if they are constantly in their districts as opposed to developing relationships and pursuing arcane interests with fellow colleagues here? .. >> senator fulbright, democrat of arkansas, very interesting figure. i was talking to one of his aides once about what it was that prompted him as a democrat

to call against the president of his own party. why did he get so interested in vietnam and learned a lot about it? he sponsored series that educated the nation about that war. have we had anything comparable to iraq, i don't think so? to afghanistan? survey not. but fulbright devoted tremendous effort to. he said it was a. he said i screwed up plane reservations. what do you mean? he was going to australia and he ended up having to spend something like 20 hours on the plane and he was miffed about it. on the way out the door he said, you get me a big fat book to read. so he handed him a history of vietnam, like i. and he read it. he read it 20 hours going out, he read it 28 hours coming back, and when he met him at the plane, fulbright walked off the plate and he said we can't win

this war. he learned something about the country. we can't win this war. and started these hearings. it's always something like that. anytime i ask a member of congress who's interested in something besides the number one priority back in the district, it's something like that. calista wolf, talking to you today, and he said i took a trip wants to africa and the plane couldn't go back and ended up having to stay overnight, and then i was there for a week. i never forgot. i talk to colleagues about it and i was convinced to go by a colleague and i convince other colleagues to go, and it's personal, it's knowing something and it's having the time to do it. which brings me back to senator richard lugar of indiana and sam nunn of georgia. who, together, got interested in one of the most arcane issues of possible. is the soviet union actually

dismantling come is russia dismantling the soviet union chemical and nuclear weapons. and if not, how can we help them do it. how can we get congress to give money to them to do it? how to attract it is being done? will and probably in retrospect, one of the more productive things that the congress ever did on an issue like that, and yet senator lugar could will be in a very difficult fight for reelection in part because of the identification and of the good work he's done in foreign policy. so he is rapidly rebuilding ties back home. so this idea of people who have excelled in foreign policy, somehow getting burned for it, is one of the many factors that is a the motivating factor. so how to build expertise in foreign policy without time, which they no longer have, and

without travel, which is another question i'd like to know, how many members actually travel. the press can take credit for making travel look like a bad thing. we would want to convince people that travel is really a junket. it sort of wasting time. and i admit, some of these, i think tip o'neill one semifamous outing to the philippines, lots of golf on a great course, this does look bad. but the time spent actually in the place and seeing it and knowing it is important. but if you come back home and you're in a congressional environment where committee work no longer matters, where leaders take big issue out of committee and resolve and behind closed doors and then send them to the floor in a way to vote where you can vote with the party or not, it's a demoralized atmosphere. it's a factor i think that academics don't take into enough account, and journalists certainly don't.

when speaker boehner came in, he said one thing he wanted to do was to restore congress functioning as an institution and restore the committee process. and that the house would be out everything weeks or so, but it would be back for the full week and the committee would be fully functioning. it is still dangerous to stand in front of the door at noon on thursday. i don't know if this plan is working at. but the question of how you develop expertise without time is an issue. foreign affairs used to be in a listing assignment. one of the things that struck me the most about senator kerry was when he first came to the congress can hit a very unusual choice between the appropriations committee which basically means you never have to raise a dime the rest of your life. people becoming to you for money. people would kill to be on appropriations committee. or foreign affairs. where he had been as david mitchell one of the most

remarked on witnesses ever before that committee. he chose foreign affairs. that's not a decision many people are making these days. in fact, i think effectively it's no longer in a list committee. there isn't a crush to get on it. precisely because it plays so badly at home. i want to talk about currency manipulation. i'm out of time to let me just collapse this and hope that maybe this is something we get into. currency manipulation looks like an arcane issue, china currency. but it has such an impact on the current job situation in this country, looking forward this debate i think you would see that. the u.s.-china commission, formally known as the u.s.-china economic and security review commission, was formed by congress in october 2000, to give congress regular updates on the china relationship. is a good for the economy? how are we doing militarily? and every year they produce

astonishing reports that is ignored as actually most astonishing commission reports are. if you look back to all the commission reports on terrorism before the 9/11 commission, tremendous, very pressing, very accurate, completely ignored. the same thing with the china commission. i just saw an advanced copy of the report for which i had to pick $38.50 to get a xerox, i don't know why. you can get it free very soon. so some quick facts, he was a china deficit, u.s. trade deficit with china is now more than half of u.s. trade deficit with the world. it's 12% now, worse than it was last year. utah from the commerce department last thursday that our trade deficit with china is at a record high, 25 billion in one month alone. the u.s. imports roughly 640% more advanced technology products from china and it exports to china. let me just read that again.

the u.s. imports roughly 640% more advanced technology products from china than it exports to china. but one of the points that took a long time to realize was that a lot of the 640% is from american companies manufacturing in china and selling back here. a point that if you blink you would miss it in the debate that just went on. congress collapsed this whole debate over china currency and free trade to two days. that means that for journalists, it's impossible to cover. because the google news doesn't care about it after the vote. it has disappeared, vanished. and it doesn't care about it until just before the vote so it disappears and vanishes. there are two days to make, to write anything that would matter or to make a point that would matter and in the attention has moved somewhere else. back to the freeport. foreign invested enterprises is responsible for 55% of china's

exports, and 60% of its trade surplus in 2010. that is two-thirds of all those chinese foods that are, in fact, made by foreign companies operating in china and selling back to this market. employment in the united states is a throw what point has nothing to do with my talk. i thought it was interesting. employment indiana state would increase by up to 2.5 million jobs if china were to adopt an intellectual property system equal to that of the united states. china is huge. now, are members of cars going to stand on an intelligent way? let me leave you with a problem i had last week covering this. on tuesday, the senate voted 63-35 to impose a terrorist our nation for currency manipulation. china is not mentioned that everyone knows who is major. china currency has been held in an artificially low level to get chinese goods anywhere from a

three-23-43% advance. i'm not sure which of those numbers are correct but they were all cited in the debate. and that the same time, house leaders and the run up to the senate vote announce that they were not going to bring that bill to the floor no matter what the senate did. so we became instant terms of free vote, in other words, you can vote on a known there will be no outcome. or a symbolic vote. the club for growth, one of many conservative groups that we did on this send out letters before saying any conservative that voted for this currency bill could expect to be scored on it. in other words, watch out what happens to your funding in the next election. now, the house just last year voted overwhelmingly, 348-79, to vote for almost identical bill on china currency, 99 republicans supported that bill.

this comparable build right now in the house sponsored by congressman levin, 63 republicans have cosponsored that bill. so we have, we have more accurate information about where members actually stand on this foreign policy issues than you have for most issues. and yet, this bill will never come to a vote on the floor as a stand-alone vote. you saw it as, i have to stop for a minute. when i talk to my editors about this, they say no one is going to reduce. their eyes will glaze over. i'm beginning to see this looking at here. [laughter] i could be very bad at explaining it. but the issue needs explaining. and that's, that's kind of not happening. here's the most arcane thing, i'll just say it into sentences and then you can forget it. there was a motion to recommit on the floor last week.

that means the democrats get to bring up a stand-alone thing, and they tried to make it as punishing as possible to the other side, republicans do the same thing. and what did they pick? the senate bill on china currency. which has 63 republicans already endorsing. only four of them voted for it on the floor. now, that could be because if they voted for it it would have killed a free trade pact that was very important to republicans. but it's part of this gridlocked/gamesmanship that is crushing the life out of this congress. and about any motivation for any member to spend time on issues that we are talking about. and that i think is most discouraging aspect of all. can congress be a force for good? of course again. foreign policy affects americans. they may not be aware of it but it does.

and china trade, most emphatically affects americans. one of the interesting studies that many members referred to in a very brief debate they had about this was by the economic policy institute, which is somehow developed numbers of the numbers of jobs lost to the china trade in each congressional district and in each state. and that is the kind of boiling down of data you need to even make a dent in a congress that is so fixed now on what it needs to do to maintain its own majority, to follow the leadership's guide on that, and to play politics at a level of gridlock that i think historically is going to stand as an unrivaled. by previous. no, certainly but by subsequent periods it can't continue to be this bad, and something that can't continue to be this bad won't. and that's the happy thought that he is to inspire myself to

get up every morning. but i can tell you, if journalists are discouraged about it, members of congress even more so. there are some excellent people that are considering leaving the institution precisely because the work they do in committee goes nowhere. and because it's a demoralizing time. it's hard, it's better to be there when woodrow wilson was leading the u.s. during its period of being a kind of dominant economic and world power. members of congress today are at a time when that is becoming less and less the case. it's not so much fun. >> thank you. [applause] >> gail, even some of that is depressing i think the fact of a sense of humor, keeps us a little bit lighter and you've got the bluebird of happiness suit on there, so, but i was just thinking that one thing that i would like to do before we engaged the audience of q&a

is to give our first two presenters any chance for follow-up on what the last two said. senator sununu, i didn't mention in the introduction, not only has an engineering degree from mit but he also has a business degree from harvard. and notwithstanding those degrees, i probably can still try to figure how to fix congress. that at least he was there for a while. he knows how it operated then, how it is operating now. but i just wonder if you have anything to say in the way of follow-up as to some of these dilemmas that congress faces in looking at foreign policy issues be? on a small practical issue, the question of an importance of oversight was brought up. there are a number of staff members adequate oversight. i think that's important. that's a valuable. but the real question is, are there members are willing to put themselves into, throw themselves into the process of oversight. and reform and oversight are tough. they are far tougher than just

writing a new piece of legislation, even in the foreign policy arena, to one of the problems we have, one of the reasons you need oversight, you need reform, for example, economic development is provided around the world is because over time just like on the domestic side, we've enjoyed a very the creative process. people have good ideas about, we should be thoughtful in the way economic development funds are used. if we build a school, they should need safety codes, and maybe environmental codes and maybe local labor laws, and conceptually these are all good ideas but in practice they make it just about impossible for the development assistance to actually make a difference on the ground. the only way to rectify that situation is for someone, some member to set the priority of let's go look carefully at all of the different kinds of

restrictions and limitations that we placed on development assistance, and had we make the system works better. not more liberal or more concerted or left or right, republican or democrat, just make it work better so that we don't have to read about stories of funding being wasted around the world and not be used for its intended purposes. oversight and reform is really tough, but it's important and valuable to do what it gets done is by the members actually said in a priority from top down. and believe me, this town will follow. >> one comment. when the republicans took over, the first time around in 1995, they prided themselves the fact they cut committee staff backed by one-third. they felt it was too bulky. they got back from about 1800, to 1200 people. one thing republicans regretted was it taken away a lot of good oversight committee staffers. so they were less able to do the oversight than their predecessors, at least on paper,

were. so that was something that was noted even by the republican members. david? >> i would just say that i think both the senate and i talked a little bit about what motivates members to be involved in foreign policy issues, and i think you raise a very good question, what motivates staff. sort of harken back to center corporate who was the first great superlobbyist in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, a little bit the 1980s, not that much has changed except that the staff has gotten a lot bigger. but staffers are there for very different reasons, and the foreign relations committee, for example, is not a place where you can easily sort of segue into a k street job. you don't go from working on developmental issues to making a million dollars, you know, and a law firm downtown. it just doesn't work that way. so i actually, one of the things

i enjoyed about it was it was the personal experiences and people that brought them to the committee, and that kept them there. and there were some extraordinary staffers who had been there for a long time who really believed in what they were doing and believed in their purpose. there's a whole other group out there who see this as, you know, punching a ticket. you do two years on the hill and then you do go downtown. and that can be, you know, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that there's a lot more money in the defense industry. the defense budget, 600 billion, 700 billion defense budget. foreign aid, foreign assistance, $50 billion. so you find more people who are willing to cash in. but that doesn't mean i can but you don't find in the armed services committee folks have been there for a line, deeply passionate deeply believe in the security of the country and are willing to work for not much

money and could make a lot more money. so i think, i'm not sure that anything has changed too much in that regard. i think people have different reasons for being there. >> i did a very unscientific study recently because i was reading roll call which i happen to a columnist for, but that every once in a while a tag is the deal is a top staffers on the hill that has been third in for me done by asking different people you think are the most powerful staffers, house and senate, democrats and republicans and so on. what caused me to do this day was i notice most of the people on this list now are either leadership staff with a republican or democratic leadership, or committee campaign staff for the republican or the democratic campaign committees. and a smaller and smaller percentage are committee staff. so i asked roll call, could you give me from 1981, a comparison of your top 50 list, the best they could do was come up with

like 86 and 87. but it's really turned around completely. whereas back in 1986 or 87, it was about 60% committee staffer considered among the most powerful and about 40% of leadership staff. now it's just the opposite. the committee staff are considered less and less powerful. more and more leadership staff are up there on that list because of for one, what do you mentioned, people are looking at those that can in the war rooms. these are people that are politically astute, can help the parties to their members are elected and so on. that's where the real staff growth comes from and that's where you've got the best and brightest staffers who now working with the leadership on these political issues. and not so much on the policy issues. >> you were the only one in washington i know that would have thought of asking someone to do those numbers. >> my name is on that list in the old days. [laughter] it was all vanity. >> i wonder if they list of 50 must people people get more read than the list because i was once

told i had the perfect face for radio. [laughter] let's go to the audience for questions here. would have microphones a please wait for the microphone. and identify yourself and your affiliation. we will have questions and comments. not everybody at once. let's start right here with a former wilson said her staff person, and now a renowned political scientist in his own right. >> thanks. jordan, a professor at american university. my question is looking to the future of one of the historical trends with congress has been that it sort of a foreign policy has been greater at times when we have not been any major war or not been in a moment of crisis, and i think there's been a cycle of increased and decreased congressional assertiveness based on how prominent crises have been in current form american policy.

i'm wondering whether that might suggest that the president's comments a foreign policy might receive in the coming years, relative to the past decade, save? >> let's ask mr. lindsey first on that one. have you noticed any trends in this? one of your books i think is called the resurgence of congress in foreign policy, or something of that title. >> congress resurgence. it was runner came out i guess in the mid 1990s. at a time when congressional interest, or congressional activism of foreign affairs began to search. i think the dynamic that jordan appointed to exist. and that is, you think of sort of the ebb and flow of power, across pennsylvania avenue is more or less tight to the country's perception is under threat, and secondarily to the

expectation that the president's policies are working. so after world war ii, you more congressional involvement in foreign affairs. by the time to get to the early 1950s there's a growing sense of the soviet threats and you begin to see much less criticism of the white house from capitol hill. this is the to the arthur schlesinger later referred to as giving birth to the imperial presidency. and indie imprint a presidency stub its toe so to speak over vietnam where we became convinced that the president's policies had made the country less safe and that the country was actually over the international if i'm a was safe. on that, i have to just put a footnote on gail's remark about senator fulbright. while senator fulbright was critical in 1966 in holding the vietnam war hearings, which were

the first break with lyndon johnson's presidency, he was also the floor manager of the coal-fueled haakon resolution which concluded one of my favorite exchanges on the floor by a member, center raise the question but doesn't this give the president the authority to go to war. and hope i said yes, but i don't think that's what he's going to do. and as he fecal matter it doesn't matter what you think of the bill will do, it matters what the bill does. i think that was sort of the significant thing there. but yes, as you go through, as the country feels more secure, you're going to get more congressional activism in part. partly it's a matter of politics, that if you could do and not worry about getting in trouble, but also there's a sense that you're not endangering the country in the way you would. and again, a dynamic repeats itself after september 11 with

the country rallied around president george w. bush. is public approval ratings went into the '90s. they were on a hybrid basis for a sustained period of time. as you get to october of 2002 as the administration was pushing for a go to authorize the iraq war, many democrats simply want to put the issue behind it and move onto other things. because they realized this was not going to work to their advantage, and a fountain, smart political money argued that democrats, particularly those interested in running in 2004 would probably best to get on board and move on. >> anybody else want to comment on that? i cut my eye teeth around, in the 1970s i came around today that nixon was inaugurated, 69. what i noticed and was congress was getting more and more active in foreign and military affairs as nixon was winding down the

war, they became more activist. so when i was looking at these great amendments and is asking one of the questions i put on david's sheet, why don't the giants be stride the earth anymore the way be used in the senate? we had cooper church to mcgovern hatfield and so on and so forth, but these all occurred after johnson had left office. nixon was in and was winding down and we started of challenges not only on vietnam and cambodia things like that, but also on nuclear weapons system. so congress was very active during that period and i think that's what a lot of people refer to the research in congress is after the country had grown war weary and it was no longer popular, and, therefore, members could assert themselves more and not feel as at risk of a claim may be. that was my observation anyway. >> if you look at public opinion data by the fall of 1967, the public had begun to sour on vietnam in large part because their expectation was this would not last long and we kept going in further and further. and you have the tet offensive

and early 1968, and from the vantage point of the johnson white house, congress had already begun to be critical i've become much more critical of his policies. it's one of the reasons why lbj chose not to run for reelection. >> the foreign policy experts might correct me if i'm wrong, gail mentioned the quote about the politics stopping at the water's edge and, of course, you point out it's never really been the case, but there's always some politics involved. was he also the one responsible for the quote about congress wants to be on the takeoff as well as the lengthy? >> that with lyndon johnson who, one of the reasons for the gulf of tonkin resolution was that johnson wanted to avoid a repeat of what happened to harry truman, and he thought that harry truman made a mistake by not going to congress in getting congressional authorization. so there was actually the

pentagon, sort of a standing resolution already drawn up and lbj calculated that would protect them against people changing their mind later on that it wasn't such a good idea. it turned out that people could vote for a piece of legislation and still change their mind. senator fulbright being first and foremost. and lbj claiming he got them on the takeoff on foreign policy so they would be there on any crash landings. ..

>> well, i have a different viewpoint. we all like to think the times we live in are completely unique, different, or not as good as the good-old days, but in many republics, we live in the -- respects, we live in the same challenges and debates and talking about the same questions they were talking about in the 1970s, 50s, or the turn of the century, and in the 1960s when the test band treaty was taking place, they thought it was so polarized, why couldn't this be more like the turn of the century withñr a wonderful academic of woodrow wilson and things were more genteel and thoughtful in debates even when there were disagreements. there's two things, i think,

that really affect whether you're in a time of activism or not. it's not that -- and i thinkngd it's one, politics. the members think that this is an issue that their constituencies care about and are acting on and are voting on, and the second are people. do you have members who are either in a position of leadership or who simply have the will to drive an issue to completion? first, with regard to the politics, those politics can be a factor whether the country's divided and you're a democrat trying to make the president look bad on funding the contras or mining harbors in nick rag ray and you see political opportunities to rally your base or rally voters in america because they are starting to turn against what might be viewed as interventionism in

central america or the politics can favor unity. in the fall of 2002 when the country is unified, we feel strong, committed, concerned about the national security threat, and members are engaged and active in formulating the policy in the legislation that responded in effect to 2000 -- to 9/11 in the way of everything from new national security powers, the patriot act, which was passed in a very, you know, unanimous way back in 2001, and i ended up filibustering four years later in 2005 and winning the filibuster. who thought that would happen? that activism is driven by politics, but it's not necessarily politics of unity or division. it can be either. it depends where the member sees the opportunity to rally the constituency, and second, the individual. we talked about vandenberg on

one hand or bora on the other because they decided this is what they wanted to do, what they would commit themselves and throw themselves into and in the same way in 20 years or 30 years or even today talking about senator lugar or john mccain, people who spent a great deal of time working on foreign security issue, and sometimes you agreed with them or disagreed with them, but there's no question they were the legislator and policymakers and adviser to presidents that really had an impact to the outcome. >> okay. now we have questions, all right. gentleman in the aisle and then the one in front of him after that. >> good afternoon. i'm an intern with a congressman at the house of reps, and my question is i've been an intern for three weeks, so i had the opportunity 20 go to a lot of

foreign affairs oversight committees and at times i was shocked because -- i don't know sometimes the congressman were not as interested in whatever topic was debated and at times, okay, this congressman knows what he's talked about. he's studied or whatever, but that's why i came here today, too, because it's very interesting topic to talk about today, but my question was regarding lobbies and what effects do lobbies have over congressman as far as pushing or -- as far as pushing certain policies they think maybe -- that are morally important to push and sometimes i feel like lobbies hold them back. they have an influence over them, and i was wondering if you can talk about it. >> good question. we talked about political basis

and constituents, but have not talked interest groups here in washington that represent constituents and people who are members of parties, but they have specific interests, and how much of an influence do they have on the foreign policy process? >> well, i guess i should start having been lobbied so to speak one way or another on a host of issues during the 12 years i was in congress. i would say the thing i mentioned in my remarks, background, your perspective, the district you represent, the constituencies active there, all of those things are more important. there simply are not many nationally organized lobbies on foreign policy issues that are very sort of effective one way or another, but to the extent that there are, like any other lobby in the country on domestic issues and economic issues, on regulatory issues, their

effectiveness varies member to member. often times they are most valuable as a source of information. you know, there's going to be someone on both sides of just about every issue. if someone is an effective lobbyist, they'll tell you the pros and cons of a particular issue, and then finally, look, lobbying groups tend to look towards or flock to members that already share their perspective to start with so, again, you know, on domestic issues, if you're from an energy producing state, you know, you're probably going to be working on a lot of issues that energy lobbyists on one side or the other are concerned about. if you're on the foreign relations committee, you'll end up visiting with lobbyists or lobbying groups on constituent groups on a lot of foreign policy issues. a lot is a self-select process

rather than walking in a member's office thinking they're going to, you know, persuade them to change their mind in a half hour conversation. >> david, what was your perspective both working in the senator's personal office and the committee staff? >> i met with more lobbyists on the personal staff rather than the committee. it's as the senator said, i mean, the kinds of groups that came in while i was on the committee were, you know, they had foreign policy agendas, but it was a different approach to somebody thatmented a change in the tax law or wanted, you know, to have an appropriation. it was very, very different. it was much more policy-based. they tended to be -- there were a lot of non-profits. not to say there's not corporate interests add well. sure, there are, corporations with interests in different countries, but it was actually one of the most gratifying things about being on the committee was i didn't have to

meet with lobbyists all the time. [laughter] >> jim lindsay? >> i offer up the observation that lobbyists are more effective the narrower the issue. lobbyists are more effective the fewer number of people who care about their issue for the simple reason that the american mill system is -- american political system is relatively open. they have veto points where things can be stopped. if you're lobbying for a big issue that gets lots of people excited, trade relations with china, afghanistan, what have you, you're going to be hard pressed as a lobbying organization to get your agenda through because there's other organizations opposed to you who are going in, talking to senators, who know other senators, know members of congress making a different set of arguments, but if you're going in and arguing for making a change in u.s. aid policy towards name a country in

africa, there's no one else arguing against it, and you're more likely to be able to have an impact. general lobbying is if you're unopposed, you're more likely to win than if you are opposed. >> i noticed on the house foreign affairs bill just reported there was a separate title on individual countries, 17 serkses dealing with -- sections dealing with a different country, and it's interesting to go through the list. jill, anything you observed on foreign policy matters 1234 >> i used to think the most influ enissue lobbyists was the one who came to the member, and i was talking to a member about this once, and he said, no, no, no. the most powerful lobby are the ones who don't come to you. you already know what they need. that's how significant they are. i've almost -- there's so much that we don't know about the lobby process because one thing campaign finance is now so

opaque. one of the other sad things about congress, i wrote a lot of enthusiastic pieces about campaign finance reform, and it seems every step congress made to make money in politics more transparent had the opposite effect. we know less about a great deal more money in politics which, i think, is a critical element. the other thing that surprised me, too, is how often lobbies are not of one mind. i mean, the national association of manufacturers, if there's ever a group that should have views on china currency, that's it, and they don't. they are too divided to have a view on it. they think china currency is find the way it is, but all the little manufacturers who are not big or savvy enough to move to china are getting clobbered by it, and they wanted the association to go in another

direction. they couldn't, couldn't make a decision, so they didn't. i suspect that is a lot more likely than you think. one of the things republicans, house republicans tried to do when they took back the house for the first time in 42 years, i depress, -- i guess, in 1995 was something called the k-street project. if or yo going to try something like that, don't give it a name like the k street project. the idea was they would go to all the lobby firms and say, you know, democrats have been controlling this place for 4 # years. it's not surprising your main lobbyists are ex-democratic staffers. if you don't change to some republican staffers, you're not going to have access to us. it may not have been as blunt as that, but that was the sense. you know, you have to start hiring republicans if you're

going to have access to us. the argument that they made was you've got democrats representing you big corporation, but republicans are closer to your interest. you ought to have republicans representing you on capitol hill, and that was another angle i had not thought about. i mean, what if the lobbyists, the person paid to lobby congress, you know, is out of sync in an important way with the constituents who pay the lobbyists. that happens more than i thought it does, so it's a good question to which there isn't any clear good answer. >> great. we had one in front of the fellow who just asked a question in the white shirt. your name? >> jason fullock. what i wanted to ask was in terms of the background of people who become congressmen and congresswomen, is it that their professional background

affects how they deal with foreign policy? so for example, i don't think that too many people ever who let's say had a ph.d. in international relations or some kind of foreign policy field would ever become a member of congress, and rather the kind of people who become congressmen a lot of times are maybe businessmen or maybe lawyers, prominent lawyers, and so -- which maybe they only deal with domestic issues in their normal lives before they became part of congress, and so how does that affect them once they get into their careers? >> senator? >> well, i don't know what value -- i don't know that there would necessarily be an extraordinary value to someone having a ph.d. in foreign

relations in congress. there's more or less value than someone having a ph.d. in economics. that's nice, it's good education, but it depends how they translate that knowledge into practical value, crafting legislation, understanding public policy, understanding the impact that public policy has, i think, as a matter of course, what we need in congress generally are people with more practical experience who are working in the real economy, both domestically and internationally. someone with business experience, with a company that did importing and exporting, shipping products overseas or manufacturing overseas and bringing that product here that understood the real ramifications of a number of the issues that have been mentioned; right? intellectual property protection, the impact of the stronger versus weaker currencies and whether or not those currencies are manipulated

by governments, labor relations and labor law and the disperties we might find between labor and environmental laws and whether or not that impacts their ability to succeed here. it's really practical experience missing, and in the case of the foreign policy questions that we're talking about, do they have practical experience working with interacting with individuals, companies, and institutions around the world? i think, and generally, that is something that's missing in congress. >> david, you had a law degree and a degree in law and diplomacy from tuffson. how relative to your work was that? was it useful? >> no. [laughter] it was a demonstrated interest that i had for a long time. it's not that it wasn't useful. it was useful.

it's a demonstrated interest, but people become interested in issues for a variety of reasons. chris dodd was in the peace corp. in central america, and that's why he embraced the foreign relations committee for a number of year, and just as the senator said, there's people from business backgrounds interested in it from that point of view. there's lots of reasons people come to the table. >> one exception is one who taught international relations in michigan and was a specialist on africa, came to the congress, was the chair of the africa subcommittee, was defeated for reelection after several years in the congress and ended up in the state department, came here, ran the africa program, and now back in the state department, so there you can see a clear line, and he was a very, very good member of congress, too, represented the constituents well, but eventually a republican beat him in an

election. anything else anyone wants to add on that? >> well, since i have a ph.d. -- [laughter] >> you spent time in congress, too. >> i feel i can stand up because of my profession, not people with economic ph.d.'s, however i'm reminded of what william buckley said, he wants to be governed by the first four names in the phone book rather than the administration of the harvard. i think what senator snununu said it matters more people's ability to mobilize others than knowing what it is that hahns morgan wrote or being able to do a calculation that would make the nobel prize committee in

economic sciences happy. what i do think is notable when you look at membership in the senate and in the house is the change composition. many more lawyers. i don't know if that's particularly to our advantage. also, many fewer people who have served the united states military, which has also been remarked upon. a number of social scientists have exploreed these issues trying to determine what difference it makes in terms of what congress actually does, and there's no clear evidence that it does much of anything in that what members do is constrained or driven by lots of other factors that are more important like your party, your constituency, the events of the day and what have you. >> thank you. something else william buckley said, if elected mayor, what will you do? he said, demand a recount. [laughter] that has nothing to do with foreign policy.

[laughter] let's go to the gentleman here. then on this side. >> ryan jacobs, intern on the house armed services committee. i do want to serve on a committee one day and do effective work, so hopefully that happens. my question, though, veers into the lobbying stuff we talked about earlier. i think we skirted off the topic, and there is always that kind of argument within foreign policy area that there is a certain israeli lobby, that there is an influence on u.s. policy towards israel, and that it's developing, and so it's maintaining a relationship. that is, perhaps a good relationship, but i would like to ask if we can expand on that dynamic if members, you know, on the panel is expand on the dynamic of the lobbies, even though there's diverges lobbies

within the lobbies. my second question is the house foreign affairs committee. serving on the armed services committee, i find there's -- they don't appropriate as much. is it important to have that support base? so for the armed services committee, there's a defense industry support base. now, where is that support base for the foreign affairs committee. if there's not one, have you developed one? they do important work that needs to be recognized. thank you. >> any comments? >> i visited with people recently that asked almost those precise terms the second question which is is there any constituency for foreign assistance, foreign policy, how do you go about -- would you go about organizing one here in the united states, and there's simply no two ways about it. you run up against the wall that the public at large when asked about issues or priorities that

they have for their representative, put foreign policy and economic assistance way down on the list, so there's natural hurdles and challenges. regard to apac, one of the -- >> you know what that stands for? >> the american israel political action committee which lobbies on issues they feel are important to israel and the greater middle east, they have been around longer, they are better organized, bigger membership, and by definition that means they are a more effective lobby, one that's better known with members, and it goes to everything from local organization, grass roots, and having people at the local congressional level or state level to build relationships with the member. you know, reach out to them on a regular basis whether they ask for legislation or not all the way to the national organization efforts which, you know, involve board meetings in washington and big public affairs conferences and the like, so to the extent

they are effective, it has a lot to do with the size, history, and scope to the extent that their success could be duplicated by other groups, and the answer is almost certainly yes because there's many different constituencies and groups in the country that -- and as you point out, many groups within those focused on foreign policy related to the middle east and israel that have diverging view points. there's certainly a lot of opportunity for shared perspective. >> time for one more question. let's give to the microphone to the gentleman next to her, jeff biggs. >> thank you very much, and frances for a great topic. one area of the world not coming up in this, which i was surprised about, and that is the israeli-palestinian issue which seems to reflect a lot of what

was said because there's been some dramatic changes taking place for a number of years we could rely upon egypt and turkey to play a supportive role in the negotiation between the two parties, and now, in fact, congress is thinking about eliminating entirely any assistance to the palestinians and in the process seemingly to give up the u.s. role of being an honest broker. i don't know what replaces that role, but when you guess this is a result of politics or well thought out foreign policy? >> that's above my pay grade. anybody here? [laughter] >> there is a very interesting piece in cq weekly on this exact issue, much more detailed -- there was a spike of interest in apac after a book by two harvard professors basically saying this was the most powerful lobby in

the united states. i don't know if they said on earth, but i think they could have, very strong book, and for awhile apac kind of really disappeared in terms of other groups popped up replaces them for a time. i mean, they were still obviously there, but not -- they dlitly took a -- deliberately took a less strong profile, and in a funny way, they were replaced by eric cantor, the first republican jewish in the house. they did extraordinary things just after the election meeting with benjamin netanyahu, first time an opposition member had met with, you know, a head of state like that, and if really -- it's shaping up to be an important issue in the 2012 election. it's a wedge issue. you could potentially drive a wedge through a strong

democratic constituency by in effect saying i'm more pro-israel than you are, and that, i think, has enormous implications. you've already seen the, you know, the president back off, if you compare what he's saying now with what he said in his cairo speech. you know, it's a striking difference, and how did that happen, and was that a process of learning on his part or running up against strong opposition both from apac, but also from a republican, house republican group that led by eric cantor taking a role that's much, much stronger? it will be interesting to see, but i predict it emerges as an important factor in the 2012 election and it's giving the president a lot of difficulty because what he said in cairo is on record and linking that with what he's now saying risks the

problem that senator kerry ran into of appearing to flip-flop or give up on commitments you initially ran on and made. >> senator, you can have the last word, and then we'll take the conversation across the hall to a reception in the board room. >> well, one observation about some of the issues raised, and that underscores the suggestion i made, which is you want to cultivate members of congress who, and encourage members of congress to understand these issues related to foreign policy during the quiet times because you never know when they are needed, and we've seen uprisings and transitions in power, tunisia, e vice -- egypt, other police police places in the arab world and arab spring, and it's good members are paying attention to the areas, thinking about what are the national security

ramifications for the united states, what are our national interests, what should our perspective be on encouraging this process, but at the same time, would want the members of congress who are going to be leading that debate to have been thinking about listening, understanding the culture, the politics, the economics in northern africa, in the middle east, two, three, five, and ten years ago. you know, you don't want them to suddenly come to the issue and need a crash course and a crash education, so that's exactly -- and two, five, and ten years ago there were not many people who would say, well, gee, i think you're going so have mass protests in egypt and a transition. i was in egypt about a year before the protests, and the transition, and talked to a quite a number of real business people, not necessarily political people, about how they felt about the economy and the politics and the process, and

even they didn't really see it coming. i think there's a lot to be said for -- if nothing else, you're not necessarily going to make it a huge political winner, you're not going to develop grass roots constituencies at home for getting involved in foreign policy, but you can help create opportunities for members to think and talk and discuss these issues here domestically in a way that enriches them, enriches their thinking, develops understanding and a knowledge base so they can put it to good use during critical times. >> thank you very much. join me in thanking our panel. [applause] please join us for a reception across the hall in our board room. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate about to gavel in to start their day. lawmakers expected to continue work on three appropriations bills rolled into one measure. amendments will be debated and voted on throughout the day with the first round scheduled just after noon eastern. also on the calendar, a vote on het, higgenbottom to be the news director and reports that gads gad has been killed and there may be speeches on the floor today. live to the floor now here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, your infinite greatness compels us to give you praise. today, we ask that you would help our senators to reach their full ethical and spiritual stature by deepening their sense of the stewardship

of all that they have and are, by the power of your spirit within them. lord, our challenging times demand such ethical and moral fitness so that problems can be solved with a collaborative and courageous spirit. like streams of flowing water through our common days, you continue to refresh us with your merciful goodness. make us worthy of your generosity, as we strive daily to please and honor you. we pray in your holy 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., october 20, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: following leader remarks, the senate will resume

consideration of h.r. 2112. at noon there will be three health care votes. the first will be on the confirmation of heather higginbottom to be deputy director of the office of management and budget. the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the substitute amendment and h.r. 2112 is 1:00 p.m. today. there will be another series of up to four roll call votes at approximately 2:00 p.m. in relation to additional amendments to the bill. further roll call votes are expected during today's session in order to complete action on the bill. we also hope to vote on the confirmation of the nomination of john bryson to be commerce secretary as well today. additionally, cloture was filed on the motions to proceed to s. 1723 and s. 1726, and if no agreement is reached, those cloture votes will occur on friday. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2112, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 155, h.r. 2112, an act making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just want to thank my colleagues for bringing amendments to the floor on the agriculture bill and also on the other two bills that we're dealing with, transportation and housing and urban development and commerce, justice, state. we have had a vigorous debate over the past few days. we'll have further votes today, and i think we'll have further amendments today. we look forward to our colleagues continuing to come to the floor and debate these amendments, and i hope we can continue to work together to produce a bipartisan piece of

legislation that becomes the first appropriations bill as such that we have -- we hopefully will be able to complete with the house, and i'd yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president, what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the gillibrand amendment is the pending amendment. mr. durbin: to h.r. 2112. the presiding officer: to h.r. 2112. mr. durbin: if there are no members on the floor either seeking to offer those amendments or speak to those amendments, i would like to ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an interesting grasp of history. how else can you explain their choice of this week to push for repeal of the most significant wall street reform since the great depression? for those who need a reminder, it was 24 years ago this week,

october 19, 1987, that the dow jones industrial average suffered the largest one-day percentage drop in history. it was known as black monday. the dow jones lost 508 points that day, more than 22% of its value. $500 million in wealth destroyed in one day. it took the dow jones average two years to recover from black monday. financial markets had not experienced such a disastrous decline since the stock market crash of 1929 that set off the great depression. most of us thought we would never again see such an event. then came the financial crisis of 2008. in between time, i might mention, there was a savings and loan crisis. but then came the 2008 financial crisis. three years after the near collapse of a.i.g. set off the 2008 financial crisis, big banks and big wall street investment firms are once again extremely profitable.

most of the banks reported their earnings this week, and the biggest names made the biggest profits ever. wall street c.e.o.'s are still pulling down salaries and bonuses worth tens of millions of dollars a year, hundreds of times more than the average worker's income. most americans are still stugling. the financial crisis of 2008 wiped out millions of jobs. i recall the month that president obama was sworn in as president. i stood there on that cold january day, and as he took his hand from the bible, i realized we had lost 750,000 jobs the month he took office, and unfortunately it preceded him and continued for some time. there are now 24 million americans unemployed or underemployed. millions have lost their homes. millions more are in danger of joining them. nearly one in every four mortgages in america is now underwater, which means that the owners owe more on the mortgage

than the value of the home. in the last four years, many americans have seen their home values plummet by nearly a third since 2007, and their retirement savings cut in half. we're paying a heavy price for the perfidy of wall street. solid, well-run companies across america have been shaken to the core and can't find credit to either continue in business, expand their business or hire new employees. what do our republican friends offer as a solution? they want to repeal, repeal the reforms that congress passed to reduce the reckless risk taking and deception on wall street. they want to repeal wall street reform. they want to repeal sarbanes-oxley reform that was put in place after the debacle of the enron corporation. they are offering the same mistaken policies of the last decade. and they want us to repeat the same mistakes that led us to a

near meltdown of the global economy. this effort to repeal wall street reform is part of a larger republican campaign to prevent government from passing and enforcing reasonable rules that protect our environment and safeguard america's food supply, pharmaceuticals and consumer products. just cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires and get rid of government regulation, they argue, and the economy will just make a dramatic return. that's what they believe. mr. president, if that were true, the last administration would have been the most prosperous in history. those were the hallmarks of the george w. bush administration. wage two wars, don't pay for them, but cut taxes on the wealthy and try to diminish regulation when it came to oversight on the largest corporations, banks and financial institutions. instead, the george w. bush administration produced, and i quote -- "the worst jobs record

on record." those aren't my words. this is a quote from the "wall street journal." they said the bush years produced the worst jobs record on record, and they followed the same playbook that the republicans now offer as their idea for revitalizing the economy. during the bush administration, we saw the largest tax cuts in our nation's history with nearly all the benefits going to those at the top. it was the first time any president in the history of the united states cut taxes in the middle of a war. that's counterintuitive. a war is an added expense to government. cutting revenue to government at that point invites deficits, which president bush saw during his term, his eight years. the debt of the united states doubled during president george w. bush's term in office. regulatory agencies were underfunded, overwhelmed, and they were represented many times by people who had no interest in their mission. in the financial services industry, many federal agencies

turned a blind eye to activities that led to the global financial meltdown. the securities and exchange commission under the bush administration allowed america's largest financial institutions to self-regulate, police themselves. the federal reserve declined to use its power to regulate subprime mortgages which led to the terrible housing crisis which we still face today. the comptroller of the currency used its power to preempt state consumer laws on subprime mortgages, exactly the opposite of what they should have done. under the previous administration, unregulated mortgage brokers sold reckless loans, including infamous liar loans and ninja loans. those were the no income, no asset loans. major financial institutions packaged the bad loans as securities, which they then sold as investments. credit agencies blessed those toxic assets with aaa ratings while being paid by the very companies that were selling the

loans. the fix was on. insurance companies like a.i.g. insured toxic assets against loss, turning junk into gold. investors all over the world then bought those assets, sowing the seeds for the economic crisis we still suffer from today. it was a daisy chain of deregulation and disaster. what do we hear from the republican side of the aisle? let's go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear. let's repeal wall street reform. let's let wall street of 10,000 flowers bloom and we'll get back into a strong economy. america knows better. we have seen this movie. we know how it ended in 2007, and we don't want to see it again. this wasn't the first time. in the 1980's, savings-and-loans were deregulated, made reckless investments, and eventually had to be bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of $130 billion. $130 billion is bad enough. it was almost $800 billion for the tarp bailout of the big

banks under the bush administration. the dodd-frank wall street reform bill requires institutions that sell nonstandard mortgages to keep at least 5% of those mortgages on their books, reducing the risk that they will try to pass toxic assets off as solid investments. under the new rules, banks have to make sure that borrowers can repay the loans. lenders are forbidden from steering into expensive loans borrowers who can't qualify for more affordable mortgages. a new consumer financial protection bureau will look out for the interests of consumers and prohibit the sale of abusive mortgages and other risky and destructive financial products. i cannot think of another agency of government, not one, that the republicans hate more than the consumer financial protection bureau. i want to tell you, mr. president, i am proud that i introduced the first bill on this issue. working with elizabeth warren, a harvard law professor.

we put together a bill, i credit senator dodd and congressman frank for rewriting provisions and including wall street reform, and i think it's about time we have one agency, just one in our federal government that was designed to look out and help consumers and families across america, to save them from the tricks and traps that are thrown at them which they couldn't possibly understand when you look at the fine print of their mortgage agreements and their credit card agreements and things that even lawyers struggle to understand. this one agency, one single agency, with the limited power given to it and the limited resources given to it, is the target, it's ground zero for the republican attack. they do not want to have even one agency of government focusing on protecting america's consumers. the new wall street reforms tackle the problem of too big to fail. we saw what happened there. almost $800 billion in bailout funds to the biggest banks in

america. they of course have made some stupid decisions, greedy decisions, selfish decisions and we paid for it. everybody paid for it. with savings that were lost and pension plans diminished. and then when they were about to fail, in came the previous administration and said we have to save them or there will be a global meltdown. well i was persuaded. i didn't want to see a global meltdown and we gave some $800 billion to these big banks. did they send us a note of thank you? yes. they sent us a note of thank you and they put it on the back of the most recent bonuses that they gave to their officers. giving officers bonuses after the bank virtually fails and they have to rely on hard-working taxpayers to bail them out was the ultimate irony. but it's the reality of what we faced when we passed wall street reform. when enron collapsed in 2002, shareholders lost between $11 billion and $60 billion.

employees lost $2.1 billion in pension plans. 5,600 jobs were destroyed and enron's top execs whose recklessness and greed destroyed the company received $1.4 billion in compensation. in 2007, after watching its stock value fall from $300 billion to $6 billion in two years, citigroup pushed its c.e.o. out the door and incidentally gave him $38 million as a severance package. in late 2008, with the financial system on the verge of collapse, 17 troubled banks that had just accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance doled out more than $2 billion in bonuses and other payments to their highest earners. dodd-frank, the wall street reform bill, reduces the incentives for c.e.o.'s to place short-term gains above long-term health of their companies by increasing transparency and giving shareholders some say

over executive compensation. it's another way that the new wall street reforms can restore stability and integrity to our markets and sustainable growth for our economy. mr. president, economists still debate the causes of black monday 24 years ago but no one, no one who looks honestly at our recent past can seriously debate what happens when you take the financial cops off the beat and let wall street and the big banks regulate themselves. those who are calling for repeal of wall street reform are basically saying we are going to give free rein to wall street to make their own rules again. if they are successful, i predict, be prepared, it's coming at us again. wall street will overdo it and their greed and their excess will eventually cost average families and taxpayers who have no fault in the process. we can't afford to repeat these mistakes. mistakes that almost crashed the global economy. if our republican colleagues want to join us in creating

good, middle-class jobs for americans, let them help us pass the american jobs act and let me say one word about that, mr. president. i know the majority leader is going to give the republicans a chance to vote on one section of that today. i hope they'll join us. it's a section that takes part of the president's jobs act, some $35 billion, and uses it to hire those who would otherwise be laid off if they're teachers, firefighters, and policemen. two-thirds of school districts in illinois have been laying off teachers. that's not good for the teachers, obviously, it president is good for the students, either. so we're trying to make sure we save these jobs and give our students a good education across america in these difficult times. when it comes to firefighters, we had a rally yesterday over in the russell caucus room. a number of firefighters were there. and they were asking of course for a helping hand to save their jobs in this tough economy. i didn't know at the time of that rally but tuesday night in

moline, illinois, the city council there took a look at their tough budget and decided to lay off 12 firefighters. these are the firefighters who are responsible for their ambulance service in moline, illinois. at that meeting the fire chief, ron miller, stood up and said i cannot in good conscious continue to be fire chief if you're going to take 12 of my firefighters away. this is not safe for the people of moline, and resigned. it was an act of principle but it's an indication of how desperate people have become. the amendment will have -- we'll have today part of the president's jobs package will give us a chance on a competitive basis to fill many jobs for firefighters, policemen and teachers. i hope that some of my republican colleagues will join us in this effort. how do we pay for it, incidentally? there is a tax. let's put it right on the table. it is a tax of .5% on the incomes of people making over a million dollars a year. so the first million dollars is

not subject to it, the next dollar is. .5%. and the money that's brought in from that will spare hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters, and policemen from being laid off. i don't think it's too much to ask. the people who are wealthy and comfortable in america should share in the sacrifice with every other american family that sacrifices every day in this tough economy. this evening we'll have a vote on that and i certainly hope we get bipartisan support. in the meantime, though, let's not repeal wall street reform. we learned a bitter lesson 24 years ago and just four years ago as well. let's not repeat that bad history. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i want to compliment all senators in the way they've worked cooperatively on the expeditious way of moving these three very important appropriations subcommittee. every senator who has had an amendment has worked with us constructively, either to modify them, to comply with what the leadership wanted to

move the bill. i want to compliment the managers on the other side of the bill for also moving the bill, and i think it shows that we can govern ourselves. mr. president, this is the first time in a couple of years we're actually following a regular order on due deliberations of our appropriations bills. it's very important that we do this, not only to meet our fiscal responsibility of funding annual appropriations, that is actually putting money in the federal checkbook. we have followed a regular order by each subcommittee holding rigorous hearings, doing due diligence in terms of oversight, being quiet guardians of the purse and now if anyone watched us over the last couple of days, we've moved expeditiously, the debate has had intellectual rigor, it has civility, we've learned

from each other, we've modified amendments back and forth, and i just think that this is so positive and so constructive. i hope we could conclude the deliberations on these three appropriations today, but again, if senators need to have their say, better they have their say and they have their day and we show that we can govern in both a manner that is civil, has intellectual rigor, due diligence in terms of oversight, we are in a frugal environment, but also looking at how we protect vital american interest. the three bills that we have today are agriculture, so important to the american economy. this is a jobs bill, and it's also a food and drug safety bill. at the same time, it's transportation and housing. wow. we'll talk about an infrastructure bank. we don't know what we're going to do and we don't know how

we're going to pay for it, but right here today we have transportation pending that will go to every state on a formula basis and then some very important special needs identified by senators in this process to really then create jobs and meet the kind of needs in our respective states to build or repair highways, build or repair bridges, have mass transit to get people to work and at the same time do it. housing, housing is absolutely crucial to our economy. the federal government does own and operate housing. it's called public housing. the ranking member on the transportation h.u.d. bill i know could speak eloquently about that. maine is well known for its compassionate way of dealing with people with needs. whether it's elderly, whether it's the handicapped, whether it's the poor, but also how we

can work with local government in a community development block grant where people make local decisions on how best to invest federal funds to have a multiplier effect in economic and community development. we don't want to build housing, we want to build community in this country and at the same time along the way to build jobs. this is fantastic. then my own bill, the commerce -- the commerce-justice-science bill, which i've worked in such a cooperative way what the gentlelady from texas, kay bailey hutchison. we have the commerce committee. the commerce committee committee is supposed to be about american business and we have put money in there for the trade rep to make sure we not only import, we want to make sure we don't just export jobs, but we export products made in america, by americans, helping the american economy. and we have also there the

patent office. we've just reformed the process. if we want to outinnovate, we've got to protect our intellectual property. there are those who would rather steal our ideas rather than invent their own. we have to have where if you invent it you get to keep it and get to profit from it. the national institutes of standards, this works with the private sector, a federal agency to create the standards necessary that products can be -- go beyond the prototype and be sold in america, but because they're nist certified standards, they can be sold around the world. then we have the justice department. wow, aren't we proud of our federal law enforcement? sure, batf had a big spill on the cinders with their fast and furious program, but look at the f.b.i., look at the d.e.a., look at how they're intercepting everything from terrorists to organized crime to

child molesters. and hey, let's hear it for the marshal service, yofn overlooked and undervalued who are out there every day protecting those people who work in the courthouses, and also serving the warrants and keeping an eye on sexual predators. and then our subcommittee is one of the real engines of innovation through its work at the national space agency and also at the national science foundation, doing the kind of basic research that the private sector can't do but will value add to, to invent, again, those new products that will be new jobs in america. so we like our bills, and again, we've done oversight to deal with how to be more frugal. and we hope -- and i'll speak more to that as the day moves on. but i just wanted to give everybody the lay of the land.

and for those senators who want to improve our bill by the regular order of an amendment process, we encourage them to come to the floor now, to offer them and speak out. we want them to have their say and to have their day. and mr. president, while we're waiting for those senators to come, i wish to comment on an amendment offered by our colleague from virginia, senator webb. senator webb has been a long-standing advocate about people in our country being well served by the justice system. he has become increasingly concerned about the way the justice system works and feels that it needs a comprehensive review. he is recommending a commission to establish a national justice commission to do a review of federal, tate sta, and local criminal justice systems, to make a final report recommending

changes in policies, practices, and laws to both prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence. and also to reduce recidivism and be doing this in a cost-effective way. i want my colleagues to know i'm an enthusiastic supporter of the webb criminal justice commission because it's a patchwork of -- it's just a patchwork now, and at times because we so load up in the bottom end after a crime's committed, that we need to look at prevention and intervention and also other things like alternative sentencing. so i want to acknowledge the validity of the issue raised by our colleague from virginia. mr. president, we have the highest incarceration rate of anybody around the world. houses -- not quite around the world. we have a very high incarceration rate. more than 2.3 million americans are in prison.

another five million are on probation and parole. correction costs continue to grow and we have to tighten our belt. the problem is definitely evident in my bill. for federal prisons alone we had to include another $300 million to safely guard the nation's growing federal prison population. that's not what's in state prisons and local jails. this subcommittee has an obligation to fund federal prisons, but this increase really did consume a significant part of our allocation at the expense of other d.o.g. agencies. this is why, partly because americans, they are more violent, more criminal, are we just getting better at catching them and prosecuting them? you know what?

the answer could be yes, but we really don't know. or is it that our mandatory sentencing, a good intention, has now had unintended consequences that people like who are first offenders could be an alternative sentencing, could be doing something else. we are spending a lot on prisons. and i support his effort to create a blue ribbon national commission to do an 18-month top to bottom review, examining cost and practices and policies for prevention, intervention and prosecution and imprisonment, looking at which programs work and can be improved. i hope that it will end in concrete, wide-ranging reforms. i support his amendment and i look forward to voting for it and then to working on a constructive way to take a look at what his recommendations are. i know the senator from virginia

is retiring, but i believe along with his incredible service in terms of the national security of our country, this will be one of his more lasting legacies. so i hope we adopt the webb amendment, and, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: sk the call of

the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: while we're waiting for other senators to come to the floor to debate their amendment, i wish to comment on a pending amendment offered by the gentleman from

louisiana, senator vitter. it's his amendment number 769. it's an amendment to allow individuals to import f.d.a.-approved drugs from canada. doesn't that sound terrific? i mean, doesn't that sound terrific that maybe we could get cheap drugs coming into the united states through one of the greatest unguarded borders because of our wonderful relationship with canada? but i must say to my colleagues, although it has a very good intention, and though senators have worked to modify it, i'm going to oppose it. why? the reason i'm going to oppose it is that it could really jeopardize the health, safety and even the lives of american citizens. why? all of our work that we know from federal law enforcement and as a member of the intelligence committee, we don't know if

those drugs coming across the border are actually f.d.a.-approved drugs. not because canada isn't a great country and works with us on the safety and security of what crosses our border, but because organized crime is now involved in the counterfeiting of drugs. you don't know what you're taking has been made in canada, approved in canada, and when it comes that it's a real website from a legitimate canadian pharmacy. we could be importing death. now, i'm not trying to be dramatic. i'm trying to outline the case. but before i go on, i note that the minority leader, the republican leader, is here. i didn't know if he wished to speak. i will be happy to withhold my comments and speak at a later

time. mr. mcconnell: let me thank my friend from maryland. i would just speak in my leader time. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i want to yield what i was going to say because it can wait, and i'm happy to yield to the republican leader for his leader time, and i wish that what i have just said be stricken and then i will speak in a more coherent, cogent way on the vitter amendment later. the presiding officer: without objection, the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the senator from maryland always speaks in a coherent way. let me just say in order to further not interrupt her remarks, i ask consent that my remarks appear at the beginning of the day's journal in connection with my normal leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, as we all know, the number-one issue on the minds of most americans is jobs, and i think

it's pretty clear that both parties are focused on that issue right now. i also think it's safe to say the two parties have a fundamentally different take on the solution. for democrats, the solution apparently is to increase the number of people who work for the government. my good friend, the majority leader, made this pretty clear yesterday when he said that the private sector is -- quote -- "doing just fine" -- unquote -- and that the president's latest stimulus is focused on government jobs instead. well, republicans take a different view. we recognize that government has an important role to play. we recognize the need for commonsense regulations to ensure the safety of our citizens and the preservation of our resources. but it's become increasingly clear to many americans that democrats in washington have lost all sense of balance when it comes to both the size and the scope of the federal

government here in washington. based on the letters i get and the people i meet, it's a growing sense out there that government regulations are simply completely out of control, and that this is one of the main reasons we're in this job crisis. and there is a growing sense that the reason for this is that lawmakers and bureaucrats here in washington have completely lost touch, completely and totally lost touch with the struggles folks outside the beltway are going through. i saw yesterday that the washington, d.c., area now has the highest median income in the country. washington, d.c., the nation's capital, the highest median income in the country, and i have no doubt that many of these people do good work, but the point is they are weathering this economic downturn pretty well. not only are they making big salaries relative to the private sector, they are also holding

onto their jobs. the unemployment rate for the country as a whole is 9.1% for for -- 9.1%. for government workers, it's about half that. so it's the private sector that has been begging for mercy. it's the private sector that is being crushed by regulators here in washington, so i don't think the solution to the crisis is to make the federal government even bigger. when it comes to jobs, the primary role of government is to create an environment in which americans and american businesses can grow and flourish without the heavy hand of government on their backs. we shouldn't be making it harder for people to do business and to prosper. we should be making it easier. yet everywhere i go from silicon

valley to kentucky coal mines, i hear the same thing: get washington off of our backs. they're killing us with all of these impossible demands. it's not the commonsense regulations they complain about, it's all the new, burdensome duplicative and in some cases impossible to comply with regulations. i've got small business owners in kentucky writing me to say they're barely getting by as it is and the e.p.a. is harassing them with paperwork and threatening them with fines. i mentioned a paper company the other day in ohio that is shutting down because the e.p.a. demanded they upgrade their boilers with a technology that doesn't even exist yet and i know my democratic colleagues hear these same complaints but

because they're literally cut across party lines. one story i saw this week featured a democratic mayor in massachusetts telling washington to back off. here's a woman who went to the president's inauguration, an obama supporter, stood in the cold to witness it with her kids. and now she says she's losing her faith in government because of the overzealous enforcement of brutal fishing regulations is destroying jobs and forcing smaller players out of the business altogether. democrats hear stories like this, too, and their solution is we should hire even more people who wake up thinking about new ways to regulate private industry like this until they cry uncle. our view is that we should actually listen to what people are asking us to do and to help them out. give them a break. it's time for government to help private sector job creators instead of looking for ways to punish them.

so what we're doing is we're asking the democrats to work with us on ways to help the private sector grow. because the fact is, we're not going to get this economy going again by growing the government. it's the private sector that's ultimately going to drive this recovery. look, if big government were the key to economic growth, in countries like greece would be booming right now. if big government was the key to economic growth, greece would be booming. what we need to do is to focus on helping the private sector grow. i know the democratic plan is to focus on their government jobs bill instead, to punish private sector job creators with yet another tax to subsidize even more temporary government jobs at the state level, but what i'm saying is let's put the government's stimulus bills aside for a change and do something for small business men and women in this country who are begging for mercy from their

own government right here in washington. now, there's a lot we can do. as i noted yesterday the house has already passed three pieces of legislation this year alone, one as recently as last week, that would send an entirely different message to businesses. every one of these bills to roll back excessive regulations by bureaucrats here in washington got solid, solid bipartisan support in the house of representatives. last night, senate republicans also moved ahead on legislation that private contractors who do work for federal, state, and local governments have been asking us to enact as a way to protect jobs. at a time when so many businesses are struggling just to stay afloat, just to literally stay afloat, the government shouldn't burden them even more by taking money out of businesses that they could use to invest and hire. now, the best thing about this proposal not only is it

bipartisan, it's also part of the president's bill. so here's another example of something we could do for job creators that we know will actually be signed into law. and there's no reason i can think of that this legislation shouldn't get 100 votes here in the senate. a proposal supported by the president of the united states, passed with a large bipartisan majority in the house, why don't we pass it? it's in the president's own bill, for goodness' sake. the white house said yesterday that every part of the president's bill is equally important. if that's true, let's pass this measure. this legislation should get unanimous support. so let's vote on this and the other bipartisan jobs legislation i've mentioned and then send them to the president for an actual signature.

making a law instead of making a point. it's time we showed sho people who are really struggling out there we're on their side because i know a lot of them are having serious doubts. it's time we do something serious about jobs and the proposal that i offered last night with the support of my republican colleagues, supported by the president of the united states, passed by a bipartisan majority in the house, would be a good step in the right direction. now, mr. president, on another subject, the senate republican team is losing a key player today as we say goodbye to lisa wolski, chief of staff to the republican chip, senator kyl. lisa has been a greatly valued advisor to me as well and to my entire team. we've always valued her

intelligence, good strategic sense, and her sound judgment. she's worked extremely hard to make sure we always knew where the votes were, which is very important in this line of work. and most of all, we appreciate very much the fact that she's done all this with great team spirit. so i want to thank lisa for her hard work for me and for the entire republican team. and we wish her all the best in her future endeavors. and finally, mr. president, on yet another subject, it is with sadness that i come to the floor today to commemorate a brave kentuckian who lost his life in service to

his country. u.s. army specialist brandon s. mull ins of -- mullins of owensboro, kentucky, was killed in kandahar province, afghanistan when insurgents attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. he was 21 years old. for his heroic service, specialist mullins received several awards, medals and decorations including the bronze star medal, the purple heart, the army good conduct medal, the national defense service medal. the afghanistan campaign medal with bronze service star, the global war on terrorism service medal, the army service ribbon, the overseas service ribbon, the nato medal, and the combat infantryman badge. brandon mullins inherited a proud military tradition.

he was the third generation in his family to wear the nation's uniform. his father, thomas, was a military police officer and as a child brandon and his brother sean loved to play with their dad's old m.p. mementos. they also loved to play on a world war ii era tank that was on display in a park near brandon's childhood home. as a kid, brandon loved sports. hockey was his favorite. he and his family enjoyed going to nashville predators' games. but brandon's favorite team was the detroit red wings. brandon also played hockey in high school and was the m.v.p. of his league. he thrived under pressure. one time brandon's team found itself in a shootout situation for victory in a high-stakes playoff game. brandon asked his coach to put him in as a goalie. he wanted a chance to step up in a clutch moment for his teammates and sure enough, his team won the game.

brandon also enjoyed being outdoors. he was a hunter, a fisherman, and a hiker. his family describes him as a fearless when it came to physical challenges. he started rollerblading at the age of 4. he is remembered as high spirited, generous, and very popular. brandon's family was certainly not surprised when brandon grew up and enlisted in the military. he wanted the tough job, his mother, katharine, says. he wanted to fight. he was competitive. brandon's brother sean had enlisted before him so in february, 2010, brandon enlisted in the army. he deployed to afghanistan in may of 2011 with 21st infantry regiment, 25th infantry division based out of fort wainwright, alaska. once again he throifd under

pressure in the demanding task of fighting for our country. brandon matured quickly, his father thomas said. from the time he entered basic training you could see a big change in his life. he was headed in the right direction with his life. brandon love being in the army and would send letters back home about how cool basic training was. brandon's fellow soldiers quickly took to the new recruit from owensboro, i can honestly seau say i've never met anyone like mullisns said staff sergeant matthew mills, brandon's squad leader. specialist deroderick jackson, another one of brandon's fellow soldiers, said this "he was just a big help to me. every time he saw i had a hard time he made me smile and told me to get it together. on a mission with the afghan national army i was real tired and they were going real fast and brandon said you got this, brother." another fellow soldier, todd r.

wood said brandon was best described as the epitome of selfless service, took on details others did not want, he did not complain, he just did it, and usually with a smile. he carried the heaviest loads and helped out everyone he could. he was always concerned about others first. brandon's fellow soldiers also recall he had a fun side. i remember he was really goofy, said private first class adam bald rinl. one time we got in trouble and were getting smoked to we almost had a tear running down our cheeks. he turned and looked at me and said "just remember they can't smoke rocks." we are thinking of brandon's loved ones today, mr. president, as i recount his story for my colleagues this the senate including his parents, thomas and katharine mu llins, his brother, private first class sean eric mullins, his

sister and many other beloved family members and strendz friends. this september 11 was the tenth anniversary of the brutal terrorist attacks that ushered in a new era of military readiness and resolve for america. on that day the family held a memorial service for brandon. more than 800 people came out to show their respects. the funeral procession led by 576 motorcycles traveled from good shepherd church to owensboro memorial gardens at a slow, somber pace, taking one hour to drive 11 miles. on that day, captain sean l. allred of the third battalion wrote thomas and katharine muullins a letter. i hope you may know how your son lived as a warrior and will continue to live in our hearts and our victories. know your son was a brother to

all men in his platoon and all who knew him. brandon was a credit to you and how you raised him. i'm forever indebted to him and will honor his men and women in future actions. captain allred's sentiments are shared by the united states senate. our nation can never repay the debt owed to specialist mullins or the sacrifice that weighs so heavily on his family. but we can honor his service and ensure he will never be forgotten by his country. it is thanks to heroes like specialist brandon s. mullnis that america enjoys the greems freems we do today. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: i want to comment on the vitter amendment and then able to have the gentlelady from new hampshire speak, but before the leader leaves, i just want

to express my condolences to the mullins family for what happened. it's a little hard to get back into talking about amendments and debating issues when you hear such a poignant and wrenching story. but i'm glad the senator from louisiana is on the floor because i know we'll be debating his amendment. i just want to make a comment about the vitter amendment, 7699 as modified. i oppose the amendment. i appreciate the senator from louisiana's intent to make lower cost drugs available to the american people, but we have many flashing lights about this, and i bring this from knowledge of being both on the intelligence committee and also in working with the f.b.i. through our c.j.s. and both the classified and unclassified setting.

the -- the amendment allows individuals to report f.d.a.-approved drugs from canada. it sounds great, but we don't know if the drug was made in canada and we don't know if it's coming from a canadian -- a regulated canadian website. we are concerned that because of the organized crime involvement in now counterfeit drugs, lethal, lethal, lethal drugs could come into our country and have dire and devastateing effects. we could talk about how to make drugs more -- how to have pharmaceutical, f.d.a.-approved drugs available to our people at less costs. ironically, this is coming from a national health system. i'm not going to get into obamacare and all that. but i do want to speak as someone who knows a lot about international organized crime,

and what i want our colleagues to know is when there is compelling, compassionate, human need, there's greed, and where there is greed, there is scams, schemes and in many cases have lethal consequences. what the vitter amendment does -- first of all, it doesn't give f.d.a. additional resources to combat counterfeit medicine. it just makes an allowable use. i don't know where we're going to get the money. if our colleague, senator kohl, were here, he would speak about the money. i want to speak about the safety. there are rogue canadian pharmacy websites, rogue canadian pharmacy websites, and the consequences of that is that we don't know what is coming. one of the things we do know is that we have examples of awful, awful kinds of things that happen. do many of you remember when

cumiden came into this country, that was a blood thinner, that was illegally produced, did not need f.d.a. standards and resulted in people dying because they hemorrhaged out because of a counterfeit drug? they bled to death taking something they thought was safe. there is tamiflu that came into our country. it wasn't tamiflu. it was talcum powder. it could give you indigestion, but it could have more dire circumstances. birth control pills made out of rice flour. there is a complete list, and i would encourage you go to the f.d.a., find out what they have experienced in this. go to the f.b.i., find out what they have done to try to intercept this. go to our customs and border people. they have heartburn trying to

prevent heartache from those things that could come illegally into our country. you know, we do have to deal with the cost of prescription drugs. we did deal with it in subsequent legislation in which we have closed the doughnut hole. i compliment the senator from louisiana in wanting to do that and all who modified it, but i want to say don't make a good intention. have a horrible, lethal, unintended consequence. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i rise to the floor to discuss my amendment 753. this amendment would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2012 for the prosecution of enemy combatants in article 3

courts, specifically applies to members of al qaeda or affiliate ed entities who are also participants in the course of planning or carrying out attacks against the united states. i've heard yesterday many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle whom i have great respect for come to the floor to oppose my amendment. i would like to address the issues that they have raised and start with this. i think their arguments miss the point. we are at war with these terrorists, enemy combatants, members of al qaeda who are planning or have planned attacks against the united states of america. and in what other conflict has the default or preferred position been to try these individuals in the civilian court systems of the united states? the primary focus when we

capture an enemy combatant needs to be on gathering intelligence to protect the people of this country and our allies, and our civilian court system, which i have great respect for. i have tried many cases. i have both defended criminals in that system and i have prosecuted criminals in that system -- was not set up to gather intelligence. it was set up to have a fair prosecution of individuals who commit crimes in our country. when someone goes in and robs a liquor store, the police arrest them, they question them, but the primary purpose is to find out who is accountable for the crime and then within that system to hold them accountable. the primary purpose of that system is not to gather information and to be able to make sure within that system

that we gather as much information as possible, and every single connection that that individual has to ensure that we are preventing future attacks on our country. and that has to be our primary purpose when we are trying to protect the american people. and those that want to -- in this administration wants to use the civilian court system as the default system, they are undermining, in my view, our ability to obtain valuable intelligence, because intelligence doesn't just come often with a brief interview that may happen in a criminal case. sometimes it takes months to gather the type of intelligence we need to protect americans, and that's why at the time under the law of war, we allow people to hold -- to be held in military custody so that we can protect the american people, but

also as time -- as we develop information, we can go back to those individuals six months later and say well, we just learned from another individual your connection with al qaeda, your connection with an attack on the united states of america and gather further information to protect our country. our civilian court system is not set up to do that because under this administration, when you immediately treat an enemy of our country and an enemy combatant under the civilian court system, they are entitled to certain rights, certain rights like the miranda rights guaranteed under the fifth amendment of our constitution, and they are, of course, told you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to have a lawyer. these are rights they would not -- that would not be read if they were taken into military custody and not required to be read, and that is a fundamental difference that i think is very important for the american people to think about. when we capture a terrorist, we

need to know what else they were planning and what they might do to our country or our allies. if we capture them and make the decision to treat them in our civilian court system, once we hold them in custody for a certain period on our civilian court system, under our fifth amendment to the constitution, we have to tell them you have the right to remain silent. so here we are telling terrorists you have the right to remain silent. it doesn't fit to have a system where we are treating terrorists that way, and it undermines our ability to gather information that will protect our country. i've heard many of my colleagues, including the distinguished senator from california yesterday, argue that military commissions are not effective in holding terrorists accountable, and i have heard cited time and time again the number of qiks in article -- convictions in article 3 courts compared to the number of

convictions in military commissions. this is an argument that in my view is very misleading because one of the first steps this administration took when the president came into office was to suspend military commissions, so to say here that military commissions don't work after having suspended military commissions for over two years and not allowing that system to operate seems to me, if i were making that argument in law school, i think i would have flunked my classes. the reality is that to say that our military commissions aren't sufficient is actually very unfair to the military commission system. this is the system in which we treat our own soldiers. so i find it astounding that somehow that would be cited as a reason not to treat enemy

combatants who are enemies of our country in the first instance toward military custody so that we can gather the maximum amount of information from them, and that may take a period of time to do so, a period of time that isn't built into our civilian court system because they are also -- there are also guaranteed rights like speedy presentment, and that does not fit when we need periods of time to gather information to protect our country. the other issue that arose is the distinguished senator from california raised the case of mr. moussaoui. well, one of the issues that we have in these types of cases is unlike many of the criminal cases, the murder cases that i prosecuted, our court system is generally and rightly so an open system for people to see, where in that system i would give defense counsel all the information i had about a case

so that they could adequately defend their client. well, when you're dealing with a case involving the prosecution of enemy combatants, much of the information is very sensitive. it can be sensitive to our national security if it's releaseed, it can be sensitive if the individual being prosecuted gets that information to other people, and we saw that, for example, in the moussaoui case when he was prosecuted in an article 3 court where sensitive material was inadvertently leaked, and we also, of course, saw in that case victims of 9/11 having to subject themselves to being mocked by him in our open court system. finally, i was astounded yesterday when i heard the argument from the esteemed senator from california that if someone commits a terrorist act on our soil, that they should be exclusively tried in article 3

courts, and she cited mr. brennan, who is one of the president's national security advisors in saying that we should be using article 3 courts as an exclusive way to treat individuals who have actually come to our soil to attack our country. and to me, that doesn't make sense. so if you are a terrorist, a member of al qaeda who actually has planned an attack on our country and actually comes to our country to attack us, you are going to be given greater rights because you will be given your miranda rights, told you have the right to remain silent. you will be automatically treated in our civilian court system. and we will have to give you speedy presentment and many of the rights that rightly so are included in our article 3 court

system. and so what are we saying to terrorists when we say yes, we will try you in our article 3 court system? we're actually going to give you greater rights if you come and attack us here. it's, in my view, it unfortunately sends the wrong message. i think it's welcoming people here to the united states of america when the message should be clearly we're at war with you, we are going to treat you in our military system because you are an enemy of our country and we're going to make sure that we gather the most information from you and your colleagues to protect americans from future attacks and our allies. we need to look no further than the case of osama bin laden as proof that the process of obtain ing information from terrorists is frequently long and difficult, but i shudder to think what would have happened if the detainees from whom we

gleaned information that led us to bin laden were instead read the miranda rights, remain silent. we brought them here. we had to give them speedy presentment rights. i don't think it's a stretch to say that bin laden might still be at large. we have to put the priority on protecting americans by gathering information, and we are at war. we have a fundamental duty to protect the american people from the threat of future terrorist attacks. to me, that's all-consuming priority, more important than extending constitutional rights to foreign, foreign terrorists. not american citizens who are at war with us. i would urge my colleagues to oppose civilian trials for this category of the most dangerous individuals we are at war with. and finally i want to address one point that was quite

surprising to me yesterday as well. the distinguished senior senator from california said that one of the reasons why this amendment, my amendment and why these individuals should not be treated enemy combatants in military commissions is because, she said, that it will reduce our allies' willingness to extradite terror suspects to the united states for interrogation or prosecution or even provide evidence about suspected terrorists if they'll be shipped off to military commissions in all cases. and she cited that saying they're very reluctant, our allies to give us evidence in a process where they don't feel the rule of law is present. well, first of all, military commissions are very historically part of our system. we try our soldiers in military commissions. they're consistent with the geneva convention and the rule of law. but secondly, the notion that

she would allow our allies to dictate where we would try enemies of our country to me just seems absurd in terms of what policy we are going to take as the united states of america. and finally, it doesn't make sense to me. here we have a situation, where we are -- this administration is taking out -- and i agree with them on this and i commend them for this -- taking out terrorists around the world, members of al qaeda, enemy combatants who threaten our country, we're killing them. yet the same administration is saying the same category of individuals we shouldn't treat them in military custody, we shouldn't try them by military commissions, and to me that seems internally inconsistent. it also seems inconsistent with me when we have our allies participating with us when we need -- when we have situations where we are taking these individuals out around the

world, that they wouldn't participate with us when it comes to the decision of where we're going to try these individuals. to me, it just doesn't make sense. so i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment. we shouldn't further criminalize this war. we remain at war with those, unfortunately, terrorists who want to kill americans and i brought forward this amendment because i firmly believe that our priority has to be to gather intelligence and not to provide them mrnda rights and not to under-- miranda rights and not to undermine our military commission system but to treat them for what they are, enemies of our country, and make sure that we protect americans. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from virginia is recognized. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. i would like to spend some time addressing the amendment which i have introduced and will be

voted later on this morning or early this afternoon which would establish a national commission to address the issue of criminal justice in our country. and i'd like to begin by thanking the senior senator from maryland for her comments earlier this morning and her strong support of this legislation. also to thank the majority leader, and i believe a majority of our democratic caucus who cosponsored this legislation in the last session, and to emphasize that this is -- this is a bill that was put together over a period of 4 1/2 years. it is not so much politics as it is leadership in terms of how we address the issue of criminal justice in the united states. we had the support last year, we continue to have support, i believe, the cosponsorship on the republican side, of senator graham. last year senator hatch, senator snowe also cosponsored

this legislation. it passed the house in the same form that we are introducing it today by voice vote with the cosponsorship of lamar smith, who is now the chairman of the house judiciary committee. it was voted out of the senate judiciary committee last year. this is a very important moment in terms of how we're going to resolve a lot of the pending issues with respect to law enforcement in this country. and i want to start off by saying that my motivation in getting involved in this issue stems first from the time that i spent as an officer in the united states marine corps, where one of the strongest leadership principles that was ingrained in every marine was that in order for a system to function it has to be firm but also fair. and also from my time as a journalist preceding the time that i spent here in the senate.

it is the product of 4 1/2 years of work, outreach, and listening. we've listened to more than 100 organizations from across the country, across the philosophical spectrum. we've listened to our colleagues on the other side. we've adapted the legislation to ensure that this is balanced politically so that we can set politics aside and get into the complex issues of how we resolve the broken points in our criminal justice system. and our criminal justice system is broken in many areas, mr. president, and we've got some strong works in local areas, people trying to help fix these problems, but we need a national commission in order to take a look at the criminal justice system from point of apprehension all the way through to reentry into society of people who have been incarcerated. we have not had this overarching

national look since 1965. what are the two boundaries that affected my approach to this? i would like to lay them out very quickly. the first is that we have entered a period from the 1980's forward where we have tended to overincarcerate for crimes, a lot of them nonviolent crimes. this is a chart that goes from 1925 to today, but beginning in the 1980's our incarceration system skyrocketed to the point that now there are 2.8 million people in prison this the united states, excuse me, 2.38 million people in prison in the united states. seven million people involved in the criminal justice system at one level or another of supervision from our authorities. the second is that americans don't feel any safer. for all of this incarceration and for the approach it has taken. survey after survey from the last decade indicates that the

average american community feels more threatened this year than it did last year. two-thirds of americans believe that crime is more prevalent today than it was a year ago. so this is a leadership question, how do we fix it, who do we go to in order to find the answers so that we can have the kind of advice that is very difficult to obtain in a holistic way so that congress can move forward and the country can move forward and solve this problem. this legislation is paid for, it is sunsetted at 18 months, very similar to the legislation senator mccaskill and i put together with wartime contracting which now after a two-year sunset period have reported out very important improvements in looking at a system in iraq and afghanistan that resulted in $30 billion to $60 billion of fraud, waste,

and abuse. we put a commission together, brought good minds to help us solve the problem, came in with recommendations and we're going to fix that problem as best it can be fixed. it is balanced philosophically and politically. i would ask my colleagues when the last time was that we had law enforcement lining up with people who would generally be believed to be on the other side philosophically, the aclu, naacp, etc., all coming together and saying the same thing. this needs a national commission. this needs to be fixed. we have in terms of law enforcement the strong support of the international association of chiefs of police, the senate sheriffs association, the fraternal order of police, the major cities chiefs associations, the national narcotics officers association, the national association of counties, the national league of cities, the u.s. conference of mayors, and the national

criminal justice system. a few quotes in terms of supporting this legislation, i would ask my colleagues from both sides to consider, chief michael carroll, chief of the international association of chiefs of police, the president, who said "for more than 20 years our organization has advocated the creation of a commission that would follow in the footsteps of the 1965 presidential commission on law enforcement. the iecp believes it is imperative that the national criminal justice act be approved in a timely fashion. for far too long our nation's law enforcement and criminal justice system has lacked a strategic plan that will guide and integrate public safety and homeland security." chuck canterbury, national president of the fraternal order of police, law enforcement has changed a great deal in the last few decades. we believe that establishing a national commission will only

help law enforcement officers do their jobs more effectively, more efficiently, and more sawx. sheriff b.j. roberts, president of the national sheriffs association, "making the creation of a national commission all the more necessary to ensure law enforcement has the tools and knowledge necessary to adapt to the justice system. the n.s.a. commends this work on this critical issue. criminal justice experts, chuck coalson, founder of the prison fellowship, i write from the perspective of a conservative who has always been comfortable as a reformer. i don't believe this is an ideological issue at all, one on which people of goodwill, conservative and liberal alike can join forces to make prisons more effective, humane and successful. brian walsh, the heritage foundation, "reform experts who are serious about criminal

justice reform should draw encouragement from this effort to date to reach out to elected officials on both sides of the aisle. mark mauer, of the sentencing project, "a new approach to crime prevention is necessary. the too the time for reform is upon us. the commission created by this legislation would establish an organized and proactive approach to studying policies that promote public safety while overhauling those processes that are found to be fundamentally flawed. we strongly urge people of the senate criminal justice act. paul ogletree, the harvard law school, a timely and important bill will go a long way to addressing inequities in the system. this should be pursued with great vicor to make sure we not only hold offenders accountable but implement policies that are fair, increase public safety

and make judicious use of our state and federal resources." so, mr. president, i am grateful that this legislation has been offered as an amendment on this appropriations measure. again, it is paid for, it is sunsetted, it is balanced philosophically and politically. we listened very carefully to our colleagues from the other side of the aisle to incorporate their suggestions as this legislation moved forward. it passed the house last year, and i earnestly hope that people from both sides of the aisle will support this legislation when it comes to a vote later today. thank you very much and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise in strong support of the vitter amendment number 769, which we'll be voting on a little after noon in that next block of votes.

and i want to encourage all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to come together in a strong bipartisan way in favor of this amendment. it is a bipartisan amendment. i want to thank senator sanders and mccain, stabenow, and bingaman for being co-authors of it along with me. mr. president, the amendment is very simple. it would give all americans another avenue to get safe, cheaper prescription drugs by allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs for personal use only from canada only. again, it's very modest and very restricted, mr. president. we're just talking about canada. we're just talking about, of course, f.d.a.-approved prescription drugs. we're just talking about small quantities for personal use, not big quantities, not wholesalers, not folks in that

business. we're specifically excluding biological -- biolodgics, things on the controlled, dangerous substances schedule. so it is a very modest, straightforward, limited amendment but it would still be real in terms of the relief it would give americans, particularly seniors, who are so often under the crunch, another opportunity for safe, cheaper prescription drugs. in its form as i've described, mr. president, this is nearly identical to a bipartisan vitter amendment that was passed in the last senate. it passed on a strong bipartisan vote. and i thank members who voted for that. this problem, again, is real, mr. president. it hits millions of americans. it hits seniors particularly hard. let's just take three very common prescription drugs. nexiu m.

in the u.s. it's about $635 for a certain amount. in canada that same volume of the drug is $386. lipitor, the price difference on average is $572 in the united states versus $378 in canada. plavix, $644 in the u.s., $434 in canada. huge price differences of 39% and 34% and 33% and that cost crunch is often what causes seniors to have to make horrible choices between prescription drugs they need for their health or other necessities like food and utilities. let's give those americans real relief and we can in this simple, straightforward amendment. mr. president, let me say two things in closing.

first of all, there have been safety concerns brought up about the amendment. we have real safety concerns about counterfeit drugs in general, but i do not believe and i would not offer this amendment if i did believe this amendment expands those vulnerabilities or concerns at all. just as an example, the distinguished senator from maryland brought up several cases documented in the press in the last few years. and those are serious cases of counterfeit drugs. but none of them have anything to do with reimportation. none of them have anything to do with canada. none of them have anything to do with equal quantities of drugs for personal use. they are other unrelated safety concerns. this amendment would not expand those vulnerabilities. finally, mr. president, let me say that this vote is about the

amendment i have described, but i think it's also about the intersection of money and power and politics in washington. you know, mr. president, president obama often decries that intersection of big money and big power in washington, and i agree with him, but i think the single biggest example of that sort of money run amok in washington buying power and influencing politics in the last few years has been big pharma dealing with the white house, specifically visiting the white house over and over and over during the development of obamacare, and in the end supporting obamacare and oh, by the way, in the end the president no longer supporting reimportation, which he had consistently up to this point. i do decry that sort of intersection of money and

politics. if you do, my colleagues, you will support this amendment, if you disapprove of that sort of action by pharma and that interaction of big, big money and power of politics, you will support this amendment, too. i urge strong bipartisan support. again, i thank my colleagues from both parties co-authoring and supporting this amendment. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i know that my ranking member wishes to speak, but i have two mechanical things to dispose of. mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during the session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these qts be printed in the record. and, mr. president, one more item.

i ask unanimous consent that the murray amendment number 772 be withdrawn. thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to -- senator webb from virginia spoke earlier about the purpose of this legislation, and i believe that if we had the time to work on this amendment that we could accommodate the senator's proposed goals for the commission. however, this has not gone through the judiciary committee. it is an authorization of a

commission that would purport, it's called the national criminal justice commission, which is purporting to look at the entire criminal justice system's federal, -- justice systems, federal, state and local. mr. president, this is an overreach of gigantic proportions. it is certainly within the per view of congress to do a -- purview of congress to do a national commission to look at federal criminal justice systems. but to go into state and local governments and purport to examine the criminal justice systems of our states and local governments is so far beyond the reach of congress, and it is certainly not the priority that we should be assuring we meet in the appropriations bills when we are already in a deficit and

debt crisis in this country. i want to ask unanimous consent to submit two letters in opposition to this amendment. the letter from the national criminal justice -- the national district attorneys association and the letter from the national association of police organizations, and i would like to submit those for the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i would say in the letter from the district attorneys association, it looks at an earlier version of the bill which had a $14 million price tag, and the price tag on this amendment is $5 million. so with that caveat, i put it in because the points that the district attorneys association makes are very valid, except for that one error in the amount of the money. however, let's just talk about

the $5 million. i mean, is it really the priority of the justice department to have a national commission that purports to go into state and local governments and look at their criminal justice systems at a time like this? they are taking the $5 million from the account, the department of justice's office of justice programs administrative account. now, that is the account that administers the following grant programs, and i'm not going to read all of them, but it is the national center for missing and exploited children, j.a.g. grants, the national sex offenders registry, the bulletproof vest grants, the national stalker database, and it goes on and on. so you're going to take $5 million from the administrators of this account and put it into looking into the criminal justice systems of our 50 states and whatever local governments they would choose to

look at? the senate position already is $118 million for that account, which is $64 million below the f.y. 2011 levels. the house in this account has put in $79 million. so you would be taking away $5 million more for us to go to conference with to do an overreach against states' rights in order to fund a commission that is going to look into programs and take away from the fund grants that are so important to so many of our state and local governments, not to mention the people of our country. let's talk about the budgetary decisions of the states, for instance, of new york and vermont, or the state of virginia or texas or alabama. how are we going to look at the

criminal justice systems with this national commission and say oh, you know, we think the priority for new york state and its prison system or its number of district attorneys should meet the federal standard? well, would that be the same standard for the state of vermont? i mean, really, mr. president, this is such an overreach, and it is not a priority in these tight budget times, in my opinion. the budgetary decisions of our state and local governments and the criminal justice systems should be done at that level. if there is a massive problem, there will be lawsuits about it. there would be a lawsuit against the texas prison system. there was one, and it changed the way the texas prison systems were even built and how much

space there was in the cells. you know, if there is a problem, there is a remedy, but we don't need a national commission to come in and tell the state and local governments that they have got a problem and rearrange the budgetary priorities of those state and local governments. the g.a.o. looked at this bill as a freestanding bill, and they said the definition of criminal justice system is way too broad, that a report on the federal criminal justice system could be valuable to congress, which i submit that i would agree with. maybe that would be important. but to be effective, the g.a.o. said, such a report should be narrowly targeted on specific features of the federal criminal justice system, such as law enforcement, courts, detention facilities, and numbers of prosecutors, whether there is a

victims rights advocate. they can look at a lot of different things, but they should narrow the scope if they're going to be effective and if congress in its responsibility to wisely use our taxpayer dollars in these economic times, i think it's essential that we narrow the scope of this. let me mention something that's also mentioned in the district attorneys association letter, something that caught my eye when i read this amendment, and that is that the 14-member commission is on its face seven members that would be appointed by republicans and seven members by democrats, so you have a 14-member commission on its face, seven of each party, that would pass muster for bipartisan. however, it has the president of the united states appointing two of the republican members. now, mr. president, if you want

a commission that's seven and seven, wouldn't it be more fair or pass the test of bipartisanship if republicans appoint the republicans and the democrats appoint the democrats? this commission would essentially be 9-5, not 7-7. now, i don't know that you have partisan issues in criminal justice. in some areas, you probably do, but in the prioritizing of the budget, probably not. probably there are political differences in our priorities on the criminal justice system. so if you're going to have a fair commission that purports to have a 7-7 makeup, let's make it 7-7. mr. president, the reason that we have a rule in this senate that says you can't authorize on

appropriations bills is because we have authorization committees that have hearings, that mark up legislation, that make the necessary changes to accommodate the needs of the majority and the minority and assure that something has at least been vetted. this bill has not been authorized. this comprehensive amendment appointing this national commission to study the criminal justice systems of the federal, state and local governments needs a lot of work. i would like to reach out to senator webb, and i would work with him to assure that it is a federal commission that is looking at the federal criminal justice system. perhaps find out what his priorities are for this commission to study, and let's focus on those as the g.a.o.

said would be necessary. i wouldn't take the $5 million from the accounts that are administering the very important grant programs to our state and local governments and to the people that are affected by stateg and exploited children criminal alien assistance program, scaap, which helps our border counties and the states that are on the border accommodate the incarceration of illegal alien criminals. i know my state of texas, the counties on the border don't have the money to incarcerate the prisoners that are illegal ail yens that are federal responsibility. the administrators of these programs like the mentally ill offender grants, the cybercrime

economic crime program, the coverdale forensic improvement grants, adam walsh act. oh, mr. president we shouldn't be cutting the accounts that administer those programs. that would not be my choice if i had had the ability to work with the senator from virginia to accommodate his needs as an authorization committee would. this should not be in this bill. we -- if we're going to have a 14-member commission, seven republicans and seven democrats, let's have a fair appointment of those seven members on each side. to say that the president of the united states would appoint two of the republicans and that that is an even distribution, mr. president, it just doesn't pass the test of what appears to

be the fairness in the appointment of the commission. so i oppose this amendment, and i would like to work with senator webb to have a national criminal justice commission that would focus on the national criminal justice system. we don't need the overreach into state and local governments. we don't need to set the priority for the budgets of state and local governments. we don't have the capacity to do it, and i will guarantee you, with 14 members they're not going to represent 50 states. and the needs of the states that are small and the states that are -- have large urban areas and the cities that are dealing with these crimes. we are into vast overreach with this amendment, and it is not the priority, i believe right

now to take $5 million from the senate center for missing and exploited children and byrne grants that are so important to our state and local governments, and the board of prosecution funding and the scaap funding. mr. president, it just hasn't been vetted like we require in the united states senate. unfortunately, the agreement that was made between the majority and minority leaders last night said that no points of order would be able to be launched against this -- this amendment. well, i would have -- i would have raised a point of order because it is authorizing on an appropriations bill and the reason is, it hasn't been vetted by the judiciary committee, which ought to have taken this bill up and corrected

the problems in it before it became to be full-blown in an appropriations bill. so i will reiterate that i'll work with senator webb. i'll work on a national commission that studies the national criminal justice system, and if we can pinpoint it carefully to the needs that he is trying to meet, i'll be happy to work with him on that. i'll be happy to work with him on the appointment of the commission if it's supposed to be seven and seven, let's make it seven and seven, not nine and five. so i hope that he will withdraw this amendment. i hope the senate can defeat it if he doesn't, and most certainly if we go to conference with this amendment on this bill, i will do in my power to eliminate it unless it is changed significantly to meet the needs of our country to assure a fair federal system.

we don't need to get into the state and local governments' budgetary priorities in this appropriations bill. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from massachusetts is recognized. mr. kerry: i ask that further proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: we are have now? the presiding officer: in

legislative session. mr. kerry: do we need to go to executive or not? mr. president, i want to say a few words, if i may, about the nominee that we're about to vote on. i want to strongly support the nomination of heather higginbottom to be the deputy director of the office of management and budget. it's been more than 12 years now since heather first came to work for me in the senate as a senior legislative assistant and later became my legislative director and top policy aide. in all those years on the hill, i want to assure my colleagues who are thinking about this position, that she stood out not just for her policy knowledge and her understanding of the budget and the legislative process but really for her ability to work across the aisle. i know a lot of colleagues are anxious to confirm people who

come not with partisan intent but with the ability to try to get things done here in washington. and believe me, heather has that ability. she worked with me and developed my proposal a number of years ago for a constitutional line-item veto. a proposal which now has many, many bipartisan supporters here in the senate. i also saw firsthand her instinct to put aside ideology and to go after waste, to push for tough-minded budget reforms, all of which protected the taxpayers' interests. she worked with me through seven budget cycles, and i'm pleased to say as many members remember, we balanced the budget back in those years. so i think she comes with an experience of understanding what the tough choices are that can help to improve our fiscal situation now. i