example, correlating post-traumatic stress syndrome with events that occurred during the military experience, that's cutting edge stuff. that's new stuff. that's stuff that nobody has done before. i mean, the va has had three nobel prize winners. that's the kind of thing that i would think health care professionals want to be a part of. so it would be my intention that we really tout that innovative capability that the va has had for years, but really bring it out and use that to recruit the very best people who want to make a big difference in others' lives. ..

more raisely wrote to -- recently wrote to the deputy or acting secretary of the have. a asking for explanation in apparent tripling in wait times in connecticut and in fact elsewhere around the country. the increase in wait times and, those wait times delayed longer than 30 days that seem to have tripled in connecticut, quadrupled elsewhere. will you commit to me that you will provide a response to that letter? >> if confirmed i will provide a response but knowing sloan gibson the way i do, you will get a response. >> i'm hoping that response will

being imminent, not sometime in the indefinite future. >> that's my hope as well. >> thank you. the other area of gave concern to me specifically of connecticut was care for womens veterans. i hope that will be a priority for you that women's care for veterans in the va facility in new haven, whether result of trauma connected to sexual assault or battlefield pts will be a priority for you? >> it's a priority and a growing priority. the number of women going into combat, coming out of combat, becoming veterans is growing. this is something we've got to get ahead of. >> again relating to connecticut, a great many of our veterans have been victims of predatory schemes or practices on the part of for-profit colleges or others relating to

educational benefits. ultimate thely the victims are not just those veterans but also taxpayers because it is taxpayer money that is often lost. will you commit to make correction of those kind of abuse as priority? >> i've read some of the newspaper articles and reports on that dealing with the publicly-available information since i'm not confirmed. we will get into that and understand it. i mean, it's unconscionable someone would be taking advantage of our veterans. >> and finally with respect to the criminal investigation that is ongoing a criminal investigation that i asked the department of justice to begin, i like your commitment that you will assist and support that investigation to hold accountable anybody in the va who committed fraud or destroyed documents or illegally manipulated documents so as to lie to general shinseki and to the american public.

>> yes, sir. as i said, the number one value, core value of the organization is integrity. so we've got to root out when that, that isn't upheld. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator begich. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. again, mr. mcdonald, thank you very much for being here. let me, i would be remiss if i did not first brag about my state and invite you to it. as senator from alaska we attempted to look at this problem very complex, it is very complex in a lot of ways. not only health care system, disability delivery claims and basic services, just a laundry list of services. as i said earlier in my comments in the opening was to reshape what we're doing in the va where now we have in alaska 26 agreements with tribes that deliver health care all over alaska. we didn't need legislation. we offered legislation but we

worked with the administration to figure this out and the former secretary was bold about it and went on cutting-edge, use your words, that cutting-edge element and i think we're starting to do incredible things wherever veterans are and va reimburses indian health services folks in regards to the delivery of the service. along with that we're using our federally qualified clinics, again a federal resource, in both of these. for example, when we're parterring in anchorage, the delivery system if you're a veteran on the list already you will get same day care unless it is major medical. that is pretty, that should be the goal, right? when you walk in as a veteran, you should get care. we're excited getting 70 to '80 folk as week sunning up in anchorage with those elements and throughout the state many are signing up by the hundreds, veterans able to access those partner agencies. we also have a incredible delivery system.

what i mean by that not just the mechanism but the care we deliver. it is nuca. a holistic view of medicine and you come in with one element we take care of the whole system. you get a whole team, eye, hearing, primary, so forth, so the outcome of the health care is better than a process they're going through. i would hope you would be willing to consider looking at that i know the va has been looking at this as a model in some areas because of its uniqueness and how it is getting outcomes, for example, the native health clinic we dropped emergency care folks coming through by almost 60% changing this one simple thing. it wasn't as simple but it is now. would you commit to at some point, you had mentioned you will go around, we don't have a hospital but a clinic and unique delivery system and come to alaska and see and learn what we're trying to do? >> i would like to go to alaska

again. i've been there many times and always enjoyed it. i think what you described as, trying to prevent the nilness or trying to prevent the problem, rather than only treating it once it occurs, is really cutting-edge of medicine. the work we've done at proctor & gamble with our health care business has always been about preventing the, illness from occurring. >> very good. >> in order to keep people healthy longer. >> holistic delivery system. >> holistic, absolutely. >> that is what i'm interested in. great, we'll take you up on that. second, i just want to echo what senator blumenthal echoed about the growing population of women in the va system, almost more than two million women are veterans. it is creating a growing challenge because some of our clinics, hospitals, facilities, were not designed for the needs of women. again i want to hear you say it again, your commitment to make sure women who are veterans will also get equal treatment as

you're looking at and reviewing and reforming and improving the system? >> yes, sir. >> your issue on the dod, i want, you may not want to answer, maybe you do now because you're not sworn in yet so this might be good, that you're not a cabinet secretary yet. here's what is going to happen. you will have all these wonderful ideas which we're anxious for. you will present these ideas to my favorite friends over at the office of management and budget, who will then tell you, you don't have enough money. that's not what we're doing. you will have to reform what you brought forward. are you willing to buck the system, to say, here is what we need if we're serious about treating our veterans and funding our veterans which may mean you have to say something to omb, no disrespect to my friends at a omb, sean donovan great director i call him the great sanitizer, they were always hammering down are you

willing to push, be advocate for the veterans when the system says, you can't do it. because you don't have any money? >> my intention is to meet with members the office of management and budget roughly once a week or so, so that there aren't any surprises. i mean they're a constituency and they will be helpful as well. >> good. >> i think a partnership with them is critically important, just as, a partnership with that kind of organization, a private sector would be as well. >> excellent. last question, i have some others but i will submit them for the record, but, are you also in dod tells you, we've seen this play before with dod, i've seen it on the appropriations committee, we brought dod, va, social security, irs together to figure out the disability. when they say it is not our problem at some point, glad that hagel called you, that is a good step, again will you stand tall and say, look, we're going to have these integrated systems

that are clean and that the veteran does not have to worry about? we have agencies, government of congress should worry about but they should never worry about the record going from a to b? will you, dod, pentagon is business, i've seen what they have done before. i'm anxious for your, you're going -- >> pentagon may be big but senator hague -- secretary hagel and i are small and i think we can work on these kinds of things. >> excellent. >> i plan to let him know what our needs are and i plan to hope he will tell me what his needs are. >> that is a great sign. >> a great sign. he is a great leader. >> i was happy to support him when he was nominated. mr. chairman, thank you very much. i will send in more questions for the record but i appreciate your willingness to be here today. >> thank you, senator, begich. >> we're coming to a close. let me thank you,

mr. mcdonald, for your being here, willing necessary to serve in your testimony today. what we are trying to do, i hope and believe we can, to have a vote on your confirmation tomorrow. based on what i hear i believe you're going to be confirmed and i hope that is the case. the other thing i will raise, and senator moran raised that issue, there is a conference report committee out there. my only disagreement with what senator moran said, there is also a house of representatives and not just the senate and both bodies will have to work together. i hope very much we will be a i believe to do that and i hope we will be able to do that before we leave here for the recess. i hope we will provide you with emergency help that you need to deal with the immediate crisis waiting for veterans. i hope also that we'll give you the resources you need to get the doctors and nurses and other personnel that you need so we don't have this crisis in years to come. let me just conclude by saying

you have heard, and i know you're aware, of the very significant problems facing the va. and in addition to everything else, we have two million veterans who have come into the system in recent years. you're going to be dealing with a crisis of 500,000 men and women dealing with ptsd and tbi. you're going to be dealing with a shortage of personnel. you're going to deal with accountability issues. you're going to deal with the need to develop a new culture at the va. that is quite a task in front of you. on the other hand what i would tell you, what you have going for you, is that the american people feel very, very strongly about the need to provide for and take care of those who have sacrificed so much. and i think they will support you as you come forward with ideas to do just that. so i thank you very much for being here. >> thank you, chairman sanders. >> and this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations] >> the senate veterans affairs commit me on wednesday unanimously approved the nomination of robert mcdonald to head the veterans affairs department. the full senate could vote on the nomination as early as next

week. committee chair bernie sanders spoke on the senate floor yesterday for 15 minutes. >> mr. president, as chairman of the senate committee on veterans affairs i wanted to just take a few minutes to update members of the senate as to where we are in some very, very important issues that impact veterans all over this country. first point that i want to make is i think some good news. the committee had a hearing yesterday to hear testimony regarding the confirmation of robert mcdonald to be new secretary of the va and i think i can speak for the whole committee in saying that we were very impressed by what we heard

from mr. mcdonald both in terms of his passion for the needs of veterans and also his administrative knowledge, his management skills, as the former head of one of the large corporations in america. i think he left us with a very strong impression, the result was, that today, a few hours ago, by a unanimous vote, the senate committee voted to confirm robert mcdonald as our new secretary of the va and i hope very much his nomination will get to the floor as soon as possible. so i think that's good news because the va needs stable leadership. sloan gibson, in my view, who has been acting secretary, is doing an excellent job. he is already accomplished a lot but it is important that we have a new permanent secretary on board. i hope that the members here see fit to confirm him as soon as we possibly can.

mr. president, on an. additionl issue i think as all members of the senate know about a month ago, so we voted by a vote of 93-3, almost unanimously, to make sure that the veterans of our country get quality health care in a timely manner. that we bring a new level of accountable to the va. and i'm very proud of the support that that legislation, which was introduced by me and senator john mccain, received. i want to thank again senator mccain for his very strong efforts to make that happen and for his continued support of the veteransmm community. senator mccain made a statement just then other day, y think it was yesterday, published in cq, which i personally could not agree with more. and this is what he said. he said, in terms of the conference committee that we are

in right now trying to merge the senate bill and the house bill and come up with something that can pass in both bodies, he said and i quote, we've got to sit down and get this done because we can not go out for recess in august without having acted on this bill, end of quote. i think he is exactly right. and let me just, picking up onig that theme, just relate to my colleagues what the vfw, vfw is having their annual convention in st. louis and this is what they said and i quote, the veterans of foreign wars of the united states is demanding that congress immediately pass a compromise bill to help fix the department of veterans affairs before they adjourn for five weeks at the end of the month. quote, pass a bill or don't come back from recess, end quote, said vfw national commander, william @. teen of georgetown,

indiana. veterans are tired of waiting on secret lists at va and onit their elected officials to do their job, end of quote. and i could not agree with the vfw more more on that issue. there was a bill, a month ago, passed here, the cbo, said that bill would cost $35 billion. well voted for that, for emergey funding because the members here understood that taking care of veterans is a cost of war as spending money on tanks and guns and missiles. 35 billion emergency funding. the house passed its bill which was later assessed by cbo at $44 billion. here is the good news and without divulging the kind ofti negotiations that weon are havig with chairman miller in the house and chairman miller is a

serious man, i think he wants to get a bill passed. i don't want to go into the all the details here but i think it is fair to say that the costs of that bill will be significantly less than what the cbo originally estimated. now, just a few minutes ago, mr. president, i received and others received a letter from the major veterans organizations on issue of important again, without going into great detail about the nature of the negotiations that the house and senate are having on the veterans bill, i think it's fair to say one of the o stumbling blocks is that i agree, and the house agrees, it is imperative that we pass funding to make sure that veterans who are long waiting lines right now get the qualityr

care that they need now, and that means that if the va can not accommodate them in a timely manner, that they will go out to private doctors, community health centers, and whatever, and the va will pay that bill. that is what we've got to do, because it is unacceptable that veterans remain on long wait lines, waiting periods, and not get health care. there is a general agreement on that. debate how much it should be, that will cost over a two-year period but think we can reach someio resolution on that. here's where the difference of opinion lies. and without divulging anything, this has been in the newspapers. sloan gibson, the acting secretary, cameam forth before e senate veterans committee last week and he made it very clear that while we have got to deal with the emergency of long waiting period and get people to

contracted care that they need simultaneously, we must make sure that the va has the doctors, the nurses, the medical personnel, the i.t., and the space they need in order to deal with this crisis so that two years from now, we're not back in the same position that we are. and he came forward with a proposal. in fact it cost $17.6 billion. i think we can lower that amount of money. because some of that request is not going to be spent this year or even next year. but the issue here is, that we have got to strengthen the va, their capacity, so that veterans do not remain on long waiting o periods and that we can get them the quality and timely care they need. now, what i wanted to mention,

mr. president, is just an hour or so ago, i received, and chairman miller, who is chairman of the house committee on veterans affairs, he got the letter. richard burr, who is the ranking member on the senate committee, mike micheaux ranking member ono thens house. we received a letter fromis virtually every major veterans organization. here who is they are. they are the disabled american veterans. the veterans of foreign wars, vfw. paralyzed veterans of america. vietnam veterans of america. iraq and iran veterans of america. u.s. coast guard chief petty officers association. and many other organizations. many, many other organizations. and i want to take a moment to read what t they said because ts iss terribly, terribly importan. what they are saying, in essence

is, yes, we need emergency funding to make sure that veterans tomorrow get the health care they need from the private sector, or any place else but we also need to strengthen the va. so that over the years they can provide the quality and timely care that veterans are entitle the to. anidd i'm going to read this letter. because it is important that members of the senate and b thet house understand wherehe the mar veterans organizations are coming from. and i quote. , last week acting secretary sloan gibson appeared before the veterans senate affairs committee to discuss progress made by the department of veterans affairs over the past two months to discuss the access crisis g for thousands of veterans. secretary gibson testified after examining va resource need in

light of the revelation of secret waiting lists and hidden demand, va required supplemental resources totaling 17.6 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year through the end of fiscal year 2017. as leaders of organizations representing millions of veterans o we agree with secrety gibson that there is a need to provide t va with additional resources now, to insure that veterans can access the health care they have earned either from va providers or through non-va purchased care. we urge congress to expeditiously approve supplemental funding thatal fuly addresses the critical needs outlined by secretary gibson, either prior to or at the same time as any compromise legislation that may be reported out ofof the house-senate conferenceco committee. whether ithe costs 17 billion or 50 billion over the next three years, congress has a sacred

to provide va with the fund it requires to meet both immediate needs, through non-va care and future needs by expanding va's internal capacity. and i continue. again this is a letter from almost every major veterans organization. and iti continue. last month we wrote to you, they wrote to the chairman of the house and the senate veterans committees. we wrote to you a to outline the principles and priorities essential to addressing the access crisis, a copy of which is attached. the first priority, and i quote, must be to insure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be providedly access to timely, convenient health care ased quickly as medically indicated. second, and, end of quote. second, when va is unable to provide that care directly, quote, va must be involved in the timely coordination of and

fully responsible for payment for all authorized non-va care. third, congress must provide supplemental funding for this year and additional funding for next year to pay for the temporary expansion of non-va-purchased care. finally, whatever actions va or congress takes todd address the current access crisis must also, quote, protect, preserve and strengthen the va health care system so that it remains capable oft providing a full, continuum, of high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans. and, mr. president, without objection i would like to submit this letter, for the record. >> without objection. >> essentially what the letter goes on to talk about is that many of these organizations have been look at this issue for years and in their independent budget have i noted that the va

needs more space, because you have many hospitals where there are not enough examination rooms, and that slows down the ability of doctors and nurses td treat patients. that we need more doctors and nurses. so for many of these organization this is is not new news. they have known it for years. so, mr. president, here's where we're'r at. good news is, that i think we i can bring forth a bill which deals with emergency, contracted out care for veterans today on long waiting period. i think we can deal with the issue that senator mccain feels very strongly about, and that is making sure that veterans who live 40 miles or more away from a va facility, will be able to go to the private physician of their choice. and i t think we can also strengthen the va in terms doctors and nurses and information technology and space, so that we don't keepon

running into this problem year after year. it is going to take the va time in order to bring in the doctors and nurses and do the construction. so, mr. president, i would hope, i just, i don't want to get into the't details of the discussions that we're having with the house. but i did want to make veterans, veterans and in fact members of congress aware of what, where io believef that we are at this moment and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. >> 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend the house judiciary committee as it considers impeachment of the president and the charge of abuse of power. >> what you have here, are questions about what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had

been found out by the committee and by the senate watergate committee were indeed impeachable. and thirdly can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later, sunday night at 8:00 eastern, on american history tv, on c-span3. . . >> i thought it would be

compelling to tell the story of a white family in the back -- black, with the same name who come from the same place and all of them from slavery through the civil war, reconstruction, jim crow, the civil rights movement up until today. and compare and contrast. >> author chris tomlinson on his family's slave owning history in texas and how the legacy still affects americans on. he talked with the brother of former nfl running back ladanian tomlinson about their families lineage as former slaves from video. saturday night at 10 eastern on c-span2's "after words." >> the 9/11 commission released a new report on the growing threat of cyber attacks. the report comes 10 years after the commission issued its recommendations for forming intelligence committee in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

up next former commission leaders time team in lee hamilton -- tom kean. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. it is my pleasure to interrupt your conversation for the last conversation of the day. i'm jason grumet, president of the bipartisan policy center. and it's a great pleasure to be here today. when we got the bipartisan policy center seven years ago with the leadership and support of senators daschle, dull, baker and mitchell, this was our imagination to our goal was to create the kind of infrastructure and expertise that could support work and events like today. i really want to thank again our terrific partners, the public policies and and the carnegie corporation both for the substantive and intellectual engagement and, of course, the financial support that makes the day and the report possible.

when i'm out describing the bipartisan policy center's constructive partisanship and our efforts to restore principled collaboration, i tend to get two responses to some combination of, sounds like tough sledding, and at least he had job security. and it's either understanding. we have deeply dysfunctional government and you can on described as a target rich in carbon for very big problems. one of the great aspects of this work for me as i get an opportunity to work with a variety of different, fast and people, tremendous issues and terrific leaders. i can tell you in my seven years there's really been no more compelling effort than the opportunity over the last year to work with a 9/11 commission. i really obviously want to thank lee and tom. a unique aspect of working with lee and thomas and wants to talk to them. the report that we released

today as i think mentioned was informed by literally dozens of interviews and reflections from experts inside and outside of government. most of those interviews were not retribution but there is one reflection that i am pleased to share with you now. >> congratulations to the 9/11 commission on the 10th anniversary of the release of the historical report. as you gathered here in washington i know you're also paying tribute to the leadership of two great americans. tom kean and lee hamilton. 10 years ago, the 9/11 commission came together on a bipartisan basis to help the american people understand one of the darkest days in our history. and to provide recommendations about how to keep our country safer. the power of the report, your commitment to transparency, and your dedication to preventing future attacks brought our country together. from leadership of the director of national intelligence, to the

analysis of the national counterterrorism center, to the coordination of our federal, state and local agencies your i rely on your recommendations every day. none of that would've been possible without the leadership provided by lee and tom. you come from different parts of our great country. tom is a proud citizen of the garden state, and lee is a quintessential hoosier who first made his name on the basketball court. but both of you embody what americans want in their public servants. integrity, humility, intelligence and a commitment to put the interests of our country before any partisan or personal agenda. from the statehouse trenches to the halls of congress, you've major market. i speak for so many americans what is the our country could use a lot more public servants like tom kean and lee hamilton. you are also times which is why today you are still providing recommendations to my administration and congress about how to protect our country. so thank you, to the 9/11 commission and to the two-minute

provided such extraordinary leadership. you have made our country safer. you have not only my thanks but the thanks of a grateful nation. [applause] >> so as you can imagine it's a real honor to be sharing the stage with two leaders who have demonstrated bipartisanship can provide. there's no question that our nation is deeply divided today, but it would be a gross misrepresentation to suggest that the 9/11 commission was operating during a gentle time of bipartisan constructive agreement and members of congress holding hands in the national interest. but still, amid those political times and incredibly high-stakes, tom and the united five democrats and by republicans in a consensus report that obvious result in dramatic policy change and also helped heal our nation from the tragedy of 9/11.

so having spent the morning focused on policies can and we want to close today with a reflection on the commission process, a little bit of behind the music review, what we can learn about functional partisanship and understand the processes that have guided us successfully through most of our nation's 230 year history. i'm going to join -- look at that. going to join these two leaders and post a couple of questions. so first off, i think it's been mentioned in a few different ways today that the fundamental essence of politics is some amount of trust. now, you do have worked so effectively together. i think a lot of people thought you knew each other before this process, that you didn't intimate and trusted friends and, of course, my instinct is that is not the case. so i thought it would be useful to share, how did you meet each

of them frankly what were your first impressions if you would be so bold? >> jason, you are correct. i had known about tom kean as governor, not a lot about new jersey -- [laughter] he was always recognized and thought of as one of the more successful governors in recent history. so i knew him by reputation. i may have shaken his hand once or twice before we met. to head up the 9/11 commission. it's worth remembering that both of us were substitutes. the original nominees were henry kissinger and george mitchell. and both of them had to step aside because of conflict of

interest. so tom and i were second stringers. tom and i met, and i've told the staff last night, almost the first thing he said to substantively was, lead, we're going to make every decision jointly. well, having come from the congress where the chairman has all the power and the ranking member has none of the power, and where partisanship is very strong, and staffs are chosen on a partisan basis, i was somewhat flabbergasted. it was an extraordinary gesture on tom's part, just extraordinary. and i look back on it as one of the most important decisions in government that i have encountered. because when you think about all the things that flows from the

fact we had a unanimous report and were able to work together and all the legislation passed and all the changes in the institutional structure of government, of all the budget changes, all of that flowed from tom's initial offer. and i think it's quite extraordinary. so i became acquainted with a man who a vision of where he wanted to go, and how to get there. he taught me patience, which has never been one of my great qualities. he taught me how to listen, and the most important skill in politics and government, which is the ability to build consensus behind a solution. it's a very -- excuse me for wandering around a little here, jason, but it's a very easy thing to go into a room where

you have differences of opinion and blow it apart. i know it's easy because i've done it on any number of occasions. what's really hard, really hard, is to go into the room and get people to work together. it usually takes a lot more than one meeting. tom hauser that skill to an extraordinary degree. -- tom has that skill to an extra new degree. so he deserves the credit for putting the commission on a consensusbuilding posture. >> some early memories of the process of? >> yeah, i remember that meeting myself. the thing about lee is his reputation launched before him. i knew all along about lee hamilton, every single thing i knew about him was good. i talk to republican friends of mine in the congress. i said is a wonderful guide to work with.

i've talked to people usually are very partisan and they said he knows how to work between the parties. he's made it comes once in that realm. so i'm not sure, lee, i would have said that too many other people. but your reputation was so good in the area of everybody trusting you really in this town, and very few people trust anybody in this town. everybody trusted lee hamilton. so when i walked in and said we're going to work together, i had been understand this is somebody i was going to have a great deal of pleasure working with. and not only that, as somebody who filled in so many gaps that i had in leading the commission. i was the outsider. i came from new jersey. i had never worked in washington. and this was a washington institution dealing with washington problems of the government and the congress and all of that. and so lee's long experience and trusted experience in both administrative and in the

congress was something that i totally lacked. without lee i wouldn't have known what the hell i was doing, but i could go to him with total trust and get his opinion and now it was based on intelligence, long experience, and absolute integrity. and so that wasn't hard. but to answer your question really is, lee and i worked on it hard. we worked on it very hard to do bipartisan. it wasn't, the first time "meet the press" called me and asked me to go, i fear if you have lee hamilton with me. tim russert people basically said, we don't let guests pick a gas. and i said then get somebody else. oh, about two hours later they go back and they said we' we wod be delighted to have you and lee. then the way the other commissioners, with their own

dedication of our partisanship started going by like people, like noah's ark, two by two. so each republican invited would ask a democrat, a democrat would ask a republican, so we got known throughout the town as people who are working together in a bipartisan manner. but we worked everything from the seating arrangements, the hearings, in private, republicans and democrats sit next to each other. just everything we could do to emphasize partisanship from the beginning. the other thing i would say by the way is very important that lee and i worked together on. you can't be bipartisan and lest you get to know each other. and recognize each other as people. people who were there to do a job and who care very much about what they do. it was the same motivations you are. so the idea we would need for dinner, even with no agenda sometimes, get to know each other. the idea that jayme was kind of

to invite the commissioners to her house, john lehman to the same thing in new york. that we got to know each other as people. and those are indeed started to disappear. but, you know, the answer is, you know, lee hamilton was enormously important in that process, and he came from a background of dealing with people in both parties. it was rare in this town. >> i think that's really a tremendous reflection that embodies our expense in almost every successful effort we've ever undertaken. also very important that you have that kind of community in al-sadr a number of people mentioned it wasn't all rosy in this process started and, in fact, time, i registered one point the commission was set up to fail. so if you would, think back 12 years ago and talk a little bit about how do the rest of the world embrace your commitment to

collaboration? do you feel you had to overcome frameworks that were designed not to be successful? >> i made that comment, and i think it was true, because the congress voted for us to be set up, an awful lot of members of congress didn't want us at all, and the families know that better than anybody else because they had to fight for sitting out the commission. the president didn't want us. he thought he could do, investigation in the administrator branch. they didn't give us enough money. they give us less money than any other commission had gotten. they didn't give us enough time, and it was in the year of the presidential election exit it was the most partisan time in washington. i look at all those factors and figured, my god, we've been setup to fail. and so it was -- we have to fight, fight to get more money. we of the fight to get more time. we have to fight to get access to documents we needed.

we had to fight to get people to testify to make our cases. nothing was easy. and without the kind of bipartisan group we had with us, without the work of all these commissioners, we would never have been successful because i think a lot of people thought we had been set up to fail and they would have been sad if we had. >> i would simply add that there's no such thing as instant credibility. we didn't have credibility when we started as a commission. commissions are a dime a dozen in this town. and you have to overcome a certain skepticism about commissions if you're a part of one. you have to work and earn credibility. and it took us months, maybe a year or so, before we really have credibility, but people began to understand that we were serious, that we were not a

highly partisan body, that we had an enormously important mandate given us by the families of the victims. and an important mandate from the congress itself. the individual commissioners, their reputations, their credibility as professionals, was enormously helpful to establishing the credibility of the commission. and as we performed our job in people began to understand the importance of what we were doing, our approach to it, and our credibility begin to build. you could just feel it. i sensed it as we did our work through a period of maybe better than a year. we were building credibility as we went along.

so that when we got to the end and issued a report, we had standing among the american people, and among the media. this is a tough town. the media people are tough on politicians. i can give you quite a lecture on that, but i won't. but we had earned their respect i believe in the process. and they began to see this commission as unusual. >> one more question kind of reflecting back to the process. the bpc we often find in our negotiations that it comes down to a small number of issues, often of the most important issues, they become essentially the crucible of the debate, that the group has to work its way through the issue and once it breaks through that issue, just about everything else feels possible. do you remember issues like that? i know these were private discussions, so obviously share what you are comfortable with.

but wit with a moment you felt e think i'm in the balance and issues that drove the larger discussion? >> yes. a number of them. and lee hamilton had a mantra. we would get into some pretty heated discussions about particularly the language of the report and the recommendations, and then there would be a hesitation and you would hear lee say, let's come back and look at the facts. and you got out of -- and then gradually we started removing the adjectives from the report. and just stating the facts. if you look at that report, there are not a lot of adjectives in a. it's just the report with plain writing, and clear writing because we got rid of the adjective. the adjectives were what people got excited about. and i think you were the one, every time, let's look at the facts. that was an enormous contribution. wants we got rid of the adjectives, you know, we found agreement. >> that was a key point.

i'm sitting here looking at the washington monument, and -- outside the window, and it brings back a memory of mine. i drive home two, 3:00 in the morning sometimes across the 14th street bridge into northern virginia, and on several occasions i would never thinking to myself, oh, we are never going to get agreement on that issue. we've been talking about it for several hours and hadn't reached it. but we would come back. now, here's where tom's patience paid off. we come back and start all over again. and what came to me very strongly was that consensus can be reached on most issues, not all issues, most issues. if you approach it properly. you've got to have done. you've got to have patience.

you've got to try to understand the other guys point of view. you've got to ask yourself what are the commonalities in our views, and what are the dissimilarities in our views. and how can we reconcile those views? that was the approach we try to take. jason, you asked specific issues. i'm not sure i can answer that. i don't have a specific issue in mind that really hung us up. tom, do you? >> i think how to handle intelligence and came to be was one of long discussion. we look at every point of view. we had people come and testify from great britain and how they did it. and that took a long time to get a consensus, i think on dni and how to do it. >> you are probably right. we had an extraordinary access

to good judgment from all kinds of people, former officials. i don't know how many we interviewed. we interviewed scores and scores of them. and people wanted us to succeed. that begin an important factor. the country -- this event of 9/11 was the most tragic day in our history, probably. and it had a huge impact on the american people. so early on we sensed that they were rooting for us, and that made a big difference. they wanted us to come up with something that would be useful for the country. when you have that kind of support behind you, you feel it. you feel it, and i think the commissioners understood that

the country was depending on us. they really wanted us to succeed here. and they fully supported us. it was not just a matter of the families. the families led the way, but they captured the attention of the american public. the politicians, incidentally, that led the city were not initially enthusiastic about us. it was only after the people became enthusiastic about us that the politicians began to change. >> another new dynamic in our democracy. >> one more thing. the staff. i mean, we had a4a short time to hire a lot of good people. but a lot of good people wanted to work for us because of the tragedy. and lee and i had one commonality. we didn't you whether somebody was republican or democrat. we never asked that question,

but we did not somebody could been a heavy partisan for either republicans or democrats. and so we went through resumes pretty carefully, and say no partisan, we didn't care. but if you have been very active, very active in campaigns in very active for one party or another, then we didn't want you because we didn't want that kind of partisanship seeking into our collaborations. >> i don't think we ever ask anybody their political affiliation. >> we didn't speak we have actually supervision in that staff. the deputy director, the director. the two of them were outstanding in the work that they did for us. dan marcus, i think i saw earlier, he was the legal counsel. and the top strata of the staff were really outstanding people, who shared i think our vision of the importance of what we were doing. and tom and i relied enormously

on them throughout the process. and i think the rest of the staff did, too. incidentally, one of the things that commissioners called upon us to do, which we refused to do, i won't name any names of the commissioners here, but i could, who came to us and said, i want you to assign a staff person to help me on this issue. tom and i refused that order. we didn't want to give up any staff people to others i guess. we were a little selfish at that point, but the staff worked for the commission. they worked for tom and me. they were totally nonpartisan, and they had a high degree of technical expertise. we had about, what, 70 members of the statute if you look at the way they were allocated, you have a lot of expertise in

different areas of government. we looked at a lot of complicated stuff, technical stuff, and we had to have highly qualified staff to help guide us through it. >> tom, you referred to the report and its clean prose. one of the most unique things about this commission is that a government report, as you all know, is a bestseller. if i can quote john updike and a little bit about writing down everything the report in "the new yorker" he said, the king james bible with our languages lone masterpiece written by committee. at least until this year's 9/11 commission report. [laughter] and so that was a pretty significant and consequential choice. and in addition to just removing the fiery adjectives, how did you decide to write a report that wasn't really designed for the american public? and was that a hard decision? >> you know, we had a -- right

away, a decision to make when we picked our staff in that regard. and a lot of people recommended to us a bunch of generals, a bunch of other people, and we picked to lead the staff a historian, and we picked a couple -- i don't know if i said this before. i got a call from the white house. they said, we don't want him. and i said why not? and they said, because he's a historian. i said, this is history. no, no. we're going to tell you everything. we're just not going to tell you and we got it. and historians footnote. and i said, i think lee and i will probably pick and a story. were picked one historian, just went on the staff as well as some wonderful writers like john farmer and people like that. so we had on the staff people who could write an opinion how

to write history because that's what this was. but in addition to that, the most amazing thing to me is as the commissioners remember, those last meetings, all the commissioners went over every sense of that report and make changes. >> more than once. >> yes, absolutely. and so the idea of 10 people going over every word of the report and making changes, and still having something come out as readable was to me absolutely remarkable. >> i think that first chapter of the report is a classic. an absolute classic. it just tells you the story of what happened on 9/11. and it was put together by very good writers. simple, direct, tended -- candidate. and i think it will be a long,

long time before you see another government report on the bestsellers list. that's among our more notable achievements i believe. >> lee, i think is one of the commissioners, and the door member which one, but the original report by starting with a history of al-qaeda. one of the commissioners, i don't know who it was, said you know we shouldn't do that. we should start with the history of the event and how it happened. it was absolute the right decision, a suggestion made by the commission. i would give them credit if i could remember which one it was, it was absolutely the right solution. ..

i think actually we got the story right basically and that was one of our mandates. we had a double mandate number one, tell the story and number 2, sat out the recommendations to make us safer. we had a lot of people challenge -- i still get a call once every couple weeks from people who disagree strongly with the report and if i speak on a college campus i can absolutely assure you there will be people in the audience who have conspiracy theories about what happened on that day. some believing for example that the united states air force maneuvered though whole thing and flew the planes into the tower and all kinds of stories.

they even had a convention on this out and los angeles attacking the 9/11 commission report, 3,000 people, i am told, thought we were nuts. so you run into that element. there's a large segment of the american people, larger than you might think who believe anything that comes out of government is wrong and we encountered some of that as we should the report. >> there were a lot of unique dynamics you were all affected by but one was clearly the role of the families. it was terrific to have leaders of the families here with us today but talk a little bit about how you engage the families and what opportunities also challenges there were because of the depth of emotion

from this tragedy. >> that was one of the most humbling and to me like changing experiences. i was -- maybe the only commissioner who worked in the middle of the area where most of the people lost their lives so i knew a number of people who perished that they. i knew their families, i went for six months as people recognize the loss at different times. i was on the board of a company the bastille 90 people in the towers so for that reason i think i saw more of the families then anybody else. they worked in a very effective way. but their passion, their righteous anger, even their irrationality sometimes, out of

their deep grief and problems was the driving force. there wouldn't have been a commission if not for the families. as we move along, every time we hit a cute boulder, not enough money, families were there to push more money, not enough time, the president refused to testify, condoleezza rice didn't want to testify, families pushed into made that happen. they were an interval part of our work and very very important. >> there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission report without them. is as simple as that. they had the credibility and the standing which we did not have to put this forward, keep in mind neither it the executive or legislative branch were very anxious to do this early on. congress looked at it as an intrusion. we were doing something they

were qualified to do. the executive branch had deep reservations about it. what changed the politicians was not tom and me but the families. the other lesson for these families for me was -- i often cited when i talked to people about citizen participation, in an amazingly short period of time they learned to be very sophisticated people in dealing with government. this place is a complicated city. of very complex place. the levers of power here people spend a lifetime trying to understand. they picked up the rudiments of politics very quickly to push

forward their ideas and it is about as good an example of citizen participation as i know what they did. i don't think any of them would claim to be experts on the american government prior to 9/11. all of them can claim to be experts now. they got results and there are a lot of lessons in their activity. i hope, incidentally, maybe it has already happened, i hope the academics built in to what you all did because it is a marvel example of participation in the details would be very instructive about the future. >> these the tough guys to moderate. i could ask a lot more questions but i want to open this. one more question and we will

take as many audience questions as we had time for. my last question builds on a lot of this conversation. you have identified a number of the themes that are essentials of functional government, trust, the ability to have private conversations, the commitment to facts, the outside pressure from an engage citizenship and one of the reasons we were so enthusiastic about bringing the commission together is you are just an existence proof of how it can work. my question is what do you see as the legacy of the commission beyond its recommendation? >> tom brokaw said to me that it was a great report, important recommendations, but i think the reason the american people embrace you was it was the first important bipartisan thing that had been done in this town in a long long time and it was

unanimous. that has got to be an important part of our legacy that republicans and democrats can come together. the idea when i first learned about lee was he had been working with republicans and democrats. my history was i was speaker of a legislature in new jersey that had no majority. i had to maneuver that, i was governor of a state as a republican that didn't have a democratic legislature. i had to learn to work with them but out of all that, a deep respect for a number of people in the other party and that their views were legitimate. it was better to work with them than against them and i don't know if we have lost that in this town but the ideas that people come to washington come to the right reasons and these are people who want to serve the

american people and just as much as you do. and there is no reason therefore that you can't values at and work with people and come to a bipartisan resolution and i hope that is a lesson we get from the commission. >> one of the greatest ideas in history of mankind, to be modest about it. a representative democracy. no one said representative democracy is easy. it is very hard work and i think what the commission achieve is an example of representative democracy working. not perfectly, we had a few bumps and bruises along the way,

several recommendations were ignored but a lot of good things happened because of it. the ability to develop a consensus behind the solution which was what government is all about, government is really about a search for a remedy. that is not my phrase. some scholar said that bud that is exactly right. there is an awful lot of politics, a lot of noise, a lot of diversion out here which we focus on a great deal but underneath it all, what you are really trying to do in the political system is to find a remedy to problems that are enormously difficult to solve. when i went to high school many decades ago we had 130 million

people in this country. today, whenever it is, 320 million, so in my working life time and time's, we far more than doubled in size as a country and of course we also have become much more diverse so the consensus building process has become much harder and it takes terrific energy and skill to make it work. this is an example where it did work. representative democracy can work. not easily but it can work. >> let's open up to some questions. we have matt, fair enough. >> my son was on the 105th floor

of tower 1 when it was hit and we lost my son matthew that day. i was asked by the commission in the beginning for my wife and i to be part of the families that the commission could use to bounce off information before they went to the public. i remember back then there are 28 pages, a commission. they did not want these pages to be classified, the executive branch of the government kept the unclassified. going forward, bob graham, representative lynch, representative jones would get them declassified, and even brought h r 428 to get a ruling

to get an declassified, to this day they are still declassified, they are still classified, they are still classified. i would like to know from the gentleman on the dais, what are your feelings to this day, do you still think they should be declassified? >> yes. they should be. i am embarrassed that they are not the classified. we emphasized throughout transparency. i assumed incorrectly that our records would be public, all of them, everything. when i learned that the number of the documents were classified or even redacted, i was

surprised and disappointed. i want those documents declassified. i am embarrassed to be associated with a work product that is secret. >> very briefly, in this democracy, very little lot to be classified. only the most seriously important national security issues and there are very few of them. my experience, almost every other commissioner had access to classified information before under security clearance. i never had -- i was the outsider so i was excited when i got my first shiny rights to look at secrets and i was amazed in reading this stuff that it was stuff i knew already.

del whole report on my classification i turned to the fbi guy who was watching me and said i knew all this already. and he said yes, but you didn't know it was true. that is not a reason for classification. i don't think i am exaggerating. 60% to 70% of the stuff we saw that was classified in my opinion should not have been. should have been available to the american people. this is an example , as i remembered that particular section, it has been updated. we did research on that particular episode in san diego with saudi arabia and i believe if you read the 9/11 reports you will find anything you want to find about that particular section. there's no reason to classify it anymore even if some of the facts are wrong that can be pointed out but i don't believe -- we are not a strong nation if we keep less secret from our

people, i think. >> question in the middle? and please introduce yourself before you ask your question. >> i have a question because recently i visited the 9/11 exhibition at the museum and i saw passport's next to the 9/11 attacks. do you think we have been right to show those people, terrorists -- the individual and not the country. by showing the passports you are accusing finley and saudis of being terrorists and i think that is not right. i don't know what you think about that. and i am but saudi so my father, al qaeda and tax -- my father works for the general security.

so this -- my question is i don't think terrorism is about a country or pointing out a country, it will only generate a anger and hatred toward a country when the majority of those people are not interested in terrorism. thank you. >> the question is about the visit, the effective way to talk about issues or building the conversation going forward. >> we have got to make it very very clear that these are a violent and unusual segment of a great religion and that actually if we are going to continue to fight terrorism as we are, the

muslim community are our best allies because they resent these people as much or more than we do. their families have been harmed in many cases. if we realize that and recognize that working with the muslim community is the best way to root out the terrorism. at the same time having tremendous respect for the community we do it. we will all be better off. >> the only thing i will lead is you understand we are guests at the museum but i will convey that concern to the folks who have that authority to make sure they are at least aware of your views which we take seriously. >> we have a question far back in that quarter and then we will come back to the middle. >> thank you. the impact of 9/11 is set into

affect a whole series of foreign wars, almost an american jihad in terms of our foreign involvement. much of that -- the consequence oil policies of the united states has not been discussed. and number of panelists said that the recommendations of the commission to into effect or prevented a lot of terrorist attacks but without the transparency, the american public is expected to take officials at their word. these attacks have been prevented but at the same time panelists have stated we are in a much more dangerous world. and we created a more dangerous

environment and i do believe it is important to be critical of american policy in general and not just focus crisis to crisis but the general trend that has taken off in the past ten years. >> i don't think it is correct to say we created a more dangerous world. what has created a more dangerous world for us has been the activities of others, not our activities. you can argue that some of our policies have angered people and caused them to want to attack us. i do not accept the ideas that we created the more dangerous

world. there are a lot of things happening in the world today the we don't control and that come about not because of the united states but because of what is happening locally in a given country or given region and so many of the problems arise from the arab world. the arab world is going through term oil and we are trying to deal with it as best we can. it is a formidable challenge for policy leaders. your reaction is quite understandable. we put an enormous amount of money into counterterrorism. we have put -- we restructured the whole government, we learned a lot, and i think, and many had

given their lives, and wiped out terrorism. the inside of the commission, terrorism was almost a generational challenge, it will continue to keep the sense of urgency and complacency. >> we obviously didn't get into foreign policy, and a section of the report dealing with relations with other countries, what we asked for in the report, the policy took more into

account, promoting education in that part of the world. >> an agenda of opportunity. >> in using that foreign policy, we are deeply unpopular and have been for a while. and the most populous muslim country in the world is in indonesia and in indonesia just as unpopular until the tsunami happened and when this tsunami happened as he remembered, the first president bush, president clinton went there with the tremendous amount of aid and american soldiers were there with packages of food and sanitation and all fact. after is that the popularity in the united states, in my memory, 17% to 70% and is still the highest. that is a lot cheaper than war.

and i think the point in that section of the report, they haven't read that much of it. and a foreign policy that does not depend on troops on the ground, and women in all of that. >> two more questions. on this side of a room, anybody want on this side of the room, you had a question? >> i am nancy aronson, families of september 11th, we lost my sister in law, myra, on flight 11. two things. i was part of the family, conversations that the 9/11 memorial museum, and i wanted to

comment briefly to the saudi ladies that we struggle that the museums that portrayed the terrorists comment and tried to be extremely sensitive to mentioned that those people were a very limited, very, very small group of a large and comprehensive and loving religion. but my question to you today is as a family, what is our next step? how can we help move forward with the homeland security, perhaps pressure to -- on congress about dealing better with homeland security? how can we help make ourselves safer? is it scary like the flight 17 thing? i am hearing about the plastic

bombs and stuff? what can we do with our next step? thank you? >> my reaction to that is the most important thing you can do is to convey what we tried to convey in this report and that is the urgency of dealing with the threat of terrorism. the things that really worries us as reflected in their report is that the american people have turned their attention to other things, understandably. a lot of things happening in laurel and in this country. and if they turn their attention away from terrorism and the possibility of terrorist attacks, then the politicians will turn away from it too. you heard director clappers this morning say that he is worried about cuts in the appropriation

bills. so all of these things go back to urgency, getting rid of the complacency. and i think the families would be quite helpful if they focused on public relations campaign here in effect, to let people know that it is the dangerous world and counterterrorism efforts need to be supported. now you can get into a lot of specific things they attract, you can go through our recommendations. maybe you have some views of your own on recommendations and you can plug those things, you heard a lot of plugs today for directing oversight of the congress. whatever moves you, move in that direction but overall the huge challenge is to keep the eyes of the nation on the prospect of

the terrorist attack and what might come from that. >> briefly, a long, extraordinary history of this country i don't know if any group that has taken the tragedy and tried to use that tragedy to teach other people in as persistent in trying to make this country better place, as persistent in making sure it never happens to other families, you have never, ever stopped. i think it is extraordinary in the history of this country when you have done and what you continue to do. continue to do it. take the recommendations you think are important to the security of the country, you have tremendous credibility. i think you continue to be of great help. >> i would like to ask you to join me in thanking you and tom for decades of proud public service to the country.

[applause] >> as we are thinking of them, we thank all of you. you are not an audience. the vast majority of you are experts who have been deeply engaged in meetings this work for a dozen years. we thank you for that and hope we have the cut opportunity to continue to work together. ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate begins its day in a few moments with debate on a bill providing tax breaks to businesses that the offshore jobs back to the u.s.. senators will vote at 1:45

whether to proceed formally to that bill. also members will hold a first vote on a fourth circuit court nomination and confirmation for an air force secretary. live coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our rock and fortress.

thank you for even giving us credit for our good intentions. you examine our motives discerning the nuances of our motivation and the chasm between what we desire and what we're able to accomplish. lord, we're grateful for your mercy that doesn't make our limitations the standard for judging us, but you accept our faith in your redemptive power. give our senators a blessed day. may they produce a harvest of good deeds for your glory. help them to submit to your

spirit's control. provide them with vision, wisdom and courage to meet today's challenges. we pray in your great 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., july 24, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 453, the bring jobs home act. this will be postcloture time. cloture has been invoked on this measure. at 1:45 this afternoon, there will be a voice vote on adoption of the motion to proceed to the bring jobs home act. there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of pamela harris to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit, followed by a voice vote on confirmation of the nomination of lisa disbrow to be an assistant secretary of the air force. i ask unanimous consent that at

3:40 this afternoon, the senate conduct a moment of silence in member of the 1998 capitol shooting that resulted in the deaths of special agents john gibson and officer jacob chestnut. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. 2649 is due for a second reading here in the senate. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings with respect to this legislation. the presiding officer: objection is heard. it will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, many years ago, i came to washington, d.c., to go to law school. i came back here because nevada didn't have a law school. although i had opportunities to go other places, i came back here because it was kind of the thing nevadans did.

i got a job through a nevada congressman. we only had one at that time, walter s.bering. it was called a patronage job. i was a capitol police officer. i was assigned here to the capitol, assigned to the house side. and that's what i did. my badge is still in my conference room. i worked the evening shift from 3:00 to 11:00, as i recall. mr. president, when i was a member of the capitol police force, as i've said here on the floor before, i didn't do anything very dangerous. the most dangerous thing i did is direct traffic out on constitution avenue. at that time they had subway tracks in the road and the cars

would bounce around, but i didn't do anything very dangerous, but i was a police officer. i'm very proud of that fact. mr. president, in this senate chamber, as we speak, there are people here who are assigned to take care of us, staff, and all the tourists that come here. we have tourists in the galleries, and the police officers are assigned every place. some have uniforms. most of them don't. their job is to do everything they can to make sure this magnificent capitol complex is safe. every day, there are people who if they could would do damage to this capitol and to the people that work here. in 1998, two of our capitol police officers were on duty and a crazed man 16 years ago came

into the capitol and shot jacob chestnut cold dead right there at the -- we call it the memorial door. john gibson heard this commotion and saved many tourists and staff from this crazed man, but in the process, he was also murdered, killed. two officers died that day who served a combined 36 years on the force, protecting all of us and all the many people that come to this capitol complex. i know the families of these two officers. we have met with them on a yearly basis. i know nothing can make up for the loss of these two fine men 16 years ago. we hope their families and friends take comfort in knowing that those of us who were here

that day hold them in our memories and our hearts. while it's little solace to their families, the tragedy that day made the capitol a safer place. it was because of them that we finally were able to make this place a safer place. we had worked on it for well more than ten years, to have a visitor's center. we now have a visitor's center. out here, you walk outside, you see the beautiful lawn, but under that is a visitor's center. there is as much underground there as on top of the ground. now people can come into the capitol. they can be safe and secure. there are places to go to the bathroom. there is food and wonderful viewing in that complex. so because of these two men, we were able to get that done and make the capitol a safer place. we have the capitol visitor's center now which prevents a madman like the one who shot these two police officers from entering the capitol. so we're grateful for their

sacrifice. we're grateful every day devoted men and women like them guard these hallowed halls. so i -- mr. president, as i remember, we had a senate retreat in southern virginia here. my wife became ill. as i have said a number of times before, agent gibson rushed to her side and he had to run a long ways from where they were. i can remember how he was perspiring when he came there. so i have fond memories of these two police officers and recognize the sacrifice they made for us.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: today i'd like to begin by remembering two men to whom we owe so much -- officer j.j. chestnut and detective john gibson. exactly 16 years ago, these capitol policemen were shot in the line of duty, paying a terrible price in defense of every one of us, senators, staffers, pages, fellow officers and every american citizen who passes through these hallowed halls. these men knew the grave risks that came with the job, and yet they chose to wear the badge anyway. they made the decision to stand

in defense of the democratic ideal that this building symbolizes. we owe these men a debt that can never be repaid, so let us never forget their lives or their final act of heroism. we're reminded every time we pass the capitol police headquarters which bears both of their names. we are reminded every time we notice the plaque in the capitol that commemorates them. and we're reminded by observing today's men and women of the united states capitol police as they continue to protect this institution, honorably continuing the watch of these two fallen officers. so today the senate honors officer chestnut and detective gibson for their sacrifice, and we send our sincere condolences to the family and friends left behind. now, mr. president, on an

entirely different matter, if senate democrats were half as concerned about american jobs as they were about saving their own jobs this november, there would be almost no limit to what we could accomplish, yet rather than work with us to get anything serious accomplished for our constituents, we see the majority leader once again bowing to the whims of his campaign consultants and the senate becoming a little more than a campaign studio this week. well, the majority leader can spend all of his time fighting for the consultant class if he wants, but that won't stop republicans from offering job-saving commonsense ideas that really both sides should be able to support. for example, the senior senator from utah will offer an amendment that would repeal a democratic tax that helped push manufacturing overseas and could kill as many as 165,000 american jobs. it's a measure that would likely

pass if the majority leader would only allow a vote. i know that some of our friends on the other side plan to offer amendments, too. the question is, will those senators join us to demand that their amendments be considered, too, or will they allow the majority leader to just shut down the legislative process one more time, silencing their constituents? i hope they will make the right decision here. and since the majority leader seems so determined to convince everyone that he cares about protecting american jobs this week, i'm going to offer an opportunity to prove that he's serious about it. he can do it by allowing a vote or even voting himself for an amendment of mine called the saving coal jobs act. he's already blocked this bill once before, but i'll give him a chance to reconsider. everyone knows the administration's war on coal jobs is little more than an elitist crusade that threatens

to undermine kentucky's traditionally low utility rates, splinter our manufacturing base and ship well-paying jobs overseas. my amendment seeks to push back against this war on coal, this war on ordinary american livelihoods, and it seeks to help protect the administration's targets, too. kentucky coal families who want little more than to put food on the table and give their children a better life. it's really not too much to ask, so the majority leader has a choice. is he in chair -- favor of shipping kentucky jobs overseas or will he help me protect the middle class by supporting this amendment? regardless of what he decides, though, i'm going to keep fighting against this administration's unfair regulations. yesterday, the e.p.a. administrator came to capitol hill to defend the administration's extreme proposed energy regulations.

she tried to assure legislators that the administration wanted input from the republic as it -- from the public as it went about developing and implementing its job-killing agenda, but it's hard to take her seriously because earlier this week, i met with her in person and urged her to hold at least one listening session in coal country, the region most likely to be affected by the administration's regulations. she was unmoved. apparently the obama administration isn't isn't all that interested in what kentucky thinks. well, if washington official won't come to kentucky, kentuckians will come to washington. next week the administration plans to hold one of its listening sessions here in washington. i plan to testify. and so do several of my constituents, even though they'll have to travel hundreds of miles to get here. these kentuckians will make washington understand that they are more than just some statistic.

they are neighbors, they are moms and dads, and they refuse to be collateral damage in some eliseist war dreamed up in a bureaucratic boardroom here in washington. mr. president, today i want to celebrate the life of a kentucky airman who lost his life while wearing our country's uniform. lieutenant colonel john did not darin lot ofit's of paducah, kentucky, a 17-year veteran of the air force, was killed on

february 25, 2012, in an attack on the interior ministry in kabul, afghanistan. he was 44 years old. for his service in uniform, lieutenant colonel lot of it's received -- loftit's received several awards and decorations including the bronze star, the purple heart, the meritorious service meld with oak leaf cluster, the air force commendation medal, the army achievement medal and the air force combat action medal. darin, as his friends called him, was working in the ministry as an advisor to a program that developed a team of u.s. service personnel skilled in afghan and pakistani culture and languages. darin himself spoke the pashtu language and was protect in dari

and arabic enabling him to relate to the local afghans. darin was a liaison officer with top afghan national police officials in p ashtu. his work was so important after his death he was praised by the governor of afghanistan's zabul province. the governor said this about darin -- when the afghan see an american is speaking p ashtu they're inclined to open up to him and that's the reason he was so successful. he can go among the local population and get their impression of u.s. forces, he can do this better than any other soldier because he speaks their language and knows their culture. darin's commander, lieutenant general eric field of the air force special operations command added this on darin -- lieutenant colonel loftis

embodies the first special operations forces truth that humans are more valuable than hardware and through his work with the afghan people, he was undoubtedly bettering their society. his wife holly agrees with these kind words but has one more important point to add. darin was a great american, but more importantly, he was a devoted father to our two daughters, a loving husband, and a caring son. born on february 22, 1968 in indiana, darin's family moved to kentucky when he was 3 years old. he attended calloway county schools from kindergarten through his senior year in high school when he graduated in 1986. described as a high school whiz kid by some, darin got excellent grades and drove a black stewed abaker with cream

colored tires. -- studebaker with cream colored tires. he was a fine young man says the former principal of calloway county high school. i remember his smile when he'd greet me in the hallways, he was very polite, a young man of high morals and high integrity. i guess everything you'd think of in an airman. darin went on to study engineering at vanderbilt. at there he met a girl named holly while working for a service arranging security for everyone requesting it rather than working on campus alone. darin and holly got married and in 1992 the couple joined the peace corps. together they served two years in papua, new guinea with a tribe where darin spoke pidgin. he had a gift for language.

he entered the air force in 1996 and, originally classified as a space and missile officer he became a regional affairs strategist in 2008. by his first tour in afghanistan in 2009, he had become a major serving in special operations forces. he deployed to afghanistan for his second deployment with 866th air expeditionary squadron in 2011. darin continued to be an excellent student, earning three masters' degrees over the course of his air force career. he loved learning, he loved going to school, holly recalls. family was essentially important to darin. he lived for his kids and his family. i can tell you that, said john loftis, darren's father. when he was home, he flew with the kids all the time. he'd take them to school. they are going to miss him.

darin was so skilled in communicating and respected for cementing relationships with the afghans he worked with in kabul that during his tour in 2009 he was given a pashtu name, esan which translates to mean generous. darin explained the nickname to his daughters saying it's an honorable sense of duty to help others. in his memory, the u.s. air force special operations school in florida dedicated the school's auditorium in his name. an auditorium darin himself had previously taught and lectured in and the class of 1986 at drarin's alma mater organized a scholarship in his name beginning with two $1,000 scholarships to members of the class of 2014. so, mr. president, we are thinking of darin's family today

as i share his story with my senate colleagues. he leaves behind his wife holly, his two daughters alison and camille, his mother, chris jenny, his father john m.loftis, his brother-in-law brian brewer and many other beloved family members and friends. mr. president, the airman's creed learned by every american airman reads in part as follows -- "i am an american airman, guardian of freedom and justice, my nation's sword and shield, its sentry and avenger. i defend my country with my life." i hope that the family of lieutenant colonel john darinlo darinloftis knows the united states senate his life fulfilled

every word of this motto and that is why we pause today to remember his life, recognize his service, and stand grateful for his sacrifice. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to senate bill 2569 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 453, s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america.