than having another partisan wish list presented that we can fight over, i am pleased that you put forward a tough, balanced broad plan that gets us down the road towards the very real decisions that we have to make. debts and deficits are not a new development, mr. chairman. the whole time that you've served in the senate it has been a real challenge for both parties in the last four years i think only four federal budgets have been balanced. the path of least resistance for a generation has been to keep revenues low and services high and not deal with the gap. i think we are at a day of reckoning. i think it's my hope that this committee and members will be serious. maybe offcamera, maybe individually, maybe collectively about working hard towards finding the very real solutions that we need. president warner commented whatever a bipartisan compromise is ultimately reached to solve this problem, it will be difficult, it will be painful and it will need a real

enforcement mechanism. regardless of which party, regardless of which view, i think all of us can agree we have to find a way forward that doesn't eviscerate our safety net, that asks for broadly shared sacrifice. that doesn't jeopardize our fragile recovery. and that retains highly effective long supported programs. i believe we can do that with a balanced approach. and so, mr. chairman, i'm pleased that you put on the table today a tough long-term plan that takes from all the different areas where we need to make changes that achieves revenue growth through tax reform that reduces both

discretionary domestic spending and pentagon spending and it begins to deal with our most difficult long-term deficit and debt drivers. i was pleased that this commission presented their tough plan. that the gang of six worked hard on trying to turn it into legislative language and was happen to join the 45 senators who publicly support a long-term deficit reduction plan that is balanced in its approach. let me be clear, there are things in this plan that i really dislike. that i think are not om not perfect, i think are bad policy. and i think would cause needless harm to programs, people and sectors of our society that i advocate for and i care strongly about. i would like a see a final plan that prioritizes, infrastructure, innovation, energy, many of the things the senator spoke about before me. rather than repeating those comments i'll simply close by saying thank you for putting this plan out. i hope we will take the time as

a group diligently to wrestle with its value choices and to together reach a tough plan that will allow us before the end of this calendar year to cast the votes we need to cast to change the path for this country. thank you. >> i thank the senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very sympathetic to the plight of the chairman. know that he's very serious about these issues. appreciate that he worked with my predecessor who i know is very serious about the fiscal state of the country. but i feel like the chairman is in a position where he's like charlie brown and lucy meaning his leadership the majority leader harry reid has pulled the football for him for what we need to do in this committee which is not just presenting a plan out there for us to all be here today and give very eloquent opening statements about on both sides of the

aisle, but to really roll up our sleeves and take the hard votes on the planned and the amendments and the things we like and don't like about it and be willing to go home and tell our constituents why we took those votes to put together a fiscal blueprint for our country. i can't tell you how excited i was to be put on this committee. but i've been incredibly disappointed. it's very difficult for me to go home to the people of new hampshire who i think like all off our constituents have great kmongs because they're dealing with a tough fiscal environment at home. they understand they have less money coming in than before and sometimes it's more bills. but they sit down and figure it out and balance their budget.

not only they do it but every business in this country does it. when you served a t the county government you had to put forward a budget and you did it and you made the hard choices. and yet here in congress i think they look at us and they look at the senate as the place where unfortunately there's been a complete failure of leadership because you can have the best laid plan but if you look at the time that this committee has not been doing what we should be doing and i know that it's not because of the chairman, but because it's a really a failure i think from the overall leadership of the majority in the senate to say go do what you were set out to do in the budget committee to put forward the blueprint, the budget work because i've been here on this bug committee for over 700 days, you know. never done a markup. i don't know what it's like. i'd love to do a markup.

i'm willing to make the tough calls. i'm willing to vote on amendments. i'm willing to take tough votes and defend them to my constituents. that just doesn't happen around here. it just makes too much sense. with no other plan that if you aren't willing to back up what you have to put forward around here by your actions in willing to take the votes then there's no point in just having a plan floating out there without the courage of your convictions to be able to back it up with a hard vote. that's what we were sent here to do for the american people and rightly so that's what they expect of us. so i should share the sentiment of my colleagues i think on both sides of the aisle. this is incredibly disappointing given the fiscal crisis that this country faces. i got off my couch and decided to run for the united states senate because i've got two children, i have a 4-year-old and a 7-year-old. and i know that if we don't get this right now, it's not just about everyone else in this

room. but we are passing on massive amounts of debt and diminished opportunity to the next generation. and i don't ever want to look at my children i know they're going to say, mom, what did you do about it. i want this committee to actually take votes and to do what is right for this country. and i hope i appreciate that the chairman wants to do it. and i don't you to be charlie brown. i do not want the football to be taken away from you anymore because we can't afford to continue where we are in this country and you know what? we've better put it on the line and make some decisions and make the tough calls to get our fiscal house in order because you think about it if every hearing we had that was sort of a political hearing around here, i call these political sham hearings where we're trying to prove a political point instead of solving a problem around here, if we were able to take every single one of those

hearings and we were actually working on the real problems facing this country, we'd have a balanced budget right now. if we spent our time doing that. that's what the american people deserve. and we need to be accountable to them. i think at the end of the day right now, we should be ashamed that we aren't marking up a budget to take votes here. i think it's a failure of leadership. thank you. >> senator sessions, final thoughts for today. >> yes, mr. chairman, i think you can tell that members on our side like you. we appreciate you. we like all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this committee and really init's a misperception among a lot of people in america we don't get along personally throughout the whole senate, but we do have some sincere deep disagreements about what we're going to do.

i think we believe that we would have liked a real markup. it's now three years into the execution of deliberate and determined policy by the democratic leadership in the united states senate to a i void responsibility for the financial future of america. it's not acceptable of the senate leadership to not face up to the challenge of our time. the debt crisis facing america. we have a long-term systemic debt crisis. it's not going away anytime soon. we have got to make changes. it dwarfs all other issues facing our country. it is ased a plalg mullen said is the greatest threat oour national security. some might think it's smart when senator reid say it's foolish. and then to spend three years

avoiding votes necessary to have a budget or lay out a financial plan for the future. but is it really okay to wait until after the election to vote? is that what the american people expect of us? are they satisfied that we say oh we can't take votes close to an election, that might be tough. we we don't want to do that, do we? i don't think so. i don't think that's where the american people heads are. i think it's a big deal to fail the responsibility that we've been given as an honor to be senators. >> i think it's particularly wrong for the president to pose nothing serious for the democratic leadership in the senate to propose no plan, to try to block plans from coming up and then to criticize those who lay out plans that could change america and put us on the

right path. i don't think it's acceptable. i think a price will be paid for this failure. i would just say one more thing. if the lord allows on this republican party to have a majority in the senate, we're going to do our best to be worthy of the responsibility given us. we're going to be -- do everything within our power to produce a budget. one that can be reconciled with a house, a budget that will change the debt course of america, place this country on a path to progress and prosperity and not to decline. thank you for all the things that you've done, mr. chairman, the hard work you've put into understanding the challenges of america. the problem we've got is we're not willing to act on it. it's time for some action. thank you very much. >> i thank the senator. i thank all of my colleagues

today. let me indicate my own view because every one else has expressed themselves on this question. when i hear colleagues say there's been no budget put in place for a thousand days, i just don't think that's correct. i really don't. we passed last year the budget control act. the budget control act was not a resolution. budget control act is a law. a resolution is purely a congressional document. it never goes to the president for his signature. the budget control act passed both houses of congress and went to the president for his signature. the budget control act not only set the budget for this year and next, and i just read the lang from the budget control act.

the allocations, aggregates and levels shall apply in the senate as the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. that exact same language is repeated in the next pair photograph for 2013. the budget control act law shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. to suggest we have not put in place spending limits, or spending restraint, i think is misleading to people who are listening. i believe it is very clear in the budget control act that we passed a law that put in place spending limits not only for two years, but quite extraordinarily spending caps for ten years.

i've been here 26 years. i have never seen a budget resolution put in place spending caps for more than three years. the budget control act put in place spending caps for ten years. in addition the budget control act created a special committee with the obligation to come up with a plan for reforming social security, medicare and the tax system and told them if you are able to agree, you will be able to bring that proposal to the floor of the senate and not face a filibuster. be able to pass reforms on this programs in a simple majority vote. it further said if you can't agree, there will have to be an additional $1.2 billion of cuts

put in place in the so-called sequester. because the special committee did not agree, the $900 billion of budget savings in budget control act are law as are the additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts created by the fact that the special committee would not agree on reforming medicare, social security and our tax system. that is a total package of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. that is more than any package of spending cuts or spending restraint in the history of our country. where i do agree is what we don't have a long-term plan. a ten-year plan. we do have a pugt budget for this year and next. spending restrictions in place for those two years. what we don't have is a

long-term plan. that's why i spent a lot of time trying to figure out what i would take before this committee. at the end of the day, i decided to do what i deeply believe and i deeply believe boles simpson however imperfect it is and there are lots of things there that i strenuously disagree with, i told my staff i'll never forget the morning of the vote boles simpson. the only thing worse than being for this is being against it. because at least it gets our debt under control and begins to bring it down. and it does it in some kind of balanced way. i'd be the first to acknowledge we've got to make adjustments to it because things have happened

in the interval. i would say this also to you and i say this with sincerity. i don't believe that this is going to get resolved. i don't believe that all parties are going to get out of their fixed positions before an election. i wish we could. i wish we could. i don't see any evidence in my 26 years that that's going to happen. in fact, budget resolutions have not been done for a decade no matter who is in charge of the senate. in an election year. the only time it has happened is the last time i became chairman is 2008 i was able to get in an election year a budget resolution. that's one reason i insisted in the budget control act we did put in place spending limitations for the next two years and the enforcement mechanisms and spending caps for

the next ten. i tell you i believe as deeply as anybody on this committee that we have an obligation and a potentiality, a deep responsibility to get this country back on track. i am willing to work with anyone in these coming months to figure out what adjustments need to be made to the mark i've laid down. i will dedicate myself to trying to find a way to come together so that at the end of this year before we face the expiration of all the tax cuts that are in place, and before we face a sequester that i do believe would cut too much on national defense, that we find an

alternative. i am absolutely committed to trying. with that committee will stand in recess. we'll distribute the mark. i thank all members for participating. >> good to be here.

coming up this afternoon on c-span, republican presidential candidate mitt romney and arizona senator john mccain will be speaking at the republican national committee's state chairmans meeting. the event is taking place at sc princess hotel in scottsdale, arizona. gop national party chairman will also speak at the luncheon. that gets under way at 3:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on book tv on c-span 2, live coverage from the los angeles times festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. on saturday and sunday. biographers john farrell, richard newton and richard reeves and at 7:30 call in with your questions for steven ross. sunday at 2:00 eastern, watch for eric alterman and his take

on liberals in the cause. at 5:00, a panel on surveillance and secrets, about lori andrews, annie jacobsen and michael shirmer. the entire schedule is online at booktv.org. on tuesday the senate judiciary subcommittee held a hearing looking at racial profiling in the u.s. specifically it will focus on state immigration laws in alabama and arizona, law enforcement against african-americans, as well as anti-terrorism efforts against that target american muslims. witnesses include senator benjamin cardin of maryland who has introduced legislation called the end racial profiling act. this is just over two hours. this hearing will come to order. our hearing will focus on a civil right issue that goes to the heart of america's promise of equal justice under the law. protecting all americans from the scourge of racial profiling.

racial profiling is not new. at the dawn of our republic roving bands of white men known as slave patrols subjected african-american freed men and slaves to searches, detensions and brutal violence. during the great depression, many american citizens of hispanic descent were deported to mexico under the mexican repatriation and during world war ii, tens of thousands of innocent japanese americans were rounded up and held, confined in interment camps. 12 years ago, in march 2000, the subcommittee held the senate's first ever hearing on racial profiling. it was convened by then-senator john ashcroft, who would be appointed attorney general by president george w. bush. and in february 2001, in his first joint address to congress, president george w. bush said that racial profiling is, quote, wrong and we will end it in america. end of quote. we take the title of today's hearing from the promise

president bush made that night, 11 years ago. in june 2001, our former colleague, senator russ feingold of wisconsin, by predecessor's chairman of the committee held the senate's second and most recent hearing on racial profiling. i was there, there was bipartisan agreement about the need to end racial profiling. then came 9/11. the national trauma that followed civil liberties came face-to-face with national security. arab-americans, american muslims, south asian-americans faced national origin and religious profiling. one example, the special registration program targeted arab and muslim visitors, requiring them to promptly register with the i.n.s. or face deportation. at the time i called for the program to be terminated. there were serious doubts if it would help us combat terrorism. terrorism experts have since concluded that special

registration wasted homeland security resources and, in fact, alienated patriotic arab-americans and american muslims. more than 80,000 people registered under that program, more than 13,000 were placed in deportation proceedings. even today many innocent arabs and muslims face deportation because of special registration. how many terrorists were identified by the special registration program? none. next wednesday, the supreme court will hear a challenge to arizona's controversial immigration law. the law is one example of a spate of federal, state, local measures in recent years that under the guise of combating illegal immigration, have subjected hispanic americans to an increase in racial profiling. arizona's law requires police officers to check the immigration status of any individual if they have, quote, reasonable suspicion, close quote, that the person is an undocumented immigrant. what is the basis for reasonable

suspicion? arizona's guidance on the law tells police officers to consider factors such as how someone is dressed and their ability to communicate in english. two former arizona attorneys general followed by 42 other state attorneys general filed a brief in the arizona case in which they said, quote, application of the law requires racial profiling, close quote. of course, african-americans continue to face racial profiling on the streets and sidewalks of america. the tragic, tragic killing of trayvon martin is now in the hands of the criminal justice system, but i note that according to an affidavit filed by investigators last week, the accused defendant, quote, profiled trayvon martin and, quote, assumed martin was a criminal, close quote. the senseless death of this innocent, young man has been a wake-up call to america. and so, 11 years after the last senate hearing on racial

profiling, we return to the basic question, what can we do to end racial profiling in america? we can start by reforming the justice department's racial profiling guidance, issued in 2003 by attorney general john ashcroft. the guidance prohibits use of profiling by federal law enforcement in, quote, traditional law enforcement activities, end of quote, and that's a step forward. however, this ban does not apply to profiling based on religion and national origin and it does not apply to national security and border security investigations. in essence, these exceptions are a license to profile american muslims and hispanic americans. as the nonpartisan congressional research service concluded, the guidance, quote, numerous exceptions may invite broad circumvention for individuals of middle eastern origin and profiling of latinos. today congressman john conyers and i are sending a letter, signed by 13 senators and 53

members of the house asking attorney general holder to close the loopholes in the justice department's racial profiling guidance. congress should also pass the end racial profiling act that i welcome the attendance of my colleague and former member of the committee, senator cardin of maryland, who has taken up this cause from our colleague, senator feingold, and he's here today to testify. let's be clear, i want to say this and stret it. the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers perform their jobs admirably, honestly and courageously. they put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. but the inappropriate actions of a few who engage in racial profiling create mistrust and suspicion that hurt all police officers. we'll hear testimony to what has been done in a positive way to deal with this issue by superintendent of police. that's why so many law enforcement leaders strongly

oppose racial profiling. racial profiling undermines the rule of law and strikes at the core of our nation's commitment to equal protection for all. you'll hear from the experts on our panel today. the evidence clearly demonstrates that racial profiling simply does not work. i hope today's hearing can be a step towards ending racial profiling in america at long last. senator graham is running late. senator leahy is out of the senate this morning. but was kind enough to allow me to convene this hearing. and i'm sure will add a statement to the record. i'm going to open the floor to senator graham when he does arrive. but, for the time being, because we have many colleagues here who have busy schedules of their own i want to turn to the first panel of witnesses. at the outset i do want to note that i invited the department of justice to participate in today's hearing but they declined. we're honored to be joined today by our colleagues from senate and the house. in keeping with the practice of

the committee, first we'll hear from members of the senate, then members of the house, practice which i loathe in the house, but now that we're running the show, i'm afraid you're just going to have to live with it, my house colleagues. each witness will have three minutes for an opening statement. complete written statement will be into the record. first witness, senator cardin, sponsor of s-1670, the end racial profiling act which i'm proud to co-sponsor. this is senator cardin's second appearance before this subcommittee. he testified last year on the civil rights of american muslims. senator cardin, we're pleased that you can join us today. please proceed. >> senator durbin, first, let me thank you for your leadership on the subcommittee. the fact that we have the subcommittee is a testament to your leadership in making clear that human rights are a priority of the united states senate. so i thank you for your leadership. and thank you very much for calling this hearing. it's a pleasure to be here with all of my colleagues but i particularly wanted to acknowledge senator conyers and