the gulf? and with all the berries to closer relations which we know about, and those actually be removed, an it could one have a step change in those relations? >> one would hope so. again, the influence of those interests are very conflict today. more so than at anytime in the past. whether that confluence translates into open, more open sort of relationship remains to be seen. israel has had relations of one type or another with several gulf states. most of them are quietly pursued, but with other gulf states it's been a much colder distance, and a great example is saudi arabia. where there really hasn't been no formal contact. and it's something that i think would be the interests of all of these countries to pursue, and hope they can happen in the future.

>> and as you were saying, decide whether or not they can live with whatever happens with iran. what are the factors one would have to measure, if you're a goal state, what are the factors one would have to measure from israel's standpoint and the difference is ineffective, or are those factors ready some our? >> i think you would have to receive some material dismantling of the nuclear iranian program. we had an unusual event about a week in africa. africa. the first of a chemical israel and the iranians agreed on an aspect of the iranian nuclear program. israeli spokespeople and iranian spokespeople both came out and said that president obama's claim that parts of the iranian nuclear program had been dismantled, as an interim agreement was not true. no part -- actually agreed. you get hard-pressed to see what parts were, in fact, dismantled. you know, the 20% stockpile of

enriched materials was oxidized, such only 180 kilograms of material. they have about 67,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium, enough for about four bombs and there are no facilities that are being dismantled and there are no inspections of the major military sites. but parchin is the largest military base that remains beyond the grasp of the axis of inspectors. so you have to see material dismantling of centrifuges. you would have to see a shipping abroad at a large segment. right now all of the 3.5-5% stockpile, you would have to see the shutting down of key facilities, like fordow,

cessation of work on the arak heavy water facility. it would have to be some concrete evidence that the iranians nuclear program has been -- and that would be accompanied by very rigorous and invasive inspections. >> lots and lots of questions, so let me go straight out here him and then i will try to get everybody in the order that i see them. >> energy policy research foundation. i have a couple of questions. one is, if you look, i don't think a lot of us fully understand the technology, what's happening in north america. we can easily get the 2020, 2025 which opened excess capacity goes 70 come 80, 90 barrels a day. there's a real problem between iraq and iran and saudi arabia and how they divided the. i was curious what you thought

about how those rivalries may take place otherwise have the collapse in prices. second part is, this problem, the appears between the reality of the u.s. strategic interests in the persian gulf. because it's true that the western hemisphere is likely to disconnect from the crude part, but it's also true that the gulf is still important. and if there's a major event or disruption, prices will still go up, even in the u.s. because of the nature of the world oil market, most of the adjustments to the world's oil prices have to take place in the u.s. euro prices are already high, subsidize in the middle east. so one question i have for you is as a diplomat, how do we manage this appearance versus reality? because within the congress, within the american political structure, we are going to more and more, why do we need to

worry about this? we are disconnected, but i think we can make a strong case we should, but how'd you manage that political phenomenon is of great interest. >> i'll give you a very short answer. i agree. probably the shortest answer i've given in weeks. i agree with you, and i've spoken mostly tonight about impressions of american power and the willingness to project power in the middle east others also impressions in the united states as well. i mentioned one, the impression you can go on, you can push the helicopters over the sit side io which i think is an illusion but there's also an illusion, you're right, that the security and strategic aspects of the flow of middle eastern oil are not, will not impact america's economy and also impact america strategically but even the americans depends on middle eastern oil is very much on the wane.

>> thank you, ambassador. jeff steinberg. i'd like to suggest maybe a slightly different narrative as to what's going on with the u.s. policy in the middle east right now and get your thoughts on it. have would possibly come to the point where we've got to basically face up to a number of strategic errors that were made in shaping u.s. policy lacks did we -- u.s. policy? did we fail to see the long-term dangers in a non-terrorists form and miss the significance of that? did we have an overly optimistic and basically falls notion of the role that the muslim brotherhood might play as a reformed factions within political islam? and is also some kind of possible rethink about the actual viability of being able to achieve through diplomatic

means a just two-state solution to the israel-palestine issue? of course you know as a historian that the time of the truman administration recognition of israel, secretary of state marshall and the joint chiefs of staff warned about the dangers of partition and envisioned the united states role being reduced to a military presence and losing a lot of average. so my question is, is the was possibly going through a kind of correction of some deep and fundamental misjudgments that formed u.s. policy over a period of time, and maybe we're doing some corrective to come back and try something better? >> let me answer the first part of that. perhaps you could take a crack at the future of political islam. we are seeing a difference in tunisia, egypt, you know, and i wonder if you are seeing, if you have some sort of historians

view of where you think political islam -- >> i wish i had an hour and half to respond to this to cover some of the core issues. of course america has made mistakes in the middle east. of course, israel counters that any country has made mistakes in the middle east. and probably the biggest problem is being able to view the middle east not from the outside but from inside. and there was a great civil war general who, i'm not big on civil war, who traveled the middle east in 1872 and he came back and he said that's the most insightful remark ever about the middle east where he said we don't judge the middle east by its own terms but judging by americans terms. we will can be -- we'l will be condemned to always misjudged. a great remark. i want to respond on several levels.

george marshall 1948 made a number of predictions about the future of america's role in what was then known as the palestine conflict. one was that the united states would have to send 300,000 soldiers to defend the jewish state because they were incapable of defending themselves. the arabs cut off oil to the west and the west would fall to the soviet union and that the jewish state would emerge and be aligned with the soviet union. all three of those were wrong. for starters. and you can make a very strong case that rather than diminishing american influence in the middle east. in fact, america's involvement in the israel-palestinian, israel -- to this day it's only the united states that is there. nobody else can. you can actually turn that argument on its head. did the united states underestimate the impact of

political salafism for islam? yes, and it's not just america. there's a strong tendency imam, particularly in the american press, to downplay that the emotional and intellectual power of islam. there's a basic sort of journalistic narrative in the united states that people turned islam only out of despair and not because it imparts positive values. and it sends a meaning in life. but beyond that, every administration comes into office with its own worldview. the obama administration came in, again, i go back to the cairo speech. always go back to the cairo speech. president obama is addressing the moslem world and he says you can be authentically muslim. but if you are muslim and democratic and observe democratic norms, then we have the basis for a strong alliance and the new relationship.

and look at the middle eastern leaders to whom the president reached out in a significant way. erdogan, morsi. who were these people? people who had authentic islamic roots, had been elected democratically, very much conformed with the image of the cairo speech. was it a good decision? it may be too early to to but it's like telling the french ocean, it's too early to know whether it was successful, but it was the administration's approach. i think the administration's reaction to it was very significant in that way. i, really, i can go on with his. one small anecdote. as ambassador you always get asked pretty much the same questions in any audience. you get asked about settlements, jerusalem policy. toward the end of my terms with asked me a question i never received before, and for a while

it took me back. what is more typical, explaining america to israelis, or israelis to americans? dawn with the inode exactly the answer, any government researcher will have the same answer but it is much more difficult to explain america to israelis. because except for difficult questions like settlements, they get countries defending itself, westin style democracy. they did it. not just israelis. people look at the middle east and look at america, and look at the faith-based and value-based foreign policy, and scratch their heads. they will look at a piece of legislation. it says that the united states cannot support a regime, and military regime that is overthrowing a democratically

elected government. wait a minute, what is the democratic elected government wasn't anti-western anti-democratic government? they don't get fat. and then you have to explain that this is america, and that even during the period of one of the most difficult courage during my time which was the winter of 2011, tahrir square, where people in israel, and again not just in israel but looking at the events surrounding the begins of what was then called the arab spring and saying, we know what this is going to lead. but americans, democrats, republicans, cnn, fox, everybody was wildly enthusiastic on what about what was going on back there. it was my job, difficult as it was going to explain to israeli policymakers that a million people out in the streets of cairo demanding democracy from what was essentially a dictatorship resonates with the american narrative. its lexington and concord on. and there's no way that

americans wouldn't get excited about the. america is what america is. and this is something that is hardwired into this country. i happen to think it's a beautiful thing, but it's not always writable understandable to people in the middle east. >> thank you. i'm a student at the university of north caroline at chapel hill. united states with the limited resources not only in terms of money but time and attention to a morning if you can identify whether there is a core conflict in the middle east that the united states should focus on most importantly in order to bring security to the middle east, the iranian complex, every nuclear program, what should the united states really focus on as the top agenda? >> so, if you're sitting in the oval office how would you tell the president to set his priorities? >> the middle east is caught in

three cyclones of instability right now. there's the ethnic cyclone, the sunni shiite, there is a cyclone of modernity versus tradition, and the cyclone generated by the breakdown of the arab state. depending where you look, different cyclones are hitting. in syria, -- >> you can see the rest of this discussion anytime at c-span.org. we will go back to the senate floor about to gavel in and recent work on a bill to repeal a 1% reduction in the cost-of-livincost ofliving adjuy pensions. the senate live on c-span2. mr. cardin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, there is an especially at that tim-- there is anepitaph above f england's greatest architect's buried. it reads in parkts "here lies christopher wren who lived

beyond 90 years, not for his own profit but for the public good. reader, if you seek his monument, look around you." end quote. a similar epitaph would be entirely suitable for my dear friend, the great businessman, engineer, philanthropist and devoted baltimoreian william hachiman who died yesterday at the age of 95. willard was a 19-year-old civil engineer who had just graduated from johns hopkins university. he went to work for a contracting company in his native baltimore. g.w.c. whiting and lebaron turner had started the construct firm in 1909. in 1955, whiting promoted willard to be the president and chief executive officer of the firm. in 1955 and he served in that capacity to his recent death. whiting turner issued a press

release stwaited, mr. hackiman led us from a regional contractor to a leading construction manager and general contractor, wooing in all major commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. last year willard's 75th year with the firm, it reported $5 billion in revenue. the firm which has 33 regional offices and more than 2,100 employees is ranked fourth by engineering news record and ranked 117th on the list of america's largest private companies. as "the baltimore sun" noted, whiting turner contracting company built the new university of baltimore school of law last year, the joseph myerhall symphony hacialg the national aquarium and m & t bank stadium.

the firm's clients included the cleveland clinic, target, and unilateral i level. if you seek his monument, look around you. for whiting turner, willard with the hen-mayor william donald schaefer to help transform baltimore by building the aquarium and national place. these statistics enlist a test to willard's incredible skills as an engineer and businessmanment but they don't begin to capture the magnitude of his accomplishments, his charitable contributions and generous spirit. willard and his beloved wife lillian have been lifelong supporters of johns hopkins university. he helped to reestablish the university's stand-alone engineering school in 1979 and secured the school-naming gift from the state of hit mentor g.w.c. whiting. other activities include funding the willard and lillian

hackerman chair, construction of the hackerman patient and family pavilion and the hackerman research laboratories at the sydney kimmel comprehensive cancer strvment he and his wife have also provided support for the robert h. and marie smith building. they donated a mansion on mt.er vernon place to the constituent of baltimore which in turn entrusted the property to the gallery, now known as the walters art museum to house the collection of asian art. in december 2001, mr. hackerman gave the largest gift in the history of the baltimore city community college foundation to establish the lillian and willard mackerman student emergency loan program which provides low-interest loans to b.c.c. students. if he seek his monument, look around you. timothy regan, vice president

who will succeed willard as the firm's third president in its 105-year history noted, "he is a legend for his good work understand irony is that most of his good works are not even known." the "sun" resounded a story of baltimore architect adam gross completed. according to mr. gross, willard asked the school head mistress how many women were graduating from engineering degrees. then a few days later he sent a sizable check to the school to provide scholarships for women in engineering. he was like that. he did deeds that no one knew about, mr. gross said. willard was a man of quiet strength who professionally and charitably enriched his beloved baltimore. he was an active alumnus of gongjohns hopkins university who gave back to the school and hospital in countless ways. he was a humble man and rarely stood still to take credit for

his many successes because he already gang to tackle the next challenge. besides being at the helm of one of the largest companies in america, he never outgrew his city or fellow citizens. his benevolent -- he will be miss as maven great faith. willard hackerman was a true son of baltimore. our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife lillian, their five grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren and his extended family much whiting turner, all of whom loved him deeply. madam president, i encourage my fellow colleagues, my fellow baltimoreians and all marylanders to celebrate willard hackerman who lived beyond 90 years not for his own profit but

for the public good. if you seek his monuments, look around you. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. #*s. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor week after week talking about the president's health care laws as a physician who practiced medicine in wyoming giving a doctor's second opinion about the law, because we continue to learn more and more and see more and more concerns as it affects my former patients, the doctors and nurses who take care of those patients, the taxpayers who, of course, have been impacted as well. and today i come to say it's been clear for a long time that the health care law is not working. it has been obvious from the beginning that this law would not work out the way the democrats had promised the american people that it would work out.

republicans were warned that it was a terrible idea, and even some democrats have admitted that this law has been a train wreck. the obama administration has been desperate to talk about anything but the failure of the health care law. and they've been desperate to hide some of the biggest problems of the law. the president has unilaterally made one change after another, sometimes with my opinion with no legal authority to do so, and tried to do this in a way that perhaps nobody would even notice. late yesterday the administration leaked word that it would delay again the law's unpopular employer mandate. it was the second time the obama administration has changed the health care law in just a few days. front page today, "usa today," above the fold, health law faces new delay. "wall street journal," health law mandate put off again.

yesterday "the washington post" reported on modifications from over the weekend, administration to -- actually this is saturday -- administration to allow some changes to health care plans. that article says the administration has quietly reworked rules and computer code for healthcare.gov to try to stem an outpouring of discontent, an outpouring of disnot to tent, madam president, by americans who have discovered that the health plans that they bought didn't include their old dras doctors or allow them to add new babies or spouses. so the administration sent out a 14-page memo to insurance companies with changes to how its web site works and new rules for how people can buy coverage. "the washington post" article goes on to say the changes reflect recent work still underway to improve the computer system for the marketplace as well as fresh thinking about the needs of people who are buying

coverage. fresh thinking about the needs of people who are buying coverage? did the administration not think of these people before they wrote all of these things? the obama administration has been working on this web site for four years. did they not talk to people and think about people and lives, i know a lot of folks who work for the administration have gone from college to graduate or law school and right into some cubicle at -- on the administration's payroll. do they have no clue about how the real world works? it's worse than that. on super bowl sunday, president obama sat down for an interview and he was asked about the failure of his health care web site, healthcare.gov. the web site. this is what he said. he said "it got fixed wayne month and a half and it was up and running, he said and now it's working the way it's supposed to." i don't think many people around the country who have gone on to

this web site even today believe it's working the way it's supposed to. i mean the president was -- with bill clinton in september, the clinton forum, and president obama said easier to use than amazon. cheaper to buy than your cell phone bill. i assume the president actually believed that. i assume the president believes it's working the way it's supposed to today. but i think that's the reason the president's poll numbers are so low because the american people say the president is out of touch with what the american people are seeing in their own homes and in their own communities and the president in the white house has very little realization of what's happening in america. so according to the president, healthcare.gov is working the way it's supposed to work. if that's true, why did we learn a week laker there are another 14 pages of rule changes and changes to the web site, did the president not have a clue they were even coming? why do we learn now their work

is still -- quote -- "still underway trying to think about the needs of people who have been forced to buy insurance through this web site." back in december the press gave appropriate the -- president obama the lie of the year for his statement if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. when the president said his web site is working the way it's supposed to, either he continues to be in denial or he's got another entry for this year's lie of the year. now, on sunday bob schieffer on "face the nation" asked about the latest rules changes. those are the rules changes that were before sunday, not the ones that came out just yesterday. i mean the president has changed the rules nowover two dozen times -- now over two dozen times. bob schieffer said things just seem in every day and every way to be more confused. this is bob schieffer who for years as the face of "face the

nation" has become a trusted person that people turn to and as he says, in a reasonable way, things seem every day and every way to be more confused. he then asked is there any hope of getting it straightened out? that's what bob schieffer asked, any hope of getting it straightened out? well the majority party whip was on the show. the democrat senator was on the show and instead of answering the question, he avoided it. he tried to change the subject and he repeated an he old democrat talking point. this time that senator claimed that -- quote -- "10 million americans have health insurance today, he says, who would not have had it. this is the democrat senator. without the president's law. not actually responding to the question from bob schieffer of can we get things straightened out. no, not at all. not to answer whether there is any hope of getting the law straightened out. just the same old talking points and the talking points aren't

even true. "the washington post" fact checker said the statement was so wrong they said it deserved four pinocchios, the most you can get. that's the highest number possible for pinocchios. "the washington post" called the democrat senator's claim "simply ridiculous." the reality is the overwhelming majority of the american people signing up under the obama health care law already had health insurance. so they're not getting new insurance or newly insured because of the law. these are people that got cancellation letters and then said i need to get insurance so then they went to the web site to buy something, often much more expensive, requiring higher co-pays, higher diewcts deductibles. the law force -- deductibles. the law forced them to lose the coverage they had and the coverage that worked for them. many people are paying far more now than they were for worse coverage and it isn't the right

fit for their families. they're paying for insurance they're not going to use, don't want, more than they'd ever need, and paying more than they ever intended. that's what i hear when i talk to people in wyoming, i was in wyoming in cheyenne and casper this past weekend, that's what i hear at home. the administration doesn't want to talk about that. democrats in washington don't want to talk about it at all. they just want to repeat their talking points, even though they're completely false and have been proven to be false. democrats want to avoid the tough questions about how the law has failed, they rely on denial and deception. the web site still isn't wopg in spite of what the president made have said on super bowl sunday. the law isn't working. the answer to the question is no, there is no hope of getting it straiptened out. -- straightened out. the web site problems we've seen are just the tip of the iceberg. people are paying higher premiums, coverages are canceled, people can't keep their doctor, fraud and identity theft are going to

continue to be a plague of this health care web site and people are paying higher co-pays and deductibles. this is reported interestingly enough that in california with the so-called navigators, the people who are the certified and a navigators, over 40 of them are convicted criminals. 40 convicted criminals were hired and certified, certified, to be navigators in california in spite of the fact that people are being asked to give personal information, health information, financial information, to these navigators. so it is no surprise we're going to continue to see issues of fraud and identity left come up. another interesting thing that we learned recently, the congressional budget office came out with its new estimates about the health care law and its effect on parts of the economy and on jobs. it also talked about the number of people who don't have

insurance. it said in the year 2024, ten years from now, from the there will be 31 million americans who will be uninsured. ten years from now, 31 million americans uninsured. and it reminds me of the speech that the president gave -- madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you. the speech the president gave in 2009, he came to congress, wanted to talk about health care reform. talked about why it was so urgent that the congress pass health care reform. he said there are now more than 30 million americans citizens who cannot get coverage. so 2009, the president says 30 million americans can't get coverage. congressional budget office just comes out and says 10 years in the future, 15 years after the president gives his speech, 31

million americans, no insurance. and yet we will have spent trillions of dollars and yet it won't fix so big of a problem that we know we need to deal with, health care in america, and this present law, this enormous law, this 2,700 pages law has completely failed to deal with the reason the president said to deal with it in 2009, 15 years later, same numbers, over 30 million in 2024. how is that a victory for uninsured americans? how can the president say this law has succeeded? how is it a sign that the health care law is working the way it's supposed to work? on top of that middle-class people across the country are paying more because of the health care law. their premiums have gone up, deductibles have gone 0 up, co-payments have gone up.

millions of hardworking americans have had their insurance policies canceled because of the law. and the administration is still working on the web site in spite of what the president may say about it. the president says it's working as it's supposed to on this and so many other issues the president continues to be wrong and the american people see it. the web site isn't working, the health care law clearly is not working, it's not working the way he promised, it's not working the way the american people need health care to work for them in this country. it's time for the administration to just stop sneaking out these changes under the cover of darkness in blog posts, why doesn't he come and tell the american people what he's going to do? it's time for democrats the democrats to start the four pinocchio talking points, time for folks to be honest about the failings of the health care law. it's time to eliminate this terrible health care law and replace it with real reform that

gives people better access to quality, affordable health care, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, we've reached a historic moment in the history of our republic when the president of the united states claims the unilateral power to waive, delay, or just simply ignore the law of the land. one of the most frequent questions i get back home in texas is how can the president do that? how can he do that? they remember when he was sworn in and put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states and now how can he simply ignore what those laws are? how can that contradiction

exist? well, usually what i find myself doing is saying, well, congress has the authority to pass the laws, and it's the executive branch, the president who has the authority to enforce the law. and that's why he has the authority to appoint the head of the department of justice, the attorney general of the united states, attorney general eric holder but when the president by extension his own department of justice refused to enforce the law of the land, what have we become? well, we certainly cannot claim in good conscience to believe in the rule of law. the law applies to all of us whether you're the the president of the united states or the most humble of our citizens. i mean that's the promise over the top of the supreme court of the united states, all you have to do is look out the window, it says "equal justice under the law."

quite simply, the president has no legal authority under our constitution or under any law in america to pick and choose which laws he's going to enforce or not enforce based on political expediency. and the fact that he claimed to do so again for perhaps the two difns time -- two dozens time -- two dozeth time doesn't change anything. my constituents say what are you going to do it? i'm going to support private litigation to challenge the president and that's the nature of the litigation that originally challenged the affordable care act or obamacare and there was private litigation that challenged the president's claimed authority to make a recess appointment and bypass the advice and consent function in the constitution for the congress to the national labor

relations board which has now been held unconstitutional by the d.c. circuit court of appeals and now the supreme court of the united states is considering an appeal from that court. so there is a way to challenge the president, although it takes time and it's not exactly very satisfying because people say, well, months if not years will go by before we'll ultimately get a decision. but just think about the implications of what the president is doing. how would our democratic friends feel if a republican president decided not to enforce certain laws, let's say as they pertain to the environment? they would be outraged. and you know what? they would be right. it's wrong. i don't care whether you're a democratic president or you're a republican president, an independent or whatever. it's wrong for the president to put his hand on the bible to take an oath to uphold the law

of the land and then refuse to do so and to have no embarrassment, no sense of regret but just the hubris and the arrogance to say i'm going to do it until somebody stops me. i have said it before and i will say it again that the issues here go far beyond the health care policy and the obamacare. checks and balances are not optional. they are the very fundamental structure of our constitution. james madison and the authors of the federalist papers who wrote so eloquently about the new constitution at the time said the consultation of powers in a single branch of government is the very definition of tyranny.

if the obama administration continues to undermine checks and balances, it will not only undermine respect for the rule of law but also create even greater distrust of the federal government and congress itself, not to mention the office of the presidency. make no mistake, we all understand why the president's going down this path. it's because obamacare has proved to be even more unworkable than its biggest critics might have imagined. and the entire law needs to -- well, we need a doover, -- a do-over, let me just put it that way. this side of the aisle has repeatedly encouraged the president and his allies to work with us to try to replace obamacare with patient-centered reforms which would bring down the cost, make sure that we as patients and our families get to make decisions in consultation with our family and not out

source those to the federal government. we could come up with some ideas, and we actually have ideas that would lower costs, expand coverage, improve access to care, but unfortunately the president has shown zero interest in addressing those. i know i heard him say even at the latest state of the union, he said if my republican friends have some good ideas, bring them to me. well, we have been bringing them to him since 2009, and he simply has ignored or affirmatively rejected any other idea because he is so wed to this signature piece of legislation. well, i can't help but think but one reason why the president claimed the authority to unilaterally waive the employer mandate until after the election is because he's focused on, you combested it, the november election, and he realizes what an albatross this is around the

neck of those people who are going to be going to the voters and asking for them to re-elect them. but if he is wondering why americans have grown so cynical about washington, d.c., all he needs to do is to look at his own administration's handling of this signature piece of legislation. a program that has come to symbolize big government overreach and, i hate to say it but its true, contempt for the rule of law. i want to say just a few more words in conclusion about america's fiscal health. as you know, members of congress have once again been asked to raise the debt ceiling even though the national debt is in excess of $17 trillion. the president likes to boast about short-term deficit, that is the difference between what the government brings in on an annual basis and what it spends,

and it's true that on an annual basis in the last couple of years, that number has gone down a little bit, primarily because the president raised taxes $1.7 trillion, coupled together with the caps on discretionary spending and the budget control act, but the long-term trajectory remains just as bad as it ever was, and america continues to spend money that it does not have. and we're waiting for the president. he's the commander in chief, he's the leader of the free world. we're waiting for the president to put out a serious plan to address this problem. many of us held out hope in december, 2010, when the simpson-bowles bipartisan fiscal commission got together and made some bipartisan recommendations for doing exactly that. unfortunately, they were ignored by the president. he demanded in exchange for the so-called grand bargain, he wanted $1 trillion more in revenue, more taxes. well, imagine what a body slam

that would have been to the american economy. the american economy is still so weak that if unemployment is at an historic high, particularly compared to other recoveries following recessions, but a trillion dollars of additional taxes would have been cat strosk in terms of the people looking for work and not being able to find work. but since the president took office in 2009, our national debt has increased by $6.6 trillion, and it's now larger than our entire economy. i wonder who the president thinks will have to pay that back. well, probably not our generation. we won't be around, but this generation will be around, and they will be left holding the bag as a result of our irresponsibility and unwillingness to deal with this important problem. and even though interest rates are at a very low point now,

and, yes, the interest we have to pay the chinese government and our other creditors is at a relatively low rate, just imagine what will happen as the congressional budget office has when interest rates start to tick back up to their historic norms. well, we'll see that more and more of the tax dollars of the american people are used just to pay interest on the debt, and whether you're concerned about safety net programs that are most vulnerable -- that our most vulnerable citizens need or our national security, we won't be able to do either the way we want to and need to. according to the c.b.o.'s baseline projections, the annual debt will steadily rise after 2015 and exceed $1 trillion in 2022 -- i'm sorry. that's the deficit. at which time the federal government will be spending $755 billion a year on net interest payments aloan.

to put that in another perspective, net interest payments in 2014 are estimated to be $233 billion. that's not money that helps the most vulnerable in our society. that's not money that helps the war fighter keep us safe. that's money we are paying on the debt to our creditors, to the chinese and other creditor nations. it's interest for all this money that we're borrowing that eventually somebody someday is going to have to pay back. the congressional budget office has consistently reminded us that even a small change in u.s. economic growth or interest rates or inflation could dramatically affect the federal budget outlook. for example, if interest rates were to rise just 1 percentage point above the c.b.o. baseline each year over the next decade, our cumulative deficit would increase by $1.5 trillion.

that just shows you how fragile the condition our fiscal house is in. on multiple occasions back in the mid 1990's, this chamber came within one vote, one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. since the vote in march of 1997, our national debt has gone from $5.3 trillion to $17.2 trillion. it's more than tripled. yet, even as the debt problem has gotten massively worse, the number of folks on the other side of the aisle who are willing to acknowledge that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have and the debt is a threat to our national security and our ability to do the things we know we want to do and need to do, they continue to seem to ignore it. i'm proud to say everyone on this side of the aisle has cosponsored a balanced budget

amendment to the constitution that would force washington, whether led by democrats or republicans, it would force washington to live within our means and meet the same type of fiscal requirements that virtually all state governments have to meet. to those who think that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is not the answer, i ask well where is your plan? i realize that there are some that think well, we can just raise taxes, let's just raise taxes some more, but even they must understand that we simply can't tax away our long-term debt problem. the only way we can solve that is with controlling our spending, reforming our programs like social security and medicare, and sooner or later even the president will have to acknowledge that.

mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about s. 1963, which is supported by well over 30 veterans' organizations. i want to thank my colleagues for their help and their support of the military retirement pay restoration bill that repeals section 403 of the budget agreement that unfairly singles out our brave men and women in uniform. mr. president, i could spend a long time here -- i don't intend to because i know we have other colleagues that are on their way over to speak, but i do want to thank my colleagues for their support for this. we got a huge vote the other

night to move to this. i don't think there are any dissenting votes. i appreciate my colleagues moving -- voting to move to this. the bottom line, this bill is about honoring the commitments we have made to our service members. my state is the home of nearly 255,000 veterans. 255,000 veterans. now, we only have a population of three million, so if you do the math on that per capita, we have a lot of veterans in my state. very patriotic state, and these brave men and women have put their lives on the line and they have also put their lives on hold to serve this country. oftentimes in faraway places, far away from their homes and their families and from their beloved country to protect our nation and defend our way of life. they have fulfilled their obligations, and we need to fulfill ours.

mr. president, just day after day, we get emails and letters and phone calls from arkansas veterans and their families, and they talk about what the senate is talking about today, and that is whether we should fix this cost of living adjustment or not, and even to the -- down to the details of whether we should pay for this or not. let me just read a few. i have eight arkansans here that have written in in recent weeks. major adam smith of sherwood said when i signed on 12 years ago, i swore an oath to defend my country, one that i have upheld through four combat deployments in iraq, afghanistan and the horn of africa. it pains me to see that my government is not keeping its faith in my oath. i have served and will continue to serve faithfully, but i want

my government to properly compensate me for all the times i nearly made my wife a young widow. the second one is from therese wickov of north little rock. she is an employee of the v.a. and she is married to someone in the military. she says i see our veterans every day struggling. she works at the v.a. i see our veterans every day struggling. they served and it is our duty to respect and take care of them. john barnwell of fort smith says i spent a career in the u.s. air force defending this great country from all enemies. how could congress even consider cutting veterans' benefits when our sacrifices are the reason we're even able to live in a free country? senior master sergeant john w. smith of cabot writes in and he

says -- "i served my country for 28 years with the promise that once i completed my part, i would be given a retirement for the rest of my life to include the cost of living increases. however, it appears the government has decided to change the promise made and not honor their part of the bargain." sam garland of jacksonville says, "when i enlisted, i was told if i did my time that i would receive retirement. don't take away this hard-worked promise." marshall harmon of velonia -- "this is a military retirement that i worked extremely hard for and, in fact, earned. the document i was provided at the time of retirement assured me that my buying power would remain strong and consistent. it seems that is just not the case." chadwick kagel of sherwood, he wrote in to say, "i am a

military veteran of almost 15 years, including two deployments to iraq. i was an infantryman in the marine corps. i find it very frustrating that the reductions in benefits were taken from the very men and women who have served and protected the country." bill patrick of mountain home -- and this will be the last one, mr. president -- i could go on for a long time, as you can tell. i have a lot more where these came from. but pill the rak bill patrick on home says, "as a veteran of the u.s. army, i am saddened by the provision in this bill that in essence penalizes those who have given the most for this great country of ours. although i do realize the importance of keeping the government funded and running, i am opposed to the fact that we are doing it on the backs of those who have served honorably and long." mr. president, i just want those words to sink in to my

colleagues here in the senate today. these are men and women from my state. you have the same type of folks in your state. they put on the uniform. they serve this country. this is not how we should repay them. and i know that on this floor and out in press conferences and in press releases and all that, people are saying, well, we need to pay for this. this bill, s. 1963, has no pay-for. the way i feel about it is this cut to their benefits, this cut in their cola, the 1% adjustment downward doesn't take effect until 2015. we have all this year to find a pay-for if that's what we decide we're going to do. but, mr. president, the way i feel about this is they've already paid for this. they've paid for this with their service. this was something that was added to a budget deal and it's

something that i think probably came in by -- put in by the house republicans and, in effect, we're trying to solve this problem for them. but regardless of that, mr. president, i have a list here that i did not fabricate for this speech today. this stands in my office here in washington every day. i have a similar poster identical to this in little rock. it is there every day in our lobby, in our entryway for anyone and everyone who comes to the office to see the sacrifice that arkansans have made for this country. these men and women -- there's over a hundred listed. as much as i hate to say it, this list grows all the time. we change this out frequently. there's over a hundred listed here. in fact, there's over 110 listed here. these are troops from arkansas

or based in arkansas who paid the ultimate sacrifice in iraq and afghanistan. these people have paid for this. all the veterans that will receive this benefit, they were in the exact same situation that these men and women were, but by the grace of god they got -- they made it home. we need to honor the commitments we've made to our veterans. this is no laughing matter. this isn't politics. this isn't a democratic or republican thing. this is an american thing. you know what? when we make commitments to our veterans, if we cannot honor those commitments, we never should have made them in the first place. and i know that a lot of people here in washington make all kinds of promises, but we've made these commitments to our veterans. some of them mentioned when they sign on in the very beginning or when they take their retirement

in the very end, it is very clear the type of retirement benefits they will get. just because it's hard now, just because it's expensive now doesn't mean that we back out on the commitments we've made to our men and women in uniform. we don't back out on the commitments that we've made to our veterans. but right now what we have here is we have people here in washington who are saying, well, we like our veterans but they need to pay for this. they need to pay for this. i disagree. we have all this year. we have all this year. if we make that decision later on -- to find a way to pay for this change, we have time to find the pay-for later. you know, mr. president, one of the things that i'm always reminded of when i think of our folks who serve this nation in the military, i think of this

one verse that's found in john 3:15. it says, "greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." i've been to a number of funerals. i've made a number of calls to these families right here. i don't know how many people i've talked to who've lost a loved one in iraq and afghanistan or in some other military operation somehow, some way. and that's the verse i always remember because they laid down their life for their country. and the thing about it is, mr. president, is everyone else who puts on that uniform by the very nature of them putting on the uniform, they've made that commitment that they're willing to lay down their life too. they are in harm's way for us.

i think it's wrong for us to try to lower their benefits. i think it's wrong for us to be having a debate today about finding a way to pay for this. we have time to pay for this over the course of this year. i'm totally open to talking to people about how to pay for this as we go. but let's, for crying out loud, not send the message -- not send the message -- to our men and women in uniform, to our veterans that we're going to balance the budget on their backs. they're the ones that have made the commitment, they're the ones that have traveled and served overseas. look, when it comes to government spending -- i just heard a couple of speeches here by my friends on the other side of the aisle. when it comes to government spending, everybody -- everybody -- who is paying

attention knows that we can cut unnecessary government programs, we can eliminate duplicative policies, we can do things in the regulatory world to make government more efficient, more effective. we can do that. but we should not use these folks to balance our budget. and, mr. president, i see that my colleague from florida has stepped in and i know that he'd like to say a few words, so if he's ready, i'll yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i'm here to support senator pryor's bill. i'm a cosponsor. we're about to have a press conference. and the bottom line is this -- there's no way to fully repay someone who puts their life on the line for our country.

but we can do what we can and this legislation ensures that we continue to do all that we can. that's a summary of the whole thing. i have the privilege of being a senior member of the armed services committee and one of the things from day one you recognize is what yo that you wo keep your promises to the men and women of the military. the strength of the military will always be the people and they commit their lives to the service of the country. and during that commitment, there's a lot of sacrifice. overseas deployments. they miss births and birthdays

and countless other hardships. and a retiree has spent years earning the benefits that they looked forward to and that was some of the reasons they made the sacrifices when they took the oath of office and put on the uniform. and when that service member joins the military, they look at the retirement system in place at the time and they begin to build their life and their plans around those specific retirement benefits. so those who choose to devote long years and the retirement period of 20 years of service and then happen to retire and pursue a second career, then it

gives them the flexibility to move back to a location where they can help out a family member or finally become a full-time part of a family business, whatever it is. those folks shouldn't be penalized because they're not yet 62 years old. they've already done 20 years of service, if not more. they're choosing to innovate, to serve their community or to finally start that small business that they had always dreamed about and so it's unfire penalize them when -- and so it's unfair to penalize them when others are not. why in the world would we want to make a difference between those who had retired from the military? so safeguarding the benefits that service members have earned not only protect the

all-volunteer force but it also attracts and will continue to attract the best talent and encourages somebody to make the military a career. so for the career soldier, sailor, airman or marine, what they give back over those 20-plus years, it is immeasurable. and so here we are where we get bipartisan agreement that restricting military benefits in this way is not the correct path to address defense cuts and the debt, and we must restore this full cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees. and with that vote yesterday -- zero against it -- why are we

out here having to spend all this time? why don't we just take it up and pass it, because the votes are obviously here? and i'm hoping that that's what the senate's going to do in the next few hours. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about an amendment i have pending right now to the bill pending on the floor to fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees. let me just remind you of how we got here. how we got here is right before the holidays, there was a budget agreement that was reached between the chairman of the

senate budget committee and the chairman of the house budget committee. let me just remind everyone in this chamber that i serve on the senate budget committee. no one on the senate budget committee, at least myself, i wasn't included -- i guess i missed it -- did they bring to the attention the budget agreement before it was brought as a fate accomplish to the floor, and that's one of the problems that brought us to where we are today. only in washington could you serve on the actual budget committee, they come up with a budget agreement and actually never show it to you even though you're on the budget agreement. because had they shown it to necessity advance, i can tell you what i would have told them -- this idea to single out our ri military retirees, totaly unfair, it's the wrong

priorities for america to single out those who have taken the bullets for us when, if you look at the changes that were made in the budget agreement to the contributions for federal employees, they were prospecti prospective. they -- only new hires had to pay additional contributions. but for our men and women in uniform, those working-age retirees under 62 -- and, by the way, originally our wounded warriors were included in that as well -- they took the cut. so when i did find out about it -- and i see my colleague from south carolina, who also serves on the senate budget committee here -- when we found out about it and others -- also my colleague, senator wicker from mississippi -- we pointed out from the beginning, before this body even voted on the budget agreement, that the cuts to military retirees were unfair that of all the people that we were going to single out, why would we single

out the people who have taken the bullets for us? what kind of message does that send to those who have serviced and sacrificed so much for our country? so i remember it. we came down here before christmas, before the holidays. senator graham, my colleague from south carolina, came down here, senator wicker from mississippi, and we said to our colleagues then, let's fix this. let's fix this unfair cut now before we actually pass this budget into law because we have time to do it. and you know what the response we got? we're in a rush. boy, we better get home to our families for the holidays, rather than fix what was wrong from the beginning. and right now i hear so many of our colleagues come to the floor and say, we've got to fix this, even though they voted for this budget agreement. graham dprawm would the senator yiel--

mr. graham: would the senator yield for a question? ms. ayotte: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. do you agree with me that if the budget agreement had not been paid for, it would not have been passed? ms. ayotte: i gray with that. mr. graham: that most republicans, and i'm sure some democrats, would not have voted for a budget agreement unless it was deficit-neutral, was paid for. i know wouldn't have passed the house. now, after the fact, if you fix the cola problem without paying for it, wouldn't you have -- haven't you basically blown the budget deal apart? ms. ayotte: well, that's the irony of where we find ourselves. you have people who come -- who came down here, even though we warned them and said this is really unfair, why are we doing this to military retirees, we should fix this now, we should find our ways to cut spending.

mr. graham: their response was, we can fix it late. but our response washing was, wu pay pou for it later? i really appreciate them wanting to fix it. the good news is everybody in the body wants to undo the damage done to our military retirees. the bad news is, we're doing it in a fashion that would break the budget agreement. i just don't think that should be our choice. to roi right a wrong to the mily retirement community, which was a $6 billion taking from them, unlike anybody else in the country, can we not find $6 billion over the next ten years to make up for it? because if we don't, we've broken the budget agreement and we've put a burden on the next generation. so really to help the veteran, the military retiree, do you have to turn around and screw future generations by adding $6 billion of debt on top of the $17 trillion? i guess that's the question.

i would say, "no." that's why i appreciate your offset. ms. ayotte: the answer is, "no." of course we don't. we don't have to burden the next generation to fix what we should have fixed from the beginning, and -- which was unfair from the beginning. and that said, i have an offset. mr. graham: what are you proposing here? ms. ayotte: i have an offset that is pretty strad afford. -- pretty straight afford. what it requires is we have two major refundable tax credits, the earned-income tax credit and the additional child tax credit, both of which, when you claim them, you actually get money back your honor the tax code. and my amendment is pretty straightforward. actually have to put a social security security when you file for it, as the tax filer. and also if you have a dependent, you have to put the social security number. for the additional child tax credit, there was a treasury i.g. report done under this administration in 2011, and they

raised real concerns about the way that this tax refund was being administered because when you filed for it, you didn't have to put a social security number, and also any child that you were seeking a refund for, you didn't have to put a social security number for. so my fix is very straightforward. all i'm asking is that, if you want to seek that tax refund for your child, you list a social security number for the child, and why is that important? it is important because the treasury i.g. found that this tax refund, billions and billions of dollars going out the door. in fact, with the amendment that i just mentioned, we can save $20 billion over the next ten years. there were investigations done of this tax refund. they found massive examples of frawrksd which i wilexamplesfrah in detable, of kids claimin kide

claiming they didn't even live in this country. because there's absolutely no parameters on the way this is being interpreted right now. should we fix fraud in our tax code? and really address this issue, still allowing american children and children who the president has said are eligible, certain dreamer children, to get this tax refund, who are real children in this country? or should we just let this fraud continue and also add to our debt and not address the underlying problems facing our nation? i don't understand why we can't pass something common sense like this. mr. graham: there's an earned-income tax crie credit tt you can receive based on need. is that right? ms. ayotte: right. mr. graham: okay, we're not going to get t you shall a not goin-- youare not going to get r

kids because you are make too much money. ms. ayotte: right. mr. graham: if you are working, even though you may not have an income tax liability, we are going to give you earned-income tax credit -- i think it is $500 per child, right? i don't think why the this is the earned-income tax credit. i don't know the amount. mr. graham: i think it is $500. but the point is, do you have to have a social security number? ms. ayotte: yes. graham imr. graham: if the argus that by addes a social security requirement to the additional tax credit you're somehow burdening people, why isn't that argument made against the eitc? because to get the earned-income tax credit, you have to have a social security number. this new additional tax credit on top of the earned-income tax credit doesn't have the same requirement, so those who come down here and say, we're destroying families, why don't

you come down here and propose to do aaway with the social security number on the earned-income tax credit? that would make perfect sense to meevmenme. if requiring a social security number is a bad thing for families, why do you tolerate it for the eitc? the reason you wouldn't propose that change is because people in treasury would say you'd be crazy, because now you've got an additional tax credit, something new on top of the eitc, that senator ayotte has found, without a social security number, you have $19 billion in frawvmentd so aifraud. if you think requiring a social security number for a child to get an earned-income additional tax credit is destroying a family, why don't you come down here and change the law for the eitc? if you did that you would get blistered by the auditors saying you're opening up a new line of fraud. so can you tell us, what would happen to the american taxpayer, what benefit would inure to the

american taxpayer if we followed our proi proposal and accepted r amendment of requiring a social security number? ms. ayotte: the american taxpayer would save d 20 billion over the next ten years. this is about protecting the american taxpayer, because let me just talk about some of the fraud that was found. in indiana, they found that four workers were claiming 20 children living inside. one residence. the i.r.s. sent these illegal immigrants a tax refund a total of $29,000-plus. they also found that many people were claiming that the tax credit for kids who live in mexico. these are our taxpayer dollars going out the door in this way. ian indiana taxpayer preparer said we've seen sometimes ten or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews. the more you put on there, you

more you get back, even though they're not verifying any of these kids live here, exist. and that's our tax money going out the door. the whistle-blower had thousands of examples, and another example from a whistle-blower, we've got over $10,000 in refunds for nine nieces and nephews, he said. and it's so easy. i can bring out stacks and stacks. it's just so easy, it's ridiculous. in north carolina, investigators tied at least 17 tax returns totaling more than $62,000 in returns to a charlotte, north carolina, applican apartment the woman leased. at another apartment, nearby, they discovered returns valued at over $700,000 in r refunds. another are address had 236 returns worth over $1 million in

returns. now, this is money taken into our treasury and turned back in, and all we're saying with this amendment is, if you can put a social security number for the chierld a claiming the credit for, you can get this credit. that's all this is. making this consistent with the earned-income tax credit. and in fact the filer -- the filer can be an undocumented worker in this country and have a child that legitimately has a social security number and get the credit for it. and so we've -- i've modified my amendment to address that issue. and so what we're saying is this: let's end fraud, and let's take that money that is being taken from the american taxpayer and take $20 billion -- $6 billion of it can be used to restore these military cuts -- to make sure that we do not burden the next generation and we fix a

wrong that should be righted. let me talk about some other examples of what we've seen. in tennessee a search warrant was prepared by the i.r.s. for a tax company who was encouraging -- encouraging -- undocumen unk- undocumented workers to lie on their tax returns by claiming children who live in motion to n mexico as dependents. when that refund is filed for, you don't have to put anything about the child to prove that the child exists. so simply by requiring a social security number for the child, you're getting money back for would end that fraud. the i.r.s. says that the tennessee tax preparer has filed 6,000 tax returns over the last three years and although his clients only paid $3.3 million in taxes, they were able to

receive back $17 million in refunds. can you imagine $3.3 million in taxes that his clients as a whole claim that they paid, and they received $17 million in reif refunds back? a pretty good deal, isn't it? well, it is a bad deal for the american taxpayer. and so this amendment makes so much common sense. i just hope that i can get a vote on this on the floor of the united states senate because in the past when i have tried to bring this amendment forward, i have been denied a vote on many occasions. and so i hope that the people of this country understand what the vote on the floor is. the vote on the floor is straightforward. this amendment -- we can fix the unfair cuts to our military retirees, also ensure that we aren't break th breaking the but

agreement that was just passed or burdening the next generation with debt. my amendment will further reduc the debt because it saves more money than just paying for this fix. and we can also fix tax fraud, do the right thing by the american taxpayer, and i can tell you, what worries me most is this is washington. it just makes so much sense that i fear that i won't get a vote on this and that my colleagues will use excuses to say, we shouldn't vote for this because -- i heard my colleague from illinois on the floor this morning saying we're going to harm children. well, children will still be able to get this refund. put a social security number, american children will get this refund. and also children that the president has already deemed eligible -- so-called dreamers -- in fact my colleague from illinois, who came to the floor this morning, admitted already a

half million of them have filed for a social security number and they, too, could receive this tax refund. but if we don't pass this amendment, there's one group -- there's two groups that lose: the veterans but also, most importantly, also all of us, the american taxpayer. i just want -- before i conclude i want to mention the groups that are endorsing my amendment. the american legion, american veterans, amvets, concerned veterans for america, the tpheult officers association -- military officers association of america, the national guard association of the united states, the national military family association, the naval enlisted reserve association, the retired enlisted association, the u.s. army warrant officers association, the u.s. coast guard chief petty officers association, and the u.s. coast guard enlisted association. i hope my colleagues will vote

for this commonsense amendment because we can fix this unfair cut to our military retirees and pay for it and make sure that we aren't also adding to our debt and burdening future generations. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i'd say to my friend from south carolina that we've received some disturbing news today. that is that the president of afghanistan, president karzai, has made a decision that 65 of the 88 detainees at arwan prison in afghanistan will be released.

i think many of my colleagues know that no one has spent more time on this issue -- i note the presence of the majority leader, so i ask at this time to yield. mr. reid: mr. president, i appreciate the courtesy of my friend. i would ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to consider nominations calendar number 516, 517, 518, 593, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the uranium form, that upon -- divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order and any related statements be put in the record, the president be notified of the senate's action, the senate resume legislative session and there be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote and

all after the first vote be ten minutes in duration. i want the record to note to my friend, i appreciate his yielding and his statement appear uninterrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: as i was saying, the senator from south carolina and i have known the president of afghanistan for many years, and we've had many meetings with the president of afghanistan, and i believe we had established a rather cordial relationship over these last 13 years. and many of my colleagues may not know that the senator from south carolina, in his capacity as a colonel in the u.s. air force reserve -- lawyer -- has spent a great deal of his active duty time in afghanistan on active duty primarily focusing on the whole issue of detainees,

of how they are tried, how they are incarcerated, steps for release, detention. in other words, there's no one that i know who has more in-depth knowledge of this issue than the senator from south carolina. and i don't believe anybody has ever worked as hard as he has on this issue. and there have been significant accomplishments as a result of his and other wonderful americans' work. i think facts are stubborn things, and i would ask my friend from south carolina, isn't it true that these pending detainees are -- the release of these detainees poses a direct threat to the lives of our service men and women who are serving in afghanistan? is it true that 25 of these

individuals are linked to the production and/or and placement of i.e.d.'s? 33 tested positive for explosive residue when processed after capture. 40% associated with direct attacks or killing or wounding 57 afghan citizens and allied forces. 30% associated with direct attacks killing or wounding 60 u.s. coalition force members. 32 captured after the ansef assumed responsibility. so isn't it clear, i ask my colleague, that after all these years of work of trying to get this whole system of detainees, trials and incarceration, we are now seeing, we're now seeing, sadly, the result of individuals that can be traced to attacks on or directly responsible for the deaths of brave americans; i ask

my colleague. mr. graham: senator mccain is absolutely right. i want to thank him for showing an interest in the topic. he's been so helpful in making sure we get this detention issue right. having been incarcerated in a war, i think senator mccain knows the difference between a system that works and one that doesn't, so it's always been helpful to have senator mccain travel with me and make the point that the afghans, he knows what doesn't work. now the general called this morning with a lot of sadness and, quite frankly, anger in his voice. this whole issue, we've captured thousands of afghans and some third country nationals during this whole war in afghanistan. our confinement facility at bagram air base has improved 1,000%. we've made our fair share of mistakes but the prison, i would

put up against any prison in south carolina or west virginia. it is a state-of-the-art prison, it is being transferred to the afghans. as we take this prison population and turn them to the afghans, we have a collaborative process where we work together to determine what course to take. they had a thing called the accountability review board that was an afghan board looking at disposition of this prison population. they were about ready to release 88 that our commander felt the evidence in question deserved criminal court disposition. the afghan criminal court at the prison, which is attached right to the prison, the jcip, i'm proud of the judges and lawyers who run that facility. all we're asking is that you don't let 65 of the 88 walk out the door because of an administrative review board that's not recognized under

afghan law. the guy in charge of it is openly against a bilateral security agreement. i think he's a corrupt individual. our general dunford basically said you're going too far here. i could not in good conscience not object, and we've lodged our objections. i got a call sunday, we thought this had been fixed, they were going to turn these cases over, senator mccain, to the attorney general but there was a caveat no one told us about. they turned the 88 files over to the attorney general we thought for prosecution but apparently president karzai said release 65 of the 88. if you believe in the letter of the law, an individual, the president of a country does not have the authority under afghan law to tell the judiciary or attorney general what cases to dispose of. this is an extra judicial exercise of legal authority by the president of afghanistan, and the people in question, the 88, are responsible for killing

60 americans and coalition forces and 57 afghans. and the afghan population does not like the idea, these people are going to walk out of the jail. if i could, senator mccain, i'd like to read the statement issued by our commander in afghanistan right after the phone call. "the united states forces afghanistan has learned that 65 dangerous individuals from a group of 88 detainees under dispute have been ordered released from the afghan national detention facility at parwan. the u.s. on several occasions provided extensive information and evidence on each of the 88 detainees to the afghan national director of the security and the attorney general's office. this release violates the agreements between the united states and afghanistan. it's called a memorandum of understanding. this violates the spirit and the letter of that agreement we have negotiated. we have made clear our judgment that these individuals should be prosecuted under afghan law. we requested that the cases be

carefully reviewed. but the evidence against them was never seriously considered, including by the attorney general, given the short time since the decision was made to transfer these cases to the afghan legal system. within 24 hours they decided to let 65 people go. clearly they didn't spend much time. the release of the 65 detainees is a legitimate force protection concern for the lives of both coalition troops and the afghan national security forces. it goes to your question, senator mccain, it's not me saying -- and i've looked at every file. i've spent lots of time in this jail looking at these files. this is our own ground commander, general dunford who is doing a great job, i think, telling us if you let these people go it represents a force protection problem. he further goes on to say the primary weapon of choice for these individuals is the improvised explosive device widely recognized as the primary cause of civilian casualities in afghanistan and quite frankly, death of our own troops.

you made a good point, senator mccain. 25 of the 65 are directly linked to planting i.e.d.'s against our forces. we have fingerprints on these people. i have literally seen the evidence where there is biometric identification, where you can look at the pressure plate and the tape and all the material around the making of the i.e.d., and you can pick up fingerprints. and when you do that, they match to the biometric data, and we've identified the person by a fingerprint and they're going to let that person go. and some of these people have been captured previously. the recidivism rate is growing in afghanistan. so what i want my colleagues to know -- and this is what the final paragraph -- the release of thee detainees is a major step backward for the rule of law in afghanistan. some previously released individuals have already returned to the fight and the subsequent release will allow dangerous stphurbgts back into afghan -- insurgents back into cities and villages and i might add to kill our troops.

thank you, senator mccain for your interest in this matter. we're drafting a resolution condemning the actions of the afghan government, president karzai, in the strongest terms possible. we're suggesting that in light of this breach of this agreement, putting our troops at risk, letting killers go, that we suspend all economic aid until after the election. i just want to let the membership of the body know that the troops are watching this. can you imagine being one of the soldiers that risked their life to capture these people, afghan and american, to have them walk right out the door and never face justice for killing one of your comrades. they're watching us. we got approved to the troops on the ground, both afghan and american and coalition forces, that the congress of the united states will not accept this, that we have their back, and we should push back as hard as humanly possible to make the message clearer to president karzai and to the afghan

government how much this displeases us, and they're due to walk out of the jail thursday. so i hope i don't have to come back on the floor of the united states senate and read about the death of an american caused by one of the people that president karzai released. and senator mccain, i'll ask you a question. we've been to afghanistan more times that i can think of. i have not ever found anybody more attuned to the idea that we need a sustaining permanent relationship with the afghan people than yourself, that you understand a follow-on force is necessary, that we can win this conflict, end it well with honor if we have a follow-on force. and you want to stay involved with the afghan people. but do you agree with me that the actions of president karzai defying our commander, his own judges, his own legal system has done enormous damage to public support for this war effort, which is already low and has hurt the relationship between

the congress and the afghan government? mr. mccain: i want to thank the senator from south carolina, and i hope my colleagues will understand the in-depth knowledge that he has concerning this issue. no one understands it as well or has been more involved to the point of being involved with each individual case. and before i respond to the question, i think it would be important for our colleagues to understand some of these specific cases. i'm not going to submit for the record all 65 because it's long. but let me just mention a couple of examples of people who are going to be released, who are about to be released into afghanistan while our men and women are still there in harm's way. there's an -- i'll man tkpwel -- mangel the pronunciation, abdul

habibi, used in attack against our forces in kandahar province. buy biometricically matched to i.e.d. districts that took american lives in kandahar where i.e.d. were seized. a fellow named nek mohammed, an i.e.d. expert transfers money to al qaeda. the list goes on. aktar mohammed, suspected taliban commander who conducts attacks, provides lethal aid and supports taliban leaders in operations against ansf and icef in kunar province, acted as a trusted courier, former gaziabad and taliban government. the list goes on and on.