaudible] secondly is that we use torture in guantanamo bay, very clearly waterboarding is torture. so based upon those two facts, is there a chance that anybody in the bush administration will ever be tried for war crimes? >> guest: well, the question of torture is really important in military commissions because abuse or coercion of defendants is involved in pretty much every case, at least allegations of it by the defense side. and what to do about that has been something that has

bedeviled prosecutors from the beginning, because even when president bush said -- or at least his administration advised that the convention against torture and the requirements of international and federal torture laws might not be strictly applied at military commissions, people like colonel couch and ncis investigators, other people, they always assumed that you cannot use evidence taken from torture. they just, you know, the international torture convention that the united states ratified, that president ray began signed makes very clear that evidence obtained from torture cannot be introduced in any proceeding at all -- >> and we're leaving the last couple of minutes of this discussion to go live to the senate. you can watch "washington journal" online anytime at c-span.org. the u.s. senate about to gavel in to start the week. general speeches are the order of the day, and later this week we expect work on judicial and other executive nominations as well as some possible work on gun legislation. you're watching the live coverage from the senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of love and grace, our love is pale and fitful compared to your infinite goodness. inspire our lawmakers with your guiding power so that they will stand firm in the faith you have given them.

lord, keep before them your vision for our world, inspiring them to bring keep up their courage in spite of daunting odds. use them as healers and helpers, and heralds of your hope. assure them of your love, as you give them eyes to see your saving truth. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 8, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tammy baldwin, a senator from the state of wisconsin, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, -- the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the previous order with respect to the executive calendar 14 the nomination of patty a schwarz to be united states district judge for the third circuit, at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, april 9 with all other provisions remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: there will be no votes today. the first vote will be tomorrow

at noon on confirmation of the schwarz nomination. executive session to consider calendar number 5050, the nomination be con virmd, confirmed, the motion to reconsider, no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the record, that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i welcome back the presiding officer, all the staff. i hope the two-week easter break was one that was refreshing to everyone. this month the senate will deal with a number of important matters including judicial nominations and cabinet nominations. and a water resources measure. the senate will also consider a package of legislation designed to safeguard americans from gun violence. in the wake. last year's terrible tragedy in

newtown,ton connecticut, this mass shooting that we'll never forget claimed the lives of 20 little tiny boys and girls, and six educators. i said shortly thereafter that i would bring antiviolence measures to the senate floor and we're going to do that. it's time congress engaged in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate on how to change the law and culture that have allowed this violence to grow so much. i've said every idea should be debated and every issue should get a vote. from better mental health treatment, more secure schools, stronger background checks, ban on assault weapons, the size of magazines or clips and other issues should get a vote. there are strong feelings and deep disagreements about some of these measures but every one of these measures deserves a vote, a yes or no. no hide, no running from an issue that has captivated

america. there's no better place than the senate to begin a national conversation about such critical issues, even if they're divisive issues. we shouldn't stifle debate, run from tough shoes or avoid difficult choices. this body, the world's greatest deliberative body, has a proud tradition of robust and constructive debate. so i'm deeply troubled that a number of my republican colleagues went so far as to send me a letter saying we will agree to nothing, there will be no debate, there will be nothing. we want you to do zero on anything dealing with stricter gun measures. they don't even want to let us vote on this. this flies in the face of senate tradition of spirit of discussion that began in the first days of this institution. there is simply no reason for this blatant obstruction except

the fear of considering antiviolence proposals in full view. yet mean senate republicans seem afraid to even engage in this debate. have amendments, to strengthen the legislation or if they want to offer amendments to weaken what the law is today. in short, let's have a debate on violence in america. i repeat, many senate republicans seem afraid to even engage in this debate. shame on them, madam president. the least republicans owe the parents of these 20 little babies who are murdered at sandy hook is a thoughtful debate about who whether stronger laws could have saved their little girls and boys. the least republicans owe them is a vote, the least republicans owe the families friends of those gunned down at a movie theater in colorado, a chic temple in wisconsin, a

shopping mall in oregon, and every day streets of american cities is a meaningful conversation about how to change the culture of violence. the least republicans owe americans is a vote. the legislation on the floor would keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and safeguard the most vulnerable americans, our children. this proposal supported by nine out of ten years -- background checks, 90% of americans believe we should do something and i get a letter from a group of republicans saying don't touch it, we don't want anything to do with it. that flies in the face of what 90% of americans want. if republicans disagree with the measure, let them goat against it. i had juan of my democratic colleagues say some of the things i want to vote against. good. they're free to vote against it. if they like the laws that now

exist in america, offer an amendment to make it weaker or stronger, whatever -- however they look at it. they shouldn't shut down debate or prevent us from voting on thoughtful proposals to curb violence. on issue after issue republicans have called for return to so-called regular order. they come out here on the senate floor, let's return to regular order. they ask for taunt to offer amendments. -- an opportunity to offer amendments. they call for free and open debate in the senate and those yelling the most for this free and open debate are the people who sent me a letter saying we're going to filibuster everything that relates to guns. talk about speaking out of both sides of their mows mouth. this -- their mouth. this is the poster child of that. now when they encounter an issue that they're afraid to debate, in full public view, they want to thwart debate altogether. they've threatened to filibuster

this legislation which passed out of committee under regular order. that's what they said they wanted. they've threatened to block debate on this measure to which they're able to offer amendments. i am many happy to see a few reasonable republicans stated -- stated publicly that they're willing to engage in important conversation on this issue. they've urged their more extreme colleagues not to resort to the same tired tactics of destruction. but it will take more than one or two or three reasonable republicans to assure the families of 30,000 americans killed by guns each year get the respectful debate that they deserve. unfortunately the time of republican obstruction that could prevent the senate from debating and voting on antiviolence legislation is nothing new. for the last few years, republicans have practically ground the work of the senate to a halt. they've flibilityd countless job

creation measures. and since president obama took office republicans have systemically slow walked or blocked scores and scores of the judicial executive branch nominations including even the knee nominee for the first time in the country, nominee for the secretary of defense who, by the way, is a republican former senator. pending nominees have waited an average of almost a year for a senate vote. almost a year. about 280 days. republicans have openly filibustered 57 of president obama's nominees, but, madam president, they have secretly stopped scores and scores of nominations by secret holds and procedural hurdles. they've jammed executive branch nominees even when they have no objection to the nominee's qualifications. just to eat up valuable flower floor time here -- floor time here. i'm concerned about this dysfunction but i'm not the only

one. virtually every american thinks this is foolish the way things are going. the nation is watching the senate to see whether it will ever function efficiently again and they're watching. i hope my colleagues will work with democrats going forward to prove the senate is not completely broken. madam president, i now move to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 649. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 649 a bill to ensure all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a check for every firearm sale and for other purposes. mr. reid: would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. reid: are we now in a period of morning business? the presiding officer: we are on the motion to proceed to s. 649. mr. reid: thank you very much, madam president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa, without objection. madam president, it is said that information is the most valuable commodity. in politics, you probably know that information is power. the bigger government gets, the more valuable government information becomes to finance the markets. this is especially true of information from agencies, such as the center for medicare and medicaid services, and it's that agency that my remarks are about. c.m.s. controls $748 billion in government spending per year, and of course that's billions with a "b." today there are questions surrounding c.m.s.'s ability to safeguard nonpublic information. this isn't about secrecy in

government; it's about government keeping secrecy not to have an impact on the stock market. and i'll be referring to such an impact on the stock market. it happens that this is not the first time that i have raised similar questions with the center for medicare services. in 2011 i received information from a whistle-blower that c.m.s. employees were spending large amounts of time in meetings with wall street executives. i wrote to c.m.s. with these concerns much the response i received was very troubling. c.m.s. could not tell us how many meetings were take being place with these wall street executives. c.m.s. could not tell us who from wall street was in these meetings. c.m.s. could not tell us how

much time they spent with c.m.s. executives. in fact, the only thing c.m.s. could tell us was that it did not track any of this information. private businesses have stiff controls over access to nonpublic information. the same sort of stiff controls the federal government ought to imply for things that would impact the market and give somebody an extraordinary opportunity that the average citizen doesn't have. the only specific steps that c.m.s. took was issuing a two-page memo to its employees. this goes back to that period of time i was asking the questions in 2011. the memo limited the release of market-moving information before the close of stock markets. now, that's the right thing to

do. now, that memo presumably was not followed by somebody. who, we don't know. because on april 1 that requirement appears to have been violated. according to th "the wall street journal," at 3:42 p.m., ha heigt securities issued an advisory note to its employees. this note said -- and so it is right here on the chart. this not said, "we now believe that a deal has been hatched to protect medicare advantage rates from the -2.3% rate update issued in the advanced notice" going back to mid-february. this note goes on to suggest that clients purchase related stocks such as humana.

between 3:42 p.m. and the market close -- and that was just 18 minutes later -- volumes for effective companies spiked -- spiked. look here -- spiked in the last 18 minutes to more than a half a billion dollars. in fact, the combined volume of shares traded for those companies, for those 18 minutes, was higher than the rest of the entire trading day. not only did a large number of shares change hands, but also buyers who get the information first likely made a heck of a lot of money. for example, humana stock rose 8.6% in a matter of minutes, and of course this looks like political intelligence at work. political intelligence, meaning

the industry of political intelligence at work. a political intelligence broker gets ahold of nonpublic government information before it is widely released and a select few paying clients end up reaping the rewards. we just had a study out by the government accountability office. i think this is within the last couple weeks. and this was studying the political intelligence communi community, and it happens that the government accountability office reports that the world of political intelligence is murky. in other words, they're using government, they're profiting from it, and nobody knows who they are. the public and congress have little insight into how government information is

collected. collecting is one thing. but it's sold. people that collect it make money, and in the instances you see here, when that gets out, a lot of people a make money. so who pays for that information? now, we all know that since 1946 lobbyists have had to register, and more recent legislation they have to disclose their clients, what they lobby on, and how much they get paid. even campaign donors have to report what they give to various campaigns. now, political intelligence brokers are exempt from any transparency, and yet you see that they're around gathering information that shouldn't be out to the public until after the market closes and benefiting from it, and a lot of other people benefit from it.

now, because there's no transparency about the political intelligence community, we have to find out what happened that caused this to happen. did the center for medicare service employees leak this information? was it leaked from another government source? either way, we need answers to these questions. now tomorrow is acting administrator trabener's hearing before the u.s. senate finance committee. this lady -- this acting director is a very qualified person. so i think she'll be able to answer your questions. at least i -- answer our questions. at least i hope so. so i want her to know and the senate to know that i plan on asking her several questions. how did this information get

from the center for medicare services to a political intelligence broker? and what steps c.m.s. will take to ensure that thi this does not happen again. now, that's got to be beyond the member knomemo i sent out in 20i said i want to know what happened. they did put out a memo that this information cannot be made public that's going to impact the stock market. so i hope she recognizes the importance of these questions. i hope she comes prepared to take responsibility. i hope she comes prepared to explain how she plans to hold someone accountable. because in this town, if heads don't roll, nothing changes. she has been a good acting

administrator of this agency, and she wants the senate to confirm her to the job. this is her opportunity to show us that she is worthy of of th t confirmation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. mr. franken: mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the senator is advise that we are current any a quorum call. mr. franken: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. i rise today to discuss the confirmation of mary jo white. ms. white has had an impressive career from prosecuting terrorists and white-collar criminals as u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york to heading a large

litigation department in private practice. there is little doubt that ms. white has the wall street expertise necessary to navigate the complex issues before the s.e.c. but i come to the floor today to discuss a critical problem that i've asked ms. white to prioritize as chair of the s.e.c. currently when a bank issues a structured finance product, it needs to get the product rated by the credit rating agencies and the banks pays them for the ratings. the banks have an interest in getting high ratings, of course, and the credit rating agencies have an interest in getting repeat customers, of course. this creates a fundamental conflict of interest. this conflict is a problem that played a key role in the financial meltdown. it is a problem that we sought

to address in dodd-frank, the financial reform legislation we passed in 2010. and yet it is a problem that remains awaiting action by the s.e.c., more than five years after the financial crisis hit and nearly three years since dodd-frank was signed into law. resolving the problem of the conflict of interest in the rating industry will be a vital test of the s.e.c. under ms. white's chairmanship. in a meeting that we had together last month, my office, ms. white expressed her appreciation of the importance of this issue and her commitment to scrutinize the conflicts of interest inherent in the credit rating industry. i look forward to working with her to find a meaningful solution to alleviate the ongoing threat to our financial

system posed by these conflicts of transform the nex interest. the next step is a round table that the s.e.c. will hold on this issue in may. that round table must be a balanced assessment of the issue and must lead to meaningful action by the s.e.c. this is not to be sure the only issue in financial reform facing the s.e.c., but let me talk a little bit about why i care so passionately about reforming the credit rating process, why this is so important. in the years leading up to the 2008 financia financial collapse credit rating agencies were enjoying massive profits and booming profits. there's nothing wrong with massive profits and booming business in and of themselves, of course. but there was one fundamental problem. that many booing business was

coming at the -- that booming business was coming at the expense of accurate credit ratings, which is supposed to be the entire reason for the existence of the credit rating agencies. but the fact that the credit rating agencies weren't providing accurate ratings should come as no surprise, given the industry's compensation model. credit rating agencies were and still are paid to issue ratings -- paid directly by the big wall street banks issuing the paper and requesting the ratings. if a rating agency, let's say momoody's, doesn't provide the a ratings that the bank wants, the bank can take its business over to fitch or s&p. that's called ratings shopping and continues to this day. the opportunity for ratings

shopping creates an incentive for the credit raters to give out those aaa rate, even when they are not warranted. and that's exactly what happened. that's exactly what happened with the subprime mortgage-backed securities that played such a crucial role in the financial crisis, and it happened over and over and over and over again. it became ingrained in the culture of the industry. the permanent publi subcommitten investigations chaired by senator levin took a close look at the big three credit ratings agencies examining millions of pages of documents and released an extensive report detailing communications at moody's, s&p's and fitch. there was one e-mail from an s&p official that sums up the

prevailing attitude quite nicely. quote -- "let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters." with all the risky bets in the financial sector, and bets on those bets, our financial sector had indeed become a house of cards. but without the conduct of the credit raters, the house of cards would have been one card tall because it gave aaa ratings to these bets on bets on bets, these derivatives. two years after that e-mail was written, that house of cards didn't just falter, it cou col collapsed. and because that house of cards had grown so tall, thanks to the credit ratings agencies, when it collapsed it brought the entire american economy down with it. the financial meltdown costs

americans $3.4 trillion. let me say that again, $3.4 trillion in retirement savings. it triggered the worst crisis since the great depression, with its massive business failure and mass foreclosures and job losses and the explosion of our national debt. the crises -- the crisis profoundly affected the everyday lives of millions of people across the country in a negative way, including in minnesota in so many ways. people lost their homes, people lost jobs, they lost their health insurance. you know it, mr. president. you saw it in new mexico.

i saw it in minnesota. every senator here staw in their states. i called on senators to participate in a field hearing to learn about their experiences during the financial coul laxes i would like to share some highlighthighlights presented be berg from edenbury, minnesota. "my situation mirrors that of thousands of minnesotans in my age group. i am 57 years owed and looking for a job. after having spent most of my career in the i.t. field, i have been out of work for about 14 months. throughout my working creeks i saved for retirement, i participated in pension 401(k) plans that my former employers matched, i thought i would have a secure retirement because i

was doing the right thing. much of my overall retirement security is now gone. at the age of 57 i need to again start build beining up a nest eo i.g. hopefully retire moo nigh -----retire in my 70's. while we keep our outlook positive, most of us are faced with the prospect of starting over. when we resign to the fact that we could be working in our 70's. the down turn of the economy caused in part by the abuses on wall street led to the loss of my retirement security. reforming the way wall street operates is important to me personally because i have a lot of saving yet to do. i simply cannot afford another wall street meltout. i need to have confidence in the markets and i need to know that

there is accountability to those who caused this financial crisis. as dave points out, he is not alone. everyone in this body has heard stories like this. it is hard to overestimate the extent to which the credit ratings agencies contributed to the financial crisis in which thousands of minnesotans have lost their homes, thousands lost their jobs and far too many minnesotans had their hopes for the future dashed. they aren't seeking retribution from wall street. they just need to know that it won't happen again. they know there is a problem and that the problem needs to be fixed. we do not need further proof of that, but we get it in the recent complaint filed by the department of justice against s&p in which d.o.j. alleges that the credit ratings agency --

quote -- "falsely represented that its credit ratings -- that its ratings were objected independent, and uninfluenced by s&p's relationships with investment banks when in actuality s&p's desire for increased revenue and market share thread to favor the interests of these banks over investors." unquote. the complaint highlights the patently problematic way the credit rating agencies habitually did their business. one e-mail obtained in the investigation reads, "we are meeting with your group this week to discuss adjusting criteria for rating c.d. o.'s of real estate assets because of the ongoing threat of losing deals." c.d.o.'s is clot rail debt obligations are one of these

derivatives or bets that added those stories to the house of cards. this official had apparently become so comfort, so comfortable with the culture of conflicts of interest, that he appeared to have no reservations about putting it in writing. i am glad that the department of justice is pursuing a case against s&p, but d.o.j.'s action is not enough. it is backward-looking and address past harms. but my concern is that the conduct continues to this day. the credit raters are still influenced by the relationships with the banks because that's who pays them. it's a clear conflict of interest, and we need to prioritize action that will prevent another meltdown in the future. this is exactly what congress and i did as part of the

financial reform legislation in 2010, and it's part of the dodd-frank wall street reform act. i proposed a solution with my friend and colleague, senator roger wicker of mississippi. if our provision is implemented in full, it would root out the conflicts of interest from the issuerer-pays model. the amendment that senator wicker and i offered to the financial reform bill directed the securities and exchange commission to create an independent self-regulatory organization that would select which agency, one with the adequate capacity and expertise, which agency would provide the initial credit rating of each product. the assignments would be based not only on capacity and expertise, but also after time on their track record. our approach would incentivize and reward excellence.

the current pay for play model with its inherent conflict of interest would be replaced by a pay for performance model. this improved product, this improved market would finally allow smaller rating agencies to break the big three's oligarchy. -- oligopoly. it is clear, the s.e.c. estimated that as of december 31, 2011, approximately 91% of the credit ratings for structured finance products were issued by the three largest nr-sro's: fitch, moody's and s&p's, each of which was implicated in the p.s.i. investigation. the other five agencies doing structured finance make up the remaining 9%. the current oligopoly doesn't incentivize accuracy. however, if we move to a system

based upon merit, the smaller credit rating agencies would be better able to participate and could serve as a check against inflated ratings, helping to prevent another meltdown. in our proposed model, the independent board would be comprised mainly of investor types, managers of endowments and pension funds who have the greatest stake in the reliability of credit ratings, and also representatives from credit rating -- from the credit rating agencies and banking industries and academics who have studied this issue. our amendment passed the senate with a large majority, including 11 republican votes because this is not a progressive idea. it is not a conservative idea. it is a commonsense idea. the final version of dodd-frank modified the amendment, and to be frank, put more decision-making authority in the hands of the s.e.c. in how to

respond to the problem of conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry. the final investigation directed the s.e.c. -- the final version directed the s.e.c., the study of the proposal senator wicker and i made along with other alternatives, and then decide how to act. the s.e.c. released its study in december. the study acknowledged the continued conflicts of interest in the credit rating industry and reviewed our proposal and many of the alternatives, laying out the pros and cons of each without reaching a definitive conclusion on which route to pursue. the next step is a round table the s.e.c. is holding on may 14. i will be participating in the event, and i hope that under ms. white's leadership, the s.e.c. will make the round table a meaningful and balanced discussion of the different possibilities for reform. i have said all along that i believe that senator wicker and my proposal is a good one and

the right one. the more i have thought about it and looked at it over these few years. but if someone makes a compelling case for an alternative, an alternative that truly a alleviates this danger of this inherent conflict of interest, i will gladly lend it my support. following the round table, the s.e.c. must take prompt and decisive action to implement a meaningful plan for reform. don't get me wrong, the need for reform is obvious and necessary, and i will pursue this issue until the american economy is no longer subject to these unnecessary risks. too many minnesotans, too many americans were devastated by a financial crisis to which the credit rating agencies contributed mightily. the conflicts of interest in the credit rating agencies must be addressed so they don't contribute to yet another

crisis. ultimately it is up to the s.e.c. to act, and the action they take on this issue will be an important measure of ms. white's tenure as chair of the commission. ms. white has assured me that she will give this critical issue the attention that it deserves. i congratulate ms. white on her confirmation, and i do intend to hold her to that commitment and look forward to working with her and the rest of the commission on this very important issue. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent that the quor be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i rise today to deliver my maiden

speech as united states senator from nebraska. i'm humbled by the trust placed in me by nebraskans and inspired by their confidence to confront the great challenges before us. our nation's story began when bands of patriots fought a revolution to secure independence from an out-of-touch king residing an ocean away. the framers believed a representative government closer to the people would be more responsive and better able to provide opportunity for individuals. from the start, leaders of goodwill and strong views disagreed over economic theori theories, the size of government and foreign policy. importantly, though, these divergent beliefs have been a source of national strength, not weakness. and through vigorous debate about the proper size and role of government, we have built a

powerful nation. but as recent partisan disagreements prove, democracy is messy and the best way forward is not always clear. while i do not aim to resolve this contest of ideas with a single speech, i do wish to outline a course i intend to chart during my time in the united states senate. to understand my views, mr. president, you must first understand nebraska. nebraska's motto is "the good life" a fitting maximum imfor a state state with the second lowest unemployment rate in the country. make no mistake, nebraska's economic success and sound fiscal footing are no accident. like 45 other states, nebraska is legally required to balance its budget. but unique to nebraska is a

constitutional prohibition against incurring state debt greater than $100,000. that's a radical concept for lawmakers here in washington. you can imagine nebraskans' dismay when they take stock of our nation's $16 trillion debt, an annual trillion dollars deficits. needless to say, nebraskans know better. nebraska is known for its pioneer history and sturdy spirit. its prime grazing grasses and plentiful crop production,ist abundant natural resources, growing metropolitan areas, and vibrant small towns. but the state's greatest treasure is its people. nebraskans are hard working. we get up early to work farms and ranches, and return home late after attending local

school board meetings. i make this claim, mr. president, as a family rancher and a former school board member myself. nebraskans run thriving small businesses on rockwellian main streets and they sweat on factory floors. we leave multinational corporations and we are builders. we build homes, we build roads and infrastructure. nebraskans value community. we join the p.t.a., we coach little league teams after long workdays, and we volunteer for our churches and our nothings. we -- synagogues. we work hard, mr. president, but we are people with perspective. nebraskans are tough. we're tested by droughts, by fires, and floods, and a changing global economy. you know, we've even endured

nine-win football seasons. we are strong-willed people. you have to be to survive a winter on the great plains, and we adapt, we innovate, and we grow. nebraska's home to the only unicameral state legislature. as a former state ?of i was privileged to serve for eight years. notably, state senators in nebraska are nonpartisan. no matter party or ideological affiliation, any senator can serve in leadership. the only requirements are knowledge and ability. serving in the nebraska legislature taught me the importance of building relationship and seizing opportunities so that we can work across party lines. that's a critical skill in order to avoid gridlock. like many nebraskans, i am

deeply concerned about the future of our nation. that's why i entered public service. no single issue is more important to our future than the federal government's addiction to spending. there are two main problems with government spending. first, runaway spending has failed to generate economic growth. since 2009, the federal government has spent roughly $15 trillion. this spending spree includes $830 billion in stimulus spending. that was sold as help for the private-sector. instead, this so-called investment focused on growing the government. the result of this increased government spending has been a

largely jobless economic recovery. record number of americans stuck in poverty and a spiraling national debt. rather than empowering individuals to improve their lives, these bad economic policies have held americans back. to change course toward renewed prosperity, i support a limited government focused on fulfilling its core duties and responsibilities, a limited federal government performs its first constitutional charge, providing for the common defense. to protect the nation, we must maintain a highly trained, well-equipped fighting force. equally important, a limited government keeps its promises to veterans who have risked life and limb in defense of freedom.

a limited federal government has a responsibility to fund critical needs, such as the 21st century infrastructure. to the surprise of many here in washington, this can be done without raising taxes. existing sources of revenue are sufficient for government to meet its fundamental responsibilities. as a member of the nebraska legislature, i introduced legislation directing a portion of nebraska's existing sales tax to fund new road construction. i worked with my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, to utilize only existing revenues. with the right mix of hard work and goodwill, the legislature passed this bill, and the state will now be able to fulfill that fundamental core duty, that fundamental responsibility of government, and improve

nebraska's communities without raising taxes. we can make similar progress here in washington. again, it's a matter of setting priorities. the second problem with government spending is that it robs hard-working taxpayers of their personal income just to grow bigger government. big government crowds out the private sector and it stifles innovation. this means more solyndra style investment rather than policies that promote and enable real innovators, the kind of risk takers who launch a world-changing business in their garage. big government requires big funding, but rather than forcing americans to forfeit more of their hard woirnd -- hard-earned tax dollars to uncle sam, i support policies that lower taxes, that bolster the private sector. only then will the united states finally emerge from this long

economic recession. nebraskans understand that the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. and the smaller the individual, the less attention is paid to freedom and personal responsibility. limited government, on the other hand, remains grounded, closer to home, and government that is closer to home is better suited for meeting individual needs, creating more opportunity, more efficiency, and more growth. the expansion of government and the subsequent erosion of freedoms are not always obvious at first. freedom can be chipped away at slowly but steadily through new legal requirements, such as employer mandates in the health care law or misguided attempts

to regulate farm dust or the size of our farms. eventually individuals are constrained by lack of choice, society drifts without progress or creativity and the economy stagnates. as president reagan cautioned, the nature of freedom is that it's fragile. it must be protected, watched over, sometimes fought over. reagan was right. freedoms must be carefully guarded. we must remain vigilant against any attempt, large or small, to diminish it. yet despite this fragility, our god-given freedom is vast, limited only by the boundaries that we impose on it. nebraskans understand vastness. we know what it's like to look up at the night sky and see stars that are undiminished by

city lights. we appreciate the land, which appears to roll without end, and yet it remains in need of care. vastness gives us perspective, mr. president. and some perspective would go a along way here in washington. beyond the beltway's chattering class, there exists a nation of quiet heroes. parents, grateful for the dignity of hard work, entrepreneurs willing to take great risks to build businesses, farmers and ranchers dutifully tending the land and livestock, soldiers proudly wearing our nation's uniform, veterans bearing scars both physical and invisible, reminding us of freedom's price.

and children, whose simple joy dispels our cynicism which can come with everyday struggles. while our nation faces many challenges here at home and around the world, only petty politics holds us back from overcoming them. we are a great and generous nation, mr. president, we have faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles before and each generation has conquered them with that uniquely american combination of grit and grace. i believe and nebraskans believe that our nation's future is bright. the united states remains the hope of the world, but this moment, this uncertain moment requires real courage from our leaders. that's not to say that the debate is over the role of

government or taxes and spending will be resolved by this congress, but we can do better. that's what we were all sent here to do. americans are not mediocre. they are exceptional, and they deserve leaders that act like it. today, the whole world mourns the loss of such a leader, an uncommon woman born into common circumstances, the daughter of a grocer, former british prime minister margaret thatcher. she was a woman who stood tall for principle, yet she had the wisdom to seize opportunities and work with allies and foes alike to achieve great things for the british people. along with her partner and friend, ronald reagan, she helped to lead the world away from the long shadow of the iron

curtain to a freer, more prosperous time. i admire her political courage to make those difficult decisions and i hope to do the same here in washington. mr. president, i look forward to standing tall for nebraska values and working with my colleagues, republicans and democrats, on commonsense solutions to these ongoing challenges, and i'm proud to remember rep the citizens of nebraska here in the united states senate. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: nebraskans have every reason to be proud of senator fischer and her extraordinary, impressive start here in senate service. deb has proved herself to be a thoughtful leader in our state, a reasoned voice where members

in our legislature listen to her and followed her leadership. she's been firm in her principles. while also demonstrating a serious commitment to reaching across the aisle to solve problems. from successful legislation encouraging real broadband to visiting our troops in afghanistan, senator fischer has had a very active first few months. her experience as a state senator undoubtedly helped her to hit the ground running here in washington and also grounded her in the principles that are so important to the people that her and i represent. i'm proud to say i'm very anxious to team up even more with senator fischer in the weeks and months ahead. in view of the fact that i've announced that i won't be

seeking reelection, she will soon be the senior senator from the state of nebraska and i have no doubt whatsoever that she will do a great job. i'm proud to be her colleague. and i congratulate her on her maiden speech. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i would like to join my colleague from nebraska in welcoming our new colleague to the united states senate. she's going to be an incredible, welcome addition to this body. i've had the privilege of traveling with her on that trip to afghanistan that senator johanns just mentioned and it was an opportunity for us to visit with service members from our own home state. she the opportunity to meet service members from nebraska, many of whom had voted for her but had not yet had the opportunity to meet her personally, as they were serving

overseas at the time of the election. and they joined in other nebraskans in knowing that they have made the right choice to represent them. we've heard a wonderful message today, mr. president, a message of limited government and a message of freedom. so i want to join my colleagues in -- in welcoming this rancher, community volunteer and former state legislator to the united states senate, where i know she will make, through her grace and her grit, incredible contributions not just for her state but also for our nation in the betterment of all the people of this great country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i also wanted to welcome the senator from nebraska. i'm honored to be her mentor. and i think there's three things i'd like to say. now one, we need a woman rancher in the senate. i was sitting here thinking about the last famous woman who

was a rancher i think it was sandra day o'connor, who grew up on a ranch, right? secondly, the interest that she has in agriculture and pragmatic, practical economic issues shared by a lot of us in the midwest. and i'm looking forward to working with her on those issues. and, third, i think you could tell when she talked about bipartisanship that she means it, that she comes from a background where she actually worked to get things done in the legislature and i think we need a little bit more of that in the united states senate. so welcome, senator fischer. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: well, let me add my voice. it's wonderful to have senator fischer on my committee, where we're doing good work. we like to say in that committee, the public works side is the very collegial side. the environment side is a bit less. so but i'm proud to have her on

there working with us on this new water resources development act. and -- and i do look forward t to -- to working closely with her. and i want co congratulate her n her maiden speech. i know that's a big -- it's like getting the first scratch on your car. and you've got to just do it, and you did it very well. might i say, mr. president, i've been coming to the floor on monday evenings -- i don't know how many people have actually taken note of the fact -- but i've come every monday the last several mondays to speak about an issue that no one here seems to want to talk about much. i shouldn't say "no one." maybe about 25 of us do. but that issue is climate chan change. and i think it's very important that we have in the record -- we place in the record everything we know about climate change so that future generations will see at least a few of us got the

issue and were willing to step forward and do something about it. before i turn to that tonight, i wanted to say that i personally am very grateful to the -- the people of connecticut for responding to the sandy hook tragedy with such focus and intelligence and compassion and common sense. and i include in that thank you the democrats and republicans who came together to pass some of the most sensible gun rights -- i would say sensible gun laws which balance gun rights with the need for people to be safe. safe in a movie theater. safe in schools. safe in their homes.

and i think the american people totally get it when 90% of them support background checks. you know, i'm so proud of my colleague, senator feinstein. she and i have been working on this issue for a long time because a very long time ago, in the early 1990's, there was a crazed gunman who walked into a law office and who had a -- an automatic weapon and he -- he killed about eight people. one of them was my son's very dear almost best friend who was killed while protecting his wife from the shooter. and i know from that experience and watching my son's loss at a relatively young age -- was starting out right out of law school -- what that did to my son, let alone what it did to

the families of those who were gunned down by this man who just walked into 101 california, sprayed those bullets as fast as he could. now, after, that the state of california passed an assault weapons ban which has been in place ever since. and senator feinstein brought the issue of the assault weapons ban to the floor of the united states senate, and i'll never forget standing here watching that vote because it was such a close vote. and we did, in fact, ban those weapons of war. and then when george bush was president, the ban expired, it never was put back in. so where do we stand today? i would say just to be rhetorical with you, there's 31,000 reasons to pass sensible gun legislation. 3 1,000 -- that's how many people die a year, mr. presiden at the hands of a gun.

i -- i watch very carefully the judiciary committee take up this issue as they looked at various provisions, and i want to thank them for -- for passing my provision that i worked on with senator collins, a bipartisan bill to make sure that we have some grants to school districts that want to make some capital improvements to their plants and who would like to, for example, build a perimeter fence or put in some cameras or hot-lines. and that particular provision got strong bipartisan support. i'm actually working with senator graham now to expand it even a little more. but that isn't enough. i think securing our schools

is -- is very, very important, but you have to do it not in a one-size-fits-all way. but wouldn't it be helpful to this great country if we were able to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals? wouldn't it be wonderful for our great nation if we could keep guns out of the hands of the severely mentally ill? and wouldn't it be really important that we expand background checks so that people don't go around the current system and slip through and then you're facing the families who will never, ever, ever be the same because of what they've gone through? i want to thank our president. you know, people have said, well, he has to do so many things; it's too many things. you know what? a president has to do a lot of things.

every day when he wakes up, there's something else that needs his attention, but he never, ever forgot his promise made to those sandy hook paren parents. and my understanding is they are coming to capitol hill and they are going to various senate offices and they are looking into the eyes of senators, if they can get a meeting with them, and saying, "please, we know you may not like every aspect of this bill, but don't filibuster the bill; allow us to take it up and then vote your conscience. you owe it" -- i'm sure they're going to say -- "to our children who got gunned down." anyone who knows a six-year-old, a five-year-old, a seven-year-old child knows the beauty and joy of that age. everything in front of them. huh, the fact that anyone could hurt a child is beyond our capacity to imagine.

but to take a gun into a school and slaughter these babies? it's beyond bleevment we hav be. and we have to upon. and the way to respond isn't to say we're not going to take up this legislation because we love the national rifle association. and the rifle -- the national rifle association has a right to its opinion, and i will, you know, say that over and over again. they have a right to their opinion. so does the aclu. and so do each one of us. we all have the right to our opinion. but at some point we need to come together on commonsense legislation. when 90% of the people back background checks to keep those weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. my god, what is taking so long to vote on that? to do that for 90% of the people? i was listening to one

commentator today who said 90% of the people wouldn't even agree that today is monday. when 90% of the people agree with background checks, let's embrace this idea. who cares whose idea it was? who cares who wrote the legislation? what we have to care about are those children and the thousands of people who are killed every single year. mr. president, i suspect that you, along with me, we remember the vietnam war and what that did to this country. and that tragic war killed about 50,000 of our beautiful young people in that war, 50,000. and it tore this -- and that's over a ten-year period. it tore this country apart. it stood this country on its head. we lose 31,000 people every year to gun violence