Latest Breaking News On - Jody williams - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For CSPAN Q A 20130311

water project. it has been authorized for quite some time that would actually bring water to the missouri river to the red river valley to the larger communitiesment we have gone through the process at length but we still need to complete the record of decision, the record of decision. will you look into this? will you help me work through the bureaucracy to complete that, again, it has been congressionally authorized, but we still have to go through all of the bureaucratic steps to get the record of decision. i believe the dor is supportive. will you work with me to look into it to see if we can get the record of decision signed which would come to you? >> i would happy to be work walk on that. >> thank you. >> again, thank you for coming by my office as well. >> while the senator from north did a cotes here. i would like to take note of the fact that in our first hearing on gas and i referenced a couple of times in the course of the morning. i was particularly struck by the question that's the senator from north dakota gave to francis who is a renown environmentalist at the natural resources defense council. if you looked that dialogue, as you prepare for the discussion, between people and the energy field and the environment, particularly on the question of fracking. i really came away from that discussion between the senator from north did a deet and the senator was w a sense this is not a bee debate for the fainthearted. think this is something we can get done. thank the senator from are north did a coat tat for your comment. >> you had a long morning. as you can tell, there is enormous in frommests. the senators who have remained would like to spend a few more minutes. i think with your leave, maybe we'll try to confine it to one more question from the senators who remain. that is. >> absolutely. >> all right. i wanted to ask you if i might, i will give you a question about the writing as you know. >> okay. >> the department has been involved. the department trying to bring the parties together. i want to ask about forestry which is important to our state. on the east side of oregon, i have been able to put together an agreement between the timber industry and the environmental community for the sixth national forest on the east side. even before the bill has been enacted into law, the industry has told me that the cut has gone up, litigation has gone down. and the environmental community feels comfortable with the kind of collaboration going on. that of course is a forest service effort on the east side. that is outside of your province. the reason i bring it up is the reason it is working on the east side is we have been able to actually build trust between the timber industry and the environmental community, as you you know, that is the coin of the rm in this whole discussion about natural resources. the past proposals that have been brought up on the west side of oregon, which is involving, of course, the owens land, have not been able to build that same kind of trust between the timber industry and envirnlal folks, and so things have really, it has been impossible to really move forward. so i am making that a special priority and those lands, those owen sea lands are in your province. that is something that is in the jurisdiction of the department of interior. and we are really looking at what amounts to a dual track on the west side. one is we have got to get the timber cut up. we think that can be done consistent with the environmental laws, and certainly for the next, at least a year, we are going to need, as we look at long-term approaches, some bridge funding, particularly for the secure rural, that was not in our schools, roads and police will be flattened. so i will ask you one question on the issue of getting the timber cut up on the west side in particular, the timber industry tells me that there is a problem with the bureau of land management and the way protests sales are being addressed on the west side. in effect, you got timber sales being protested, the blm fails to address them, and there is a focus on planning some additional new sales. so then a lot of this process just goes to an appeals process. the interior board of listened appeals, the industry says the projects, in effect, just go to die. there is no decision made. what happens is we are sort of in a no machine's land. we got the worst of all worlds. we are not getting the timber cut. we are hot getting the saw logs to the mills. it is kind of this employment program in the appeals process. it is just seems to me that we ought to be able to do both. we ought to be able to address the protest and move forward with new sales and i would just like to have you're surance. i don't think it reflect well on the agency either to not be able to deal with protests as well as new sales. i would just like you're surance that this will be something that you will get into early on because without it, we are not going to be able to get the cutup which is essential with all the economic hurt in these communities and i think it is going to make people feel less confident even with respect to the short term need which is to pass the secure rural schools extension for autolesion a period of time. can you assure me that you will make this priority early on? >> senator, i appreciate from being northwest the importance of timber on the rural community, the school funding, and also in keeping the mills operating with reliable source of timber and if there is a great example on the eastern side of the state that we can learn were. i look forward to work back the colleagues and you to do a good job of meeting the needs that you expressed. >> just understand, and i appreciate that, they are different. the east side, of course, the forest service and your lands, of course, are checkerboardses so they are different. what has been built on the east side is trust between the timber industry and the environmental community, and that is why we are already seeing good results. we don't have that trust on the west side. so i appreciate your willingness to follow up on that early on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the interior department is just now, well, they they are finishing up in one area, and in as were sense the other. these involve two land planning efforts in alaska. they just finished the national petroleum reserve alas cass, the npra plan, and they are close to finishing a revised plan within the national wildlife refuge. they call for 52% of the nation's largest petroleum reserve in the protected status while the plan which is again currently in calls for may wilderness to the 8 million acres of the 17 million-acre refuge that is classified as wilderness. theration 1980 interest lands conservation act contained within is a provision that effectively precludes the administration from declaring major new conservation areas unalaska. we reforethis as the nomar clause. but both of these plans that are in process now's fekively create new wilderness without the reck sit congressional approval for the deck rigs, so i ask you you that you would respect the 1980 alaska lands act as it relates to the nomar clause when it says that alaska has basically given. we have more wilderness in the state of alaska than in all of the other states combined, so my ask to you is to respect the 1980 law, now in keeping with the chairman's requests that we limit the last to one question, i would ask in view of your comments to senator scott, when he talked about offshore expiration tunes up in south carolina, your response to senator landrieu's comments about activities in the offshore and the gulf of mexico, the question to you is can you provide the committee your views on offshore development end the arctic ocs? >> thank you, senator. in my work for mobile oil, there was manly not offshore, but certainly arctic development. i appreciated at that time how much it was on the leading edge of technology. i know that the last thing you would want as senator from the state of alaska is any kind of situation like we experienced in the gulf with the deep water horizon, but in fact, we talked about this a bit in your office, so i think what is most important as we, we explore these resources, and i think it is appropriate to explore them, is to do so in a safe and responsible way, and to work with the industry partners, as i believe is the kiss ton the sales that have gone forward, so the industry partners can bring the best science available and explore the resources in a way that you representing alaska and myself is confirmed for this position can assure that we're not putting the ecological system at risk, yet we are supporting the desire that we discuss to continue to keep the alaska pipeline full. >> i appreciate that commitment, i think we recognized it. it is, it is a new area up there, although not unexplored back in the '80's. there were many out in the arctic, but i would hope that you would continue that commitment to work with alaska, work with those within the industry that are trying to make the efforts to really explore and produce to mark's gin and certainly to those folks that i live and work with. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator murkowsky. >> senator? i have one last question. want to take moment and thank for the a ting lation of what multiple use means because i think it showed a real understanding of our public lands that is all too rare. it does not mean every use on every acre. i understanded if there are lands on our public lands with the highest and the best use may be solar energy production and may be oil and gas development, it may be mining, and i will not get to use those places to effectively hike or camp with my family for probably the rest of my life. but there are also places where the highest and best use is myself or someone else getting to walk around during muzzleloader season and that you cannot do everything on every single acre. think that understanding really gives me a great deal of confidence in your ability to balance these competing interest. i want to ask you one last question, and you know, you will have no shortage of controversial issues to weigh in to over the next few years. endangered species management, energy production, transmission, all issues that become even more controversial when policy is driven by politics, and that is why i was pleased to hear the characterization earlier by one of the senators, i believe from washington who said something to the effect that science would be your guiding star. as secretary, will you commit to making land and wildlife management decisions based on the best available science? >> yes, sir, i will. >> that is all i have, mr. chair. >> i thank my colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have quite a few questions and the witness, i will submit the great majority of those for written answers. i do have a couple of questions. i would like to discussion the business experience because i agree completely in the opening statement you said that there is a need for business certainty, businesses need have certainty and stability when making long-term decisions. and you lo, as ceo of reo in 2009 you appeared with president obama at the white house. the president touted i as a model company that provides health care benefits to its part-time employees, yet two years later after the apt's health care cost, rei secured a special waiver exempting the employees from the annual benefit limits in the president's health care law. the spokesman for rei, bethany, at the time said the waivers allowed us, she said to continue to cover these employees. you know the american people remember president obama repeatedly promising that if you lake your health care plan, you will be able to keep the health care plan. it just seems based on bethany's comments that if rei, under your leadership, the ceo not requested the special waiver united nations the health care law that those 1100rei low-wage, seasonal, part-time workers, many of those would have lost the health insurance that they have today. so i look at this and say that you know, rei is not the only entity that received a waiver. the administration granted over 1200 waivers to companies and to unions with the right connections so that they could avoid the negative impacts of the law. and i would assume you made that decision as a smart business decision because you knew the impacts would be dramatic of the health care law. well, there are other laws that are supported by this administration. negatively impact american businesses and there are folks who are looking for waivers for those just like rei appropriately made the decision that said we cannot live under this health care law. one of those laws is the national environmental policy act which negative impact businesses trying to access federal public lands rather than expanding the waivers under nepa which is known as categorical exclusions the administration has restricted the use of waivers, particularly for onshore oil and gas production. so you know, i look at this, you know firsthand how waivers can help businesses avoid the negative impacts of bad policy and what you would do in terms of committing to help us get waivers for the categorical exclusions because, and clearly, i think many people think rei made a smart business decision by asking for waivers and it is just as important for jobs here that the exclusion be given as well. i would be interested in your comment on that. >> thank you, senator. as a doctor yourself, a the orthopedic surgeon. you recognize the complexity of our health care system. i want to first address the facts around rei's situation with the affordable care act. number one, our full-time employee plan is fully compliant with the affordable care act and always has been. we never asked for a waiver on that program. in fact it ex peeds the federal standard because we cover all employee united nations the full-time plan if they work an average of 20 hours a week or more over a rolling six-month period. the federal standard is 3 hour. we have a lot. you referenced 1100 those are the numbers that chose to sign up for part time plan pause they are people who have no possible of coverage under any other plan that was affordable to them. they are part time. they are work perhaps multiple jobs and that plan has a 10,000 annual cap. we are coming up on 2014. we will be working to replace that plan with the exchange program so that these part time employees have an opportunity to have health care, so as they come in to hospitals and work with your colleagues from the medical community, you will get paid for what is done and that is what rei did with the plan so the waiver was tructly for the part-time plan. >> for the plan? the waiver was for the people you were praised at the white house for covering, and were not able to be coveringable are the health care law which is why you applied to the waiver. but the question had to do with the waiver there. >> yes. well, the waiver was because we had a 1 thousand annual cap on the part-time plan which was the only way we could make it affordable. i was optional for us to cover the part time? >> we received praise for the white house for doing something. the white house said one thing, praised you for it, then passed policy that made made it difficult for to you continue what you had been doing and receive praise for it. the question is the categorical excuse? >> senator, i know nepa is a law passed by this body. i know it will be my obligation to use in the work that i do within the department of the interior. i am not familiar with the details around exclusions or exclusion a iy process or how that may impact businesses, but i would submit that the facts that i provided around the health care are what i am familiar with. are you familiar with the need for season ty which you mentioned in your opening statement and people look for certainty in so many areas but there is so much uncertainty that it is very, very difficult to make decision, i think i am asking that you take a look at these as the opportunities to allow people to continue keeping working in the country and not forcing people out of work. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too where had a number of questions in reference to you and our witness, i will submit those in writing. we limit to one question. there is a consistent thread in many of the concerns that have been expressed today and between the concerns just expressed by the senator and many of those which i have which relate to the fact when the federal government creates a lot of lawyers, a lot of laws that create a lot of burdens, burdens that sometimes overlp and conflict with one another. people don't have, they don't have certainty and to some extent they are dependent upon those who administer executive branch age beensies for, for those depart from the standards to do what they think needs to be done. sometimes that can create difficulties with individual is trying to operate within the framework. in part for that reason, congress when it passed, built in to section 102-4, which says that if the policy of the united states that "congress exercise the constitutional authority to withdrew or otherwise designate federal lines for specified purposes and that congress delineate the extent to which the executive may withdraw lands without legislative action." we recently seen some policy initiatives brought forward by the department of the interior including wild lands and nextal blueways for example. that appeared to address some issues that appear more properly within congress' scope of authority. the scope of authority to withdraw lands from multiple use, for example. as evidence by laws by the wilderness act and the wild and scenic rivers act. and so, i am just hoping that you can give me some assurance if confirmed you will recognize congress' proper role in designating and withdrawing federal land from multiple use. >> senator, i appreciate congress' role. i also will commit to you that with anything that we do around these kinds of issues that we'll get multiple stakeholder toes to the table to discuss them, to make sure we understand the issues and with you have my commitment to do that. >> i appreciate the commitment you made in that regard. i assume the same commitment would stand there? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. i certainly don't want to cut my friend from utah off? there there another question you feel is particularly important to you and your constituents? >> the monument designation question is important simply because of the fact that, as you were discussing that with senator, it brought to mind, i appreciate your commitment to work with local stakeholders whenever they are dealing with something like a monument designation we had about 2 million acres designated as a monument a few yearst ago in my state. i was not only done with next tensive consultation and input and biin from local officials and residents, it was done completely by surprise. it was, it was brought upon us xom plotly by surprise, it was announced from a neighboring state, and we would like to have input and so i would really appreciate it if you would commit to me that you would advice the president it is best to work with locals affected by raw decision like that in advance of making such a decision. >> senator, it is certainly consistent of what i believe in and what the white house believes in as well. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank my colleague. a number of organizations have sent letters in support of miss juwell's nomination including a letter and a letter signed by 15 environmental groups and a letter from the outdoor alliance on behalf of the number of recreation associations, a number of recreation organizations that represent members in washington state. without objection, they will be included in the hearing record. you have had long morning. as you can tell, these topics certainly generate spirited discussion and energy in natural resources country. so i just want you to know that you certainly proved to me this morning that a nominee whis petroleum engineer and a corporate ceo and a conservation background is handy in this realm. i thank you. we'll look forward to continuing these discussions. we'll coom the record open for additional questions that colleagues may have. with that the energy and natural resource committee is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> according to reports over the weekend, president obama will nominate thomas perez as labor secretary and u san rice. mr. perez the assistant u.s. attorney general for civil rights and mrs. rice is the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. >> a look at congress this week. the house returns tuesday at noon eastern on the agenda, a bill that prohibits the health and human service department from granting waivers to states for work reporters for welfare recipients also work on a measure aimed at streamlining several job training and retraining programs. watch the house live on c-span. the senate returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern with votes scheduled at 5:30 on two judicial nominations. later in the week, a debate on a deal to fund the federal government for the rest of the current fiscal year. funding runs out march 27th. the house has already passed the resolution. follow the senate live on c-span2. president obama will make several trips to capitol hill this week to meet with lawmakers from both parties. tuesday, he will meet with senate democrats, wednesday, house republicans, and then on. day, he will meet first with senate republicans and he will later with house democrats. >> we cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. that is why earlier today, i signed a new executive order that will strengthen the cyber defenses by increasing information sharing and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs and our privacy. >> there are some things that clearly need to be done with the ektive order, but some things can only be done with legislation, so part of my reaction is i wish the president had put as much effort into getting some legislation passed and then come out with the executive order rather than the other way around. >> look, it has been around for a long time, cybersecurity, and we finished talking about it. we finished kind of wondering what is going to happen because things are happening every single day that is destroying our property, which are taking away from our future and people are very casual about it. the newspapers are casual about it. everybody is casual about it. we are not. we cannot afford to be. >> a look at the president's recent cyber security executive order with senator jay rockefeller and congressman mack thorn pepper troy night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> some of the things that an early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career, usually through entertaining, dolley was both socially adapt and politically savvy, so she could structure her entertainments in such a way she could lobby for her husband under the guisee of entertaining. she also thought it was important to create a setting in the white house almost like a stage for the performance of her husband and the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> first lady dolley madison, we'll follow her journey into the woman that history remembers, the wife of the fourth u.s. president, james madison. we'll include your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets on dolley madison tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span 3 and c-span radio and c-span. org. today on c-span q and a with nobel prize winner jody williams followed by the calls, tweets and e-mails live on washington journal. then the advocacy group for seniors, aarp host a discussion on federal benefits

Transcripts For CSPAN Newsmakers 20130310

days and democrats to the same position as republicans that we already had $1.50 trillion in cuts plus the sequester, that means $2.50 trillion at the sequester continues, that we have had enough guts and it is only revenues. where would we be? you have republicans saying only spending cuts, no more revenues. that has to change. there has to be balanced. the republican leadership has made a mistake by cementing themselves and saying we will not touch revenue. there have to be revenues in order to address this problem. >> how do you the republicans to crack on that when they're not showing any willingness to do that? all democrats want that. how do you get republicans to buy into it? >> i was a thing over clips from the county i represent. about 8000 employees will get notices that they will be reduced 20% in income. 30,000 meals for seniors are going to be eliminated. and people understand what the consequences are of their absolutely determined position do not have one dime of revenue. that is not workable. the imbalance we have had, up $1.5 trillion in cuts or $2.50 trillion and 6.5 billion dollars in revenue. you have to have some kind of balance. it is going to have to change. the president is looking for some kind of pool of common sense. i hope it is out there. >> i want to ask about the president coming up to capitol hill next week. paul ryan is releasing his budget. democrats are going to follow with their budget. how do we make sense of these competing budget proposals that we're going to see in the president reaching out to capitol hill more? is that laying the groundwork for some kind of budget deal? >> i think you have lots to write about. when i came to the congress four years later i joined the ways and means committee. it was quite different. there is much camaraderie. we knew each other better. the republicans on the ways and means committee were not radicalized like is true today among so many republicans. to be able to sit down and talk about health issues and tax issues, tax reform record in 1986 in part because you had an ability of both sides to have some give. it is going to be very difficult when the republicans essentially say "when it comes to revenues there is no give, it is only spending cuts." it is hard to know how that will be resolved. by having more severity it goes forward. the republicans are going to have to move off of the dead center. i am worried. we said the sequester was going to be horrendous. now he is saying let it roll. i am concerned. i'm a bit more optimistic. i think it is good we're talking to each other. there is total inflexibility on one side and makes it difficult. >> republicans would argue slightly different. they would say the democrats have been inflexible on entitlement changes. the house democrats during the fiscal cliff deal were uncomfortable with some the things that president obama put on the table in cuts in medicare and medicaid and changed cpi. if there is a budget deal, are those things that the president put on the table things the house democrats could get behind? >> we're willing to talk about it. the president has put some proposals on the table. some are not on the table in terms of his budget. raising the age for medicare. i think that is very troublesome. when you look at it, what is going to happen to the people will no longer be covered? half of people retire before 65 today. even more retire before the age of 67. the president has put some ideas and we are unwilling to talk about entitlements. the problems with what republicans are republican, it is kind of the same thing. this cannot happen. the public does not want it. in terms of medicaid, i do not know it is understood how much of medicaid provides long-term care for people. to simply say take all of this money and ship it to the states under cut an important part of the purpose of medicaid. i heard paul ryan said we had to repeal obamacare. that is part of his budget. it would be a bad idea. we're already seeing the benefits of health care reform throughout the country. the notion of repealing it now is a non-starter. >> this is something that was suggested that the president put on the table during the fiscal cliff negotiations that upset a lot of house democrats. is that something that you could support as part of a broader package? >> we need to look at it there are problems. the people who are mostly hurt by the change our older seniors. that means more women than men. the president has always said we will have to modify its some way if we go forth. it is not easy to modify. we need to sit down and have a broader discretion. i think we will discuss entitlements. social security is the part of the problem we face. what is happening with health care costs is interesting. when republicans talk about what is happening with the medicare, you have reported on it, the cost increase today for health care has been going down. the same is true of medicare. if it is maintained, then i think we will have a better chance to the control of health-care costs. it is really interesting. paul ryan this morning said we need to get rid of this board that would have some powers to recommend. we need to move away from the fee-for-service reimbursement system. we are moving in that direction. we are now going to essentially end health care reform? i think that is a good example of how i hope we can sit down and talk but taking extreme positions and cementing yourself unto them is not a good way to start. >> tax reform has been getting a lot of discussion. i am curious your conversations with the new treasury secretary jack lew. do you have any indications from him as to take this new post what he's thinking of the likelihood of tax reform? i am curious his thoughts on the way multinational companies should pay taxes. should we keep our worldwide system? what are you hearing from the administration on this? >> it is just beginning. he has spelled out exactly where they're coming from. people may shut down their televisions for a second if they hear too much. it is an important issue. what do you do about profits of corporations doing business overseas. today we tax them but we differ the taxation. now to say if you go over territorial system if you will not tax them at all or very little, the problem is that it might encourage corporations to move their operations overseas. all these proposals for a territorial system, tried to have some provisions to discourage companies from moving overseas. it is a good example of balance. there is no one role won worldwide. need to encourage companies to do business in the united states. i come from michigan. it is not a secret. we're seeing a resurgence of the automobile industry. it has had some very clear spillover. we want to be sure that as we look at tax reform that we encourage businesses in a globalized economy to focus their activities race here in the u.s. we have a real jobs needs. >> let me step back for a minute. tax reform is something everyone wants to talk about. do you see a tax reform be enacted in 2013? >> it will not be easy. we have set up working groups, 11 of them. at long last we will sit down democrats and republicans and really take apart the present system and see what it is all about. years and years ago a republican i spent two days at a seminar on international taxes. we really took apart our present system and came up with some ideas as to how we would improve it. we resolutions in the past. >> tax reform this year is possible? >> it is possible but we need to get away from the slogans. for example, the motion a 25% tax on individuals. it has never been said how we would get there. in order to get there we would have to have a dramatic changes in our deductions. we need to have some serious discussion. i have taken the lead in saying let's look at the impact of these various deductions. you cannot just say "throw them aside." the counties i represent are very middle income. the interest deduction was the key component in creating private home ownership. we need to look at that. it is interesting that the republicans seem to be saying they want to get tax loopholes. when we bring them up they do not like the proposals. only press them about loopholes they start to talk about deductions. the charitable contribution deduction is not a loophole. it should encourage the communities having a net income of their own to do the work. >> republicans would say when democrats propose these loopholes to get revenue that it is something that should happen as part of tax reform or a fiscal cliff plan or anything else. >> how are you going to address the sequester? you have asked them that. there's a good question whether they really want to. some of the republicans have said this is terrific. it is a home run. the problem with the sequester, i was just looking at some of the clips from back home. almost 10 thousand people and the defense industry in our area are going to have their work week down from five to 4 days. needles for seniors will be eliminated in a month or so. if i might say so, we need to ask the tough questions. when you say something like "loopholes," what do you mean? give us an example. do not call itemized deductions loopholes. they are policies. ask them about my proposal on a carried interest. people in best other people's money and instead of paying regular ordinary income tax they pay capital gains taxes. we have been trying for how many years to get rid of that? that is a loophole. >> on the questions of the sequester, it seems like there is not a lot of appetite to into the sequester. immediately it seems like the parties cannot agree on how to use the spending cuts. what is the end came? do you think it'll stay in place? >> i am not sure. i think appetite may increase will see the consequences. when we see the defense impact. when we see the impact on education. let me give you an example in terms of health research. our family has been involved, my late wife at nih, for 20 something years. she ran a peer review group. in the earlier days when 100 grant applications came in, this was in child mental health, now it is two or three out of 100. there is his regular similar pattern in terms of straight medical research. we all depend on it. it the sequester begins to hit nih, i think there will be a realization that just letting it happen, it is not a home run. as we see the consequences. my answer to you is how it looks in march made the difference in april or may. >> he mentioned in the 11 working groups that you established on tax reform in february. we are now saying that they will release a draft a bill this week on small business tax reform even though they are a small business working group. are these working groups actually going to produce something? is is something of a sham that they are not going to produce anything a substance? >> i talked to chairman camp about that. we will see what happens is coming week. i think the working groups can be real and be useful if we can sit down and tear apart our present code, understand how it works and does not work well. on an example with international taxation, we need to do the same thing in all of the working groups and not come up with proposals but to understand what the present law office and the problems where there are problems with it. i think if we stick to the purpose that they can be a useful basis for further discussion. i am hopeful. >> do you have any sense about what will come out of the small business draft? >> i think there were some discussions on a staff level on friday. i am hopeful there will be more on a member level monday and tuesday. >> when we talk about tax reform, republicans often talk about revenue neutral tax reform, tax reform that does not bring in any more revenue to the current system today. democrats talk about the tax reform their raises revenue. how do you see that working out? do you think you and your colleagues will be able to go along with a tax reform that does not raise revenue like $1 trillion? >> it goes back to the question you started with. we really need to have balance. we really need to look at further cuts. they have to be wise to cut. they have to get the deficit under control. we have to look at medicare and health care costs and the steps we've taken in health care reform to get a hold of them. we also do not have to look at revenues. the level of discretionary programs, and you know this, all the public should understand that these are programs, health, education, nutrition. we are now headed toward the lowest percentage of gdp in decades. these have impacts on education and health. we have to really understand the past we are on. this is simply to say let these cuts go into effect. let this pattern continued of a diminished part of gdp going to education and health and food is less nutrition programs. the president is very firm on this and so are democrats. >> you mentioned the mortgage interest deduction. a lot of people watching are very concerned about that. should something like that the off the table? >> no. the president proposed a limit issue, no. we need to look at those. we need to do it carefully and intelligently. to simply eliminate the mortgage interest deduction i think would have a real impact to go too far and too fast in charitable contributions. a lot of these deductions relate to health and education. i am in favor of putting them on the table. look at the purposes, they are not loopholes. they are policies. they have been in place for a long time. they have had an important positive impact. some people disagree. my experience if you go door to door, knock on those doors and ask them how it happened at middle income families in this country have a very substantial increase in home ownership? i think that everybody deducts, but a lot of people would say that we have had a middle-class income and we needed that deduction in order to have our home. retirement programs are involved. no. i do not think they should be off the table. we have to be careful as we place them on the table. no one listening to this should the there is going to be some new approach at least as long as i have a say. >> where do you find the money to raise revenue if some of these, all we have talked about are the most expensive things, in some way to streamline the tax code -- carried interest would be a loophole that big banks take advantage of. that is not bringing in money. where do you find new money? >> it is 28% of the total. we did some of that in our last effort when we build the so-called peace amendment back in the tax code which results to deductions. the 28th% proposal would raise about $500 billion over 10-years. that is a lot of money. this proposal goes beyond itemized deductions. i think he will have a lot to report if we do our work. and if we sit down and talk about how we raise revenues and cut programs of a balanced way. i am somewhat optimistic that those who hang in balance will have to move. >> you think there is enough base for tax reform in 2013-2014? we have all these ongoing budget battles. there is an ongoing issue there. the president was to do immigration reform. there are these pieces of legislation that the countries do not have an appetite for. do you feel like tax reform fit in with that? >> we have to continue to pursue it. i think that immigration reform is going to happen. i am convinced of it. i think the last election brought some interest on the republican side. i think some already were interested like senator mccain. and gun violence i think connecticut changed the picture i hope. my hope is that it will continue. there's a lot going on. we need to get a hold of the budget issues. i think we should not let sequester just continued unabated. how does tax reform fit into all of this? it will fit only people are willing to sit down and really put on the table and say "let's try to find a balance on the table." you know what happens when tables are not balanced? everything falls off. >> is tax reform something that your leadership is interested in? something nancy pelosi is interested? >> we talk about this all the time. not every day. but in many meetings surely. >> your brother just announced retirement. >> he was to focus on these next two years instead of running for reelection. he feels passionately about the defense issues. and also about a special investigation committee. it did involve some tax policy issue. he thinks there are some terrible loopholes and some people are taking advantage of them. we do have in come in the quality issues. you look at what has happened over the last 10 years. most of the income went to a small percentage of the public. more of it went to the top 1%. >> has this made you think that all about your own future plans are possible retirement? you two are very close. he is your younger brother? >> he is. >> has made to think about your own retirement? i plan on running for reelection. if that is all right. i will be out there campaigning for you. >> do you have any thoughts on who might be a good successor? >> i think it is too early. i think there will be a contest. i think the 2012 electio

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130310

system, and we have found many -- everything from drug gangs to others who have used guns that the gang members could not have bought but the straw purchaser has. straw purchasing is done only to get a gun in the hands of somebody who is prohibited from having one. i think we need a meaningful solution to this problem. as substitute we include suggestions, senator gillibrand, to require those that traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms, and we'll give law enforcement more effective tools. the substitute also incorporates a number of changes, the result of suggestions from senator grassley and his staff. we have been working on this since january. tried to be responsive to the ranking member's concerns and suggestions, and have reached across the aisle to other senators. as a a.t.f. whistleblower, senator grassley has been the lead senator in whistleblower legislation, was a a.t.f. whistleblower, who testifiedlaws are toothless and they can help law enforcement -- can't help law enforcement, and that's why law enforcement consistently has called for firearms trafficking statute that can be effective and go after straw purchasers. we need now is to create better law enforcement tools. and i think this will -- the senators can join together on this will close a very dangerous loophole in the law that mexican criminals have exploited for too long. stop illegal trafficking the firme arms act is important. this week -- the firearms act is important. this week the "usa today" ran a front page story about a study that estimates gun violence costs americans $12 billion, $12 billion a year. i don't care whether it's $12 billion or $10 billion or $2 mitigate those unnecessary costs. i want to yield to senator grassley and then we'll take -- i think we have four or five nominees prepared to go forward. senator grassley. >> i would like to suggest three steps here. one would be to take care of the nominations. the other one i have an issue that i'd like to just make a statement on. and then i have a general statement on the -- this whole issue of the four different bills, and i would like to have any of my members that want to make statements just before you bring up debate on the legislation. >> obviously i'll give time -- i think we tried last week to get as many of those statements, including mine and yours, out of the way, but naturally i'll yield to people who wish to make statements. some are going down for the bill signing, and others i do not want to lose a quorom. go ahead. >> as you can see from the absence on my side except for maybe three of the newer members, we all have people that have responsibilities in other committees. that's why i bring that up. let me say that we are able to, i think, unless one of my members want a vote on -- members want a vote on alahandros i think we can do all the nominations by voice vote. why don't we do that first? >> you want a roll call? >> we do not need a roll call now i have been informed by that one member. >> i would -- why don't we -- i appreciate your cooperation. i would ask consent that we consider sherry shapell, michael j. mcshane, nitza al handrow, lee wuse strapo and jeffrey schmell, - louise -- luis philippe. we consider enplanning, all of those in favor say aye. opposed? the ayes will be unanimous. and shapell, mcshane,al handrow, strapo and schmell. reported to the floor. >> following up on that i would like to bring up something you hearing i very much appreciate your bringing up. and that is at the oversight hearing with general holder there was a significant discussion about the oil sea memoranda regarding targeting killings americans abroad. chairman leahy and i wrote to president obama on february 7, one month ago, asking that he instruct the attorney general to provide these memoranda to the judiciary committee. i don't think -- at least i haven't, i don't think the chairman's received a response. i wanted to highlight a statement that chairman leahy made to general holder yesterday this committee subpoena the documents. i want everybody, both i fully effort and would urge that absence a response from the president that we move forward with a vote in the near future. then i'll go to my statement. i'm nod asking you to comment, but at least you know how i feel about it. but i think you feel strongly about it or you wouldn't have brought it up. >> i also spoke again with the attorney general now going into private conversation, i think that he's -- he would like us to be able to see that and i think the decision we remains within the white house. i'm sorry they haven't even responded to our letter, but if need be we will subpoena because it is a matter, and we are going to have, for those of you who weren't there at the hearing when we talked about this, we are going to have a hearing on domestic use of droughns in this committee -- drones in this committee. it would be helpful to have that, helpful but not necessary to have that letter prior to that time, but we are going to have many of you on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about the domestic use of droneshearing on that. thank you. >> the committee and subcommittee have held three hearings and legislation related to our purpose of voting bills out today. while i believe that addressing violent -- violence requires examining more than guns, guns were the near exclusive focus of those hearings and will be the near exclusive focus of the bills the committee sees fit to mark up. all of us were strongly affected by what happened in newtown. all of us want to take effective action to prevent future tragedies, but we have different deeply held approaches to do so. what we are talking about today is freedom, freedom not only guaranteed by the constitution but what the supreme court recognized as a pre-existing right of self-defense. individuals do not need the government's permission to defend themselves. today gun violence rates are at the lowest level in 50 years. this is a tremendous accomplishment. there are many reasons for it, including longer incarceration of dangerous criminals, abolition of parole, and police practices. this drop in gun violence has occurred even as there are more guns in the country than ever before. it has occurred after the supreme court has found the second amendment to be a fundamental right, and after many states have increased the ability of law- abiding citizens to own guns. the drop has also occurred despite any new federal gun control enactment in almost 20 years. but a majority of the committee seems determined to impose more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. consider the assault weapons ban. this bill represents the biggest gun ban proposal in our history. a similar ban was enacted in 1994. and the justice department's own studies failed to show that the ban had any effect. some of my colleagues speak, we invite demonled rumsfeld on this point and i quote him, absent of evidence isn't evidence of absence. but the assault weapon ban did not work. and just this year the deputy director of the national institute of justice wrote that, quote, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. but rather than trying something different, the first bill on the agenda is an assault weapons ban. it is based on how guns look not the damage they do. and ar-15 is prohibited while a mini 14 is exempt because one has a wooden stock and the other a plastic one. other guns that are more powerful than prohibited guns are exempted. the gun that -- guns that it bans are not ones that are used in the military. as they are semiautomatic. they are in common use. and banning large capacity magazines last fails a rational basis scrutiny when the bill exempts a class of shotguns that can be continuously reloaded. the bill is not like passing a law that criminalizes speeding. it is like banning the ornaments from having the capacity of exceeding 65 miles per hour while exempting trucks from the same requirement. at the hearings the justice department did not endorse a specific ban, but said that nonetheless that a ban could be constitutional. they did not suggestion what level of scrutiny courts would apply to a bill with second amendment implications. they also said that they would develop an analysis of the bill's constitutionality, but it speaks volumes when we are about to mark up such a bill and that analysis is not forthcoming. i think it is necessary to point out that had this bill been law at the time, sandy hook still would have happened. it would not have stopped a mentally disturbed person while stealing a gun that this bill would have not banned from his mother and then shooting unharmed children at a school for several minutes before police arrived. on background checks without notice we were given an entirely new bill late yesterday. i know the sponsor says that he does not intend to create a national gun registry, and i accept that as his intent. i would just say that the deputy director of n.i.j. recently wrote that universal background checks can be enforced only if there is gun registration. i note that at the hearings some stated that criminals are foiled from buying guns because they do not go to gun stores to buy guns. they recognize that prohibited persons do not now submit the background checks although they obtain guns which is why they want to expand checks. but they fail to recognize that criminals won't be any more likely to submit to expanded background checks than they are currently. they will go around supposedly universal checks to steal guns or buy them in the black market. when the universal background checks don't work, then registration will be proposed to enforce them. when that doesn't work, because criminals won't register their guns, we may be looking at confiscation. there is a refusal to consider that gun control of law-abiding citizens does not work. if gun control worked, we would expect to see that places with stricter gun laws would have less crime than those where it was easier for law-abiding citizens to have guns. instead, law-abiding citizens obey the laws and criminals don't. and those areas with gun control often have more crime. under federalism, state and local -- localities are laboratories of experimentation. results of different approaches come in and then the federal government learns which laws work better than others as it considers national legislation. but that is not what is argued for gun control. we are asked to adopt nationally the policies that have not worked at the state and local level. we are told that poor results in places with gun control are due to more lenient gun rules elsewhere in the have a sinity -- vicinity, but if that were true one would expect more crime in the suburbs where guns are lawfully available than cities where there are not. and the states where guns are not easily able to be purchased than in states where they are not. however, this is not the case. restrictions on gun rights of law-abiding citizens do not work. again, rather than trying to approach a different approach, supporters of gun control not only want to double down on failed strategy, they want to impose on the nation as a whole despite the second amendment. i do think that action can be taken on gun trafficking and straw purchasing, but because those are actions by criminals and occur across state lines, i am glad that we have a bill on that subject on the agenda. i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and other senators to be receptive to changes to the original legislation. and when that bill comes up, i'll speak about that. the final bill on the agenda is school safety bill. that bill originally had an enormous cost at time when we were entering a sequester. however senator boxer and senator warner, the bill's sponsors, have shown flexibility on spending amounts and other issues, and so i want them to know that i appreciate those efforts. mr. chairman, republicans will make sure that we get the finality on these bills, and not meaning any criticism they were not ready to consider -- to be considered last week, we will raise a fairly -- small number of amendments which is how the committee process works. we are not standing in the way of any of these bills from being voted in a timely fashion. a number of members on the democrat side made statements about these bills last week and i know that members on my side would like to at this point. >> thank you. i appreciate the cooperation. bring up s. 54, the trafficking bill. stop illegal trafficking in firearms act. and following normal procedure, i will amend it with my substitute which is based on the text of the leahy-collins bill. i assume there is no objection to the substitute. it's a bill -- without objection. the bill as amended by the substitute is now opened for further >> if i could, i would start the discussion. before i make a statement, i think -- i have not talked to senator sessions. i talked to senator cornyn. you folks want to make statements overall or you're ready to go to straw purchasing bill? it's on the agenda now. so the chairman has the right to bring it up. or do you want to go right to this? >> i have statements on both, but i'd be happy to address the straw purchasing bill first. >> how about you, senator sessions? >> i'll proceed with the amendment process. >> we are ready to go on your bill. can i speak now? >> sure. go ahead. >> ok. i greatly appreciate the substitute amendment. i have offered an amendment to the bill which i will discuss separately. federal legislation needed on subjects of straw purchasing and gun trafficking will strengthen efforts to combat illicit firearms. when i conducted my oversight of the justice department failed operations fast and furious, i was told by whistle blowers that there were gaps in federal laws concerning straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. mr. chairman, you have worked with me on your bill making many changes at my request. they have made the bill better and reduced the negative side effects of previous versions. i trust you think so as well because you have included the changes in the new bill. the new bill in your substitute amendment also included a revised bill by senators gillibrand and kirk on the subject of -- subject of gun trafficking. those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. i think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and s enator gillibrand. gillibrand's bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that the result would be a violation of state or local law. that would have given states and localities a one-way incentive to address new gun control measures and force the cost of prosecution and incarceration on the federal government. it also would have created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. she took that provision out at my request. i raised similar concerns about the language in the chairman's bill and you also removed that language. senator gillibrand also accepted major and minor drafting suggestions, including clarifying what intent was necessary to commit a crime, penalties, changing the gift exception, altering the directive for the sentencing commission, and others. chairman has also made changes to his bill at my request compared to when senate s. 54 was originally introduced, it is now directed only at straw purchasers not at all transfers on behalf of another. this allows people to buy for people as part of a legitimate business, it preserves private now the bill goes to actual straw purchasers, those who purchase a gun on behalf of a prohibited person. like senator gillibrand, you harmonize penalties at my request and remove references federalizing violation of state war local law. -- or local law. you made changes regarding sales to persons who do not reside in the state. you took language -- took out language concerning teerlt of false statements on -- materiality of false statements on the forms. separated the rules for purchase from licensed dealers from those of private sales. limiting and -- and also limiting the bill to engaging indirectly in the conduct that is already illegal. you have protected the right of law-abiding citizens as i have outlined in ways that i believe were not protected in either the original straw purchasing bill or the original trafficking bill. as a result of the changes to each bill and to their combination in the substitute, the bill now covers only criminals and law-abiding -- and not law-abiding citizens. since you have made good -- shown good faith, i will now demonstrate mine as well. some on my side believe the bill needs more work to resolve outstanding issues between now and when the bill goes to the floor. that is something that i hope will happen with the chairman's help. with that understanding and if my amendment is adopted, i will vote to report your bill out today. i thank you for what you have done so far, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i appreciate that. you and i have worked closely on this as we have on a number of things. i mean, our bill is tough on criminals. it's crafted so it won't sweep in private seller and buyer of firearms. but it's done in way that we can deter those who abuse the trust of a firearms dealer by engaging in straw purchasing. you noted a lot of your concerns are reflected in my substitute amendment. i understand the intent behind the amendment that you are raising. i am concerned the amendment could unduly hamper other law enforcement operations that are properry supervised. including terrorism and drug investigations. we all agree that the government should never permit guns to be transferred to dangerous criminals. this happened in fast and furious. but sometimes to combat straw purchases the government has to be given latitude to act on a tip and arrest a straw purchaser upon or immediately after a sale, but having said that, i will -- i hope we will continue to together prior to the time the bill comes to the floor. so i am -- if there is no objection i'm prepared to accept your amendment. >> ok, let me -- >> do you offer the amendment? >> let me -- i offer the amendment. since you said what you just said, i'm going to put my statement in the record. let me say that i'm willing to consider reasonable changes to my amendment provided the changes don't harm the goals of holding the department of justice accountable for gun operations where veps could walk. fast and furious was a debacle that will haunt the department of justice for decades. these operations need oversight and accountability. and from that point on oversightthat's an area where i have to draw the line if you'll take that into consideration. we can talk when the bill gets to the floor. >> without objection, the bill is amended by the amendment of the senator from iowa. are there other amendments? >> mr. chairman. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, i believe that stop illegal trafficking firearms act of 2013 which would create several new criminal penalties and amend statutory authorities to target weapons trafficking -- -- excuse me, if the senator would hold for just a second? senator hatch has a statement he want the to -- wants to include in the record. a -- also clarify the amendment we just accepted was senator grassley was alb-13193. >> yes. >> thank you, senator. >> my concern is that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. straw purchasing for purpose of directing guns to people who cannot legally attain them is already a crime. so we double down and say this time we really mean it. when in fact the real problem, i think, in many instances, is the lack of prosecution of existing crimes by the department of justice. as i have said earlier and i'll say again, i have a hard time explaining to my constituents back home how passing more laws that will go unenforced make them any safer. so i'm -- while i understand the desire to act to seem like we are doing something, i worry about the disconnect between the action and any solution to the problems that we all are concerned about. i also worry, mr. chairman, that this legislation which has been shared with my staff, i understand, about the last 36 hours, we haven't had an adequate opportunity to try to vet it and understand what the ramifications might be. my hope would be that there would be some additional time offered. staff and work on a bipartisan basis to address the concerns we have. for example -- >> you're talking about the amendment that was introduced and circulated on monday? today is thursday. >> my staff advises it was circulated yesterday. >> it was introduced on monday. >> my staff tells me we got it yesterday. the point is, let me just give you an example. for instance, the bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison for a person to attempt or plan to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item. if the person neglectly fails to know that the recipient is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. in other words, this bill would make it a serious felony for an american legion employee to neglectly transfer a raffled firearm to a veteran who unknown to the transferor suffers from ptsd. that example, and i'm sure there are others, causes me concern that we are getting ready to vote on a piece of legislation when we really don't know what the scope or the consequences of the legislation are. which to me counsels taking our time and making sure we understand what the impact will be rather than passing legislation that will have unintended consequences that none of us would endorse, but which, in our haste to try to show the we are doing something, we end up creating that unintended consequence. >> you're talking about your amendment atm-13249, is that correct? >> i'm talking about s. 54 stop illegal trafficking -- -- i understand. are you introducing an amendment? >> i have not offered an amendment. >> if there are no amendments, then the clerk will call the roll on s. 54 as amended. >> i wanted to share something on that. mr. chairman, i do express concern about the penalties and this legislation is difficult to write. i know the chair has worked hard on it. i have some concerns about it. in general i support the concept of what you're doing. i think the department of justice has said there are areas in which they are not able to effectively enforce these laws. and they need better legislation. and i'm inclined to think that that's so. although i would note to my colleagues that if you provide a gun to someone that's intending to use it in a drug crime or problemry or a murder, you're an aider and abettor which makes you chargeable with a murder, or part of a conspiracy to do that and you're chargeable in that way. and that's the way it's normally prosecuted today. so if you go into a gun dealer and certify and the 4473 form, i have prosecuted these cases, if you lie on that form, you are subject to a false statement and the penalties are in the code set forth. i suppose if the person leaves the country like in the -- on situation we had at the border where thes guns go into another country, it's difficult -- all you got left is a violation of the paperwork regulation. that may not be sufficient to properly punish a person. or it may leave you difficult -- fundamentally i think you have some valuable legislation here. but i am a bit troubled by the size of the penalty. i know the chair wants to be tough on this, but at the same time we want to be consistent with other penalties. carrying a firearm during a drug offense is five years. if you brandish it and threaten somebody, it's 10 years. mandatory minimum. thisu've got 15 years in offense for providing a gun to somebody who may use it illegally, which would be -- i'm not sure that is coherent with our -- >> are you saying i'm being too tough? >> maybe. really. of course some of this will be decided by the sentencing >> most of the people i prosecuted back in vermont thought i was too tough, too. >> i have always been aggressive in prosecuting these cases. i would say to you i would just share my concern about that issue. andthink we could fix it and probably solve some problems. >> ok. the clerk will -- ask one last question? >> of course. >> is it the intent of the authors of the bill to make it a crime punishable for up to 20 years for a person to attempt or plan to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item the person neglectly fails to know the recipient is prohibited from for example? >> no, we -- >> an american legion employee -- >> we drafted it -- intent of the authors of the legislation? >> no. >> that is the result of this legislation which i suggest is not -- we need to take our time to make sure we understand what we are doing here. and the problem is senator grassley's amendment was offered just a few moments ago, which you accepted, and i appreciate the fact that you all are able to work together so well, and this committee should be working together, but to jam through legislation that we don't know what the consequences are which would criminalize this american legion employee i think is not our intention. but that is the result of the legislation of everyone who votes in favor of this bill, as currently written. that can't be our purpose. >> and that is not the way the legislation is written. you and i have a different view of that, but it's not the way the legislation is written. it is not the way the legislation is intended. beforeave plenty of time this matter comes on the floor. if you convince me that you're right and i'm wrong on this, i'll be happy to consider an amendment, even further clarification, but we have been very careful to be sure we don't sweep in innocent transfers between private buyer of the nature you are talking about. >> mr. chairman? >> the other senator from texas. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to thank the chairman for his good and hard work on this bill, and i think this bill has the potential for providing some real bipartisan agreement. i think from the beginning members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have agreed that the efforts to focus on criminals should be the primary area of focus for preventing violent gun crime. i think this bill takes steps in that direction. i agree with the senior senator from texas that i have concerns that certain language, particularly the language in 932 could potentially be too broad. and could potentially sweep in innocent purchasers rather than those knowingly participating in violent crime and knowingly aiding those who would participate in violent crime from acquiring firearms. i do think there is potential. before this bill is voted on in the floor of the senate to reach some bipartisan agreement that could end up having wide agreement. so i thank the chairman for thatnarrowed so we can be sure not to sweep in innocent conduct. i think we could find wide agreement in the underlying framework here. >> i come from the state where the kind of innocent purchase back and forth you talked about often happened. as you know i'm a gun owner. i spend a lot of time with my fellow gun owners, and one of the -- i do not know if i am the only person on this committee. buti'm probably one of the few who have a pistol range in my back beyond a reasonable doubt which -- backyard which i use except when we have two feet of snow. so i'll be happy to sit down with you. i'm wondering -- we have a lot ahead of us. if we have the clerk call the roll. >> mr. chairman? >> let me see one thing. >> 15 seconds. >> what the senator -- two senators from texas have brought up our concerns that i have had, and that's what i have been trying to work for. obviously i haven't satisfied these two senators, but i just want you to know those were the things that we have been trying to solve here and hopefully we have solved them. you of that. but i'll still work to help you they ought to be made. >> mr. chairman -- >> senator sessions, you wish to be heard again? >> i believe the language you used is reasonable cause to believe that they might be unable to receive a which is pretty close to what senator cornyn says is negligence. so you've got some cause to believe your brother-in-law may have had -- been convicted of a felony or may have -- dealing -- selling drugs. >> my brother -- >> you brought him a gun and if he used the gun during a drug offense, he gets five years. but if you sell the gun to him you can get 15. >> my brother-in-law is a well respected catholic priest and professor. >> well, i am just telling you. >> my brother-in-law -- >> that's too broad a language and i hope to be able to support the legislation. we can talk about it. thank you for allowing us to continue this negotiation. for today i would record a no vote. >> i have tried to follow existing law, the clerk will call the world. -- call the world. -- roll. >> mrs. feinstein. >> eye. >> mr. schumer. aye. >> mr. durbin. >> mr. whitehouse. >> miss klobuchar. aye. >> mr. franken. >> aye. >> mr. coons. >> mr. blumenthal. >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman votes are 11 yeas, seven nays. >> the senator from texas. >> so you don't think i'm trying to pull your leg, there was a complete substitute -- >> they emailed into our office at 4:16 yesterday. >> ok. trust me. my brother in law is a good guy. i know you have. he has done the prayer at the opening of the session several times. i must say, it has nothing to do with it. one of the things he has found the biggest thrill when he has been been visiting clergymen for the senate is being able to spend the day on the floor, and so many senators, republicans and democrats alike, i yield to senator feinstein. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for allowing me to hold the hearing. i want to report to you that we heard from one bereft and grieving father, who lost a precious son at sandy hook. we heard from the trauma surgeon there, who took care of their bodies. and talk about what these weapons, what the bullets do when they explode inside the body. we heard from the head of the united states conference of mayors, mayor nutter of baltimore -- excuse me, philadelphia, who assured us of their support. we heard from chief lynn of baltimore, who assured us that support of the chiefs, talked about his city. i want to acknowledge the presence of chief johnson, baltimore county police department here. we had a demonstration of a slide fire stock placed in a art-15 -- n a r-15, which to alternate the gun between -- ar- 15, it was able to alternate the gun between automatic and semiautomatic fire. i have been very concerned, because the calls have been coming in as if this is some kind of wild eyed scheme. it is not. every single poll that has been done in the united states has shown that a majority of people favor this legislation. we have endorsements from virtually every religious organization, every medical organization. mayors, police, women's movement, supporting this legislation. and yet it is as if we have a minority, unsubstantial piece of legislation, whether it is a mayorspkins pa poll, against illegal guns, 81%. it has been a very hard road. secondly, the rest in the argument by the opposition that this measure is unconstitutional. i do believe it is not unconstitutional. it is basically formed from the prior legislation, legislation which survived tests in the force, -- fourth, sixth, ninth and d.c. circuits. no assault weapons legislation statewide in this country ever has been found unconstitutional. the heller decision clearly stated -- the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. quote, dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited. since heller, state assault weapons, as i said, have been upheld. no court i'm aware of has found an assault weapons ban to be unconstitutional. over 50 distinguished constitutional law professors, including conservatives and libertarians from our nation leading law schools, including yale and chicago, shined a statement -- signed a statement affirming that accounts that a -- statement affirming that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. i went to acknowledge the long- standing support of the man who presented the ban in the house of representatives. the distinguished senator from new york, i want to point out that senator durbin's support and the committee was really strong and appreciated. i want to thank virtually all of the other cosponsors in this room. i want to just point out, that i carefully watched senator delve in fall -- lumen fall, excuse me. -- bloomenthal, excuse me. and senator murphy, too. his representation of that deeply affected community and connecticut. i want you to know, i have my deepest respect that goes to you for what has been a very hard venture. i'm particularly grateful for your support of this legislation. what does this legislation do? it bans a specific assault weapons by name, 157. it protects the rights of gun owners to possess weapons for legitimate hunting and sporting and defense uses. it excludes many more weapons by make and model, over 2000 of them. it grandfathers all present weapons. if they are transferred, it subjects the transferee to a background test. it does not require registration. that applies military characteristics test to judge future weapons to prevent gun manufacturers from invading the ban by simply changing the name of the weapon. or its physical characteristics. we tried to learn from the last bill, and refine this bill to avoid the problems of gun manufacturer simply getting around the bill. the features that we use were originally developed for military weapons, for one reason. to make the weapon more effective and efficient. killing people in combat situations. as chief flynn of the milwaukee police department testified last week, and i quote, assault weapons are built to inflict violence against humans. their military characteristics are not cosmetic in nature. these weapons are designed for combat. i have watched even police department's get out guns. in the nine years i was mayor of san francisco, we started out with police issue being a .38 caliber revolver. we have seen it escalate, we have seen shotguns being removed from squad cars and being replaced with assault weapons. why? because of an increasingly armed criminal element that police often have to go up against. i watched as the los angeles police department had to break into a gun store to take weapons to be able to counter what was going up against them following a robbery in los angeles. i don't know why anyone would object to drying up the supply of these weapons over time. they are not good hunting weapons. many states have limits on the number of bullets but can be on a clip. -- that can be on a clip. who is going to respect a hunter with a 30 round clip and assault weapon going after a direceer? i would not. the intention of this is to dry up the supply over time. while homicides in general are down in this country, mass killings are not. the fact is that these assault weapons have a great attraction for grievance killers, the people that go into law offices, as they did in separate cisco, and shoot down 14 people -- san francisco, and shoot down 14 people. the man he went into an or raw theater. we have seen it in universities -- the man who went into and aurora theater. we have seen it in universities. the time has come to step up and ban these weapons. the other important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices. those that hold over 10 rounds. we have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it is legal to hunt humans with 15 round, 30 round, even 150 round magazines. limiting magazine capacity is critical, because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload the the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down. we saw this scenario happen in tucson, arizona. a madman who shot our former colleague, gabby giffords, was taken down when he had to change magazines. my view is, how could i stand by and see this carnage go on? members, this is not going to stop. it is going to continue on. we have a chance to do something about it. i cannot tell you how much -- i was mayor of san francisco. i walked into places and saw the carnage. at that time, i really dedicated the rest of my life to doing something about it. this is not opportunity. i want to thank those who are with me. i don't know that i can convince those who are not, but i intend to keep trying. thank you, mr. chairman. >> do you have any amendment to your amendment? >> i do not. >> are there amendments to senator feinstein's bill? >> sorry, i was -- i appreciate senator feinstein's sincerity. i expressed that three or four times. she wonders whether i appreciate your sincerity or not. -- her sincere it you're not. this is an important issue for her for 20 years. -- her sincerity or not. this is an important issue for her for 20 years. we have to feel for the victims of newtown. but there are other parents whose children were killed to mourn the loss of their loved ones no less, and yet feel differently about the way congress should respond. on tuesday i spoke to the father of james, who was one of the victims. he describes how no one should have to endure what he has endured, and no one should. he wrote, quote, i can understand where knee-jerk reactions come from to ensure never again. i caution that we employ common sense and do not hand over any liberty which is protected by the constitution. and of code. -- end of quote. i agree. we continue to wait for the justice department's constitutional analysis of the bill, despite statements at two hearings on this matter. i have yet to see an opinion from the department arguing that this bill is constitutional. i appreciate the input of other scholars who have offered their opinions as witnesses. the justice department has, or should have, a different role in providing us with a constitutional analysis. i go back to james's father, saying the debate should not be about controlling guns, but controlling people who cannot control themselves, like people with mental illness and felonies. he favors making sure people can find their moral compass, and parents raise their children to know right from wrong and not expose them to violence. i agree with him on this point. then he writes, quote, for those who tell me that my son and 25 others were killed that day with an assault weapon, i challenge them to consider, end of his quote, other important factors. he says that assault weapons, quote, are not a threat to our safety, end of quote, and he's very focus ready on improving mental health services. he also opposes the limit on magazine compass its.-- capacities. he asks, quote, with 250 million guns in the united states, how are you going to make me safer by reducing new magazines to one, five or 10 rounds? question mark. he continues to say, you will not increase my safety, on-- only obstruct me from protecting myself from criminals who have them, end of quote. he survived this terrible owe deal and to make the -- ordeal and to make the terrible statements he made.-- and to a make teh she statements he made. his words, difficult to write, i'm sure, are an important viewpoint that we should consider. this is especially true when the constitutional concerns about this legislation that arrive in light of the heller decision. i continue to believe that this legislation is flawed under the second supreme court second amendment cases. given those flaws, i oppose the legislation. thank you. i yield the floor. >> thank you very much. i'll try to go back and forth here. anybody seeking -- >> mr. chairman. >> senator blumenthal. >> i want to begin by thanking the chairman for his leadership on the illegal traffic -- >> is your microphone on? >> i want to begin by thanking the chairman for his leadership on the illegal trafficking bill and commend him and my fellow co-sponsors and thank senator feinstein for her very kind comments but most especially for her leadership on this bill. the plain, simple, blunt fact is that some, if not all of the beautiful children who perished that day in newtown, along with great educators who gave their lives trying to save those children, might well be alive today if this ban had been in effect, a ban on these military- style assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines. as senator feinstein has already told the committee, we heard testimony from captain mark kelly who recounted what happened in tucson that day when the shooter had to change magazine, and christina taylor, the 9-year-old who perished that day from the 13th bullet fired probably would be alive if the magazine used by the shooter had been limited to 10 rounds. the same is true in newtown where children were able to escape because the shooter had to change magazines on that day. more than 10 children are alive today because of his need to change magazines. and more would be if his magazine had been limited to 10 rounds, as our legislation would do. so i recognize that there are concerns about it. we've heard them. the overwhelming majority of the american people are in favor of this legislation, and the opponents fail to reflect the concern that goes beyond newtown but certainly newtown is a call to action. it has created a sense of urgency that americans feel and i hope the committee will reflect that sense of urgency in approving this legislation. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd like to start by saying i agree with senator grassley that sometimes congress tries to impose from washington, d.c., a one-size-fits-all proposed solution that really is best left to localities and states. it's become clear to me, if it wasn't clear before, there are cultural differences in america between those people who've grown up with guns, they know how to use them, they're comfortable with them. they use them safely for hunting or recreation or self-defense. and then there are other people who are scared by guns because they've never been around one. and perhaps they live in an urban area where the only gun they ever see or hear of is one in the hands of someone committing a crime. so i think the -- first of all, i would say at an attempt to legislate for the entire united states in a one-size-fits-all proposal is a mistake, and i would say that this is not a ban on weapons. the senator from california, who i have great admiration and respect and affection for, acknowledged that this legislation does nothing to deal with the fact that many of these weapons, which will now be outlawed prospectively, are already in the hands of american citizens, law-abiding american citizens. so is it not a ban. it also is not -- what it does impact are semiautomatic rifles. now, you can call it an assault weapon because it looks for cosmetic purposes it looks scary to people who are not familiar with them, but the fact of the matter is these are semiautomatic rifles and this bill does nothing to deal with semiautomatic handguns. i'm not advocating it should. i'm just pointing out that it is not going to achieve the goals that the sponsors -- the sponsors believe it will. i believe one of the biggest problems we have in the country is the lack of enforcement by the department of justice of current laws. i mean, we all support keeping straw purchasers from buying weapons and directing them to people who can't legally own them or possess them. we all believe that mental health ought to be a focus of our efforts here, and this bill does nothing to deal with that. and we all wonder why the department of justice won't prosecute people who lie on background checks. well, i think they told us because they don't deem them sufficient priority to do so, but i guess we ought to ask the question -- why -- what might we be able to do to enforce current laws as opposed to passing new laws? of course, congress and president clinton tried a so- called assault weapons ban. we have hindsight as well as research to examine the lackluster results of that decade-long experiment. according to the department of justice's own study, it was completely ineffectual in reducing murder or violent crime rates. now, some have talked about this 1997 study funded by the justice department and claimed that it reduced gun murders by 6.7%. but the problem with that claim is the study reveals in the next sentence how weak the evidence really was. the authors said in the next sentence, however, the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude there was any meaningful effect, i.e., the effect was different from zero. so are we really going to pass another law that will not -- that will have zero effect and pat ourselves on the back and say we accomplished something wonderful? well, we tried this experiment once and it failed and i think it promotes symbolism over seriousness to repeat that mistake. a real concern of mine is that the efforts to enact this gun ban are distracting congress from working on areas that i believe there is a broad consensus in keeping deranged mad men from buying guns. if there was a common thread in the virginia tech, tucson, aurora and newtown massacres, it was the mental illness of the shooter. this bill does nothing to deal with that. the commonality is not the type of guns used. some use pistols, some use rifles and at least two shotguns were found at the scene of these crimes. the common thread was mental illness. no one wants disturbed young men or women, for that matter, to have access to firearms. unfortunately, this legislation focuses not only the perilous-- not on the perilous intersection of guns but on cosmetic features of certain firearms. we should refocus our effort to make sure the current background check works to scene out the dangerously mentally ill. -- screen out the dangerously mental ill. now, i'm encouraged by some, including senator graham, have proposed legislation to patch the holes in the background check system that enable the mentally ill to buy guns. that's the type of legislation that would bring a consensus and would be a real solution to a real problem. but sadly we seem to be focused on window dressing and risk putting symbolism over substance. >> is there further discussion? >> mr. chairman. hello. >> senator graham. >> thank you. i apologize for being late. we're having a hearing on africom. in armed services. to my colleagues, there seems to be some bipartisanship emerging on certain aspects of the problem. senator flake, begich and pryor, we've come together to try to fix a problem. i think everyone would agree needs to be fixed. there is a young lady who was a paranoid schizophrenic, tragic figure in many ways, and in 2005 in south carolina she was indicted, arrested and indicted for threatening the life of the president of the united states and members of congress. very disturbed young lady. she pled guilty -- not guilty by reason of insanity. the federal court ordered her into treatment. she went through a pretty laborious process, found incompetent to stand trial, plead guilty by reason of insanity. the court ordered mental health treatment in a confined environment. she was eventually released. she went to south carolina in february of this year and was able to buy a gun. she passed the background check. the system did not record the fact that she'd been adjudicated, mentally incompetent and dangerous to herself and others. she bought a .22 caliber pistol. went into the administrator's office, pulled the gun out and it did not fire. thank god. she's been arrested and she needs a lot of help. there is an effort in a bipartisan way to make sure adjudications like that get into the background system. there are over 14,000, i've been told, adjudications in south carolina of people a danger to themselves and an incompetent court process that's not entered into the federal system and my state is trying to fix that problem and i hope they're successful in south carolina of entering these cases into the federal background check system. and there are some things that senator schumer is doing and many others that may bear fruit. so keep trying. but as to the assault ban, i know that senator feinstein has been consistent. she's sincere and she has the courage of her convictions and what more could you ask? that is a compliment to her. my belief is that the solution being proposed has constitutional problems and doesn't really solve the problem. 2.5% of the murders committed in 2011 involve rifles. there are more people killed with bare hands than that. the assault weapon, when it's misused, is a tragedy. when any gun is misused. i think a lot of us agree that mentally unstable people, felons shouldn't have any gun with any bullet, and sometimes the law- abiding citizen, at least in my view, may need more than 10 bullets given what they may face in the real world as it is. so my objections are that this doesn't really fix the problem and that it didn't work before. it won't work now, but since then there's been a supreme court case called the heller case. it has a three-part test. second amendment protects individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. and to my colleagues, vice president biden, a dear friend of all of us, has this belief that a double barrel shotgun is the best way to defend one's self if there is a lawless environment and mobs come through your house. he told his wife, if you have a problem, go in the back yard and fire two blasts. that's not an unreasonable thing. once you shoot twice you don't have more bullets. you better take shells with you in case they don't run away. when the law and order has broken down, if there is a tornado, earthquake, cyberattack, if the power goes down and the dams break and pollutants are released in the air and the law enforcement is not able to respond and people are lawless -- i have an ar-15. i am not going to do anything illegal with it. i think that is better in that environment than a double-barrel shotgun because it has more than two bullets. it is an intimidating gun. i think a house is safer than a double-barrel shotgun. you can disagree. i think what i say makes sense, in my mind is not irrational. common use at the time, there are more than four million ar- 15's in circulation. i happen to have one of them. i say that's common use. dangerous and unusual. absolutely an ar-15 misused is dangerous almost like any other gun, but i would not say it's an unusual weapon since so many people have decided to buy the weapon. so i will be voting against the legislation. i didn't think it worked before. i don't think it will work now. i think it misses the mark of what the real problem is, and after heller, i really doubt the constitutionality -- and i'm very disappointed that our attorney general couldn't render an opinion on this. so thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to speak. >> thank you. senator grassley's returning just about a minute. and we're going to -- he has an amendment. following normal procedure, if there is not an amendment here, we will yield at that time to senator grassley, ranking member, to bring up his amendment. senator coons, you wish to say something first. >> while we're waiting for senator grassley to return, i want to add a few comments. mr. chairman, i'm grateful for your leadership and to the members of this committee for their conversation. i was encouraged by some comments i heard earlier in the discussion about s-- s. 54, the stop illegal firearms trafficking act, that led me there is bipartisanship here. enforcing laws on the books and coming together in stopping trafficking and it is my hope as these bills are not taken up by this committee but as they move to the floor that we will not stop listening to each other and trying to find ways to focus and to improve them. i've gotten a great deal of input from my home state of delaware on the issues of the bills that are in front of us today. it's been passionate and it's been diverse. and as senator cornyn mentioned, there are clearly differences of culture and region of those who've grown up with and are comfortable with hunting and firearms, whether it's for self- defense and sporting activities and those who are not. i've gotten very strong input from life-long friends, leaders in law enforcement, from pediatricians, from neighbors and from family. and i'll tell you there is a lot of misconceptions about what these bills do. a number of law enforcement leaders in my community express strong opposition to this bill, to s. 150, based on the mistaken impression in a it did not have an exception for law enforcement, for current or retired. it does. i think that's an important provision of the bill. i've heard directly from our vice president, from my governor and from senator feinstein, whom i respect deeply for her commitment to doing everything we possibly can to reduce the availability of weapons that can be used to kill and harm. i think we have a number of important pieces of legislation here that will strengthen background checks that will fight gun trafficking. i think this is just one more in what needs to be a broad and searching effort to find the right balance and to find the right solution. and so, although i think none of these bills is perfect, all of them deserve some further consideration. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. as someone who has known parents who lost children, neighbors who've lost family members in gun violence, i intend to vote for this bill in this committee today. thank you. >> senator grassley. the comment was made about support from newtown and i'd like to put a number of testimonials that have come in indicating support from newtown. i'd also like to put in the statement from the united states attorney that testified that in a 2004 follow-up report to the national institute of justice, the same researchers concluded that the use in crimes of assault weapons subject to the 1994 ban declined by more than 2/3 in the first nine years the ban was in effect. and also a statement from professor tribe, if i may. >> without objection, that will be part of the record. senator, hold just a moment unless you want to yield to senator lee. >> let's yield to senator lee. >> ok. senator lee. and for scheduling purposes, you might -- there is a classified matter that is going to require senator grassley and i and a couple other members of the senate to be at and as a result we will recess at 11:45 subject to the call of the chair which may bring us back today or tomorrow. we'll see. but just so you know. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. just want to make a brief statement about some concerns i have about this legislation. all of us are devastated by the recent acts of violence, particularly mass violence, and every one of us would choose if we could to find any way we can to reduce incidents of violence like those. i am concerned about this legislation for a couple of reasons. number one, i would worry about giving the american people the false impression that we can fix this problem through federal legislation, especially in light of our experience with past similar measures that have proven unsuccessful in bringing an end to this type of violence or even bringing about any significant statistically reduction in it. secondly, and in some ways even more importantly, we have to remember the interest of the law-abiding. there are some people in this country that are probably not going to comply with a lot of laws, no matter what they say. there's another group of people in this country that will typically abide by the law regardless of what the law says. fortunately, we in america are surrounded by people, the majority of whom fit into the latter category. it's those people that i think we need to look out for from time to time. in light of those people, the supreme court of the united states has established the standard in the heller case pursuant to which it said people have a second amendment right to possess a firearm that is typically possessed by law- abiding people for lawful purposes. there are, as i understand it, about four million ar-15's in this country. there are even more other weapons that would likewise fall into a ban like this one. to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of those weapons are possessed by law- abiding people and they are used for law-abiding purposes, hunting, target practice, self- defense and the like. i have yet to be convinced that the proponents of this legislation have met their heavy burden of establishing that this law would do more harm than good and that the -- any good it might do would offset these interests of these law-abiding citizens. for these reasons i can't support this legislation. >> thank you. i know that senator grassley wants me to finish this part of the agenda before we have to break and, senator grassley, you have an amendment. >> i do. it's alb-13190, requiring the attorney general to submit an annual report to congress dealing a number of statistics regarding the department's prosecution of violence -- violation of federal firearms law. the amendment would require the attorney general to provide information related to cases presented to the department from prosecution, federal, state and local, for violation of gun laws. it also requires information on cases where the department failed to file charges based upon these referrals. it requires information why cases were not charged, whether indictments are pending, whether plea agreements were entered, whether the defendant plead guilty or was found guilty and what -- pled guilty or was found guilty and what charges. this report is necessary, so i want to emphasize, necessary given the concern we heard in all three hearings about the lack of prosecutions under the current laws. example, it was discussed at the subcommittee hearing over 76,000 individuals were denied firearms under background checks and yet only 62 were prosecuted. this argument, the argument we heard from the department was that nearly impossible to prosecute these individuals because penalties are too low and violations too hard to prove. i think this is too simple of an argument, but understand some of the concerns. however, even if we do pass any of the bills on the markup agenda today and it becomes law, we need to ensure they are enforced. if we do not obtain detailed information about how the department enforces or fails to enforce, we know -- won't know if new legislation works. so this is a necessary step to ensure that changes in federal laws have a desired impact. now i understand the justice department strongly opposes. their concern is it intrudes into the prosecutorial decisionmaking. and it burdens them with reports that detract from prosecution -- prosecuting criminals. these are arguments that we hear all the time from the department and many other agencies that don't want congress overseeing them. of course i don't buy it and members shouldn't simply take their word for it. reports like this wouldn't be necessary if the department answered our letters and responded to our questions about oversight and particularly if they did it at hearings. just as an example, senator whitehouse and i pointed out to the attorney general yesterday that we still await answers to questions from the last oversight hearing we had with the attorney general in june of last year. with a response time like that, we may never know how the department's working. an annual report will require the department to provide us data regularly and likely faster than if we ask the attorney general himself. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can collect data. we need to ensure the department prosecute the laws on the books. i'd like to have a roll call vote please. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this amendment is a big broad amendment. it seeks to determine whether a decision has been made to charge an individual with a firearm's violations. in cases where no charge was made. a description of why no charge was filed. whether an indictment, information or other charge has been brought against any person. whether in any case that's charged, whether a firearm violation is alleged. whether in any case where a firearms violation is alleged, a plea agreement has been entered into, and whether any plea agreement resulted in a firearms conviction. it also includes in any case where there is no firearms conviction resulted, identification of the charges for which the individual did plead guilty. in any case not alleging a violation of firearm laws, the nature of the other charges brought and the result of any trial. now, having said that, i think the concern of this is a good-- kernel of this is a good thing and i think we -- i think the kernel of this is a good thing and i think we can get this established. there are lots of these violations, some 70,000. and it's an overwhelming task. i'd offer, senator, and, you know, i think my word, i hope you think my word means something, to work with you and try to work down to that kernel so we get something that's doable. senator graham had this discussion. i understand the point. i think we should have something. this is huge and broad, and i think that's why the justice opposes it. >> the senator asked for a roll call vote. senator durbin. >> i want to speak. in the southerly district of illinois, based in the st. clair county area, the u.s. attorney steve wigginton, is faced with a situation that's troubling. my hometown, where i was born, east st. louis, illinois, has a violent crime rate and murder rate 18 times the national average. 18 times the national average. the carnage that goes on in that small town with the misuse of firearms is incredible. and they are doing everything they can to deal with it. because of budget cutbacks that we have imposed in congress, it's now reached the point where he cannot fill vacancies when u.s. attorneys retire or resign. what they do is solicit those who are willing to volunteer without any pay to serve as an assistant u.s. attorney in the southern district of illinois and some are coming forward to do it. it's an indication of the workload they face and the desperate situation they're in to try to take control of what is a violent, terrible thing, menacing a lot of innocent people. senator grassley, this is an incredible amount of paperwork which you are asking for. for every possible case, they are required to fill voluminous paperwork. they will be filing forms with the department of justice. i think we know what the problem is here. this is a paperwork offense under the current law. we want to make it a serious offense. that's why some of the changes we're considering today will make a difference. i really think senator feinstein is right. let's get down to the root problem of the, regular reporting, but please don't impose this paperwork requirement on many offices that are struggling to survive. >> i disagree with you. there is such a big gap between prosecution and violation of the laws. we got to know why these are not being prosecuted. and if they don't prosecute them, they ought to be telling us why they don't prosecute them. i think this report answers those questions and will help fill the gap and i'll bet we'll get more prosecution. >> mr. chairman. >> roll call. >> i'm actually going to -- >> i don't want to cut anybody off. i know we will be recessing -- >> i'll put it on the record later. >> i would like to get this bill finished before we do. does the senator wish to -- >> i'll put it on the record later if you're concerned about time. >> roll call vote. >> ms. feinstein? >> no. >> mr. durbin, mr. whitewhite house, ms. klobuchar, mr. franken. >> no. >> mr. coons. >> no. >> mr. blumenthal? >> no. >> ms. hirono. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. hatch. >> aye. >> mr. sessions. >> aye. >> mr. graham. >> aye per proxy. >> aye. >> mr. lee. >> aye. >> mr. cruz. >> aye. >> mr. flake. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> can i offer another amendment? >> i'll work with you. >> nine yeas, nine nays. >> then the amendment fails. >> senator feinstein does work with me and with other people of the committee and i hope we can work out something to accomplish some of the goals i want to accomplish. this is my last amendment. i don't -- do we have -- you have an amendment. i'll go through mine very fast. i hope we can vote on this bill today and get this behind us. this is amendment alb-13193, requiring the director of n.i.j. to conduct a study to examine the impact of violent adult theme video games may have on mass shootings. this amendment is not about blaming an industry for the horrific acts of mass shooters. it simply examines the role that violent games may play in recent mass shootings. according to media reports, the perpetrators of mass shooting in aurora, newtown, were both avid players of violent video games. the norway mass shooter who killed 77 went so far as to describe in his manifesto how he utilized video games to train for his attack. this is troubling given the number of these games that are sold annually in the united states and around the world. our video game -- one video game called "call of duty: modern warfare 2," 22 million copies sold worldwide where the player of the game serves as an undercover operative. in his role, the player guides the player as part of a terror attack at a russian airport. the player takes part as a team shooter, guns down innocent civilians waiting in an airport. well, my amendment is alb-13141. i ask consent to place these pictures in the record that we have here. and i'm going to put the rest of the statement in the record. i think everybody knows what i'm talking about, and i know that senator coons has an amendment to my amendment or some sort of an amendment. i ask you to support his amendment as well. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to offer a second- degree amendment. i believe what we're asking for is 13141, calling for a study specifically focused on violent video games. and my second-degree amendment focuses on the fact that i believe there is a very wide range of possible causes of mass casualty incidents. i want to specifically amend my second-degree amendment as has been circulated at 13 so that it specifically says depictions of violence in the video game, media and entertainment industries. so it's clear i recognize the desirability of considering violent video games. it lists a whole series of factors for this n.i.j. study, factors that is childhood neglect, bullying which has been cited by my colleagues, availability of mental health services and others. i will not take the time to go through them all. >> my understanding is the senator will accept your second degree? >> yes. >> without objection, the senator from iowa's amendment is amended with the amendment of the senator from delaware. those in favor of the amendment, as amended, signify by saying aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. are there further amendments? >> senator cornyn i think has our last amendment. >> senator cornyn. >> well, actually i have several amendments but i want to draw my colleagues' attention to senator feinstein's -- the exception in her legislation for gun ban for certain classes of americans, namely the retired law enforcement officers. i think any exception to the ban is remarkable concession by the authors and co-sponsors of the bill. that's because bills' sponsors have long declared that so- called assault weapons are purely offensive in nature as in designed for killing. hence the name assault weapon. but in fact i believe this exception concedes that there are at least some americans who should be allowed to possess these weapons for purposes of defending themselves, their families and their communities. so i would ask my colleagues, why should this exception be limited only to retired law enforcement officers? is it because we believe they have some special competency and training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others, or is it because we think they and their families are worthy of special protection? i want to be clear. i think every law-abiding american has a right to choose how best to defend themselves and their families. that's why i strongly oppose this legislation. i wholeheartedly agree with the authors and the sponsors of this legislation that the weapons this bill would ban can and are used lawfully for self-and family defense. so the purpose of the amendments, and i have a number of them that i will offer, is to highlight the dangers of a blanket ban and illustrate why we shouldn't prevent law-abiding citizens from owning self- defense weapons. if you don't believe that the guns banned by this bill can be used lawfully for self-defense, then you should be offering an amendment to strike the exception for retired law enforcement. but of course i don't expect that. >> does the senator have an amendment he wishes to call up? >> i would like to call up 13115. >> 13115 is before us. >> in amendment, mr. chairman, would allow members of the armed forces and veterans to obtain and possess the self- defense weapons prohibited by this legislation. members and veterans of the armed forces are the most highly trained and qualified individuals to own these weapons for self-defense purposes. we should think long and hard before disarming these heroes, preventing them from protecting their families and their communities. >> senator feinstein. >> if i understand this, this adds an exemption of retired military. as i understand our bill, no issue has arose in the regard during the 10 years the ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the united states or a department or agency of the united states. so that included active military. the problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of ptsd, which i think is a new phenomenon as a product of the iraq war, it's not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. so, you know, i would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we can work something out. i think we have to -- if you're going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don't have access to this kind of weapon. >> i would suggest this may be one that should be worked on. as the senator from california knows, i have some problems with her overall legislation but i'm going to vote for it to get the matter out so it's just not those of us in this room will get a chance to talk about it or act on it but the whole senate, all 100 of us. so on the amendment, the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairman, ptsd suffers are already prohibited by law. and i think it's a mistake to paint so broadly as to say any active duty military or veterans can't use these kinds of weapons or any other lawful weapons for self-defense. and certainly i wouldn't want to suggest that we think the people who served in the military all suffer from some debilitating illness that would prohibit them from being able to -- >> that suggestion has not been made by anybody on either side of the aisle here. and the clerk will call the roll. >> mrs. feinstein. >> no. >> mr. schumer? >> no. >> mr. durbin. >> no. >> mr. whitehouse. >> no. >> mr. klobuchar. >> no. >> mr. franken. >> no. >> mr. coons. >> yes. >> ms. hirono. mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. hatch. >> aye. >> mr. sessions. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. cornyn. >> aye. >> mr. lee. >> aye. >> mr. cruz. >> aye. >> mr. flake. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, nine yeas, nine nays. senator grassley. >> can i ask, is it going to be possible to get this done before the chairman and i go for a briefing, like how many more -- >> don't believe so. i don't know about your schedule, but i have a number of other amendments. so i'd be happy to -- >> in that case, we will -- we're not going to be able to finish, and because of the -- senator grassley or senator fine tine and i are able to talk about the nature of this briefing, so we will -- we will recess subject to the call of the chair, but -- and we will get this bill completed. i appreciate the honesty of the senator from texas' answers. we stand recess subject to the call. >> subject to the call of the chair. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] [indistinct conversations] >> coming up on c-span, "newsmakers" with sander levin, followed by homeland security secretary janet napolitano. later, q&a with nobel prize winner jody williams. tomorrow on c-span, the senior advocacy group aarp will talk about federal benefits and how changes in cost of living might affect social security recipients, including veterans, americans with disabilities, and people with very low incomes. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. also live, later at noon eastern, the czech republic debt crisis. >> i believe that united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps. i think every year that is less and less and less probable. the united states especially in its foreign-policy, which is what i worked on for years and years, is not the great nation. it is an interventionist, it is extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring their system of government, the way we did in iraq. can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that is ok? in this country,

Transcripts For CSPAN Q A 20130311

to virginia and some scrufffi looking individual shoved a pamphlet at me, kind of like you had no choice but to take it and you and i are old enough to remember mimeograph, the ink came off on my hands and i was getting annoyed but i looked at it, and it said, el salvador, another vietnam. my first protest was against vietnam, and so when i saw el salvador compared to vietnam, i was interested. i ended up going to a meeting, and i volunteered, shoving those same mimeograph sk ed pamphlets into people's hands trying to elingt people. >> who handed out those pamphlets? >> the committee for solidarity with the people of el salvador, i worked with them for a few months, but then i thought since the reagan administration was taking a regional approach to south america, i thought their approach should be regional and they disagreed. >> where did the money come from? >> i wasn't paid. >> but for the organization? >> i think it was all donations. but i'm not sure, i was just a volunteer. >> who cared about el salvador back then? >> reagan, if you remember, was drawing the line against communism anywhere he could and in his view, nicaragua was a communist state, cuba is a never-ending thorn in the side of american politics and salvador, the revolutionary movement had a rhythm after several elections in a row were overthrown and on the reagan side they wanted to draw the line against communism and it was in central america. i was a hippie out of the 1960's and 1970's, as i said, my first protest was vietnam. when i learned again that the u.s. was intervening in the internal politics of countries that should not matter to the united states in those terms, it brought up my frustrations about the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, the re-emergence of the women's movement and made me realize that i really believed i had to to something to try to shift u.s. policy. >> i want to ask you a question that you've never been asked before. >> sure. >> what impact did the nobel peace prize have on you? >> it was certainly a fabulous tool for my work. >> you haven't been asked that before, have you? >> never. never. i received it individually but also the international campaign to ban land mines which i was founding coordinator of also received it. i believe the work of that campaign as the engine, the push -- to push government to do what they should have done anyway, ban land mines, deserves recognition. >> what year? >> it was in 1997. >> go back to 1997. >> sure. >> when was the first time after you received this award that you said, oh, my goodness. this matters to people. >> the noble prize -- the nobel rise? >> yeah. and how did you see it? >> you know, i hadn't ever really thought about it much except a woman i knew from central america had received it in the early 1990's, a mayan indian who had been involved in the struggle, many of her family members were killed. and the person responsible for a all of that is now standing trial for crimes against humanity, which is amazing. but i didn't think about it much. i think the intervention of internet and all of that has made an understanding of the peace prize more accessible than it was. i never really thought about it. then all of a sudden, this thing happens, all of a sud, people who would talk to anyone in the campaign before only wanted to talk to me. i found it intrusive. i found it very disturbing. i thought it was demeaning to my colleagues in the campaign. we were all working together and why i was all of a sudden was my voice the only one they wanted to hear? so i had a very hard time, actually, adjusting to the prize. it took me five or six years. >> what did you do to adjust? >> i spent quite a few years very confused, to be quite honest, when i would go home after speaking, sometimes i would just cry in frustration and confusion. i knew about land mines, i knew about building a campaign, i knew about building a global coalition to bring about change. but that doesn't mean that suddenly you're mother theresa, that you're saintly, that, you know, you can answer anything in the world by virtue of this wisdom that falls upon you with the peace price, that's absurd. >> who picks it? >> it's a committee of five in norway. i think their term in office or whatever is about five years and they can serve on the committee two terms in a row. those phi people plus the secretary of the nobel committee there. there are nominations made every year, at the beginning of the year, they have to be in by february 1. then the committee meets, i think five times in the year rm i learned these things after i met the committee, of course. and i liked the ones that, you know, i met. then they meet about five times a year. and the first meeting is to just discard all the ridiculous nominations. some truly are absurd. then they start to narrow it down to nominations that they think have some merit and they hand them out to researchers. >> who nominated you? >> lots of people. we found out after the fact, one person i do know who nominated me and the campaign was congressman jim mcgovern of massachusetts. he and jill smoke lee -- joe smoke lee, the late joe mokley, had been strong supporters of our work in el salvador. i knew him personally as a congressperson and whenever we were having trouble, they were always there. you know. i have a great affection for him. >> back in 1997 when the announcement came out, were you anticipating it? >> we knew we were front runners. >> how did you know? >> we knew beed been nominated. mcgovern wasn't the only one, there was a woman from sweden who i think at the time was the head of their foreign relations committee, she had nominated us. then i heard later that others had as well. and when we were in norway negotiating the treaty, which was in september of 1997 was the last phase of the negotiation of the mine ban treaty, journalists started coming up to us and saying how do you feel abouting if being a frontrunner and our response was, we're not here to discuss the peace prize. >> we've got a picture we'll put on the screen, where is that picture? you can see it back there. >> that's my house in vermont. that's the morning that we received the call. and about 4:00 in the morning. my now husband and i were in bed, we had just celebrated the night before, my 47th birthday with my family. and all of a sudden the phone rings and the guy says, in a nor bee january accent that he was from norwegian television and he wanted to know where i'd be in 40 minutes. and i wanted to swear at him actually, what the hell? and i said, i'm in bed, i'll be here. he called back and then he said, i've been authorized to tell you that jody williams and the international campaign to ban land mines is receiving the nobel peace prize for 1997. it was stunning. i jumped up and pulled on the same clothes that we had on the day -- i'd had on the day before. i had this hideous vision of some photo journalist out in a tree in my yard with a telephoto lens, you know, i wanted clothes on. and i didn't want photos that people would be screaming but put your clothes on. so just pulled on what i had by the bed and went downstairs and there were already five journalists sitting on the stoop and it was 5:00 a.m. i invited them in, gave them coffee, we started talking and they were the last ones i let in the house that day. >> i want to show some video of you from a documentary, "you and me," you were interviewed by horowitz. this shows a different side of jody williams. >> sure. >> the report cannot be considered comprehensive, objective, authentic, and accurate and suffers from the lack of credibility. >> my last point is on credibility, it's not about ours, it's ability yours. the world hung its head in shame and said never again, too many of us have lost hope that never again seems to have no applicability whatsoever in darfur. when will the world hang its head in shame again and our job is to attempt to try to alleviate the suffering of the people of darfur who are being raped, pillaged, and burned while political wrangling goes on here in the hallowed halls of the united nations. thank you. >> there are 20 or 30 recommendations and one was implemented. not a great batting average. >> correct. the reason they send one is not because they particularly care about the report or tar fur they did it because they have to show the council does something or it won't continue to exist. >> horowitz's take wasn't very popular. >> that's the first time i've seen that tape. i don't generally watch myself. it's too easy to second-guess what you might have said, could have said, should have said. i have great dismay about the human rights commission which is what i was reporting on darfur. there are other parts of the u.n. i have problems with. but there are some wonderful human beings in the united nations that are trying really hard to make a difference. you know, the body didn't exist, some body should exist like it. i think it is in desperate need of reform. i think that the security council as it stands now is a ridiculous throwback to the cold war. i don't think it reflects, you know, the power and the powerful emerging economies and militaries if you will in today's world. particularly the human rights commission. i have no respect whatsoever. >> put this in context from your perspective. recently when the state of the union message was delivered by the president of the united states and the answer on the other side or another point of view was given, they ended, at some point in the speech they said, the united states is the greatest country in the history of the world. >> some people believe that. >> what about you? >> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the boot straps, i think every year that is less and less and les probable. but the united states especially in foreign policy, which is what i've worked on for years and year, is not a great nation. it's an interventionist state, it's extremely afwressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring their system of government the way we did in iraq, for example. can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that's ok? and yet somehow we still in this country have a myth that people are thrilled when we invade them. that's insane. i believe 99% of the time, we create new enemies and i think especially now with the drone warfare going on under mr. obama, which is much worse than under bush, which i never expected, i think we're creating new enemies for the future. >> what did you think of president obama getting the nobel peace prize? >> well, i said this before in public so i don't have a problem saying it again. i don't think it was his problem so to speak, i think the committee made a gross error of judgment. he has not done anything to deserve it at that point in time and the terms of nobel's will are quite clear that it should go to a person who in any given year has done, you know, has given great service to disengage armies or held a global peace conference to bring about change. mr. obama at that time had done nothing of that sort. in fact, he was engaged in two wars which i thought no matter what he had done if you're a sitting head of state engaged in war how can you get the nobel peace prize. when he came out of the white house and said he didn't think he deserved it, i was ready to clap. i thought that was outstanding. i would have clapped if he had then said therefore i cannot accept it at this time. i think that's what he should have done. >> what do you think of al gore getting the nobel peace prize? >> you know, i think that the environment is a critical part of security and peace. i think people understand it that way better than they used to, you know, what the elements of sustainable peace are, not just the absence of armed conflict. it's many, many different el 789s. i think we definitely are seeing global warming and climate change and it's displacing populations, causing new myfwrations and now conflicts. so i think it's a worthy recognition. there there are many who are agitated that the committee keeps sort of expanding the vision of what peace is. there are some who are very adamant that it should be strictly limited to those who really deal with armies and war, not, you know, peace more broadly defined. i'm somewhere in the middle. >> i have a book on my lap, your picture son the cover, a title of it is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize." why did you want us to know all of this about your personal life? >> i have a problem with the idealizing of human beings. the glorification, deify case in some -- defy case in some -- deification in some ways. we use the example of martin luther king, because we know him here in the united states but he was a human being like any other human being. he had his strengths, his weaknesses, his flaws. martin luther king was certainly an amazing leader but he -- there were thousands and millions of people also in that struggle. this is -- this kind of goes back to what i was saying in the beginning of our discussion that in the land mine campaign we were thousands of millions and if everybody saw us as the same, suddenly i get the peace prize and they only want to talk to me. when martin luther king became martin luther king and is now a monument on the mall, which i think he deserves, that's not the issue, but suddenly that individual or mandela or the dalai lama who is in a category of his own since he is sort of god, what normal human being, what ordinary person can ever believe that they could accomplish leadership like that? and i think that does a huge disservice to both the possibility of change and to ordinary people recognizing that we each have power and we can with all our flaw well, can contribute to change. i'm flawed. >> early in the book, you tell us about brother steve. where is steve today? >> my brother has always lived with my parents, except for two times he was institutionalized, one i write about in the book because he was so violent we were concerned he would kill a family member or himself. but he's still living with my mom in environment. still. >> did you ask him before you wrote this about him? >> no. >> why not? >> i didn't ask anybody's permission. this is my perception of my life. i didn't ask my mom, she was very nervous and i promised her i wouldn't say anything that would, you know, make her friends make fun of her or whatever. new york i didn't ask permission. not of bobby mueller who hired me to do the land mine campaign, nobody from el salvador, i didn't ask permission. it's my view of the things in my life that affected me that made me very, very human but also made me determined to try to help everybody in the world, including myself. i'm not a saint. >> what did you tell us in the book about your brother steve? >> he was born deaf in 1947, a time when the philosophy of teaching the deaf was to force them into the hearing world. which meant that we were not taught sign. which meant that at the dinner table, for example, pretty much all we could say to him was pass the salt, you know things you could point at. it meant that he was really not involved in daily conversations because we had very rudimentary, homemade -- it also meant that as he became more and more ill with what we finally understood to be schizophrenia, there was no real way to talk to him about what he was feeling. so he would just get brutally angry. if i think about it too much, and i think i write that in the book, i have a really hard time. >> you have a hard time -- >> just thinking about my brother's life. it's sort of a life not lived. he's extremely smart, as mr. schizophrenics are. but his life was so truncated at first by the lack of communication, then schizophrenia, i just, you know -- >> but you paint a picture of him with a knife in his hand. did you ever think he was actually going to kill somebody? >> i was scared as hell when my mom and i ran out of the house. i don't know. you know. it was worse later, actually. the part that i didn't write about because by then i was in central america and land mines, my parents tried at one point to get him in the -- in assisted living and it was at the insistence of my sisters, my other brother, myself, you know, when you die, if he isn't capable of managing life, what are we going to do? they tried it with a -- they tried, it was a total fiasco. he started threatening neighbors, you know. so that did not work. he had to be institutionalized again, i think, for another year. then he came back home to mom and dad, finally, after that, he was correctly diagnosed and got medication. so you know, he's a pair noid schizophrenic. >> you group up -- grew up where? >> i was born in the big metropolis of poltney, vermont, midway up the state near new york. then we moved to brattle bro, vermont -- to brattleboro, vermont, we went there so my brother could go to the school for the deaf. >> and mom and dad did what? >> my mom, well was a mother of, at that point, right after we moved, five children my father did a variety of jobs. he had owned his own grocery store in poltney that he had to sell to move. and he ended up getting a job as a traveling salesman with general electric. so he would go out for the whole week and my mom would be left home, at that point with, tissue at that point, we were four, four kids. and she had no break, no car, she had a nervous breakdown and my dad had to quit traveling. he worked for a vending company, ultimately he bought that and mom came back from laying in bed for a year essentially. >> what politics did they follow? >> democrat. my father was extremely anti-republican. viewing it as the party of the rich. the party that didn't care about the needs of -- how i describe my family is living on the rough edges of the middle class. very rough edges. and my father was treated like dirt by people in the depression who were handing out the government money. i don't know, i can't remember what it was called then, to support people who had no work and they happened to be republicans and my father despised republicans. at least the party. he wasn't irrational totally but he despised the party and had no room for anyone who didn't understand that there was structural, you know, inequality and structural reasons for poverty so he was pretty outspoken about that. i think i got a lot of my dad. >> you say you walked awhat fre -- away from the catholic church. what year? >> i was 17 years old. >> why? >> i, you know, i have a hard time with being told that i have to accept something on faith even though my reason doesn't -- just can't go there. for example, i had to take catechism, like many catholics who didn't go to catholic school. when i got into my teens i started asking the priest about intention. you know, you have to intend to sin in order to sin. in theory. soy -- so i said to him, why is birth control a mortal sin, which means if you die you go to hell, and the rhythm method ok? when in both instances you were intending to avoid pregnancy. to me that's totally logical. why is the pill bad, other ways ok? and he -- the answer was typical of the church that you, you know, you have to accept what god gives you. my thought was if god wants to give you a baby, a little pill isn't going to get in his way. so we fought about that a lot, a lot, a lot. and my other one was the infallibility of the pope. i thought it was patently absurd. how could the pope be infallible when some had had babies. when up until i think like the 12th or 13th century, i'm not quite sure of the date, priests could marry. and then all of a sudden they had to be celibate, they couldn't marry, it had nothing to do with suddenly the pope hearing from god they couldn't marry, it had to do with property. >> where are you in your religious life today? >> that makes me laugh. archbishop tutu and i have had some discourse on that. he kind of wants to convert me in a way. he's very sweet, i love him. on the other hand, his holiness the dalai lama and i were at an event together in hiroshima and he is very amusing. helenes over to me and he says, jody, scientists believe that buddhism is really atheism. so i said, oh, my god, i must be a buddhist. and he said the reason is because buddhists don't believe in god. they believe that, you know, every human being has the possibility of, you know, being great. being energy. all the good things that christians or muslims or hindus are supposed to be. because of their religion. >> 1998, here you are with the dalai lama. >> yeah. >> one of my closest friends had an extremely unpleasant encounter with two men who i wish i could call gentlemen who left her beaten and naked in the street. for many years i had the greatest hope that i would run into them sometime and do the same to them or worse. then i got involved in trying to stop the violence in central america and watched what's happened to people over time who only sought violent revenge against people who have done things to them or people they love. you become them. >> where are you there? >> i think it was university of virginia. i think there were 11 of us peace laureates invited to a conference at the university of virginia. that was my first encounter with the dalai lama. >> how do the peace laureates talk to one another that might be different than the ordinary person? >> when i'm -- i don't know. i know how i talk to them. >> but i mean you get an entree to people you wouldn't otherwise. >> oh, sure. well that's one reason why in 2006, six women, nobel peace laureates came together and created the nobel women's initiative. >> didn't you lead that? >> i have played a large role in fund raising for it. >> why do you want to separate men from women? >> it's not separating. the problem in today's world, as we are all too aware, is that women are still unequal. i would even argue we're not equal in the united states in many ways. if you look at the number of women in the senate, in the house, or on corporate boards. but globally, women are less than unequal. and we believe that by coming together as women and using the peace process to, you know, highlight the work of women around the world working for sustainable peace with justice and equality, we could, you know, maybe lift -- lift up is terrible. we could help women everywhere make change which is good for us all. it isn't that we want to be men or think men are awful. there are awful women, there are awful men. but it is irrefutable that women suffer more in this world. violence against women is a global pandemic. which is one of the reasons why we spearheaded an international campaign to stop race and gender violence and conflict. just like in the land mine campaign, bringing organizations together because together we have a better chance at changing the world. and it wasn't to exclude men. but i point this out all the time. in the history at the time,s we -- in the history since we established the nobel peace initiative, there have been 12 women. something like 90 men. there's never been a nobel's -- nobel men's initiative. they have never come together. i think it's indicative of how women tend, not always, but how we tend to think about how we together, you know, can make a difference. and i have to be, you know, totally honest, after the nobel women's initiative, i really, really became happy that i had the peace prize. i feel now not only is it a tool for my work but i'm sharing it with women all over the world. it makes sense to me now. >> you have lived for, you know, more than a couple of days, in what places? in other words you lived in environment for how many years? >> 25. i didn't leave until i was 25 years old. i thought i would never leave vermont. >> went to the university of vermont? >> yes. >> studied what? >> psychology after switching my major five times because immaterialed to be everything and nothing. >> how many times have you been married? >> bruce is my second husband. i was married for a minute to my high school sweetheart, we shouldn't have married. i didn't love him by the time we married. didn't realize i could jest get an apartment and get a job. i was afraid, i got married. >> thraud? >> -- claude? >> yes. >> what does he think about it now that he's mentioned here? >> he is ok with it. he's not a bad guy, we were wrong. he is married, i'm trying to think, the last i knew, i was trying to figure out how old his son is, i think 25. >> exactly how long were you married? >> three years. >> ok, let's go back to the first question, vermont for 25 years and then where else have you lived? >> i lived in mexico for two, then i came to washington, d.c. because i wanted to do international work and washington was international. i did not have an idea of what it meant to do international work. i lived, you know, i refused to move to nicaragua when i was working on nicaraguan hunger. i refused to move to salvador but i spent months in each country over a period of years so i felt like i knew them quite well. >> where else? anywhere else? >> that's it. >> you live now where? >> in fredericksburg, virginia, and westminster, vest vermont. >> you talked about coming to washington, what we're going to show next is a piece of washington and it will give you an opportunity to discuss something that is near and dear to your heart. s the state department spokesman. >> this administration took a policy review and we decided that our land mine policy remains in effect. >> why? >> why? >> i think we're one of only two nations, somalia is about to sign it, right? so we're going to be the only nation in the whole world who doesn't believe in banning land mines. why is that? >> i'm not sure about that. we had a policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed the convention. >> ian kelly in 2009. what was he saying there and how did that impact you? >> i wished i could say i was shocked, shocked, shocked. i'm not. >> this is the obama administration. >> i know. i know. >> what's he saying? >> he's saying they're not going to sign the mine ban treaty that u.s. national security depends on the anti-personnel land mines. the hypocrisy of that is outstanding to me because the united states has not exported anti-personnel land mines since 1992. we haven't used them the first gulf war, 1991. we haven't produced them since the mid 1990's. we've destroyed millions of our stockpile. in other words, we are obeying the mine ban treaty. why the hell do they continue to refuse to join the treaty? >> let me -- i'll get back to that but we didn't sign the kyoto treaty. we don't like the fact that there's an international court of law, all of that. what is it about this country that when these kind of things come up, they say no? >> i think we're the only -- no, we're not the only. but george w. bush unsigned a treaty, one of the nuclear treaties. the united states believes it's exceptional, meaning everybody except us. meaning that if other nations can be bound by treaties, that's great. you know, it restricts what they can do. but since the united states considers itself to be the guarantor of freedom and, you know, freedom, security, etc., they want to believe that they need to be able to do anything they want in order to, you know, keep us all safe. >> what are the numbers now about land mines and since you've been involved in it, how many have gone away, how much money is spent, who is selling them around the world? >> goodness. i should have looked that up. i haven't worked on the campaign on a daily basis since early 2000's, but i can tell you that there are now 161 nations that are part of the treaty. all of the western hemmings fear, except the united states and cuba, all of nato, except the united states, which is totally mind-boggling, especially when the u.s. says it needs land mines to protect its allies. there have been no recorded sales of land mines since the treaty. even cupries like china and russia, which have not signed, have stopped producing land mines for export. recognizing the humanitarian concern. >> how many are still out there? >> nobody knows. in the early days, the u.n. kind of pulled a figure out of the air and said there were 100 million in the ground. nobody knows how many there really were. no one is quite sure how many there at -- there are at this point. however, stockpiles have been destroyed, that will never be in the ground. i think we're up to like 60 million land mines have been destoyed from stockpiles that will never be in the ground. 20 countries have now declared themselves mine free, meaning their national demeaning programs have gotten all the mines they could find. that doesn't mean there won't randomly be a mine that's inevitable. as i said there's been no major exporting of mines. i think my husband, who is the chair of the land mine campaign said that only about a dozen countries retain the right to produce mines but something like flee -- like three might be producing. >> how many people die a day? >> there used to be 20,000 people affected every year, we're now down to 4,000. that's still too many. >> and where are they dying of land mines? >> afghanistan, cambodia, angola, croatia. colombia. the farc lays mines. >> the farc is where? >> the revolutionary forces in columbia -- colombia that have been battling the government for 50 years. >> in the beginning when you got involved in this with paid the bills? >> i was asked to create the campaign by the vietnam veterans of america association under bobby mueller, their president. they paid my salary. i helped raise money for my salary. >> who funded them? >> the u.s. government funded some of their work in cambodia. foundations, individual donors like most nongovernmental organizations. >> toughest part of your effort to ban land mines? >> i always say that it was so easy compared to stram america that i can't find difficult -- but that's too glossy a picture, i guess. i think when the c.c.w., convention on conventional weapons, which came about after the vietnam war and tied to control things like napalm, land mines, but did not ban them, so we used that treaty as a tool in the first couple of years of the land mine campaign, an organizing tool. getting nongovernmental organizations in different countries involved, pressing their government to amend that treaty to ban land mines and they wouldn't. so for two and a half years we were there pushing and screaming and shoing at all the meetings they had and they did not change that treaty. and if the canadian government had not come out of that experience dedicated to the belief that within one year we could negotiate a mine ban treaty, which they challenged the world to do in ottawa in ock of 1996, we -- in october of 1996, we wouldn't have a treaty. that was one of those moments that, if they hadn't, i'm not sure what would have happened. at the same time we didn't know they were going to do it until they did it, the day they did it. so i don't know. >> if somebody wanted to get an example of a genuine, card-carrying liberal, are you it? >> i think i'm to the left of liberal. >> and what -- can you give us some markers there, what makes somebody a liberal? we had this debate on this network. >> i'm not sure i can say what makes a liberal. i san say what motivates me. >> fine. >> i am burning with righteous indignation at injustice. i was at a woman's peace conference in santa fe years ago, i tend to get highly impassioned when i speak and during the question and answer period a woman in the back, you know, raised her hand and said, jody williams, how can you be working for peace when you're so angry? you know, can you be an angry person and really be working for peace? my response was, you know, i'm not angry. angry is like if somebody bugs me and i scream at them or i stub my toe because i'm the clumsiest human on the planet and get mad at the table. i am full of righteous indignation. i'm angry at injustice. >> let me interrupt just a second. what's the difference between your righteous indignation and george herbert walker bush and george w. bush both involved in the iraqi situation, weren't they righteously indignant about the injustice of saddam hussein going to kuwait? >> that might be a justifiable intervention. mr. bush the second's intervention, i believe along with many other people in the world, that that was an inlegal -- an illegal invasion. we disrupted the lives of how many people? how many did we kill there? both on purpose and collateral damage? and look at the state of that country now. >> but wouldn't you violate the law if you were righteously indignant about what this country was doing? >> i haven't. >> wouldn't you lay down in the middle of the street to stop traffic? >> i would be involved in nonviolent protests, yes. my first arrest actually was outside the south african embassy in the apartheid period when the organizations were coordinating mass arrests on a daily basis, you know. i got arrested then. my sister, nobel peace laureate laurie mcguire of ireland was arrested and myself and everies were arrested in lafayette park when mr. bush decided to invade iraq. i believe in nonviolent protests. i believe that is my right under the constitution. i did not pick up a gun and use that to indicate my righteous indignation at inswrussties. >> anybody in your family own guns? >> my brother has been a hunter since he was 12. >> steve or he other one? >> good god, no. no. my schizophrenic brother's guns were locked away so he couldn't get to them. >> do you talk to your brother about the guns? >> sure. >> whappings between the two of you? what's his politics? >> in the early days i went rabid about it. when i was younger i was very -- oh, i was a little more lacking in sympathy. for lack of a better way of putting it. we used to fight about it. but he has helped me understand that for hunters like himself, he hunts whenever he can, but he cleans his own animals, he eats all the meat he hunts. he's not a -- how does he call them. he's not a trophy hunter, he's not a dirty hunter, is what he calls them, the ones that go out in the night and shine lights in the eyes of an animal so they can stun it and kill it. i think he's mellowed, you know. i don't have a problem necessarily with guns, but i have a problem with unregulated yution of -- you know, the ability of anyone and their brother to acquire as many guns as they want. certainly my brother would never hunt an animal with a semiautomatic weapon that would blast its to -- blast it to pieces. so i think we have more sane conversations these days. >> in your boobling, you tell us the exact moment when you i don't know, how to put this. but when you decided you were attracted physically to your now husband. >> goose. his name is steve goose. >> and heast called goose throughout your book. >> we met banning land mines. >> he was married at the time. >> three children. so this is one of the things that i talked about not being a saint. i'm a normal human being. we were friends and colleagues and we fell in love. and it was very painful. the separation from his family was very painful. with the kids it was very painful. he tried to go home several times and every time i said go, go. >> tell us about the moment, the exact moment. >> the moment was when i was mentioning the convention on conventional weapons that treaty we were unsuccessful in getting amended to ban land mines. two and a half years the campaign had been there, pushing, as i said, yelling, screaming, doing antics, building fake land mine fields for the diplomats to walk across and they would step on a sensor and it would blow up, trying to bring the mines to them. we didn't succeed. and in fact, the treaty was made weaker, so we're done. two and a half years in geneva. in and out all the time. but we're packing up the office and all the campaigners are going down to this pub, pickwick pub in geneva, they went all the time, i didn't go, i didn't like the smoke and the people that much. not the people themselves but i'm a loner so i tend to go to my room and lay down and read that night i decided to go. and we were at the pub and i usually sneak out because i hate good-bye so i was sneaking out to go to the hotel, i had a very early plane the next day back to vermont and all of a sudden steve fwoose was beside me and we were walking back to the hotel, campaigners tended to stay in the same hotel. we get to the frovent door and we hear a voice above us and it's our friend susan, who had been working on the campaign for years with handicap international out of france. she is holding a bottle of wine. you know, being ridiculous, we went upstairs and had more wine. susan, sorry, susan, susan fell over on the bed -- laid down gently on the bed and the next thing we knew she was snoring. all of a sudden, goose and i kissed. it wasn't premeditated, but we kissed. it was like, oh my god. oh, my god. it was too late. i rushed to get on my airplane and it was one of these things where you think, you know, we'd had too much to drink, it was a stupid thing, let's forget about that. two days later, he called me, on a sunday, from his house. and we never talked outside of work time. and it was the most awkward conversation, i can be the can't even remember what was said. it lasted about 45 seconds. but that was when i knew that something -- that something was happening, that i wasn't sure what to do with. >> how did his wife find out? >> he told her. >> what was her reaction? >> you can imagine. fury. she locked him out of the house. >> but he went back. >> he tried. many times. i moved back to vermont. >> did you two have an agreement that you wouldn't talk? >> who? >> you and goose. >> several time he is tried to go home while we were living together. we talked about it. it was very upsetting for all of us. then it got really to be too much. two years later, 1999. and he and i -- and i said go. go back home. i will move -- we were renting a house in alexandria at that point. >> here in virginia. >> yes. i said i'll go back to vermont. so i packed up my u-haul, rented one, packed it up, left the house intact for him. i thought he's in bad shape. i'm not going to denude the house and leave him sleeping on a mattress on the floor. and my dog and i and my sister drove to vermont. i spent i think the first 10 days on the floor weeping in my pajamas. i'm being me lo dramatic but it was -- melodramatic but it was pretty sad. i -- we were not communicating. i said you can't really be trying with your wife if we're communicating. that, you know, obviously doesn't work. and i decide a couple of weeks later to go out to california to see friends. and i got an email. and i was angry. you know, why are you emailing me? what are you trying to do? make sure i'm in pain? yeah, i'm in pain. then he called me. and i told him i was thinking about moving out to l.a. i was going to stay with my friend. she had lost her husband to lung cancer and she was a mess, i was a mess, we figured we'd be great roommates. that kind of freaked goose out. we worked it out and i came back and -- >> mar rismed >> we got married. >> how is it working out? >> he's awesome. he's societyly awesome. we moved, you -- he's totally awesome. even with the difficulty, we moved to fredericksburg on february 1, 2001. we still live there. five minutes from his kids so he could be with his kids and they could be with him. because it wasn't about the kids. it was, you know, it sounds dumb but people grow apart in relationships and if they don't really work at them all of a sudden you wake up and how kid you get here? >> let me go back to a question i asked you earlier. why do you think anybody wants you to know this about a nobel peace prize winner. >> know which? that or everything i put in the book? >> everything you put in the book. and there's a lot of personal stuff. >> sure. i mean i could have written some glossy ridiculousness, pretended i was close to perfect who wanned you to -- to perfect. >> who wanted you to write this book? i wanted to. -- >> i wanted to. i want people to understand there's nothing magic about making the world a better place. get up off your butt and participate. >> did goose read this before you -- >> of course. before i even wrote the painful part about our relationship, we talked about it. >> was he concerned about the kids reading this? >> well, yeah. they're now in their mid 20's, you know. >> what do they think of you? >> they hated my guts, of course. >> still? >> no. no. when they started coming around the house, i said -- i never wanted kids. first of all. i knew at 13 i did not want children. so i ended up with a guy who, by the way, is hard of hearing, and had three kids. and so when they first came to the house, you know, i said to them, you don't have to like me, i do not have to like you. however, we will be polite to each other in this house. and when you're obnoxious and i can't take it anymore, i will leave you with your dad and go off to my bedroom and shut the door and read which i'd probably rather be doing anyway. i didn't do it for shock value, i really meant it. when they drove me nuts, i'd go up to my room and shut the door and read. i didn't do it to confuse them, i didn't want to be near them. over time they couldn't believe i didn't want to somehow pretend i was their mother. i'm not their mother. we're very close. >> here's some video. last voork only 30 seconds. >> that's fine. >> something you said in 2007. >> so you end the soviet union, end the threat of communism, how are you going to justify the military expenditure of the united states of america unless you have a global entity of similar scope? you have to have something big enough, scary enough, evil enough to justify continuing the game. i'm sorry, but part of it is a game. part of it is real. i'm no utopian. just because you win the nobel peace prize doesn't mean you become mother theresa and you don't believe that sometimes the use of force is necessary. >> when is the use of force necessary? >> for self-defense only. and i do not buy the argument that extra judicial execution by drones which under international law is murder is self-defense. >> the liberals in this country went, they get very angry with george w. bush about the whole war. why are they not angry with barack obama. >> many of us are. >> but not have more. -- but not very many. >> i think there's not much coverage of it. in the same way there was against mr. bush. >> why is that? >> liberal media. i'm joking. i don't know. if i knew, you know, maybe i could change the world more quickly. i don't know. but i don't think the coverage is there. i think for many people because obama was so different from bush in many ways, there's a lack of desire to analyze and critique his policies the same way one would mr. bush. i, on the other hand, believe that i don't care who the president is, i don't care what his party is, i care what his policies are. and if they are worse than those of mr. bush, they are certainly worthy of criticism. now obama, i think it was within the first two months in office in his first term used drones more than bush had in the eight years of his administration. and nobody said a word. we, you know, we have created a borderless battlefield. we are killing people in countries with which we are not at war. how can we justify this. i was with an international lawyer in geneva recently and he said, sometime, somebody is going to kill a u.s. soldier in nevada, one of the soldiers who goes in every day and you know, does the drone strike, and he said, i am going to have to call that an act of war. legal under the laws of war. he's attacking military target. i am not advocate ka -- i am not advocating, i'm just saying how can we kill people wherever we want and believe that it's not going to come back -- it scares me that we are so complacent. that we are not willing to ask those questions. and it scares me that some people in this country sexually think we have the right to murder. >> the name of the book is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize," won it in 1997. we thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> for a copy of this program call 1-877-66 -7726. for free transcripts or to give us comments about this program, visit us at q-and-a.org. "q abd a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. >> tonight on c-span, british prime minister david cameron, followed by the state funeral of venezuelan president hugo chavez, and later the international women of courage awards. .

Transcripts For CSPAN Q A 20130311

pamphlet at me, kind of like you had no choice but to take it and you and i are old enough to remember mimeograph, the ink came off on my hands and i was getting annoyed but i looked at it, and it said, el salvador, another vietnam. my first protest was against vietnam, and so when i saw el salvador compared to vietnam, i was interested. i ended up going to a meeting, and i volunteered, shoving those same mimeographed pamphlets into people's hands trying to educate people. >> who handed out those pamphlets? >> the committee for solidarity with the people of el salvador, i worked with them for a few months, but then i thought since the reagan administration was taking a regional approach to south america, i thought their approach should be regional and they disagreed. >> where did the money come from? >> i wasn't paid. >> but for the organization? >> i think it was all donations. but i'm not sure, i was just a volunteer. >> who cared about el salvador back then? >> reagan, if you remember, was drawing the line against communism anywhere he could and in his view, nicaragua was a communist state, cuba is a never-ending thorn in the side of american politics and salvador, the revolutionary movement had a rhythm after several elections in a row were overthrown and on the reagan side they wanted to draw the line against communism and it was in central america. i was a hippie out of the 1960's and 1970's, as i said, my first protest was vietnam. when i learned again that the u.s. was intervening in the internal politics of countries that should not matter to the united states in those terms, it brought up my frustrations about the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, the re- emergence of the women's movement and made me realize that i really believed i had to to something to try to shift u.s. policy. >> i want to ask you a question that you've never been asked before. >> sure. >> what impact did the nobel peace prize have on you? >> it was certainly a fabulous tool for my work. >> you haven't been asked that before, have you? >> never. never. i received it individually but also the international campaign to ban land mines which i was founding coordinator of also received it. i believe the work of that campaign as the engine, the push to push government to do what they should have done anyway, ban land mines, deserves recognition. >> what year? >> it was in 1997. >> go back to 1997. >> sure. >> when was the first time after you received this award that you said, oh, my goodness. this matters to people. >> the nobel prize? >> yeah. and how did you see it? >> you know, i hadn't ever really thought about it much except a woman i knew from central america had received it in the early 1990's, a mayan indian who had been involved in the struggle, many of her family members were killed. and the person responsible for a all of that is now standing trial for crimes against humanity, which is amazing. but i didn't think about it much. i think the intervention of internet and all of that has made an understanding of the peace prize more accessible than it was. i never really thought about it. then all of a sudden, this thing happens, all of a sudden, people who would talk to anyone in the campaign before only wanted to talk to me. i found it intrusive. i found it very disturbing. i thought it was demeaning to my colleagues in the campaign. we were all working together and why i was all of a sudden was my voice the only one they wanted to hear? so i had a very hard time, actually, adjusting to the prize. it took me five or six years. >> what did you do to adjust? >> i spent quite a few years very confused, to be quite honest, when i would go home after speaking, sometimes i would just cry in frustration and confusion. i knew about land mines, i knew about building a campaign, i knew about building a global coalition to bring about change. but that doesn't mean that suddenly you're mother theresa, that you're saintly, that, you know, you can answer anything in the world by virtue of this wisdom that falls upon you with the peace price, that's absurd. >> who picks it? >> it's a committee of five in norway. i think their term in office or whatever is about five years and they can serve on the committee two terms in a row. those phi people plus the secretary of the nobel committee there. there are nominations made every year, at the beginning of the year, they have to be in by february 1. then the committee meets, i think five times in the year rm i learned these things after i met the committee, of course. and i liked the ones that, you know, i met. then they meet about five times a year. and the first meeting is to just discard all the ridiculous nominations. some truly are absurd. then they start to narrow it down to nominations that they think have some merit and they hand them out to researchers. >> who nominated you? >> lots of people. we found out after the fact, one person i do know who nominated me and the campaign was congressman jim mcgovern of massachusetts. he and jill smoke lee -- joe smoke lee, the late joe moakley, had been strong supporters of our work in el salvador. i knew him personally as a congressperson and whenever we were having trouble, they were always there. you know. i have a great affection for him. >> back in 1997 when the announcement came out, were you anticipating it? >> we knew we were front runners. >> how did you know? >> we knew we'd been nominated. mcgovern wasn't the only one, there was a woman from sweden who i think at the time was the head of their foreign relations committee, she had nominated us. then i heard later that others had as well. and when we were in norway negotiating the treaty, which was in september of 1997 was the last phase of the negotiation of the mine ban treaty, journalists started coming up to us and saying how do you feel abouting if being a frontrunner and our response was, we're not here to discuss the peace prize. >> we've got a picture we'll put on the screen, where is that picture? you can see it back there. >> that's my house in vermont. that's the morning that we received the call. and about 4:00 in the morning. my now husband and i were in bed, we had just celebrated the night before, my 47th birthday with my family. and all of a sudden the phone rings and the guy says, in a nor bee january accent that he was from norwegian television and he wanted to know where i'd be in 40 minutes. and i wanted to swear at him actually, what the hell? and i said, i'm in bed, i'll be here. he called back and then he said, i've been authorized to tell you that jody williams and the international campaign to ban land mines is receiving the nobel peace prize for 1997. it was stunning. i jumped up and pulled on the same clothes that we had on the day -- i'd had on the day before. i had this hideous vision of some photo journalist out in a tree in my yard with a telephoto lens, you know, i wanted clothes on. and i didn't want photos that people would be screaming but put your clothes on. so just pulled on what i had by the bed and went downstairs and there were already five journalists sitting on the stoop and it was 5:00 a.m. i invited them in, gave them coffee, we started talking and they were the last ones i let in the house that day. >> i want to show some video of you from a documentary, "u.n. me," you were interviewed by horowitz. this shows a different side of jody williams. >> sure. >> the report cannot be considered comprehensive, objective, authentic, and accurate and suffers from the lack of credibility. >> my last point is on credibility, it's not about ours, it's ability yours. the world hung its head in shame and said never again, too many of us have lost hope that never again seems to have no applicability whatsoever in darfur. when will the world hang its head in shame again and our job is to attempt to try to alleviate the suffering of the people of darfur who are being raped, pillaged, and burned while political wrangling goes on here in the hallowed halls of the united nations. thank you. >> there are 20 or 30 recommendations and one was implemented. not a great batting average. >> correct. the reason they accepted one is not because they particularly care about the report or tar fur they did it because they have to show the council does something or it won't continue to exist. >> horowitz's take wasn't very popular. >> that's the first time i've seen that tape. i don't generally watch myself. it's too easy to second-guess what you might have said, could have said, should have said. i have great dismay about the human rights commission which is what i was reporting on darfur. there are other parts of the u.n. i have problems with. but there are some wonderful human beings in the united nations that are trying really hard to make a difference. you know, the body didn't exist, some body should exist like it. i think it is in desperate need of reform. i think that the security council as it stands now is a ridiculous throwback to the cold war. i don't think it reflects, you know, the power and the powerful emerging economies and militaries if you will in today's world. particularly the human rights commission. i have no respect whatsoever. >> put this in context from your perspective. recently when the state of the union message was delivered by the president of the united states and the answer on the other side or another point of view was given, they ended, at some point in the speech they said, the united states is the greatest country in the history of the world. >> some people believe that. >> what about you? >> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the boot straps, i think every year that is less and less and less probable. but the united states especially in foreign policy, which is what i've worked on for years and year, is not a great nation. it's an interventionist state, it's extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring their system of government the way we did in iraq, for example. can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that's ok? and yet somehow we still in this country have a myth that people are thrilled when we invade them. that's insane. i believe 99% of the time, we create new enemies and i think especially now with the drone warfare going on under mr. obama, which is much worse than under bush, which i never expected, i think we're creating new enemies for the future. >> what did you think of president obama getting the nobel peace prize? >> well, i said this before in public so i don't have a problem saying it again. i don't think it was his problem so to speak, i think the committee made a gross error of judgment. he has not done anything to deserve it at that point in time and the terms of nobel's will are quite clear that it should go to a person who in any given year has done, you know, has given great service to disengage armies or held a global peace conference to bring about change. mr. obama at that time had done nothing of that sort. in fact, he was engaged in two wars which i thought no matter what he had done if you're a sitting head of state engaged in war how can you get the nobel peace prize. when he came out of the white house and said he didn't think he deserved it, i was ready to clap. i thought that was outstanding. i would have clapped if he had then said therefore i cannot accept it at this time. i think that's what he should have done. >> what do you think of al gore getting the nobel peace prize? >> you know, i think that the environment is a critical part of security and peace. i think people understand it that way better than they used to, you know, what the elements of sustainable peace are, not just the absence of armed conflict. it's many, many different elements. i think we definitely are seeing global warming and climate change and it's displacing populations, causing new migrations and now conflicts. so i think it's a worthy recognition. there are many who are agitated that the committee keeps sort of expanding the vision of what peace is. there are some who are very adamant that it should be strictly limited to those who really deal with armies and war, not, you know, peace more broadly defined. i'm somewhere in the middle. >> i have a book on my lap, your picture is on the cover, a title of it is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize." why did you want us to know all of this about your personal life? >> i have a problem with the idealizing of human beings. the glorification, deification in some ways. we use the example of martin luther king, because we know him here in the united states but he was a human being like any other human being. he had his strengths, his weaknesses, his flaws. martin luther king was certainly an amazing leader but he -- there were thousands and millions of people also in that struggle. this is -- this kind of goes back to what i was saying in the beginning of our discussion that in the land mine campaign we were thousands of millions and if everybody saw us as the same, suddenly i get the peace prize and they only want to talk to me. when martin luther king became martin luther king and is now a monument on the mall, which i think he deserves, that's not the issue, but suddenly that individual or mandela or the dalai lama who is in a category of his own since he is sort of god, what normal human being, what ordinary person can ever believe that they could accomplish leadership like that? and i think that does a huge disservice to both the possibility of change and to ordinary people recognizing that we each have power and we can with all our flaw well, can contribute to change. i'm flawed. >> early in the book, you tell us about brother steve. where is steve today? >> my brother has always lived with my parents, except for two times he was institutionalized, one i write about in the book because he was so violent we were concerned he would kill a family member or himself. but he's still living with my mom in vermont. still. >> did you ask him before you wrote this about him? >> no. >> why not? >> i didn't ask anybody's permission. this is my perception of my life. i didn't ask my mom, she was very nervous and i promised her i wouldn't say anything that would, you know, make her friends make fun of her or whatever. i didn't ask permission. not of bobby mueller who hired me to do the land mine campaign, nobody from el salvador, i didn't ask permission. it's my view of the things in my life that affected me that made me very, very human but also made me determined to try to help everybody in the world, including myself. i'm not a saint. >> what did you tell us in the book about your brother steve? >> he was born deaf in 1947, a time when the philosophy of teaching the deaf was to force them into the hearing world. which meant that we were not taught sign. which meant that at the dinner table, for example, pretty much all we could say to him was pass the salt, you know things you could point at. it meant that he was really not involved in daily conversations because we had very rudimentary, homemade -- it also meant that as he became more and more ill with what we finally understood to be schizophrenia, there was no real way to talk to him about what he was feeling. so he would just get brutally angry. if i think about it too much, and i think i write that in the book, i have a really hard time. >> you have a hard time -- >> just thinking about my brother's life. it's sort of a life not lived. he's extremely smart, as many schizophrenics are. but his life was so truncated at first by the lack of communication, then schizophrenia, i just, you know >> but you paint a picture of him with a knife in his hand. did you ever think he was actually going to kill somebody? >> i was scared as hell when my mom and i ran out of the house. i don't know. you know. it was worse later, actually. the part that i didn't write about because by then i was in central america and land mines, my parents tried at one point to get him in the -- in assisted living and it was at the insistence of my sisters, my other brother, myself, you know, when you die, if he isn't capable of managing life, what are we going to do? they tried it with a -- they tried, it was a total fiasco. he started threatening neighbors, you know. so that did not work. he had to be institutionalized again, i think, for another year. then he came back home to mom and dad, finally, after that, he was correctly diagnosed and got medication. so you know, he's a paranoid schizophrenic. >> you group up -- grew up where? >> i was born in the big metropolis of poltney, vermont, midway up the state near new york. then we moved to brattleboro, vermont, we went there so my brother could go to the school for the deaf. >> and mom and dad did what? >> my mom, well was a mother of, at that point, right after we moved, five children my father did a variety of jobs. he had owned his own grocery store in poltney that he had to sell to move. and he ended up getting a job as a traveling salesman with general electric. so he would go out for the whole week and my mom would be left home, at that point with, tissue at that point, we were four, four kids. and she had no break, no car, she had a nervous breakdown and my dad had to quit traveling. he worked for a vending company, ultimately he bought that and mom came back from laying in bed for a year essentially. >> what politics did they follow? >> democrat. my father was extremely anti- republican. viewing it as the party of the rich. the party that didn't care about the needs of -- how i describe my family is living on the rough edges of the middle class. very rough edges. and my father was treated like dirt by people in the depression who were handing out the government money. i don't know, i can't remember what it was called then, to support people who had no work and they happened to be republicans and my father despised republicans. at least the party. he wasn't irrational totally but he despised the party and had no room for anyone who didn't understand that there was structural, you know, inequality and structural reasons for poverty so he was pretty outspoken about that. i think i got a lot of my dad. >> you say you walked away from the catholic church. what year? >> i was 17 years old. >> why? >> i, you know, i have a hard time with being told that i have to accept something on faith even though my reason doesn't -- just can't go there. for example, i had to take catechism, like many catholics who didn't go to catholic school. when i got into my teens i started asking the priest about intention. you know, you have to intend to sin in order to sin. in theory. so i said to him, why is birth control a mortal sin, which means if you die you go to hell, and the rhythm method ok? when in both instances you were intending to avoid pregnancy. to me that's totally logical. why is the pill bad, other ways ok? and he -- the answer was typical of the church that you, you know, you have to accept what god gives you. my thought was if god wants to give you a baby, a little pill isn't going to get in his way. so we fought about that a lot, a lot, a lot. and my other one was the infallibility of the pope. i thought it was patently absurd. how could the pope be infallible when some had had babies. when up until i think like the 12th or 13th century, i'm not quite sure of the date, priests could marry. and then all of a sudden they had to be celibate, they couldn't marry, it had nothing to do with suddenly the pope hearing from god they couldn't marry, it had to do with property. >> where are you in your religious life today? >> that makes me laugh. archbishop tutu and i have had some discourse on that. he kind of wants to convert me in a way. he's very sweet, i love him. on the other hand, his holiness the dalai lama and i were at an event together in hiroshima and he is very amusing. he leans over to me and he says, jody, scientists believe that buddhism is really atheism. so i said, oh, my god, i must be a buddhist. and he said the reason is because buddhists don't believe in god. they believe that, you know, every human being has the possibility of, you know, being great. being energy. all the good things that christians or muslims or hindus are supposed to be. because of their religion. >> 1998, here you are with the dalai lama. >> yeah. >> one of my closest friends had an extremely unpleasant encounter with two men who i wish i could call gentlemen who left her beaten and naked in the street. for many years i had the greatest hope that i would run into them sometime and do the same to them or worse. then i got involved in trying to stop the violence in central america and watched what's happened to people over time who only sought violent revenge against people who have done things to them or people they love. you become them. >> where are you there? >> i think it was university of virginia. i think there were 11 of us peace laureates invited to a conference at the university of virginia. that was my first encounter with the dalai lama. >> how do the peace laureates talk to one another that might be different than the ordinary person? >> when i'm -- i don't know. i know how i talk to them. >> but i mean you get an entree to people you wouldn't otherwise. >> oh, sure. well that's one reason why in 2006, six women, nobel peace laureates came together and created the nobel women's initiative. >> didn't you lead that? >> i have played a large role in fund raising for it. >> why do you want to separate men from women? >> it's not separating. the problem in today's world, as we are all too aware, is that women are still unequal. i would even argue we're not equal in the united states in many ways. if you look at the number of women in the senate, in the house, or on corporate boards. but globally, women are less than unequal. and we believe that by coming together as women and using the peace process to, you know, highlight the work of women around the world working for sustainable peace with justice and equality, we could, you know, maybe lift -- lift up is terrible. we could help women everywhere make change which is good for us all. it isn't that we want to be men or think men are awful. there are awful women, there are awful men. but it is irrefutable that women suffer more in this world. violence against women is a global pandemic. which is one of the reasons why we spearheaded an international campaign to stop race and gender violence and conflict. just like in the land mine campaign, bringing organizations together because together we have a better chance at changing the world. and it wasn't to exclude men. but i point this out all the time. in the history since we established the nobel peace initiative, there have been 12 women. something like 90 men. there's never been a nobel's -- nobel men's initiative. they have never come together. i think it's indicative of how women tend, not always, but how we tend to think about how we together, you know, can make a difference. and i have to be, you know, totally honest, after the nobel women's initiative, i really, really became happy that i had the peace prize. i feel now not only is it a tool for my work but i'm sharing it with women all over the world. it makes sense to me now. >> you have lived for, you know, more than a couple of days, in what places? in other words you lived in environment for how many years? >> 25. i didn't leave until i was 25 years old. i thought i would never leave vermont. >> went to the university of vermont? >> yes. >> studied what? >> psychology after switching my major five times because i wanted to be everything and nothing. >> how many times have you been married? >> bruce is my second husband. i was married for a minute to my high school sweetheart, we shouldn't have married. i didn't love him by the time we married. didn't realize i could just get an apartment and get a job. i was afraid, i got married. >> claude? >> yes. pronounced "clode." his parents were french. sounds better than "clod." >> what does he think about it now that he's mentioned here? >> he is ok with it. he's not a bad guy, we were wrong. he is married, i'm trying to think, the last i knew, i was trying to figure out how old his son is, i think 25. >> exactly how long were you married? >> three years. >> ok, let's go back to the first question, vermont for 25 years and then where else have you lived? >> i lived in mexico for two, then i came to washington, d.c. because i wanted to do international work and washington was international. i did not have an idea of what it meant to do international work. i lived, you know, i refused to move to nicaragua when i was working on nicaraguan hunger. i refused to move to salvador but i spent months in each country over a period of years so i felt like i knew them quite well. >> where else? anywhere else? >> that's it. >> you live now where? >> in fredericksburg, virginia, and westminster, vest vermont. >> you talked about coming to washington, what we're going to show next is a piece of washington and it will give you an opportunity to discuss something that is near and dear to your heart. this is the state department spokesman. >> this administration took a policy review and we decided that our land mine policy remains in effect. >> why? >> why? >> i think we're one of only two nations, somalia is about to sign it, right? so we're going to be the only nation in the whole world who doesn't believe in banning land mines. why is that? >> i'm not sure about that. we had a policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed the convention. >> ian kelly in 2009. what was he saying there and how did that impact you? >> i wished i could say i was shocked, shocked, shocked. i'm not. >> this is the obama administration. >> i know. i know. >> what's he saying? >> he's saying they're not going to sign the mine ban treaty that u.s. national security depends on the anti-personnel land mines. the hypocrisy of that is outstanding to me because the united states has not exported anti-personnel land mines since 1992. we haven't used them the first gulf war, 1991. we haven't produced them since the mid 1990's. we've destroyed millions of our stockpile. in other words, we are obeying the mine ban treaty. why the hell do they continue to refuse to join the treaty? >> let me -- i'll get back to that but we didn't sign the kyoto treaty. we don't like the fact that there's an international court of law, all of that. what is it about this country that when these kind of things come up, they say no? >> i think we're the only -- no, we're not the only. but george w. bush unsigned a treaty, one of the nuclear treaties. the united states believes it's exceptional, meaning everybody except us. meaning that if other nations can be bound by treaties, that's great. you know, it restricts what they can do. but since the united states considers itself to be the guarantor of freedom and, you know, freedom, security, etc., they want to believe that they need to be able to do anything they want in order to, you know, keep us all safe. >> what are the numbers now about land mines and since you've been involved in it, how many have gone away, how much money is spent, who is selling them around the world? >> goodness. i should have looked that up. i haven't worked on the campaign on a daily basis since early 2000's, but i can tell you that there are now 161 nations that are part of the treaty. all of the western hemisphere, except the united states and cuba, all of nato, except the united states, which is totally mind-boggling, especially when the u.s. says it needs land mines to protect its allies. there have been no recorded sales of land mines since the treaty. even countries like china and russia, which have not signed, have stopped producing land mines for export. recognizing the humanitarian concern. >> how many are still out there? >> nobody knows. in the early days, the u.n. kind of pulled a figure out of the air and said there were 100 million in the ground. nobody knows how many there really were. no one is quite sure how many there at -- there are at this point. however, stockpiles have been destroyed, that will never be in the ground. i think we're up to like 60 million land mines have been destroyed from stockpiles that will never be in the ground. 20 countries have now declared themselves mine free, meaning their national demeaning programs have gotten all the mines they could find. that doesn't mean there won't randomly be a mine that's inevitable. as i said there's been no major exporting of mines. i think my husband, who is the chair of the land mine campaign said that only about a dozen countries retain the right to produce mines but something like flee -- like three might be producing. >> how many people die a day? >> there used to be 20,000 people affected every year, we're now down to 4,000. that's still too many. >> and where are they dying of land mines? >> afghanistan, cambodia, angola, croatia. colombia. the farc lays mines. >> the farc is where? >> the revolutionary forces in columbia -- colombia that have been battling the government for 50 years. >> in the beginning when you got involved in this with paid the bills? >> i was asked to create the campaign by the vietnam veterans of america association under bobby mueller, their president. they paid my salary. i helped raise money for my salary. >> who funded them? >> the u.s. government funded some of their work in cambodia. foundations, individual donors like most nongovernmental organizations. >> toughest part of your effort to ban land mines? >> i always say that it was so easy compared to central america that i can't find difficult -- but that's too glossy a picture, i guess. i think when the c.c.w., convention on conventional weapons, which came about after the vietnam war and tied to control things like napalm, land mines, but did not ban them, so we used that treaty as a tool in the first couple of years of the land mine campaign, an organizing tool. getting nongovernmental organizations in different countries involved, pressing their government to amend that treaty to ban land mines and they wouldn't. so for two and a half years we were there pushing and screaming and shouting at all the meetings they had and they did not change that treaty. and if the canadian government had not come out of that experience dedicated to the belief that within one year we could negotiate a mine ban treaty, which they challenged the world to do in ottawa in october of 1996, we wouldn't have a treaty. that was one of those moments that, if they hadn't, i'm not sure what would have happened. at the same time we didn't know they were going to do it until they did it, the day they did it. so i don't know. >> if somebody wanted to get an example of a genuine, card- carrying liberal, are you it? >> i think i'm to the left of liberal. >> and what -- can you give us some markers there, what makes somebody a liberal? we had this debate on this network. >> i'm not sure i can say what makes a liberal. i san say what motivates me. >> fine. >> i am burning with righteous indignation at injustice. i was at a woman's peace conference in santa fe years ago, i tend to get highly impassioned when i speak and during the question and answer period a woman in the back, you know, raised her hand and said, jody williams, how can you be working for peace when you're so angry? you know, can you be an angry person and really be working for peace? my response was, you know, i'm not angry. angry is like if somebody bugs me and i scream at them or i stub my toe because i'm the clumsiest human on the planet and get mad at the table. i am full of righteous indignation. i'm angry at injustice. >> let me interrupt just a second. what's the difference between your righteous indignation and george herbert walker bush and george w. bush both involved in the iraqi situation, weren't they righteously indignant about the injustice of saddam hussein going to kuwait? >> that might be a justifiable intervention. mr. bush the second's intervention, i believe along with many other people in the world, that that was an illegal invasion. we disrupted the lives of how many people? how many did we kill there? both on purpose and collateral damage? and look at the state of that country now. >> but wouldn't you violate the law if you were righteously indignant about what this country was doing? >> i haven't. >> wouldn't you lay down in the middle of the street to stop traffic? >> i would be involved in nonviolent protests, yes. my first arrest actually was outside the south african embassy in the apartheid period when the organizations were coordinating mass arrests on a daily basis, you know. i got arrested then. my sister, nobel peace laureate laurie mcguire of ireland was arrested and myself and others were arrested in lafayette park when mr. bush decided to invade iraq. i believe in nonviolent protests. i believe that is my right under the constitution. i did not pick up a gun and use that to indicate my righteous indignation at injustice. >> anybody in your family own guns? >> my brother has been a hunter since he was 12. >> steve or he other one? >> good god, no. no. my schizophrenic brother's guns were locked away so he couldn't get to them. >> do you talk to your brother about the guns? >> sure. >> what happens between the two of you? what's his politics? >> in the early days i went rabid about it. when i was younger i was very -- oh, i was a little more lacking in sympathy. for lack of a better way of putting it. we used to fight about it. but he has helped me understand that for hunters like himself, he hunts whenever he can, but he cleans his own animals, he eats all the meat he hunts. he's not a -- how does he call them. he's not a trophy hunter, he's not a dirty hunter, is what he calls them, the ones that go out in the night and shine lights in the eyes of an animal so they can stun it and kill it. i think he's mellowed, you know. i don't have a problem necessarily with guns, but i have a problem with unregulated use of -- you know, the ability of anyone and their brother to acquire as many guns as they want. certainly my brother would never hunt an animal with a semiautomatic weapon that would blast its to -- blast it to pieces. so i think we have more sane conversations these days. >> in your book, you tell us the exact moment when you i don't know, how to put this. but when you decided you were attracted physically to your now husband. >> goose. his name is steve goose. >> and he's called goose throughout your book. >> we met banning land mines. >> he was married at the time. >> three children. so this is one of the things that i talked about not being a saint. i'm a normal human being. we were friends and colleagues and we fell in love. and it was very painful. the separation from his family was very painful. with the kids it was very painful. he tried to go home several times and every time i said go, go. >> tell us about the moment, the exact moment. >> the moment was when i was mentioning the convention on conventional weapons that treaty we were unsuccessful in getting amended to ban land mines. two and a half years the campaign had been there, pushing, as i said, yelling, screaming, doing antics, building fake land mine fields for the diplomats to walk across and they would step on a sensor and it would blow up, trying to bring the mines to them. we didn't succeed. and in fact, the treaty was made weaker, so we're done. two and a half years in geneva. in and out all the time. but we're packing up the office and all the campaigners are going down to this pub, pickwick pub in geneva, they went all the time, i didn't go, i didn't like the smoke and the people that much. not the people themselves but i'm a loner so i tend to go to my room and lay down and read that night i decided to go. and we were at the pub and i usually sneak out because i hate good-bye so i was sneaking out to go to the hotel, i had a very early plane the next day back to vermont and all of a sudden steve fwoose was beside me and we were walking back to the hotel, campaigners tended to stay in the same hotel. we get to the frovent door and we hear a voice above us and it's our friend susan, who had been working on the campaign for years with handicap international out of france. she is holding a bottle of wine. you know, being ridiculous, we went upstairs and had more wine. susan, sorry, susan, susan fell over on the bed -- laid down gently on the bed and the next thing we knew she was snoring. all of a sudden, goose and i kissed. it wasn't premeditated, but we kissed. it was like, oh my god. oh, my god. it was too late. i rushed to get on my airplane and it was one of these things where you think, you know, we'd had too much to drink, it was a stupid thing, let's forget about that. two days later, he called me, on a sunday, from his house. and we never talked outside of work time. and it was the most awkward conversation, i can't even remember what was said. it lasted about 45 seconds. but that was when i knew that something -- that something was happening, that i wasn't sure what to do with. >> how did his wife find out? >> he told her. >> what was her reaction? >> you can imagine. fury. she locked him out of the house. >> but he went back. >> he tried. many times. i moved back to vermont. >> did you two have an agreement that you wouldn't talk? >> who? >> you and goose. >> several time he is tried to go home while we were living together. we talked about it. it was very upsetting for all of us. then it got really to be too much. two years later, 1999. and he and i -- and i said go. go back home. i will move -- we were renting a house in alexandria at that point. >> here in virginia. >> yes. i said i'll go back to vermont. so i packed up my u-haul, rented one, packed it up, left the house intact for him. i thought he's in bad shape. i'm not going to denude the house and leave him sleeping on a mattress on the floor. and my dog and i and my sister drove to vermont. i spent i think the first 10 days on the floor weeping in my pajamas. i'm being me lo dramatic but it was -- melodramatic but it was pretty sad. we were not communicating. i said you can't really be trying with your wife if we're communicating. that, you know, obviously doesn't work. and i decide a couple of weeks later to go out to california to see friends. and i got an email. and i was angry. you know, why are you emailing me? what are you trying to do? make sure i'm in pain? yeah, i'm in pain. then he called me. and i told him i was thinking about moving out to l.a. i was going to stay with my friend. she had lost her husband to lung cancer and she was a mess, i was a mess, we figured we'd be great roommates. that kind of freaked goose out. we worked it out and i came back and -- >> married. >> we got married. >> how is it working out? >> he's awesome. he's totally awesome. even with the difficulty, we moved to fredericksburg on february 1, 2001. we still live there. five minutes from his kids so he could be with his kids and they could be with him. because it wasn't about the kids. it was, you know, it sounds dumb but people grow apart in relationships and if they don't really work at them all of a sudden you wake up and how did you get here? >> let me go back to a question i asked you earlier. why do you think anybody wants you to know this about a nobel peace prize winner. >> know which? that or everything i put in the book? >> everything you put in the book. and there's a lot of personal stuff. >> sure. i mean i could have written some glossy ridiculousness, pretended i was close to perfect. >> who wanted you to write this book? >> i wanted to. i want people to understand there's nothing magic about making the world a better place. get up off your butt and participate. >> did goose read this before you -- >> of course. before i even wrote the painful part about our relationship, we talked about it. >> was he concerned about the kids reading this? >> well, yeah. they're now in their mid 20's, you know. >> what do they think of you? >> they hated my guts, of course. >> still? >> no. no. when they started coming around the house, i said -- i never wanted kids. first of all. i knew at 13 i did not want children. so i ended up with a guy who, by the way, is hard of hearing, and had three kids. and so when they first came to the house, you know, i said to them, you don't have to like me, i do not have to like you. however, we will be polite to each other in this house. and when you're obnoxious and i can't take it anymore, i will leave you with your dad and go off to my bedroom and shut the door and read which i'd probably rather be doing anyway. i didn't do it for shock value, i really meant it. when they drove me nuts, i'd go up to my room and shut the door and read. i didn't do it to confuse them, i didn't want to be near them. over time they couldn't believe i didn't want to somehow pretend i was their mother. i'm not their mother. we're very close. >> here's some video. last video, only 30 seconds. >> that's fine. >> something you said in 2007. >> so you end the soviet union, end the threat of communism, how are you going to justify the military expenditure of the united states of america unless you have a global entity of similar scope? you have to have something big enough, scary enough, evil enough to justify continuing the game. i'm sorry, but part of it is a game. part of it is real. i'm no utopian. just because you win the nobel peace prize doesn't mean you become mother theresa and you don't believe that sometimes the use of force is necessary. >> when is the use of force necessary? >> for self-defense only. and i do not buy the argument that extra judicial execution by drones which under international law is murder is self-defense. >> the liberals in this country went, they get very angry with george w. bush about the whole war. why are they not angry with barack obama. >> many of us are. >> but not have more. -- but not very many. >> i think there's not much coverage of it. in the same way there was against mr. bush. >> why is that? >> liberal media. i'm joking. i don't know. if i knew, you know, maybe i could change the world more quickly. i don't know. but i don't think the coverage is there. i think for many people because obama was so different from bush in many ways, there's a lack of desire to analyze and critique his policies the same way one would mr. bush. i, on the other hand, believe that i don't care who the president is, i don't care what his party is, i care what his policies are. and if they are worse than those of mr. bush, they are certainly worthy of criticism. now obama, i think it was within the first two months in office in his first term used drones more than bush had in the eight years of his administration. and nobody said a word. we, you know, we have created a borderless battlefield. we are killing people in countries with which we are not at war. how can we justify this. i was with an international lawyer in geneva recently and he said, sometime, somebody is going to kill a u.s. soldier in nevada, one of the soldiers who goes in every day and you know, does the drone strike, and he said, i am going to have to call that an act of war. legal under the laws of war. he's attacking military target. i am not advocating, i'm just saying how can we kill people wherever we want and believe that it's not going to come back it scares me that we are so complacent. that we are not willing to ask those questions. and it scares me that some people in this country sexually think we have the right to murder. >> the name of the book is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize," won it in 1997. we thank you. >> thank you. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> for a copy of this program call 1-877-66 -7726. for free transcripts or to give us comments about this program, visit us at q-and-a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. coming up, rich prime minister david cameron. later, congressional caucus in preventing internet piracy. on the next washington journal, the record of congress last year. including the keystone xl pipeline. at the supreme court prepares for same-sex marriage cases, we will talk with national organization for marriage. he will break down themo

Transcripts For CSPAN Q A 20130311

>> this week on "q&a," jody williams, winner of the nobel peace prize discusses her recent autobiography titled, "my name is jody williams.? >> jody williams, what role did a pamphlet play in your life? >> i was living here in washington, d.c., it was february of 1981, i was rushing to the metro stop trying to get on the train early and get home to virginia and some scruffy looking individual shoved a pamphlet at me, kind of like you had no choice but to take it and you and i are old enough to remember mimeograph, the ink came off on my hands and i was getting annoyed but i looked at it, and it said, el salvador, another vietnam. my first protest was against vietnam, and so when i saw el salvador compared to vietnam, i was interested. i ended up going to a meeting, and i volunteered, shoving those same mimeographed pamphlets into people's hands trying to educate people. >> who handed out those pamphlets? >> the committee for solidarity with the people of el salvador, i worked with them for a few months, but then i thought since the reagan administration was taking a regional approach to south america, i thought their approach should be regional and they disagreed. >> where did the money come from? >> i wasn't paid. >> but for the organization? >> i think it was all donations. but i'm not sure, i was just a volunteer. >> who cared about el salvador back then? >> reagan, if you remember, was drawing the line against communism anywhere he could and in his view, nicaragua was a communist state, cuba is a never-ending thorn in the side of american politics and salvador, the revolutionary movement had a rhythm after several elections in a row were overthrown and on the reagan side they wanted to draw the line against communism and it was in central america. i was a hippie out of the 1960's and 1970's, as i said, my first protest was vietnam. when i learned again that the u.s. was intervening in the internal politics of countries that should not matter to the united states in those terms, it brought up my frustrations about the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, the re- emergence of the women's movement and made me realize that i really believed i had to to something to try to shift u.s. policy. >> i want to ask you a question that you've never been asked before. >> sure. >> what impact did the nobel peace prize have on you? >> it was certainly a fabulous tool for my work. >> you haven't been asked that before, have you? >> never. never. i received it individually but also the international campaign to ban land mines which i was founding coordinator of also received it. i believe the work of that campaign as the engine, the push to push government to do what they should have done anyway, ban land mines, deserves recognition. >> what year? >> it was in 1997. >> go back to 1997. >> sure. >> when was the first time after you received this award that you said, oh, my goodness. this matters to people. >> the nobel prize? >> yeah. and how did you see it? >> you know, i hadn't ever really thought about it much except a woman i knew from central america had received it in the early 1990's, a mayan indian who had been involved in the struggle, many of her family members were killed. and the person responsible for a all of that is now standing trial for crimes against humanity, which is amazing. but i didn't think about it much. i think the intervention of internet and all of that has made an understanding of the peace prize more accessible than it was. i never really thought about it. then all of a sudden, this thing happens, all of a sudden, people who would talk to anyone in the campaign before only wanted to talk to me. i found it intrusive. i found it very disturbing. i thought it was demeaning to my colleagues in the campaign. we were all working together and why i was all of a sudden was my voice the only one they wanted to hear? so i had a very hard time, actually, adjusting to the prize. it took me five or six years. >> what did you do to adjust? >> i spent quite a few years very confused, to be quite honest, when i would go home after speaking, sometimes i would just cry in frustration and confusion. i knew about land mines, i knew about building a campaign, i knew about building a global coalition to bring about change. but that doesn't mean that suddenly you're mother theresa, that you're saintly, that, you know, you can answer anything in the world by virtue of this wisdom that falls upon you with the peace price, that's absurd. >> who picks it? >> it's a committee of five in norway. i think their term in office or whatever is about five years and they can serve on the committee two terms in a row. those phi people plus the secretary of the nobel committee there. there are nominations made every year, at the beginning of the year, they have to be in by february 1. then the committee meets, i think five times in the year rm i learned these things after i met the committee, of course. and i liked the ones that, you know, i met. then they meet about five times a year. and the first meeting is to just discard all the ridiculous nominations. some truly are absurd. then they start to narrow it down to nominations that they think have some merit and they hand them out to researchers. >> who nominated you? >> lots of people. we found out after the fact, one person i do know who nominated me and the campaign was congressman jim mcgovern of massachusetts. he and joe smoke lee, the late joe moakley, had been strong supporters of our work in el salvador. i knew him personally as a congressperson and whenever we were having trouble, they were always there. you know. i have a great affection for him. >> back in 1997 when the announcement came out, were you anticipating it? >> we knew we were front runners. >> how did you know? >> we knew we?d been nominated. mcgovern wasn't the only one, there was a woman from sweden who i think at the time was the head of their foreign relations committee, she had nominated us. then i heard later that others had as well. and when we were in norway negotiating the treaty, which was in september of 1997 was the last phase of the negotiation of the mine ban treaty, journalists started coming up to us and saying how do you feel abouting if being a frontrunner and our response was, we're not here to discuss the peace prize. >> we've got a picture we'll put on the screen, where is that picture? you can see it back there. >> that's my house in vermont. that's the morning that we received the call. and about 4:00 in the morning. my now husband and i were in bed, we had just celebrated the night before, my 47th birthday with my family. and all of a sudden the phone rings and the guy says, in a nor bee january accent that he was from norwegian television and he wanted to know where i'd be in 40 minutes. and i wanted to swear at him actually, what the hell? and i said, i'm in bed, i'll be here. he called back and then he said, i've been authorized to tell you that jody williams and the international campaign to ban land mines is receiving the nobel peace prize for 1997. it was stunning. i jumped up and pulled on the same clothes that we had on the day -- i'd had on the day before. i had this hideous vision of some photo journalist out in a tree in my yard with a telephoto lens, you know, i wanted clothes on. and i didn't want photos that people would be screaming but put your clothes on. so just pulled on what i had by the bed and went downstairs and there were already five journalists sitting on the stoop and it was 5:00 a.m. i invited them in, gave them coffee, we started talking and they were the last ones i let in the house that day. >> i want to show some video of you from a documentary, "u.n. me," you were interviewed by horowitz. this shows a different side of jody williams. >> sure. >> the report cannot be considered comprehensive, objective, authentic, and accurate and suffers from the lack of credibility. >> my last point is on credibility, it's not about ours, it's ability yours. the world hung its head in shame and said never again, too many of us have lost hope that never again seems to have no applicability whatsoever in darfur. when will the world hang its head in shame again and our job is to attempt to try to alleviate the suffering of the people of darfur who are being raped, pillaged, and burned while political wrangling goes on here in the hallowed halls of the united nations. thank you. >> there are 20 or 30 recommendations and one was implemented. not a great batting average. >> correct. the reason they send one is not because they particularly care about the report or tar fur they did it because they have to show the council does something or it won't continue to exist. >> horowitz's take wasn't very popular. >> that's the first time i've seen that tape. i don't generally watch myself. it's too easy to second-guess what you might have said, could have said, should have said. i have great dismay about the human rights commission which is what i was reporting on darfur. there are other parts of the u.n. i have problems with. but there are some wonderful human beings in the united nations that are trying really hard to make a difference. you know, the body didn't exist, some body should exist like it. i think it is in desperate need of reform. i think that the security council as it stands now is a ridiculous throwback to the cold war. i don't think it reflects, you know, the power and the powerful emerging economies and militaries if you will in today's world. particularly the human rights commission. i have no respect whatsoever. >> put this in context from your perspective. recently when the state of the union message was delivered by the president of the united states and the answer on the other side or another point of view was given, they ended, at some point in the speech they said, the united states is the greatest country in the history of the world. >> some people believe that. >> what about you? >> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. i do believe that maybe many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by the boot straps, i think every year that is less and less and les probable. but the united states especially in foreign policy, which is what i've worked on for years and year, is not a great nation. it's an interventionist state, it's extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i can't imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring their system of government the way we did in iraq, for example. can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that's ok? and yet somehow we still in this country have a myth that people are thrilled when we invade them. that's insane. i believe 99% of the time, we create new enemies and i think especially now with the drone warfare going on under mr. obama, which is much worse than under bush, which i never expected, i think we're creating new enemies for the future. >> what did you think of president obama getting the nobel peace prize? >> well, i said this before in public so i don't have a problem saying it again. i don't think it was his problem so to speak, i think the committee made a gross error of judgment. he has not done anything to deserve it at that point in time and the terms of nobel's will are quite clear that it should go to a person who in any given year has done, you know, has given great service to disengage armies or held a global peace conference to bring about change. mr. obama at that time had done nothing of that sort. in fact, he was engaged in two wars which i thought no matter what he had done if you're a sitting head of state engaged in war how can you get the nobel peace prize. when he came out of the white house and said he didn't think he deserved it, i was ready to clap. i thought that was outstanding. i would have clapped if he had then said therefore i cannot accept it at this time. i think that's what he should have done. >> what do you think of al gore getting the nobel peace prize? >> you know, i think that the environment is a critical part of security and peace. i think people understand it that way better than they used to, you know, what the elements of sustainable peace are, not just the absence of armed conflict. it's many, many different el 789s. -- elements. i think we definitely are seeing global warming and climate change and it's displacing populations, causing new migrations and now conflicts. so i think it's a worthy recognition. there are many who are agitated that the committee keeps sort of expanding the vision of what peace is. there are some who are very adamant that it should be strictly limited to those who really deal with armies and war, not, you know, peace more broadly defined. i'm somewhere in the middle. >> i have a book on my lap, your picture son the cover, a title of it is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize.? why did you want us to know all of this about your personal life? >> i have a problem with the idealizing of human beings. the glorification, deification in some ways. we use the example of martin luther king, because we know him here in the united states but he was a human being like any other human being. he had his strengths, his weaknesses, his flaws. martin luther king was certainly an amazing leader but he -- there were thousands and millions of people also in that struggle. this kind of goes back to what i was saying in the beginning of our discussion that in the land mine campaign we were thousands of millions and if everybody saw us as the same, suddenly i get the peace prize and they only want to talk to me. when martin luther king became martin luther king and is now a monument on the mall, which i think he deserves, that's not the issue, but suddenly that individual or mandela or the dalai lama who is in a category of his own since he is sort of god, what normal human being, what ordinary person can ever believe that they could accomplish leadership like that? and i think that does a huge disservice to both the possibility of change and to ordinary people recognizing that we each have power and we can with all our flaw well, can contribute to change. i'm flawed. >> early in the book, you tell us about brother steve. where is steve today? >> my brother has always lived with my parents, except for two times he was institutionalized, one i write about in the book because he was so violent we were concerned he would kill a family member or himself. but he's still living with my mom in environment. still. >> did you ask him before you wrote this about him? >> no. >> why not? >> i didn't ask anybody's permission. this is my perception of my life. i didn't ask my mom, she was very nervous and i promised her i wouldn't say anything that would, you know, make her friends make fun of her or whatever. new york i didn't ask permission. not of bobby mueller who hired me to do the land mine campaign, nobody from el salvador, i didn't ask permission. it's my view of the things in my life that affected me that made me very, very human but also made me determined to try to help everybody in the world, including myself. i'm not a saint. >> what did you tell us in the book about your brother steve? >> he was born deaf in 1947, a time when the philosophy of teaching the deaf was to force them into the hearing world. which meant that we were not taught sign. which meant that at the dinner table, for example, pretty much all we could say to him was pass the salt, you know things you could point at. it meant that he was really not involved in daily conversations because we had very rudimentary, homemade -- it also meant that as he became more and more ill with what we finally understood to be schizophrenia, there was no real way to talk to him about what he was feeling. so he would just get brutally angry. if i think about it too much, and i think i write that in the book, i have a really hard time. >> you have a hard time -- >> just thinking about my brother's life. it's sort of a life not lived. he's extremely smart, as many schizophrenics are. but his life was so truncated at first by the lack of communication, then schizophrenia, i just, you know >> but you paint a picture of him with a knife in his hand. did you ever think he was actually going to kill somebody? >> i was scared as hell when my mom and i ran out of the house. i don't know. you know. it was worse later, actually. the part that i didn't write about because by then i was in central america and land mines, my parents tried at one point to get him in the -- in assisted living and it was at the insistence of my sisters, my other brother, myself, you know, when you die, if he isn't capable of managing life, what are we going to do? they tried it with a -- they tried, it was a total fiasco. he started threatening neighbors, you know. so that did not work. he had to be institutionalized again, i think, for another year. then he came back home to mom and dad, finally, after that, he was correctly diagnosed and got medication. so you know, he's a paranoid schizophrenic. >> you group up -- grew up where? >> i was born in the big metropolis of poltney, vermont, midway up the state near new york. then we moved to brattleboro, vermont, we went there so my brother could go to the school for the deaf. >> and mom and dad did what? >> my mom, well was a mother of, at that point, right after we moved, five children my father did a variety of jobs. he had owned his own grocery store in poltney that he had to sell to move. and he ended up getting a job as a traveling salesman with general electric. so he would go out for the whole week and my mom would be left home, at that point with, tissue at that point, we were four, four kids. and she had a nervous breakdown and my dad had to quit traveling. he worked for a vending company, ultimately he bought that and mom came back from laying in bed for a year essentially. >> what politics did they follow? >> democrat. my father was extremely anti- republican. viewing it as the party of the rich. the party that didn't care about the needs of -- how i describe my family is living on the rough edges of the middle class. very rough edges. and my father was treated like dirt by people in the depression who were handing out the government money. i don't know, i can't remember what it was called then, to support people who had no work and they happened to be republicans and my father despised republicans. at least the party. he wasn't irrational totally but he despised the party and had no room for anyone who didn't understand that there was structural, you know, inequality and structural reasons for poverty so he was pretty outspoken about that. i think i got a lot of my dad. >> you say you walked away from the catholic church. what year? >> i was 17 years old. >> why? >> i, you know, i have a hard time with being told that i have to accept something on faith even though my reason doesn't -- just can't go there. for example, i had to take catechism, like many catholics who didn't go to catholic school. when i got into my teens i started asking the priest about intention. you know, you have to intend to sin in order to sin. in theory. so i said to him, why is birth control a mortal sin, which means if you die you go to hell, and the rhythm method ok? when in both instances you were intending to avoid pregnancy. to me that's totally logical. why is the pill bad, other ways ok? and he -- the answer was typical of the church that you, you know, you have to accept what god gives you. my thought was if god wants to give you a baby, a little pill isn't going to get in his way. so we fought about that a lot, a lot, a lot. and my other one was the infallibility of the pope. i thought it was patently absurd. how could the pope be infallible when some had had babies. when up until i think like the 12th or 13th century, i'm not quite sure of the date, priests could marry. and then all of a sudden they had to be celibate, they couldn't marry, it had nothing to do with suddenly the pope hearing from god they couldn't marry, it had to do with property. >> where are you in your religious life today? >> that makes me laugh. archbishop tutu and i have had some discourse on that. he kind of wants to convert me in a way. he's very sweet, i love him. on the other hand, his holiness the dalai lama and i were at an event together in hiroshima and he is very amusing. he leans over to me and he says, jody, scientists believe that buddhism is really atheism. so i said, oh, my god, i must be a buddhist. and he said the reason is because buddhists don't believe in god. they believe that, you know, every human being has the possibility of, you know, being great. being energy. all the good things that christians or muslims or hindus are supposed to be. because of their religion. >> 1998, here you are with the dalai lama. >> yeah. >> one of my closest friends had an extremely unpleasant encounter with two men who i wish i could call gentlemen who left her beaten and naked in the street. for many years i had the greatest hope that i would run into them sometime and do the same to them or worse. then i got involved in trying to stop the violence in central america and watched what's happened to people over time who only sought violent revenge against people who have done things to them or people they love. you become them. >> where are you there? >> i think it was university of virginia. i think there were 11 of us peace laureates invited to a conference at the university of virginia. that was my first encounter with the dalai lama. >> how do the peace laureates talk to one another that might be different than the ordinary person? >> when i'm -- i don't know. i know how i talk to them. >> but i mean you get an entree to people you wouldn't otherwise. >> oh, sure. well that's one reason why in 2006, six women, nobel peace laureates came together and created the nobel women's initiative. >> didn't you lead that? >> i have played a large role in fund raising for it. >> why do you want to separate men from women? >> it's not separating. the problem in today's world, as we are all too aware, is that women are still unequal. i would even argue we're not equal in the united states in many ways. if you look at the number of women in the senate, in the house, or on corporate boards. but globally, women are less than unequal. and we believe that by coming together as women and using the peace process to, you know, highlight the work of women around the world working for sustainable peace with justice and equality, we could, you know, maybe lift -- lift up is terrible. we could help women everywhere make change which is good for us all. it isn't that we want to be men or think men are awful. there are awful women, there are awful men. but it is irrefutable that women suffer more in this world. violence against women is a global pandemic. which is one of the reasons why we spearheaded an international campaign to stop race and gender violence and conflict. just like in the land mine campaign, bringing organizations together because together we have a better chance at changing the world. and it wasn't to exclude men. but i point this out all the time. in the history since we established the nobel peace initiative, there have been 12 women. something like 90 men. there's never been a nobel men's initiative. they have never come together. i think it's indicative of how women tend, not always, but how we tend to think about how we together, you know, can make a difference. and i have to be, you know, totally honest, after the nobel women's initiative, i really, really became happy that i had the peace prize. i feel now not only is it a tool for my work but i'm sharing it with women all over the world. it makes sense to me now. >> you have lived for, you know, more than a couple of days, in what places? in other words you lived in environment for how many years? >> 25. i didn't leave until i was 25 years old. i thought i would never leave vermont. >> went to the university of vermont? >> yes. >> studied what? >> psychology after switching my major five times because i wanted to be everything and nothing. >> how many times have you been married? >> bruce is my second husband. i was married for a minute to my high school sweetheart, we shouldn't have married. i didn't love him by the time we married. didn't realize i could jest get an apartment and get a job. i was afraid, i got married. >> claude? >> yes. pronounced ?clode.? his parents were french. sounds better than "clod." >> what does he think about it now that he's mentioned here? >> he is ok with it. he's not a bad guy, we were wrong. he is married, i'm trying to think, the last i knew, i was trying to figure out how old his son is, i think 25. >> exactly how long were you married? >> three years. >> ok, let's go back to the first question, vermont for 25 years and then where else have you lived? >> i lived in mexico for two, then i came to washington, d.c. because i wanted to do international work and washington was international. i did not have an idea of what it meant to do international work. i lived, you know, i refused to move to nicaragua when i was working on nicaraguan hunger. i refused to move to salvador but i spent months in each country over a period of years so i felt like i knew them quite well. >> where else? anywhere else? >> that's it. >> you live now where? >> in fredericksburg, virginia, and westminster, vest vermont. >> you talked about coming to washington, what we're going to show next is a piece of washington and it will give you an opportunity to discuss something that is near and dear to your heart. this is the state department spokesman. >> this administration took a policy review and we decided that our land mine policy remains in effect. >> why? >> why? >> i think we're one of only two nations, somalia is about to sign it, right? so we're going to be the only nation in the whole world who doesn't believe in banning land mines. why is that? >> i'm not sure about that. we had a policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed the convention. >> ian kelly in 2009. what was he saying there and how did that impact you? >> i wished i could say i was shocked, shocked, shocked. i'm not. >> this is the obama administration. >> i know. i know. >> what's he saying? >> he's saying they're not going to sign the mine ban treaty that u.s. national security depends on the anti-personnel land mines. the hypocrisy of that is outstanding to me because the united states has not exported anti-personnel land mines since 1992. we haven't used them the first gulf war, 1991. we haven't produced them since the mid 1990's. we've destroyed millions of our stockpile. in other words, we are obeying the mine ban treaty. why the hell do they continue to refuse to join the treaty? >> let me -- i'll get back to that but we didn't sign the kyoto treaty. we don't like the fact that there's an international court of law, all of that. what is it about this country that when these kind of things come up, they say no? >> i think we're the only -- no, we're not the only. but george w. bush unsigned a treaty, one of the nuclear treaties. the united states believes it's exceptional, meaning everybody except us. meaning that if other nations can be bound by treaties, that's great. you know, it restricts what they can do. but since the united states considers itself to be the guarantor of freedom and, you know, freedom, security, etc., they want to believe that they need to be able to do anything they want in order to, you know, keep us all safe. >> what are the numbers now about land mines and since you've been involved in it, how many have gone away, how much money is spent, who is selling them around the world? >> goodness. i should have looked that up. i haven't worked on the campaign on a daily basis since early 2000's, but i can tell you that there are now 161 nations that are part of the treaty. all of the western hemisphere, except the united states and cuba, all of nato, except the united states, which is totally mind-boggling, especially when the u.s. says it needs land mines to protect its allies. there have been no recorded sales of land mines since the treaty. even countries like china and russia, which have not signed, have stopped producing land mines for export. recognizing the humanitarian concern. >> how many are still out there? >> nobody knows. in the early days, the u.n. kind of pulled a figure out of the air and said there were 100 million in the ground. nobody knows how many there really were. no one is quite sure how many there at -- there are at this point. however, stockpiles have been destroyed, that will never be in the ground. i think we're up to like 60 million land mines have been destroyed from stockpiles that will never be in the ground. 20 countries have now declared themselves mine free, meaning their national demeaning programs have gotten all the mines they could find. that doesn't mean there won't randomly be a mine that's inevitable. as i said there's been no major exporting of mines. i think my husband, who is the chair of the land mine campaign said that only about a dozen countries retain the right to produce mines but something like flee -- like three might be producing. >> how many people die a day? >> there used to be 20,000 people affected every year, we're now down to 4,000. that's still too many. >> and where are they dying of land mines? >> afghanistan, cambodia, angola, croatia. colombia. the farc lays mines. >> the farc is where? >> the revolutionary forces in columbia that have been battling the government for 50 years. >> in the beginning when you got involved in this with paid the bills? >> i was asked to create the campaign by the vietnam veterans of america association under bobby mueller, their president. they paid my salary. i helped raise money for my salary. >> who funded them? >> the u.s. government funded some of their work in cambodia. foundations, individual donors like most nongovernmental organizations. >> toughest part of your effort to ban land mines? >> i always say that it was so easy compared to central america that i can't find difficult -- but that's too glossy a picture, i guess. i think when the c.c.w., convention on conventional weapons, which came about after the vietnam war and tied to control things like napalm, land mines, but did not ban them, so we used that treaty as a tool in the first couple of years of the land mine campaign, an organizing tool. getting nongovernmental organizations in different countries involved, pressing their government to amend that treaty to ban land mines and they wouldn't. so for two and a half years we were there pushing and screaming and shouting at all the meetings they had and they did not change that treaty. and if the canadian government had not come out of that experience dedicated to the belief that within one year we could negotiate a mine ban treaty, which they challenged the world to do in ottawa in october of 1996, we wouldn't have a treaty. that was one of those moments that, if they hadn't, i'm not sure what would have happened. at the same time we didn't know they were going to do it until they did it, the day they did it. so i don't know. >> if somebody wanted to get an example of a genuine, card- carrying liberal, are you it? >> i think i'm to the left of liberal. >> and what -- can you give us some markers there, what makes somebody a liberal? we had this debate on this network. >> i'm not sure i can say what makes a liberal. i can say what motivates me. >> fine. >> i am burning with righteous indignation at injustice. i was at a woman's peace conference in santa fe years ago, i tend to get highly impassioned when i speak and during the question and answer period a woman in the back, you know, raised her hand and said, jody williams, how can you be working for peace when you're so angry? you know, can you be an angry person and really be working for peace? my response was, you know, i'm not angry. angry is like if somebody bugs me and i scream at them or i stub my toe because i'm the clumsiest human on the planet and get mad at the table. i am full of righteous indignation. i'm angry at injustice. >> let me interrupt just a second. what's the difference between your righteous indignation and george herbert walker bush and george w. bush both involved in the iraqi situation, weren't they righteously indignant about the injustice of saddam hussein going to kuwait? >> that might be a justifiable intervention. mr. bush the second's intervention, i believe along with many other people in the world, that that was an illegal invasion. we disrupted the lives of how many people? how many did we kill there? both on purpose and collateral damage? and look at the state of that country now. >> but wouldn't you violate the law if you were righteously indignant about what this country was doing? >> i haven't. >> wouldn't you lay down in the middle of the street to stop traffic? >> i would be involved in nonviolent protests, yes. my first arrest actually was outside the south african embassy in the apartheid period when the organizations were coordinating mass arrests on a daily basis, you know. i got arrested then. my sister, nobel peace laureate laurie mcguire of ireland was arrested and myself and others were arrested in lafayette park when mr. bush decided to invade iraq. i believe in nonviolent protests. i believe that is my right under the constitution. i believe in nonviolent protests. i believe that is my right under the constitution. i did not pick up a gun and use that to indicate my righteous indignation at injustice. >> anybody in your family own guns? >> my brother has been a hunter since he was 12. >> steve or he other one? >> good god, no. no. my schizophrenic brother's guns were locked away so he couldn't get to them. >> do you talk to your brother about the guns? >> sure. >> what happens between the two of you? what's his politics? >> in the early days i went rabid about it. when i was younger i was very -- oh, i was a little more lacking in sympathy. for lack of a better way of putting it. we used to fight about it. but he has helped me understand that for hunters like himself, he hunts whenever he can, but he cleans his own animals, he eats all the meat he hunts. he's not a -- how does he call them. he's not a trophy hunter, he's not a dirty hunter, is what he calls them, the ones that go out in the night and shine lights in the eyes of an animal so they can stun it and kill it. i think he's mellowed, you know. problemhave a necessarily with guns, but i have a problem with unregulated use of -- you know, the ability of anyone and their brother to acquire as many guns as they want. certainly my brother would never hunt an animal with a semiautomatic weapon that would blast its to -- blast it to pieces. so i think we have more sane conversations these days. >> in your book, you tell us the exact moment when you i don't know, how to put this. but when you decided you were attracted physically to your now husband. >> goose. [laughter] his name is steve goose. >> and he's called goose throughout your book. >> we met banning land mines. >> he was married at the time. >> three children. so this is one of the things that i talked about not being a saint. i'm a normal human being. we were friends and colleagues and we fell in love. and it was very painful. the separation from his family was very painful. with the kids it was very painful. he tried to go home several times and every time i said go, go. >> tell us about the moment, the exact moment. >> the moment was when i was mentioning the convention on conventional weapons that treaty we were unsuccessful in getting amended to ban land mines. two and a half years the campaign had been there, pushing, as i said, yelling, screaming, doing antics, building fake land mine fields for the diplomats to walk across and they would step on a sensor and it would blow up, trying to bring the mines to them. we didn't succeed. and in fact, the treaty was made weaker, so we're done. two and a half years in geneva. in and out all the time. but we're packing up the office and all the campaigners are going down to this pub, pickwick pub in geneva, they went all the time, i didn't go, i didn't like the smoke and the people that much. not the people themselves but i'm a loner so i tend to go to my room and lay down and read that night i decided to go. and we were at the pub and i usually sneak out because i hate good-bye so i was sneaking out to go to the hotel, i had a very early plane the next day back to vermont and all of a sudden steve fwoose was beside me and -- goose was beside me and we were walking back to the hotel, campaigners tended to stay in the same hotel. we get to the frovent door and -- front door and we hear a voice above us and it's our friend susan, who had been working on the campaign for years with handicap international out of france. she is holding a bottle of wine. you know, being ridiculous, we went upstairs and had more wine. susan, sorry, susan, susan fell over on the bed -- laid down gently on the bed and the next thing we knew she was snoring. all of a sudden, goose and i kissed. it wasn't premeditated, but we kissed. it was like, oh my god. oh, my god. it was too late. i rushed to get on my airplane and it was one of these things where you think, you know, we'd had too much to drink, it was a stupid thing, let's forget about that. two days later, he called me, on a sunday, from his house. and we never talked outside of work time. and it was the most awkward conversation, i can be the can't even remember what was said. it lasted about 45 seconds. but that was when i knew that something -- that something was happening, that i wasn't sure what to do with. >> how did his wife find out? >> he told her. >> what was her reaction? >> you can imagine. fury. she locked him out of the house. >> but he went back. >> he tried. many times. i moved back to vermont. >> did you two have an agreement that you wouldn't talk? >> who? >> you and goose. >> several time he is tried to go home while we were living together. we talked about it. it was very upsetting for all of us. then it got really to be too much. two years later, 1999. and he and i -- and i said go. go back home. i will move -- we were renting a house in alexandria at that point. >> here in virginia. >> yes. i said i'll go back to vermont. so i packed up my u-haul, rented one, packed it up, left the house intact for him. i thought he's in bad shape. i'm not going to denude the house and leave him sleeping on a mattress on the floor. and my dog and i and my sister drove to vermont. i spent i think the first 10 days on the floor weeping in my pajamas. i'm being me lo dramatic but it was -- melodramatic but it was pretty sad. i -- we were not communicating. i said you can't really be trying with your wife if we're communicating. that, you know, obviously doesn't work. and i decide a couple of weeks later to go out to california to see friends. and i got an email. and i was angry. you know, why are you emailing me? what are you trying to do? make sure i'm in pain? yeah, i'm in pain. then he called me. and i told him i was thinking about moving out to l.a. i was going to stay with my friend. she had lost her husband to lung cancer and she was a mess, i was a mess, we figured we'd be great roommates. that kind of freaked goose out. we worked it out and i came back and -- >> married. >> we got married. >> how is it working out? >> he's awesome. he's totally awesome. even with the difficulty, we moved to fredericksburg on february 1, 2001. we still live there. five minutes from his kids so he could be with his kids and they could be with him. because it wasn't about the kids. it was, you know, it sounds dumb but people grow apart in relationships and if they don't really work at them all of a sudden you wake up and how kid you get here? >> let me go back to a question i asked you earlier. why do you think anybody wants you to know this about a nobel peace prize winner. >> know which? that or everything i put in the book? >> everything you put in the book. and there's a lot of personal stuff. >> sure. i mean i could have written some glossy ridiculousness, pretended i was close to perfect. >> who wanted you to write this book? >> i wanted to. i want people to understand there's nothing magic about making the world a better place. get up off your butt and participate. >> did goose read this before you -- >> of course. before i even wrote the painful part about our relationship, we talked about it. >> was he concerned about the kids reading this? >> well, yeah. they're now in their mid 20's, you know. >> what do they think of you? >> they hated my guts, of course. >> still? >> no. no. when they started coming around the house, i said -- i never wanted kids. first of all. i knew at 13 i did not want children. so i ended up with a guy who, by the way, is hard of hearing, and had three kids. and so when they first came to the house, you know, i said to them, you don't have to like me, i do not have to like you. however, we will be polite to each other in this house. and when you're obnoxious and i can't take it anymore, i will leave you with your dad and go off to my bedroom and shut the door and read which i'd probably rather be doing anyway. i didn't do it for shock value, i really meant it. when they drove me nuts, i'd go up to my room and shut the door and read. i didn't do it to confuse them, i didn't want to be near them. over time they couldn't believe i didn't want to somehow pretend i was their mother. i'm not their mother. we're very close. >> here's some video. last video, only 30 seconds. >> that's fine. >> something you said in 2007. >> so you end the soviet union, end the threat of communism, how are you going to justify the military expenditure of the united states of america unless you have a global entity of similar scope? you have to have something big enough, scary enough, evil enough to justify continuing the game. i'm sorry, but part of it is a game. part of it is real. i'm no utopian. just because you win the nobel peace prize doesn't mean you become mother theresa and you don't believe that sometimes the use of force is necessary. >> when is the use of force necessary? >> for self-defense only. and i do not buy the argument that extra judicial execution by drones which under international law is murder is self-defense. >> the liberals in this country went, they get very angry with george w. bush about the whole war. why are they not angry with barack obama. >> many of us are. >> but not have more. -- but not very many. >> i think there's not much coverage of it. in the same way there was against mr. bush. >> why is that? >> liberal media. i'm joking. i don't know. if i knew, you know, maybe i could change the world more quickly. i don't know. but i don't think the coverage is there. i think for many people because obama was so different from bush in many ways, there's a lack of desire to analyze and critique his policies the same way one would mr. bush. i, on the other hand, believe that i don't care who the president is, i don't care what his party is, i care what his policies are. and if they are worse than those of mr. bush, they are certainly worthy of criticism. now obama, i think it was within the first two months in office in his first term used drones more than bush had in the eight years of his administration. and nobody said a word. we, you know, we have created a borderless battlefield. we are killing people in countries with which we are not at war. how can we justify this. this? i was with an international lawyer in geneva recently and he said, sometime, somebody is going to kill a u.s. soldier in nevada, one of the soldiers who goes in every day and you know, does the drone strike, and he said, i am going to have to call that an act of war. legal under the laws of war. he's attacking military target. i am not advocating, i'm just saying how can we kill people wherever we want and believe that it's not going to come back -- it scares me that we are so complacent. that we are not willing to ask those questions. and it scares me that some people in this country sexually -- actually think we have the right to murder. >> the name of the book is "my name is jody williams: a vermont girl's winding path to the nobel peace prize," won it in 1997. we thank you. >> thank you. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> for a copy of this program call 1-877-66 -7726. for free transcripts or to give us comments about this program, visit us at q-and-a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. >> looking ahead at our live coverage on the c-span network, following "washington journal" at 10:00 a.m. eastern, aarp hosts discussion on federal benefits and cost-of-living adjustments. over ron c-span2, the morning panels of the american public transportation association's annual legislative conference. that begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. later on c-span 3, we will pick up a panel on funding for a federal transportation programs. remarks from transportation secretary ray lahood. next on "washington journal," environmental issues in congress. then as the supreme court prepares to take up cases on a same-sex marriage, we will speak with brian brown. later, the special inspector later, the special inspector general for

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20130307

senator from florida, i know he and i both know, as i hope does every member of this body, just how precious and fragile the freedom is that we enjoy in this country. as president reagan continued in that speech, if we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth. and this idea that government is beholding to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. this is the issue of this election. whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the american revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan for our lives better than we can plan them ourselves. you and i are increasingly told that we have to choose between a left or right. well, i'd like to suggest there's no such thing as left or right. there's only up or down. up, man's old age dream, the ultimate and individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of owe toa tal tehranism totalitarianism. those who would trade freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. given the top of this discussion, the asserted power of the president to take the life of a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil without due process of law, that last portion bears reading again. those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course to the ant heap of totalitarianism. in this vote harvesting time, they use terms like the great society, or as we were told a few days ago by the president, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. but they've been a little more ex applies it in the past and among themselves. and of all of the things i now will quote have appeared in print. these are not republican accusations. for example, they have voices that say -- quote -- "the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." another voice says "the profit motive has become outdated. it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." or -- quote -- "our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." senator fulbright has said at stanford university that the constitution is outmoated -- outmoded. he referred to the president as -- quote -- "our moral teacher and our leader, and he says he is hobbled in his tasks by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." let me read that one again, too, because that also is very applicable to the discussion this evening. he referred to the president as -- quote -- "our moral leader and -- our moral teacher and our leader, and he says he is -- quote --"hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." the constitution. he must -- quote -- "be freed so he can do what he knows is best." and senator clark from pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman defines liberalism as meeting the needs of the masses through the full power of the centralized government. i for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men of this country as -- quote -- "the masses." that is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in america. but beyond that, the quote full power of our centralized government, this was the very thing the founding fathers sought to minimize. they knew that governments don't control things, that government can't control the economy without controlling people. and they know that when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. they also know these founding fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. one fourth of farming in america is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. three four of -- three-fourths of the farming has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. and i am going to skip further along. to the end of this speech, which i will confess not unlike the speeches given on this floor, was not a short speech. i will move to the end where president reagan continued and said, "those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. they call their policy accommodation. and they say we'll only avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. we cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the iron curtain give up your dreams of freedom because to save your skins we're making a deal with your slavemasters. alexander hamilton said a nation said a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserved one. now, let's set the record straight. there's no argument over the choice between peace and war. but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace and you can have it in the next second. surrender. admitally there's a -- admitally there's a risk but every lesson tells us the greater risk lies in appeasement and this is the specter that we face. you and i know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. if nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin? you and i have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay. there is a point beyond which they must not advance. and this, this is the meaning in the phrase of barry goldwater's "peace through strength." winston churchill said the destiny of man is not measured by material k078 pew taitions -- computations. when great forces are on the move in the world we learn we're spirits, not animals. and he said there's something going on in time and space that beyond time and space which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. you and i have a rendezvous with destiny. we'll preserve for our children, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. we will keep in mind and remember that barry goldwater has faith in us. he has faith in you and i to have the ability and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. that path, the path of standing and fighting for freedom, even when it seems daunting, even when it seems the gestalt of the moment, is on the other side. , is a path with many only forebears and i can tell you speaking and echoing the sentiment of the millions in twitter, of the people following this stand for principle tonight, that if the 100 senators of this body stand together and say regardless of party, liberty will always prevail, regardless of party, the constitution is the governing body, the governing document in this nation, then we will be doing our jobs. and i commend you, senator paul, for a lonely stand that as the night has worn on has not proven quite so lonely. and indeed, were you the only senator standing at his desk this evening, it would not be lonely in that circumstance, either, because you would be standing shoulder to shoulder with millions of americans that do not wish the federal government to assert arbitrary power over our lives, over our liberty, over our property, but who instead want a government that remains a limited government of enumerated powers that protects the god-given rights each of us is blessed to have. and the question i ask of you, what in your judgment is america without liberty? who are we if we are not a free people? mr. paul: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from texas for his remarks. i think he's hit it exactly on the head and the question is a very pertinent question. the question is really where do we go from here? i see this as a struggle, i see that we're engaged in an epic struggle but it's not a struggle between republicans and democrats. it's a struggle between the president and the constitution. the question is, does the president have the power and the prerogative to have his way regardless of the constitution? the question is, does the attorney general get to say that he will adhere to the fifth amendment when he chose -- chooses to? is there a cloudy skies for american citizens on american soil that they either get the fifth amendment protections or they don't get the fifth amendment protections? so this really is a struggle, not only between the president and the constitution but between the senate and the congress and the president to say whether or not the president gets to determine this policy or whether this is a policy that should come from congress. i think we should be asking not just for the president to give his memos on drones, we should be giving him our memos on drones. we need to be dictating the law to the president and not action questioning and giving the president this authority. this should be a battle between the executive and the legislative, it should involve republicans and democrats trying to restrain the president from saying he has the ability to decide when you get fifth amendment protections and when you don't. at this time i would without yielding the floor like to entertain a question from the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you. first of all let me congratulate the junior senator from texas on a fantastic question. in that question he referred, he used shakespeare references, used reference to the movie "patton" one of the great movies. i didn't bring my shakespeare book so let me begin by quoting a modern-day poet, whiz califa, "work hard, play hard." you look at the time, i think it's a time when many of our colleagues expected to be back in the home state playing hard, but i'm happy that we're here still working hard on this issue. it'sle the twng stng request if you watch from home, here in the audience of people watching on the news or whatever what's going on here because i think it's important to explain what's happening here. what's happening is pretty straightforward. the senator from kentucky has asked a question of the administration. it's a pretty straightforward question. is it constitutional for the federal government to kill a noncombatant u.s. citizen in the united states? and we all have strong feelings about that program, we all have strong feelings about the war on terror, these are all legitimate issues but this is a very direct question that's been asked. and what would have resolved this hours ago from my understanding and if i'm incorrect, the senator from kentucky will correct me in a moment, my understanding is he has offered two ways to bring this to a resolution. one is just a statement from the white house, a clear, unequivocal statement that says, of course, it's unconstitutional, it's not going to happen, just a straightforward statement of that magnitude. in fact, i've been watching on television over the last few hours, i saw the senator from kentucky say they reached out the white house, they've been unable to get a direct response. maybe that's changed in the interim. i don't know, we'll hear from him in a moment. the other is and i hear he made a motion to have a resolution here that made it clear that was the sense of this body. that the sense of this body would be that this is unconstitutional. again, pretty straightforward. i'm not sure even those among us who are, let's just say those among us who believe this program is necessary, i don't know anybody in this body who believes a noncombatant u.s. citizen in the united states not doing anything of imminent danger should somehow be killed by the u.s. government. nor do people at home believe that either. so that was the sense of the senate that this is the case, and in exchange for that vote, the vote for mr. brennan would move forward and that's been rejected. this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. i go to a great american phaou shreu, "the -- great american movie, "the godfather." he says i'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse. to me, these are straightforward offers he can't refuse. they have been refused. i think that is pretty stunning. the third thing i want to say is i want to you imagine what this conversation would be like tonight if the president was george w. bush and if this issue was about george w. bush. just imagine that for a moment now. if he had been asked this direct question and refused to answer, what this chamber would look like tonight, what the arguments being made would be like tonight. imagine that for a moment. that takes me back to another modern-day he poet by the name of jay-z. one of the things he wrote it's funny how seven days can change. it was all good a week ago. things really have changed. if the president was george w. bush and this was a question being asked of him and his response was the silence we've gotten, we'd have a very different scenario tonight except i actually believe the senator from kentucky would be on the floor making the exact same arguments he's making. i want everybody that's watching to clearly understand, and if i'm wrong the senator from kentucky is going to correct me in a moment, what he's asking is a simple, straightforward response. or if we can't get that, a simple and straightforward response from the members of this body in a sense of the senate resolution. both have been rejected. the last observation that i would have tonight is that there have been some pretty phenomenal legal analysis done on the floor. that reminds me of the most famous quote from "the godfather" never actually used in the movie. i don't know how that happened. maybe they cut it out. here's the quote: a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than 100 men with guns can steal. i don't know how that is relevant to this but i thought it was a pretty good quote and i thought i'd bring it up. i went to law school. i was a land use and zoning attorney which meant if i wound up in court something went horribly wrong with the land use application. we've had good arguments tonight on constitutional issues with regard to this. i think it's important to discuss. it's important for the people at home to fully understand what the legal arguments are here because they are important. they go to the heart of our constitution. they go to the heart of our civil liberties. they go to the heart of the things that distinguish our nation. i think what's really stunning to me, clearly the constitutional issue is important, is how simple and straightforward this issue is and how easily it could have been resolved. i don't know how many hours we're into this now, but i think it's about 11 hours and 15 minutes, because we can't get a straightforward answer. and the members of this body deserve that. the members of this body deserve an answer, no matter what party you're in, no matter what party the president is in. this is a legitimate question that's being asked. and all this could be over if we could just get a straightforward answer. and i think that's something every member of this body should care about. it's not a republican question. it's not a conservative question. it's a constitutional question, a relevant question, one that should be easy to answer. and the idea that they're refusing to answer it for some reason -- i don't know if it's pride or because they think it's beneath them or they got something else going on or maybe it snowed too much today and the answer department was shut down. either way, i just don't understand how they can't answer this straightforward question. it reminds me of another line from the godfather when he says don't ever take sides against the family again. that is kind of what's happening here. as an institution, we deserve to have answers to these questions. we have a job that we're held responsible for, that we're held accountable for. 30 years from now, 40 years from now, 20 years from now, 10 years from now, these sorts of decisions will have ramifications long after all of us here are gone, there will be other people here in these chairs. maybe it's our children, our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren will visit this building and they will read about the time we served here. and if we're making mistakes, history will record those mistakes and hold us accountable for those mistakes. if things are happening today that set the groundwork for things in the future because that's the other thing we need to remember, no matter how you feel about the current president, he's not going to be president forever. but the precedents he sets could very well guide what future presidents do. and so the point is that if we are laying the groundwork here today, making mistakes by not asking certain questions, history will hold us accountable for that. and that's all of us. not one of us, not five of us. not the republican part of the senate. all of us. we have a right to ask these questions and to get these questions answered. that's not being obstructionist. that's not being partisan. that's being a senator. and i'll tell you i've only been here two years, but i know enough of this process already to know that every single one of us at some point when the majority changes, when a new president is elected, at some point every single one of us is going to want to know an answer to a question to the administration or some other branch or element of government, and they're going to hold us off. they're going to give us the heisman. they're going to stiff arm us and try to push us aside and not answer the question. i would hope at that moment whether you agree with that person or not, that you would stand and defend their prerogative and their right as a representative of their state to get legitimate questions answered in a straightforward way. and so as i said earlier today when i came to the floor, this issue is about this institution as much as anything else, about the right of every single member of this body to be able to ask legitimate questions of the administration or other branches of government and get a straightforward answer. and so i guess the question that i would have for the senator from kentucky, the junior senator from kentucky, that i'll ask here in just a moment, the question that i would ask of the junior senator from kentucky, just to clarify, my understanding is that this issue could have been brought to resolution quite a long time ago if the white house had either, a, made their feelings well known in a statement. you can put that out there in 30 seconds and it will be done. just come out and say it, that it is unconstitutional to kill u.s. citizens that are noncombatants who are in the united states. that's one route. the other thing that could have ended this is the unanimous consent motion that he made to have this body vote on a sense of the senate. that would have brought it to a vote. is that abg senate are those the -- is that accurate? mr. paul: that is the sequence of things. we've been in contact with the white house throughout the night, made several phone calls to the white house. we told them we're willing to allow a vote on the brennan nomination. all we're asking in return is we get a clarification on whether or not they believe they have the authority under the constitution to target americans on american soil. and i think it's a question that's fair to ask. we've been willing to let them have the vote at any time, earlier tonight obviously as well as in the morning. all we've asked in return from the white house is a clarification. the last report i got from the white house is they were done talking tonight. i hope that doesn't mean they're done talking tomorrow. i really think this struggle is an important struggle, and i think that there really needs to be clarification from the white house before this goes forward because this is a point in time when the question has been raised and it's important for them, i think, to answer the question that the fifth amendment is not optional. you don't get to choose to adhere to the fifth amendment. it applies to u.s. citizens on u.s. soil, and there are no exceptions to that. with that, i would -- without yielding the floor, i'd like to entertain a question from the senator from south dakota, if he has one. mr. thune: i thank the senator from kentucky for yielding for a question, and i appreciate his diligence in continuing in this late hour in trying to get answers to some very important questions. i think many of us, when we got up and came in here this morning were preparing and getting ready for the big blizzard of 2013 which of course never materialized here in washington, d.c. but evidently there are a lot of agencies of government that weren't here today, and perhaps when they get back, maybe the senator from kentucky will get an answer to his question. i think it's a really straightforward question. i'm someone this evening who has supported the use of drones in fighting the war on terror. i think they have been very effective in killing terrorists, people who want to do harm to the people of this country. but i think that the question that's been raised by the senator from kentucky and the reason why we are here this evening has to do with a straightforward issue. and he's got a sense of the senate that he's prepared to have the senate go on record on, and it's very simple and very straightforward. it says resolved that it is the sense of the senate that, number one, the use of drones to execute or to target american citizens on american soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the constitutional due process rights of citizens. number two, the american people deserve a clear, concise and unequivocal public statement from the president of the united states that contains detailed legal reasoning, including but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatment of citizens and noncitizens within and outside the borders of the united states. the use of lethal force against american citizens and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within united states territory. it is a very straightforward resolution, a sense of the senate. and all that the senator from kentucky is simply doing is trying to get a response, get a vote on that, make that the statement here in the united states senate and obviously get the president of the united states, the white house, and mr. brennan whose nomination is pending before us to make a clarification on that point. it's not like this issue popped up overnight. the senator from kentucky has been trying for some time to get answers to this question. he submitted numerous letters and addressed to mr. brennan a letter here. this is one i'm quoting from, february 12, in which he pulls his numerous questions, one of which is: do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike against a united states citizen on u.s. soil? what about the use of lethal force against a nonu.s. person on u.s. soil? these are straightforward questions, madam president, to which the senator from kentucky deserves an answer. and this is a perfectly fitting and appropriate time in which to try and get that answer. the nomination of the c.i.a. director. it's an incredibly important and strategic position in this country. and, of course, under the constitution of the united states, article 2, section 2, this is the -- the president has the power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. he shall nominate and by and with the advice of the consent, shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and councils, judges of the supreme court and other officers of the united states. so it's the advise and consent power that the united states senate has under the constitution that this, the senator from kentucky is exercising on this nomination. and, madam president, again, it's been pointed out many times on the floor of the senate today, this is not something that is a partisan issue. it is not a democrat or republican issue. this is something that has ramifications. it's a constitutional question. it has to do with due process under law. it has to do with the advise and consent power in the constitution of the united states senate. and so when the senator from kentucky continues to press the administration for a straightforward answer and he continues to get sort of these vague, ambiguous answers, if you will -- and again, these are questions that have -- it's not like this popped up overnight. back on january 25 of this year in 2013, the senator from kentucky posed of mr. brennan a series of questions at that time. and the follow-on letter which i quoted on earlier here was on february 12. he put forward questions such as: do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the executive branch that it is legal to order the killing of american citizens and it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion? do you believe this is a good precedent for the government to set? he goes on to ask another question: would it not be appropriate to require a judge or court to review every case before the individual in question is added to a targeting list? please describe the due process requirements in place for those individuals being considered for addition to a targeting list. would you agree that it is paradoxical that the federal government would need to go before a judge to authorize a wiretap on a u.s. citizen overseas but possibly not to order a lethal drone strike against the same individual? if not, please explain kwrubl something seupl -- why you believe something similar to the fisa standard should not be used with regard to legal actions against united states citizens. madam president, these are straightforward questions. these are questions to which i believe the senator from kentucky deserves an answer. many of us here this evening are here to support him in that endeavor in his attempt to at least try as this nomination moves through the process, get the answers to the questions that would allow him to perform the advise and consent function that is in the united states constitution as it applies to nominations and as it is, has implemented here by united states senators in history. i just want to say to the senator from kentucky, and i have a question for him in just a moment that it really is remarkable to see this process unfold. in my time here, and i came in the 2004 election, started with my service to the united states senate in january of 2005, i've not seen a time where we had a senator who as a matter of principle stood down here for the number of hours that he has today and insisted on getting some answers. and i give him great credit for the job that he has done in pressing this issue. he's not been given that answer yet. it sounds like kind of come up to the line a couple of times. it's very simple. he could put this thing to rest. all they have to do is come forward and answer that very simple question about the legal authority to target american citizens on american soil with drone attacks. it doesn't seem to me, at least, that would be that hard of a question to answer. they say as a matter of policy, they haven't done, that they don't have any intention of doing it in the future, why don't we just put this issue to rest once and for all and the senator from kentucky will allow the process to go forward and mr. brennan can get his vote. but i think in the time at least that i've been here, it certainly is -- is remarkable to me to see the amount of effort that the senator from kentucky has put forward in trying to answer a very straightforward question. and for that i give him great credit because it's a principled stand, something that too often we don't see enough of around here. and to stand down here and use his powers as a united states senator in a way that's very fitting with the tradition and history of this great institution, you look at the united states senate and those who have come before and the place -- the great characters of our history, clay and calhoun and others who have graced the united states senate and some of the great debates that have occurred in the past, and it's nice to see us discussing and debating a major constitutional issue, a major constitutional question. and i, like many of my colleagues who are here this evening, support the senator from kentucky in his quest to get answers. i think it's certainly appropriate. i think it certainly should be expected that the administration respond to what are very straightforward questions with regard to the issue that's been raised by the senator and i would hope that that question or that answer will become -- will be forthcoming. if it's not, it's entirely possible, i suppose, that this could continue for some time into the future. but in any event, i would ask the senator from kentucky if -- what it would take in terms of a -- some sort of affirmation, some sort of answer, some sort of response from the white hou house, from the nominee, the director of the c.i.a. to satisfy the question that he has raised? it seems to me, at least as a senator from south dakota, that the question you've posed is a straightforward and simple one and merely requires a very simple answer. mr. paul: madam president, i thank the senator from south dakota for his remarks and would make the comment that i, like he, have seen things that the drones can do to protect our soldiers and no one's arguing against that. no one's reall arguing against g drones to defend our country against any kind of attack. what we are arguing is that noncombatants in our country are due fifth amendment protections and that the white house should acknowledge this. this is important because the drone strikes overseas, when looking at the category and looking at the way they're being done and under what standards, there are some of those standards that we don't think are appropriate for u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. so we're asking for a clarification. we think attorney general holder got close to that today under the duress of cross-examination. we'd like to see him do it voluntarily in a nice, concise statement and we'd be happy to vote on the brennan no, ma'am nations any as -- brennan nomination as early as tomorrow morning. i'd like to yield the time to the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: yeah, i thank my colleague from kentucky. and first let me say i think our mutual constituents have certainly learned -- mr. durbin: madam president, was there a unanimous consent request? mr. mcconnell: would senator kentucky yield for a question? mr. paul: yes. mr. mcconnell: first, let me say -- i thank my friend from kentucky. first, let me thank him for his courage and conviction. having been here awhile in the senate, i -- we've only rarely, as senator thune pointed out, had extended debate on -- on any matter. a body that came into existence for the purpose of lengthy discussions of weighty issues has in recent years had very little lengthy discussion of weighty issues. and if i understand the issue the senator from kentucky feels so passionately about is that the administration should answer a question that is pretty easily stated, as i understand it, as follows: does the administration take the view that a drone strike against a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil would be an appropriate use of that weapon? am i correct that that's the question that the senator from kentucky hopes to get an answer to from the administration? mr. paul: yes. mr. mcconnell: and it's -- i assume the senator from kentucky shares my view that it's pretty easily understood question? it strikes me that that's a question pretty easily understood and has to be something the administration's given some thought to given the development of this new weapon. i heard senator barrasso earlier today just talking about how this technology has really changed -- we would never have thought of this a few years ago, this technology has actually changed warfare in a very dramatic way. and so as i understand it, what the senator from kentucky's looking for is the question of how this dramatic, new weapon applies to the u.s. constituti constitution, the use of it applies to the u.s. constitution on american soil. and so i think it's entirely appropriate that the senator from kentucky engage in an extended debate with the support of his colleagues to get the answer to this question. and i wanted to congratulate him for his tenacity, for his conviction, and for being able to rally the support of a great many people and also people who have come over from the house of representatives who feel also, i gather, that this is a legitimate question that the administration ought to be answering. and i might say, at whatever point we get to a cloture vote to extend debate on the nomination of brennan, it is my view that cloture should not be invoked. this is a controversial nominee. should cloture be invoked, i intend to oppose the nomination and congratulate my colleague from kentucky for this extraordinary effort. mr. paul: thank you. madam president, i want to thank the minority leader for his remarks and for his insightful questions. the question about whether or not the president has actually gotten involved with what would the rules be has actually been somewhat broached. he was asked at google about whether this could occur and he said, well, the rules would have to be different outside than inside. so it implies that they have thought about what the rules should be inside. but to my knowledge, no one in the intelligence committee has been informed what the rules are inside. it troubles me that they think they have the authority to do targeted drone strikes inside, particularly when there are examples where the twin towers and 1941 pearl harbor, those would be attacks that you would repulse no matter who you knew was coming in, they wouldn't be a targeted strike on an individual at a designated time. you would repulse those attacks militarily and they really wouldn't even fall into the category of what we're talking about here as targeted drone strikes. you might use drones but they wouldn't really be what we're talking about, nor is the question we've been asking all day. so they've answered a question, just not the question we asked. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from kentucky. mr. paul: madam president, i'd like to yield for a question from the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i -- i would like to spend a couple of moments here revisiting the context in which this discussion occurred. i want to commend the senator from kentucky for raising what i think is an extremely important, extremely important issue and forcing the attention of this body to this issue at a -- at an appropriate time, which he has done. and i might add, at great personal inconvenience to himself. this really arose from a letter that the senator from kentucky sent to mr. brennan, the nominee for director of central intelligence, and the response that he got. and i want to -- these are short letters and i want to review this so that it's very clear exactly what was posed and what the response was and where we are at the moment in this debate. the letter from the senator from kentucky begins, "dear mr. brennan: in consideration of your nomination to be the director of central intelligence agency, the c.i.a., i have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are u.s. citizens. your past actions in this rega regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the c.i.a. if it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the executive branch by the constitution, then the senate should not confirm you to lead the c.i.a. " and clearly this is the idea that is under scrutiny this evening. the letter goes on to say, "during your confirmation process in the senate select committee on intelligence, committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions i have raised in my previous letter to you, that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against u.s. citizens, especially when operating on u.s. soil. in fact, the chairman of the ssci, the senate select committee on intelligence, senator feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the administration could carry out drone strikes inside the united states. in your response, you emphasize that the administration -- quote -- "has not carried out" such strikes and -- quote -- "has no intention of doing so." i do not find this response sufficient. now, let me just add editorial editorially, i don't know anyone could find that sufficient. it clearly is an evasion of the question. that doesn't answer the question that was posed by senator feinstein, just as we haven't been able to get a question -- an answer to the question posed by the senator from kentucky. the letter goes on to say, "the question that i and many others have asked is not whether the administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the united states but whether it believes it has the authority to do so? this is an important distinction that should not be ignored. and this, of course, goes to the heart of the question. does this administration believe that it has the authority to carry out a lethal strike by a drone against an american citizen on american soil? the letter goes on to say, "just last week, president obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. instead of addressing the question of whether the administration could kill a u.s. citizen on american soil, used a similar line that 'there has never been a drone used on an american citizen on american soil.'" the evasive replies from the administration to this valid question have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer. i'd say that's a -- again, this is my editorial comment. i think that's a generous ateasment. when a direct question is asked and the party to whom the question is directed repetitively evades the question, it makes you seriously wonder what their intentions are. the letter goes on to say, "for that reason, i once again request you answer the following question: do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil and without a trial? i believe the only acceptable answer to this is no. until you directly and clearly answer, i plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the administration's policies on the use of lethal force. the american people are rightly concerned and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies. sincely, rand paul, u.d., united states senator. and i have to say, this is a very straightforward and simple question. it's been posed clearly. it's been posed repeatedly. and now i want to share with -- with you, madam president, the answer, such as it is, that we've received, the most recent answer that was directed to senator -- the senator from kentucky which, again, i would suggest is not responsive to the question. a letter dated march 4 to senator paul, on february 20, 2013, you, referring to senator paul, wrote to john brennan about the administration's view about whether the president has a power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike on a u.s. soil. the letter goes on to say as members of this administration have previously indicated the u.s. government has not carried out drone strikes in the united states and has no intention of doing so. as a policy matter-hourover we reject the use of military force where law enforcement authority provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. we have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals who pose a threat to the united states and its interests abroad. hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism related offenses. the question is therefore hypothetical, unlikely to occur and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. it is possible, i suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the united states, for the president to authorize the military use of lethal force within the territory of the united states. for example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack such as the one suffered on december 7, 1941 and september 11, 2013. were such a circumstance to arise i would examine the facts and circumstances before advising the president on the scope of his authority. the reason i read the entire letter is i didn't want anyone to think any part of this was taken out of context or anything was being left out. i think when you read the entire letter in response to the entire letter that was sent as a request, i think it's very clear. this administration refuses to answer a simple and very important and very legitimate question. our attorney general suggests that under certain set of circumstances which he won't specify any guiding principles or rules that would allow us to understand those circumstances, he would examine the facts and circumstances and then advise the president on the scope of his authority. there's no suggestion of what legal authority he has to do this. there's no description of the constitutional authority. i find this very, very disturbing. you know, we've all observed the very new developments that we're experiencing in national security. the minority leader alluded to this in some respects. as i mentioned earlier today, there's no question we have a relatively new phenomenon in our national security challenges. it's only in very recent times that we've come to understand the nature of a whole new kind of enemy. it's not just the nation state anymore. which has historically been the nature of military threats. but now there's a very different kind of threat, dispersed, somewhat affiliated, sometimes asphail phil yaited, geographically widespread network of terrorists. that's very different from the traditional nation state. that's a different kind of threat and we've spent a lot of time trying to come to terms with how to address this. and in an overlapping period of time. a new technology has emerged that gives us the ability from vast distances away to send a very sophisticated unmanned aircraft that is quite lethal and quite capable of destroying a target. and i think most of us probably feel that there are many cases where this is an appropriate tool under appropriate set of circumstances. but frankly, i think it should be the subject of an ongoing discussion. how would we use this? under what circumstances does the president have unlimited unilateral authority or not? that's a discussion we ought to have about the use of this technology overseas. where i think, as i say, i think it has a very important, very useful, very legitimate function. but when we're talking about using this, the american government using this military asset to kill american citizens on american soil, i'm a little shocked that there isn't an automatic presumption that that's not permissible. certainly not legal. i can't understand the constitutional basis for that and i would certainly suggest that the burden ought to be on those who would suggest that that is permissible. and so what the senator from kentucky has done is said just tell us the answer to this question, do you believe that you actually do have this authority, and could you tell us that. you know, if they believe that they have this authority -- and since they won't answer unequivocally that they lack the authority -- it's hard to infer anything other than that perhaps they think they do have this authority. it obviously raises a whole lot of very, very important questions. like under what circumstances would you feel like you have the authority to exercise this power? and exactly whom would be targeted? how would you describe -- decide whom to target? in the event you were carrying out a strike using lethal force of this magnitude on american soil against an american citizen, what kind of criteria would govern your judgment about the risks that would be imposed on innocent people who are in the vicinity? and what about any judicial review at all? would there be any appropriate role? because, of course, we have a very long tradition of a due process. you know, there are a local of americans who have serious reservations about the idea of -- of indefinite detention on american soil. indefinite detention is pretty tame compared to being destroyed by a drone. so i would just suggest that the failure of the administration to answer this basic question of whether or not they believe they've got the authority to do something that's completely unprecedented is a very fundamental and important question and completely legitimate, and it is completely appropriate, i think, for this body to insist on an answer to this question before we would go ahead and confirm a person who would have enormous power and authority over a variety of national security issues. so i just want to commend the senator from kentucky for really putting a bright light on this issue. this is a very important issue, and as i mentioned earlier, he's done it at great personal inconvenience to himself because he has a passionate commitment to the liberty of the american citizens, he manifests that all the time in many ways and this is one of the ways he's doing it and i commend him for that and i would just conclude my question by addressing the senator through madam president, my question for the senator is has there been any change in the status of the lack of response from the administration since the last time we have heard from -- from the administration? mr. paul: madam president, we have been asking the question to the white house all day and we've said all along we would allow the vote to proceed forward but we haven't gotten any response from the white house. and the consideration of whether or not we will get a response tonight, i think it's unlikely. we'll keep pressing the issue in the morning as well. with regard to the senator's remarks, i think one of the things i hope will come out of this debate will be that we will reassert our authority as a -- a function of the separation of powers where our body will say to the president we not only would like your drone memos on how you think you can do this, but really we should reassert our authority and tell to the president this is how we think you should do it and this is the law that's going to dictate and circumstance circumscribe how you will do this. that's an authority i think has been long necessary and we've been letting go by the side and i think we should reassert. at this time, madam president, i'd like to yield -- mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. paul: without relinquishing the floor i'll yield to a question. mr. durbin: i apologize to my friend from wisconsin. i know he's been waiting. the question asked by the senator from pennsylvania prompted me to recall a specific set of circumstances which i think address his concerns, our mutual concerns about the use of lethal force. i know that we're talking about this in the context of drones, but a drone is a weapon. and there are other weapons by which our government can use lethal force to kill people. so i think going to the question that you asked mr. brennan, in a more generic sense the question is when can our government use lethal force in the united states against perhaps u.s. citizens? i think it's a legitimate question. i was not misleading the senator earlier when i said there's a scheduled hearing, the only scheduled hearing on this question coming up before the judiciary subcommittee on constitution which i chair, and the ranking member, senator cruz of texas, who was here earlier. so i think it's important, and it's an important constitutional question, but i'd just like to say while the gentleman, my colleague from pennsylvania is here i'd like to recount a set of circumstances for him and then pose a question to you. the circumstances were 9/11, 2001. some of us we're in this capitol building. in fact, just outside this door. and as we came to work we heard that some plane had crashed into the world trade center in new york. as we were watching on television, a few minutes after 9:00, a second plane crashed into the world trade center. the add jainging about building. we all know what happened following that. in a meeting here just a few feet away we started seeing billowing smoke coming across the mall right outside our window here. a third plane taken over by these terrorists was crashing into the pentagon. what we didn't know at the time was there was a fourth plane. but we evacuated the capitol. and all of us, literally everyone raced out of this building to stand on the lawn outside. it wasn't a safe place but we didn't flow where to go. all the tourists, all the staff and all the rest. it wasn't a few minutes, we were out there and we heard something that sounded like a shot, a discharge of a weapon. in fact, it was fighter planes that were being scrambled to protect the united states capitol. at that time the order had gone out to all commercial airplanes in the united states, land immediately. so that we would know who was in our airspace and not responding to that command. it turns out there was one fourth plane involved and that plane crashed in pennsylvania, we believe because of the heroism and bravery of the passengers on board who when they realized what was happening tried to take control of that plane before it could be used as a weapon. many people believe that plane was aimed for this building, for for someplace in washington, d.c. we had scrambled our military planes and had that plane not crashed into the countryside in pennsylvania and come within the airspace of this capitol, i think we know what would have happened. our government would have used lethal force, military lethal force to shoot down a civilian airplane that was threatening, we believe threatening the lives of innocent americans. it would have been the use of health force on our soil to stop a person or persons whom we believed were terrorists about to kill innocent americans. so when i listened to the response from attorney general holder in hypothetical and put it in the context of 9/11, i can imagine that president bush might have been called on in an instant to make a decision as commander in chief to bring down the fourth plane before it crashed into another building and killed innocent people. now, that's a circumstance i'd say to the senator from pennsylvania and the senator from kentucky which i fully understand and expect the commander in chief to respond to. so i don't think this is such a clear and easy situation. it's important that we have this hearing and explore the many possibilities, the possibility of a terrorist overseas who threatens our safety and the use of lethal force, drones or otherwise. the possibility of a non-u.s. terrorist in the united states and the use of lethal force to deter them and then obvious questions, what if it's a u.s. citizen overseas, what if it's a u.s. citizen in the united states? i've joined ten other senators asking for the same legal memos which i you would like to see as well, justifying whatever course of action this administration has used. i think it is a legitimate constitutional responsibility of the senate and the house and this congress, but i also understand having lived through as all of us ca did in some respect 9/11, the complexity of those decisions that have to be made in such a fashion. so my question to you as i said before, we have to end with a question mark, don't you consider the situation of 9/11 and the use of lethal force, even military force to shoot down a civilian plane if it had survived the passenger effort in pennsylvania and was headed for the u.s. capitol, to be a legitimate exercise of a commander in chief to protect the united states? mr. paul: madam president, absolutely, my answer to the question that the senator raises is absolutely we have the right to defend ourselves, and it would have been a decision that has to be made imminently because a lethal threat needs to have a lethal response immediately. my whole problem with this whole debate is none of us disagree with that, i don't think. we all agree you can repel an imminent attack. we all agree if someone is outside the capitol with a rocket launcher, grenade launcher, lethal force can be used against them. none of us disagree with that. we're talking about a targeted drone program where we target individuals. overseas the standard seems to include people who are not actively engaged in combat who we think either might be in the future or have been in the past. i don't think that standard can be used in the united states. i think when you're in a battlefield, you don't get due process. if you're shooting at americans drones can hit you any time. missiles can hit you. there is no due process in a battle. this is a big debate because many have said the battlefield is here. but if the battlefield is here, that would imply that the fifth amendment doesn't apply here. the president said he will use the fifth amendment in the process of deciding drone attacks overseas, but he doesn't get the option to kind of use it privately. using the fifth amendment privately to me is not really using the fifth amendment. i will say i have a great deal of respect to the senator from illinois. we've often been on the same side on civil liberties issues. i don't question that you and i may well see eye to eye on this issue that targeted killings of people in restaurants and their house, in a hotel is not something that we can or will tolerate t. contravenes the constitution. it is a simple question. the president should simply answer that question. i think attorney general holder was coming in the direction of that. but why is it so hard? why is it like pulling teeth to get them to admit that they don't have this power? presidents need to more easily say, by golly, no, the constitution says you can't do that. the fifth amendment does apply. there are no exceptions to the fifth amendment for american citizens on american soil. that's all we're asking. but i think the 9/11 comparison or pearl harbor is a red herring in the sense none of us disagree with repelling an imminent lethal attack, ongoing lethal attack with lethal force. no one disagrees with that. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question without yielding the floor? the white paper presented to us by the justice department concludes the right to national self-defense and the 2001 authorization to use military force gave the u.s. government lethal authority to kill a u.s. citizen in a foreign country that is not an area of active hostilities. if the target is a senior operational leader of al qaeda or an associated force, so it's qualified in that regard. the white paper argues such an attack does not violate the constitutional rights of the u.s. citizen in this circumstance -- quote -- "if heposes an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states. number two, his capture is not feasible. and the justice department white paper goes on to say and the operation complies with law or principles such as the need to minimize collateral damage. i will say to the senator i stand with him. i want an answer to his question and i think we should pursue it on a bipartisan basis as we have many issues together in the past. i think it is a legitimate question. but i would say that the white paper that we've been given relative to this u.s. citizen overseas has some fairly narrow circumstances in terms of the use of force. when it comes to the use of that force in the united states, i believe the circumstances should be just as narrow if not more. i would just say to the senator i am genuine in my concern for bringing these issues out in a full hearing of our constitutional subcommittee. i think i have to end the question and i hope he appreciates my sincerity. mr. paul: madam president, in quick response to that, one of the few problems with that is they also go on to say that imminent doesn't need to be immediate. you're also complying you can kill this american -- i implying you can kill the american in a nonbattlefield. the debate about whether that is a sufficient standard for america, it's not. to kill someone not in combat, one, it's not wise. you're not going to get any information. when someone is eating dinner, why don't you send the police over and arrest them? to kill someone in a noncombat situation in america is unacceptable under any circumstances. and i think we need to come to an agreement on that. madam president, i would like to yield for a question to the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: the senator from kentucky, obviously all of us have come down here to support, i think, your very legitimate request to have a legitimate question answered. i think you deserve those answers. and if not an answer from the white house, you at least deserve a vote. i started watching here this morning. you started about 11:57. it's now past midnight. i think my primary action is one of being puzzled. i've been here for two years, never served in any kind of legislative body. certainly came to the united states senate thinking this was the world's greatest deliberative body. and what i found is a body which is utterly dysfunctional. this is actually one of the best examples of how this body ought to work. it's also an example of that dysfunction. i cannot believe that this issue has not been resolved within a half-hour, within an hour. just take a vote. you know, we have a number of our colleagues from the house coming here in support of the senator from kentucky. the house is operating, i believe, as our founders intended. they are passing budgets. they're debating issues. they're passing real pieces of legislation that unfortunately are being dropped over here in the united states senate where those good pieces of legislation is dying. and that's a real shame. for example, i serve on the budget committee of the united states senate. i've been on that budget committee for two years. we have not yet voted on a budget in the budget committee. this is, by the way, when this nation is facing a fiscal crisis unlike anything we've really faced in our history. we've racked up for four years now, where our debt succeeds $1 trillion -- exceeds $1 trillion. we haven't even brought to the floor an appropriations bill all year long. how can we function as a body if this is how it operates? now, a number of republican senators joined the president and his invitation for dinner tonight. it was an excellent dinner. it was a genuine, sincere, open discussion of the fiscal problems facing this nation. i was part of a group of 44 senators a year and a half ago, almost two years now, that also joined the president prior to the final debate on the first debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. the president of the united states leaving that meeting should have come away with a very strong understanding that those 44 republican senators were incredibly sincere in their desire to work with the president, to work with our colleagues across the aisle to solve these problems. i'll tell you, i'm one united states senator that ran for office not to become a united states senator, but because we're losing this country. we're bankrupting it. one of the things, when i'm talking around the country, i do make the point that fortunately i don't know of any parent who would willingly max out their credit cards, get in debt way over their heads never intending ever to pay it off, but fully intending to pass it off to the children and grandchildren. i don't know any parent that way, fortunately. but yet collectively as a society, that is exactly what we are doing. frequently in this political town, republicans are accused of waging a war on women. waging a war on immigrants. none of that is true. what washington is doing is we're waging a war on our children. we're mortgaging their future. it's absolutely immoral. americans have got to stop and consider what it is, what we're actually doing to future generations. so i left the dinner with the president tonight -- i think all my colleagues did, i hope the president did, with a pretty strong sense once again that there's a great deal of sincerity, a great deal of desire to roll up our shirt sleeves, put down partisan bickering, put down partisan differences, work together to really solve this problem. i think there's got to be a realization that neither side's going away. if we're going to start solving these problems, we have got to start working together. we have got to return the united states senate into that deliberative body that our founders intended it to be. we've got to be willing to be held accountable. we've got to take votes. it shouldn't be that hard. we shouldn't be afraid. now, i'd ask the senator from kentucky -- i mean, as i understand this again, just puzzling that we're here now after midnight, and, again, i applaud you for your resolve here. that's why you see every member coming down here and providing the support. but i think all you wanted was either unanimous consent or possibly a vote on this simple question resolved that is the sense of the senate that, one, the use of drones to execute or to target american citizens on american soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the constitutional due process rights of citizens. it seems like a pretty simple question. it seems like one that most united states senators would want to express their opinion by taking a vote. or allowing this resolution to pass by unanimous consent. so i guess my only question is: is that really all you're looking for? either an answer from the white house or just a simple unanimous consent agreement or a simple vote? mr. paul: madam president, i thank you for the question from the senator from wisconsin. yes, we had two simple requests tonight. the first was for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to express our opinion that it's unconstitutional to kill americans on american soil. and that was denied by the majority party. the second request we've had in communication with the white house is for the white house to say or clarify their opinion that they're not going to be doing targeted drone strikes on noncombatants in america. we haven't had much success with each one. we will continue to ask that question. i've told them that i will remove myself from the blockage of john brennan's nomination as soon as we get some clarification from the white house. i'm still hopeful in the morning that they will do that. and by doing that, we can move forward with it. but i've been more than willing to compromise because i don't think it's so much about john brennan as it is about a constitutional principle. but i want the president to publicly acknowledge that the fifth amendment does apply to americans in our country and that we're not going to cherry pick when we apply the fifth amendment. madam president, at this time i'd like to yield for a question from the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you. will the senator from kentucky yield for a question? mr. paul: yes. mr. scott: thank you. the drone issue is not an issue. it's not a question about democrats versus republicans or the d.n.c. versus the g.o.p. it's not a question about the executive branch versus the legislative branch. it's not a question about conservatives versus liberals. it's a question about the constitution. another one of our friends says that this nation, our great nation, needs to stand and recognize what rand paul is doing today for americans. all of our aspirations mean nothing, nothing at all without our rights. another said that you don't have to like our political party. you don't even have to like senator rand paul to stand with rand, you only need to be against the assassination of americans without due process on u.s. soil. and so i will close with a question that we've heard many times already. why won't -- why will not this administration simply state that it is unconstitutional and illegal -- unconstitutional and illegal for the government to kill americans in the u.s., on our soil, or as i think about it, it's illegal on the soil of greenville, south carolina. it's illegal in akony county, south carolina. it's illegal in charleston, south carolina. it's illegal throughout the coast of south carolina without due process to kill american citizens. is that what you're asking? mr. paul: madam president, i think it's an easy question to have answered, and it boggles my mind that they haven't. i think the president in general, though, and other presidents in general are very -- they hang on to their power with a ten tpheurbs grip -- tenacious grip and they don't want to allow there is any possibility by saying they don't have this power they've given up this power. i think that is a mistake for presidents. i think it goes against what candidate barack obama was for and senator barack obama. i hope in the morning when they wake up, they'll wake up and think about with a candidate barack obama said in 2007, what senator barack obama once stood for as a senator and that is that the power of the presidency is limited and checked by the constitution. madam president, at this time i'd like to yield for a question from the senator from arizona. a senator: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to commend the gentleman for this 12-hour long question now. mr. flake: it is an important topic. i recently traveled to afghanistan and receiving a briefing there about the drone program and how it is working in and how it's being used in afghanistan. after seeing that briefing and how it's being used, i was awed by it. i thought, what a powerful weapon, what a great weapon in this case to use against terrorists. but my second thought is, what happens when that's in the hands of our enemy? and i can tell you, it's a sobering thought to think of what happens when our enemies get this kind of technology. but it's also sobering to think of what can happen if we use this technology here domestically. so i think that the question you've asked is totally right and proper. at what point or where does the president derive authority or does he believe he has the authority to use these weapons or any kind of weapon for lethal means when there is no imminent threat? so i think that the question that the gentleman is asking, if i understand the question correctly, is right and proper. my understanding is, all you want to find out is, does the president believe that the administration has the authority to use lethal means in this manner domestically. is that correct? mr. paul: madam president, that is correct. it's a simple question. i think we're not asking for any heavy lifting here. we're asking the president, you know, do you have this authority. and i think it's important that it is a legal question in the sense that we want to ask and get a legal constitutional response. we're not asking, oh, we probably won't do it, we don't intend to do it or it's not appropriate or it's not, as a policy matter, we don't like doing it. we want the constitutional answer, do you really believe you have the constitutional authority to do this? mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. mr. paul: madam president, at this point, i would like to recognize for a question, without yielding the floor, the senator from utah. mr. lee: a question that i have with regard to an issue that was raised by my friend a few minutes ago, my friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from illinois, touches upon an important point. upon a principle of law that dates back centuries and has application in myriad context, one that deals with the concept of imminence. so my friend from illinois is certainly correct in pointing out that the white paper leaked by the obama department of justice to the news media recently does include some analysis that talks about imminence. it is significant, however, to point out that on page 7 of that white paper, the administration goes on to essentially eviscerate that concept of imminence. in fact, it makes clear that this condition -- that is, the condition dealing with imminen imminence -- with the idea of presenting an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states -- quote -- "does not require the united states under this standard to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. expernz interes interests -- u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future." that's at the top of the first full paragraph on page 7 of the very same white paper that my friend from illinois was quoting. and so in response to -- to that question, it is important to point out that they've taken the imminence out of imminent. there is no more imminence in this standard. and so if, in fact, we are to believe the white paper is the correct assessment of the administration's position, it is no longer an imminent standard, it is something else. it's something of a new development, it's something that was created out of whole cloth by this administration that has nothing to do with the traditional imminence standard. so i ask my friend, my colleague, madam president, my friend from kentucky whether this is consistent with the time-honored notions of due process? mr. paul: madam president, this is exactly what i understand and it's a significant problem, and i would be happy to yield, if there's a question from across the aisle or a question that is in the form of an explanation as well, on his understanding, if we understand this incorrectly. but this is a real problem, because the idea of imminence people think of is someone leflg a weapoleveling a weapon at youe in a battlefield. all of these things with which none of us disagree that there should be a response. but the problem is -- i mean, it really is -- you know, i'm not an attorney so it's easy for me to disparage attorneys even though i'm standing among two that i admire -- more probably -- [laughter] -- but the whole point is that that sounds like a bunch of government attorneys got together and tried to write some gobbledygook that no one could understand, that makes no sense, that imminence now means something that's not immediate. i'd be happy to entertain a question or -- without yielding the floor. mr. durbin: this is getting pairlessly close to a debate and i'm sorry for those who are observing it if it looks like the senate is actually in debate. but an obvious question -- was osama bin laden an imminent threat to the united states when we took him out? i think he was. was he hatching a plot to cause harm to the united states in an imminent manner? probably not. mr. paul: madam president, i would say, touche. good response and i think well worth thinking about. [laughter] and difficult in a sense that i don't think there's any of us who really were opposed to getting bin laden. and there's a question, you're right, of whether or not exactly there was imminence involved with that. and i think, though, that when we start talking about standar standards, whether we have standards in battlefield, standards overseas, and standards at home, i think the standard at home has to be incredibly high and i don't believe that we're involved in a battlefield here. i don't believe that you have given up due process here. i don't know that bin laden had any due process. and i would yield for a question from the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i thank the senator from kentucky, and i would point out that the questions of imminence i don't think are nearly as difficult as has been suggested. and, indeed, i'd like to thank the senior senator from illinois for braving this long evening and for expressing his equal and heartfelt concerns about the limitations on the power of the executive to take the lives of u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. i would point out that at the hearing we had now yesterday with the attorney general, there was a series of questions exploring in further depth what the position of this administration was, because in response to the senator from kentucky's inquiry, attorney general holder put in writing that he could imagine circumstances in which it would be permissible to take the lives of u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. and the two examples he gave were pearl harbor and 9/11. and, as the senator from kentucky responded -- and i think everyone here agrees -- those examples are unobjectionable. both of those instances were instances of grievous military attacks. i think nobody doubts that if kamikaze planes are coming down on our ships in pearl harbor that the united states can use lethal force to take out those planes and to save the lives of our servicemen and women. there's no question about that, legal or otherwise. likewise, i think nobody doubts that if terrorists have taken over an airliner and are steering it into a building, that as tragic as that decision would be, as heart wrenching as the decision on 9/11 must have been for the president to give the order to shoot down that fourth commercial airline if it began approaching yet another target where it could inflict thousands of deaths, i think nobody disputes that stopping an imminent, immediate act of violence and, indeed, a military act of war is fully within the authority of the federal government. the question that was posed of the attorney general was the question that senator paul had asked originally, not that question. rather, it was, if there is an individual, a u.s. citizen, on u.s. soil who is suspected of being a terrorist and for whom we can say arguendo there is abundant evidence to demonstrate this individual is a terrorist, and if this individual is on u.s. soil and is not currently an imminent threat of violence, if he or she is sitting at a cafe in rural virginia having a cup of coffee, the question that i posed to the attorney general is in those circumstances, would it be constitutional for the united states government to send a drone to kill that u.s. citizen on u.s. soil with no due process of law if that individual did not pose an imminent threat? now, in my judgment, that was not a difficult question. i think the answer -- frankly, the answer i expected was, "of course not." of course the federal government cannot kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who does not pose an imminent threat. that's been the state of the law from -- from the day our constitution came into effect. and from before. instead, the first response of the attorney general was, well, it wouldn't be appropriate to use lethal force there and we wouldn't do so. and i pressed again to the attorney general and said, with respect, the question is not whether it is appropriate or not, it's not a question of prosecutorial discretion, do we trust that you would not choose to exercise lethal force in that circumstance. rather, it is a question, would it be constitutional to kill a united states citizen on u.s. soil with a drone if that individual did not pose an imminent threat? the second time, the attorney general said, i don't believe it would be appropriate. yet a third time i asked the attorney general, i am not asking about appropriateness. as the attorney general of the united states, you're the chief legal officer for this nation. does the department of justice have a legal opinion as to whether it is constitutional for the u.s. government to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if he or she does not pose an imminent threat? and yet a third time, the answer was, it wouldn't be appropriate. and then finally, when asked a fourth time, the attorney general said, when i say appropriate, i mean it wouldn't be unconstitutional. and so finally, after asking four times, the attorney general agreed. and my response in that questioning was, general holder, i'm very glad you have stated that position. i emphatically agree with that position. i don't understand why it took such gymnastics to get to that position. i wish you had simply said that in response to senator paul now two days ago. it would have been a very straightforward and simple thing to say. and what i also said to the attorney general is that senator paul and i have drafted legislation that will make explicitly clear that the u.s. government may not kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who does not pose an imminent threat. and i hope, based on the attorney general's representations, that the department will support that legislation. that ought, in my judgment, be legislation that should be bipartisan legislation that should pass this body 100-0 because it is truly phrased with as unobjectionable a legal truism as i can come up with. i will admit, i have been flabbergasted as these days have gone on why john brennan, when asked by senator paul this question, did not simply say no. why eric holder, when asked repeatedly, did not simply say no, at least not at first. and why in the now over 12 hours that this filibuster has been proceeded the white house has not put in writing the absolutely correct statement of constitutional law that the federal government cannot kill u.s. citizens on u.s. soil if they do not pose imminent threats. and i would note with the hypothetical that the senator from illinois posed to senator paul, even if that situation, osama bin laden -- even in that situation, osama bin laden was a horrible enemy of the united states who committed a grievous act of terror and was the mastermind behind it, and i am very glad that after a decade-long manhunt we were able to find him. and we were able to in a military battlefield take him out. i would suggest the question, if he were not in pakistan, if he were living in an apartment in the suburbs of chicago, and if he were asleep in bed, i would suggest even if he were osama bin laden, a really, really, really bad guy, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to fire a missile at an apartment with a sleeping person in it in the united states if that individual were a u.s. citizen. if he were in the u.s. what we would do is what we could would expect to do with any other really, really, really bad guy which is go in and an plea hend him. -- apprehend him. there are things on the battlefield we would never do at home. so i would suggest any argument that says someone sleeping at home in bed presents and imminent threat is an argument that stretches the bounds of the word "imminence" beyond where its natural meaning should lie. if an individual is pointing a bazooka at the pentagon, or robbing a bank or committing another crime of violence, there is no doubt that force and lethal force can be used to stop that crime of violence, but i think there likewise should be no doubt that the federal government lacks the authority to kill united states citizens on u.s. soil if there's there is no iminept threat of death or grievous bodily harm. so i'm hopeful the results of this extended discussion will be several fold. i am hopeful number one that it will prompt the white house to do what it has heretofore refused to do which is in writing explicitly answer the question posed by senator paul now over a week ago, and explicitly state as the position of the united states of america that the federal government cannot kill a united states citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. i also hope that a consequence of this extended discussion is that we will find widespread agreement in this body behind passing legislation to make clear that the constitution does not allow such killings. i am hope thankful that legislation will command wide support on the republican side of the aisle, but likewise wide support on the democrat side of the aisle. i would hope and would certainly welcome the support of the senior senator from illinois and indeed, every member of the democratic caucus. and should this body come together in a bipartisan way or even, better, in a unanimous manner, and clarify that the constitution prohibits killing u.s. citizens on u.s. soil absent an immediate threat, i would suggest this debate would have accomplished a great deal, because it would have made clear the limits of the executive power and it would be indeed carrying out the finest traditions of this body serving as a check to unchecked government power. and so i would ask of the senator from kentucky, do you agree if those were the outcomes of these proceedings that this would have indeed been a beneficial proceeding for helping focus the american people on these issues and helping draw a line that the executive cannot cross consistent with the constitution? mr. paul: mr. president, i am hope thankful we have drawn attention to to -- that we have drawn attention to this issue, that this issue won't fade away, that the president will -- that the president will tomorrow coming up with a -- come up with a response. i would like nothing more than to facilitate the continuation of the debate tomorrow. we've tried repeatedly throughout the day and we'll see what the outcome of that is. i would like to thank my staff for being here for a long day, for their help. i'd like to thank the fellow senators for being supportive of this cause. i would like to thank the members of congress who came over to support this cause. the clerks, the capitol police, the staff of the senate, the doorkeepers who apparently i may have gotten in trouble, and anybody else who came to support this and even the -- even the senior senator from illinois, for better or worse, for being here to support the cause. the cause here is one that i think is important enough to have gone through this procedure i sit at henry clay's desk, and they call henry clay the great compromiser. when i came to washington one of my fellow senators said to me, he said, oh, i guess you'll be the great compromiser. and i kind of smiled at him and laughed, and i learned a little bit about henry clay and his career, and, you know, people think that some of us won't compromise. there are many compromises. there are many things i'm willing to split the difference on. if the democrats will ever come to us and say we will fix, we will save social security, what the age we change it to, how fast we do, there are a lot of things we can split the difference on. but the issue we've had today i think is one that we don't split the difference on. i think you don't get half the fifth amendment. i don't think you acknowledge the president can obey the fifth amendment when he chooses. i don't think the fifth amendment process can somehow occur behind closed doors. while i'm a fan of henry clay, i've often said i'm a fan of cassius clay. his weapons of choice were said to be his pen and his buoy knife -- bowie knife. he said he was so good with the first he had recourse 0 the latter. he was a fierce abolitionist. he didn't suffer fools and didn't compromise often. but worth fighting for what you believe in. i think the american people can tolerate a debate and a discussion. there has been nothing mean-spirited about this debate for 12 hours. i think in fact more of it would be even better. i wish we had more open and enjoined debate. the senior senator from illinois has brought up good points and i think there is much discussion. i hope this won't be swept under the rug and that this isn't the end of this. but that this is the beginning of this. and i would go for another 12 hours to try to break strom thurmon's record but i've discovered there are some limits to filibustering and i'm going to have to take care of one of those in a few minutes here. [laughter] i appreciate the senator's forbearance on this and if there are some other than-on the other side of the aisle who have been lynching and may agree on some of these -- listening and may agree on some of these issues, will impact the president's decision and one, will say that the senate should be trying to restrain the executive branch, republican or democrat, and two, will use your influence to try to tell the president to do what i think is really in his heart which is to say absolutely we're not going to be killing americans, not in a combat situation, we will obey the constitution, the fifth amendment does apply to all americans and there are no exceptions. thank you for the forbearance and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? [applause] the presiding officer: there will be order. expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate. [applause] the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me first say on a personal note i want to thank the senator from kentucky. he and i have agreed on many things and worked together on many things. there is much common agreement on what we hope to achieve with this issue as important as it is. i thank him for his spirited defense of his position today and 12 hours and i want to excuse him from the floor whenever he wishes. i move to proceed to calendar number 43. the presiding officer: the question is on the measure to proceed. without objection the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, central intelligence agency, john owen brennan of virginia to be director. mr. durbin: i send a cloture to the desk. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john owen brennan of virginia to be director of the coi coi signed by 17 senators as follows, reid of nevada, feinstein, stabenow, brown, reed of rhode island, carper, coons, casey, pryor, nelson, begich, mikulski, murray, levin and manchin. mr. durbin: i move the senate proceed to a period of morning business with minority permitted permitted each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i ask that when the senate complete its business, it he a jurn until 10:00 a.m., the journal of proceedings be approved to debate debate and the following any leader remarks the senate resume executive session in consideration of the brennan nomination, further that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. to allow for caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> i believe the united states has many fantastic qualities. i believe that many many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and i think every year that is less and less probable. but the united states, especially in foreign policy that i have worked on for years and years is an interventionist state, we mess with other people's politics in ways that i cannot imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us. can you imagine americans thinking that this is okay? that somehow we have a myth that it's okay when we invade these people. noble prize winner jody williams on c-span's "q&a" this sunday. >> strengthening background checks and limiting firearms based on mental illness. this report was a little less than a half-hour. >> i would like to focus on this, this is a very important topic. to my colleagues, thank you very much. we are trying to fix a problem that most americans would just be astonished that exists. but it does. and to people of the charleston area, i have heard your voice says. let me tell you quickly the problem that we were trying to fix. alice baldwin and young lady and in 2005, she came across the canadian border into the united states. she had family in south carolina and they did the investigation about the threats that she made and i will not read the threats because some of them are pretty tough. it resulted in her being arrested and indicted for threats against the president. schmidt before a federal judge, a psychiatric evaluation was ordered, and antipsychotic drugs were administered to make sure that she was competent to stand trial. she went to an evaluation facility and the court declared her legally insane and a substantial risk to others in 2005. a federal court, she pled not guilty by reason of insanity and was ordered to undergo commitment for long-term care for which she received. fast forward to the year 2013, in 2013, this young lady who was a paranoid schizophrenic, previously pled not guilty and threatened to kill the president of the united states, she was admitted to a mental health treatment facility and found by a federal court to be a risk to herself and others and went to south carolina in february of this year and legally purchase a firearm. she submitted the paperwork for a background check, and according to atf authorities in south carolina, there was nothing illegal about her entering. she went to ashley hall, a private school in charleston, south carolina, she presented herself at the school and she used a gun trying to kill staff members, but the gun did not fire. it was a semi automatic 22 pistol. it did not fire. but she legally did buy a firearm after being in federal court and found to be dangerous to herself and others. and what have we learned? that our current system has major problems in it. this bipartisan legislation, and i would like to make senator begich and senator kyl for helping me in this legislation, we want to make sure the people who find themselves in this legal category, having been a judge by a federal court to be dangerous to themselves and others would no longer be able to legally pass a background check. there are a lot of emotions around the gun violence issues and i am hopeful that this is one area where we can find tremendous bipartisan support to fix what is a gaping gap in our law. i thank god everyday that the gun did not discharge and i will do everything i can with my colleagues to make sure that this mistake is fixed and in south carolina, this method at the state level to record all adjudications finding someone dangerous to themselves and others, so that people in that category cannot buy a gun. there are over 14,000 fall into that category. we are trying to make advancements at home to help fix that problem. i would like to turn it over to senator begich who has co-authored legislation. >> thank you for bringing this issue. i was familiar with it on some level, but senator graham clearly had an incredible story to be told. thank you senator graham for coming forward and working on this, as well as my two other colleagues. i was pleased to help negotiate part of the bill strengthen the background check system, protecting mental health rights. dangerous people can fall through the cracks in part because the background check system lacks a clear definition of mentally incompetent people. by creating a clear definition, this bill will help prevent individuals with dangerous mental health issues from buying guns. this is only part of the solution. but it is an important step forward. in addition, the bill will strengthen the rights for people with mental health illnesses. it provides a specific definition of mentally incompetent. that only includes individuals involuntarily committed to treatment. this also creates a clear pathway to recovery within the system. the changes are outdated, such as mentally defective. we must neither stigmatize mental health or a bridge the second amendment rights. this bill is a step in the right direction and i would like to think the nra as well as the national council on community health care and the national alliance for mental health care for the contributions to this effort. we work closely with them to make sure that we can have a bill that makes sense and could be implemented. it is an honor to be here, and i would like to echo what senator graham said. here is the bill that passed strong bipartisan support from members of the senate. hopefully as we go on in this debate come and this is one of the bills that can move forward and pass the senate as well as the house and move on. it is clear that the language needs to be fixed and this is one way to do it can and also create some consistency in the law, and protect those who are experiencing until illnesses. >> thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to come out in support of this legislation. in arizona after the shooting of gabrielle giffords, mark kelly and his gabby giffords came to capitol hill and talked about the shortcomings of our background check system in arizona. they pointed out that there were more than 120,000 mental health individuals who have been adjudicated at the state level. and that is not part of the system. there is something wrong when that is the case. this piece of legislation and perhaps some other things that we can do will allow individuals to be able to -- allow authorities to determine who is incapable and should not be in a position to get a weapon. i appreciate the time that has gone into this particularly by the primary sponsors. i am glad to support this bill. >> after the shootings in connecticut, i have spent a lot of time with people in arkansas, asking them about gun issues. we certainly have people that call in and say that you need to do something. one of the things that we recognized in our state is the overwhelming majority of gun owners that are law abiding citizens. and they are completely responsible gun owners. they have those guns for various reasons. it is something in our state that people take very seriously. what i have done is reached out to prosecutors and local police and i have even been to gun store owners to talk to them and many, many gun owners in the state of arkansas. one of the things that i keep hearing is we need to enforce the law that we have on the books. we are taking the existing law and we are improving the integrity of the database of the background check that currently exist. i hear a lot of people say the laws we have can be improved, there are holes or gaps and we have heard some of that already today. i hear that around the state of arkansas. and i think that this is about improving something that we do have on the books that we think will be effective and will keep guns out of the hands of many people who should not have a gun. i would like to thank my colleagues from all three of them that i'm standing with today, for their approach on this. one of the things i love about this effort is it is bipartisan. if we are going to get things done here in washington, we must do it in a bipartisan way. if you want to get it done in washington, and needs to be done in a bipartisan way. that is very important to this legislation. so thank you. >> are there any questions about this? >> [inaudible question] >> well, the regulations defining mentally competent is not have a reason of insanity finding. we are going to change the federal regulation to better define what senator begich said, the objective is after you have had the court find that you are a danger to yourself and others to capture that, there's due there is due process appeal to all of these systems, the pleading not guilty by reason of insanity does not disqualify you under the current background system. 99.9% of americans say that this is a mistake that needs to be fixed. i think you made a good point. i don't know how many state adjudications there are in the united states where people have been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others that are not into the federal system for background check purposes. i think there are 14,000 in south carolina. my state legislature is trying to fix that problem by requiring a state law enforcement division to take all of these adjudications and put them into the federal system. i would urge every state to do that, just like jeff had said. we have thousands of people out there that have had their day in court and have found it to be dangerous to themselves and others. whatever differences we have, i think this is one area that we should be able to rally around. >> senator, another current law would be being allowed to go to a gun show and buy a gun. are you still okay leaving that in place? >> the pressure of regulating product sales, the one thing i'm not ever going to support is that if i buy a shotgun and give one to a family member, i am not going to take a federal system and put that into the federal system. that's just not practical. i think there is work being done with senator coburn about someone taking private firearms to a public place. i think that is a work in progress. in 2005 there were 17,000 who failed the background checks and only a portion of prosecutions. many were fugitives and not any of them were picked up. clearly we have a long way to go to improve the current system. if you are dumb enough to try to buy a gun when you own the land, we need to get you. i mean, imagine someone who is a fugitive from justice goes in to buy a gun, fills out the form, they pop up in the system as being a fugitive and nothing happens to them. i think that is a good place to start given the current system. >> the limits of what you would support with background checks -- >> i will just speak for myself. tom coburn is a good friend and anything that he thinks is a good idea, i will look at it closely. i would be open to looking at the work product, but i would say this. as my colleague has said, we have a background check system that really doesn't prove a lot. it is against the law to fill these forms out. if you look at the forums, they are not confusing. if you break the law and nothing ever happens to you, my concern is expanding the amount of paper that we do nothing with is not the deterrent that we are looking for. >> if i could add another part of that. we are finding a piece of the puzzle, but you can get a fairly bipartisan strong support on. we have not wanted to get caught up in the issues. i will tell you that we've been after these issues and we did something very simple. there are people who are crazy enough to go buy a gun and they know that they are a fugitive for felon and the prosecution is unbelievable. what we had to deal with was felons who had guns. what we did was a simple thing. we actually hired to city prosecutors and assigned them to the u.s. attorney's office. i will tell you what happened very quickly. the odds are they will serve maybe 60 days. in a federal court, five years. it's mandatory. so we put people away for five years when they carry a gun and it has circled very quickly on the street. it is a very tight community out there. if you look at where these gun offenses occur, the thousands of gun cases, many are related to criminal activity, drugs, those types of activities. we entered it at a fast pace. .. and we believe has a great chance of moving forward through the system. >> to make a point on -- if there is any item that is told that violence to be that can make a difference, a real difference, i think this instead. in other words, to make sure we integrate and strengthen the background check to include those who are not mentally able or should not have guns in this way. when you think about it, if you're a criminal, you typically have criminal networks, where you might not be able to get it at a kind show our private sale but you get it somewhere else, you are going to be hot anyway. criminalist sounds like. people with mental health issues there are certain people who are loners, without networks. if they are turned down, it may delay them long enough, where there may be some intervention for something that could stop them for the past sierra. when you look at the case of jared loughner, this would not have been applied to you, but those like him if you want to make a real difference, here's where you make a real difference. >> tumor questions. >> very often the issue of mental illness comes up as far as guns are concerned. you also have veterans groups, whether recently or in the past in the amount, et cetera. how does this law address that equates >> this flawed has found someone to be a danger of themselves or others. in this case by reason of sanity will now be captured. people with mental health problems need to have due process. were not undertake second amendment rights away because somebody says that he matter that she down the street. pupils heard rumors about your mental health. if you had an episode of the military were you receiving treatment, the system needs to have a mechanism as to whether or not we can determine, in a rational way, it that disability renders you unsafe to yourself and others. this is a delicate violence. we try to capture court decisions. when courts have rendered verdicts, over 14,000 people in south carolina have been adjudicated by a competent court not in the system. that's what we're trying to fix. we just have to be careful how far we go. >> again, the party just mentioned is very critical in regards to making clear that legally disabled no longer applies after the person is found is the piece to the puzzle you're referring to. the other piece to make sure it's clear to verbiage is adjudicated as a mental defect and not mentally competent. that's an important distinction. we work to get that done because the issue you brought up as well as others. >> senator leahy would improve how you deal with the straw purchases trafficking. is that something you could support quite >> i understand why he is working on trying to find a partisan. if we contain bipartisanship, all of us want to purchase a gun through a straw purchase is already legal. purchase cheney take law. i'd be willing to look at what they have. if grassley and leahy can agree, a pretty good chance this might happen. >> we've heard a lot from lindsey graham, but the three of you -- [laughter] i'm curious where you guys are on the various rules that are out there. >> well, from a standpoint i'm not a judiciary committee so i won't have a chance to make it to the process. i'll look at as we come through. we had to enforce the law on the books. you kind of take that general approach and start getting into areas like straw purchases, things like that that are argued they are, but may not be working well right now. i am like senator graham. i look forward to seeing that the judiciary committee comes up with. i hope would be bipartisan whatever it is. i party saddam opposed to senator feinstein assault weapons ban. nevertheless, we'll look at things as presented. right now from a standpoint because i'm on the committee, it's relatively early in the process because they have a process in the committee and your senators working hard to get some enter the committee. once that happens will look at it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i'll give you one quick statement about the dinner that was supposed to be quiet and nobody knew about. just ask yourself this, you've been in this business, most of you, a wild. if ronald reagan had dinner at number seven senator bill clinton, you have a hard time getting your editors to report it. the fact that there is a lot of interest in a dinner between the president and a handful of republican senators is a pretty good statement about where we are as a nation. i am not blaming anybody because it takes both parties to get $16 trillion in data. it will take both parties to get out. the president called senator mccain myself a few weeks ago. senator mccain as you all know as his opponent into the mini. i see the president reaching out. everybody wants to dr. phil about what he's doing. i'm assuming the president wants to talk seriously about the issues of the day. or if he wants to have a dinner to get to know each other better, that's fine with me. so how do you say no to the president to the president of the united states with i tried have dinner with senator colleagues? you don't. any who would do that in this business is in the wrong position. some of the president tonight i get together a group, i willingly was honored to do that. for this goes, i don't know. i do believe that the president has been doing lately, getting off the campaign trail back into the normal way of doing business up here talking to each other, i can't think of any major accomplishment in america where no one ever talk to each other. i want to complement the president for reaching out. he's doing the right thing. we need to stop the campaign. the election is over. but i do know where the country is going. if we don't fix entitlements, they will consume all the money we send to washington in the future of medicare and social security will collapse. the president knows that also. i publicly said i'm willing to do more revenue if we can ban the entitlement occurs. speaking for myself. there's other senators giving their views to the president tonight. they will talk sense into them and all texans us. i'm encouraged by the president outreach. i hope it fares through, but i know this, if we never talk to each other, i know exactly was going to happen. this country is going to fail. thank you. [inaudible conversations] thisre >> in your response to senator paul yesterday, he suggested there may well be circumstances in which it ispo permissible toe use drugs to target a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil.se i'd like to explore the circumstances. in particular company appointed to pearl harbor and 9/11, both . which were extreme military attacks on thein homeland. i want to askitary attacks on the homeland. i want to ask if an individual is sitting quietly at a cafe in the united states, in your legal judgment, does the constitution allow a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil to be killed by a drone? >> for sitting in a cafe and having a cup of coffee? >> if that individual is not posing an imminent and immediate threat of death or bodily harm, does the constitution allow a drone to kill that individual? >> on the basis of what you said i don't think you can arrest that person. >> the person is suspected to be a terrorist. you've bun dant evidence he is a terrorist, involved in terrorist plots but at the moment not pointing a bazooka at the pentagon, he is sitting in a cafe. overseas, the government uses drones to take out individuals walking a path, sitting at a cafe. if a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen? >> i wouldn't think that would be appropriate lethal force. we would deal with that the way we typically do. >> with all respect, general holder, my question wasn't appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion, it is a simple legal question. does the constitution allow a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who doesn't pose an imminent threat to be killed by the u.s. government? >> i do not believe, again, you have to look at all of the facts. on the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, i would not think in that situation use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate because -- >> general holder, i have to tell you, i find it remarkable in that hypothetical which is deliberately simple, you can't give a one word, one sill balance answer, no. i think it is unequivocal, if the u.s. government were to use a drone to take the life of a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil and that individual didn't pose imminent threat, that would be deprivation of life without due process. >> i said use of lethal force, drones, guns, or whatever else would not be appropriate in that circumstance. >> you keep saying appropriate. my question isn't about propriety. my question is whether something is constitutional or not. as attorney general, you're the chief legal officer of the united states. do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil in those circumstances? >> a person who is not engaged as you described. this is the problem with hypotheticals. the way you described this person sitting at the cafe, not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate, would not be something -- >> i find it remarkable you still will not give an opinion on the constitutionality. let me move to the next topic. we have round and round. >> let me be clear. translate my appropriate to no. i thought i was saying no. no. >> then i am glad, after much gymnastics, i am glad to hear that it is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat. that statement has not been easily forthcoming. i wish you had given that in response to senator paul's letter asking you it, and i will point out this week i will be introducing legislation in the senate to make clear that the u.s. government cannot kill a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil absent imminent threat, and i hope based on that representation that the department will support that legislation. >> well, that's totally consistent with the letter i sent to senator paul. i talked about 9/11 and pearl harbor. those are the instances where i said it might possible be considered. but other than that, we would >> now, florida governor coverage rick scott spoke for 40 minutes this week in tallahassee. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> don't be anxious. [laughter] members of the legislature and this is the florida, it is my high privilege and deep honor to introduce to you, they get to her governor, the honorable rick scott, the governor of florida. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> thank you area match. [applause] >> thank you area match. first up is a real honor to be here. i didn't know governor graham is going to be here, so it's nice to see you. we saw you tonight i was sleeping, he was coming and. it's glad to see you. glad you're here. i want to especially thank president gave, senator don gaetz, speaker of the house, will weatherford. these are men of great faith in their devoted to helping florida families. like everyone in this chamber, they are committed to helping our state and investigating and future generations. they are my partners, they are my friends and they are committed public servants. [applause] >> lieutenant governor, jennifer carroll, thank you for your tireless work each and every day. thank you very much. [applause] i'd like to thank chief justice ricky polston and other members of the court. it's nice to see you. [applause] attorney general, gambon d. agricultural commissioner, adam putnam and cfo jeff atwater. [applause] somebody is calling. all right. i also want to thank the love of my life and my beautiful wife is now 40 years, ann, for being here. [applause] my daughters allison, jordan and son-in-law jeremy are here today. ann and i are very proud because both of our daughters are the new additions this year. [applause] and for a repeat performance, based ina road grandson is here, august is now falling asleep. this is the best job of being a grandpa. i love being a grandpa. [applause] this is not a third time i've had the opportunity to address the state of the great state of florida. after two years of hard work, this update can be summed up in two words. it's working. [applause] two years ago we met, facing crippling debt, record high unemployment and a downward spiral of job losses. today because of the tireless work of the men and women in this room, our businesses are creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and our unemployment rate is now down nearly to the national average and we're stopping here. it's working. [applause] two years ago we knew we'd are called here to make the difficult choices still florida families get back to work. together we face those challenges head on. we cut taxes. we eliminated thousands of regulations on job creators. we paid down state debt for two years in a row. we invested in priorities like education and our economy is on the rebound. it's working. [applause] because he made the hard choices over the last two years, we were able to make the smart choices now to keep our economy growing. we have a projected budget surplus for the first time in six years. [applause] our challenges are different in this budget, but the goal is absolutely the same. the goal is economic growth and job creation. this year we have two priorities to keep our economy growing. first, remove the sales tax on manufacturing equipment. and second, invest in our teachers by providing them a well-deserved pay raise. [applause] our florida families first budget supports these priorities while maintaining substantial reserves. this is responsible stewardship of tax money. washington d.c. could learn a few budget lessons from florida. [applause] the contrast between our state and the nation's capital is remarkable. now is not the time to turn back to the legacy of taxing and firing that crippled the economy we inherited two years ago. we must stay the course for economic growth and job creation. when i ran for governor, as you well know, it was the first time i'd ever were any elected office. i spent a career in business, not politics. i knew that her primary job was to move florida's economy out of the red and into the black. we need to cut spending, pay down debt, super job creators. what we needed to defend the simple and in many ways remains the same today. why we need to do it is even more clear and personal matter. as many of you know, and then i lost last year. my mother, mr. was one of the only constants in my life. even after he moved away from home and joined the navy, we communicated every week. we'd write letters and talk on the phone if we could, but we never let a week go by without being in touch. i am absolutely critical for the lessons i learned from my parents sacrifices. they often had trouble making ends meet, so we moved for them to find work. i remember when my mom would take extra jobs just so they could buy groceries. in spite of my mom struggles, including getting a divorce for my birth father at a young age and almost putting up for adoption, my mom was an incredible optimist. she was an encourager. she told us to dream big. my mom never went to college. for her own children, getting a great education was not an option. our education is so important to my mom she didn't just talk about it. she showed up. my mom somehow made it to everyone if my graduation, even when it meant she had to travel far away. i don't know how she found the money, but she came to freezing chicago for my boot camp graduation and dallas for law school graduation. my mom, the wife of a world war ii veteran had a simple formula for raising kids. we had to go to church, a lot. do while in school, get a job. she taught in america hard work by sacrifice and that you could live in a tree and he wanted. you could make your american dream come true. the longer i live, the more i'm convinced that my mom was right, not just for our family, but every family. why are we so focused on creating jobs and improving education? white with a florida family first in our budget? because every florida family wants not to dream. they want the opportunity to make sure dreams can come true. my mom's formula, our formula this session is simple. we must invest in our education system, support our teachers, cut taxes to help create more jobs. our work to cut spending and live within our means over the last two years has allowed us to once again invest in education. the workers at tomorrow aren't florida classrooms today. when i first stood before you in 2011, i said the single most important fact during student learning is the quality of teaching. since that time, we eliminate the teacher tenure. it would take effect in 2014. [applause] florida's education system is making tremendous progress, due in large part to her great teachers and the work begun by governor bush and many in this legislature. our students and teachers were recently ranked six for educational quality. our fourth graders scored among the highest in the world under recent reevaluation. accountability is working. [applause] the best way we can build on this progress is to reward hard-working teachers at the $2500 pay raise. [applause] some say they are afraid racist while teachers may mean a teacher during a bad joke is truer to. but thanks to our work, we are now in a better position than ever before to reward good teachers and moved by teachers out of the classroom. we don't want a war and teachers. we want a war on failure. [applause] teachers change lies. greco middle-school teacher, elizabeth heli is here. are you please stand? [applause] elizabeth began her career as an engineer, but decided she wanted to share her passion for for science by teaching it. thank you area match. [applause] orange county school district superintendent, barbara jenkins is also here. barbara, will you please stand? [applause] we need to honor you for your commitment to the teachers in your district and your dedication to student achievement. thank you, elizabeth and barbara for the work you do to help take dreams come true for the next generation of floridians. [applause] at psychology to stop and think for a second. think about your favorite teacher. we all had a favorite teacher. like me, you're all probably here because some teacher believed in you and is probably the favorite teacher. said the government to to please stand now in honor of the great favorite teacher. [applause] in total, i budget increases k-12 education funding by more than $1.2 billion. [applause] billion dollars commitment builds on our billion dollars investment in k-12 education stier. our total education investment of 2.7 billion in state funding for k-12 this year is the highest state funding level in florida history. [applause] this represents an increase of more than $400 in per student funding over the current fiscal year. i'm not in for your help to make this historic commitment to education funding a reality for florida families. getting a great education helps dreams come true in those terms are almost always jobs. that is why our formula for success focuses on education and jobs. two years ago, florida was losing jobs in many florida families releasing their dream. and the four years before i took office, florida last month at 825,000 jobs. unemployment than tripled from 3.52 9/11 .1 over those four years. the debt increased over those four years by $5.2 billion. our housing market had collapsed. our economy was off track. florida families are hurting. the shortsighted policies of borrowing her future has led to disaster. together we fight to cut spending, cut taxes and pay down debt. our unemployment rate has not dropped by more than three percentage points from two years ago. the second biggest drop in the country. [applause] we are now at 7.9%, barely above the national average and where do for your low from florida and we are stopping there. [applause] we've cut the state that the $2 billion. housing is up in consumer confidence is rebounding. our economy has created around 200,000 private sector jobs in the last two years. many thousands of florida families now have the opportunity to live their dreams. it's working. [applause] we can run off the same wanted to create an environment that would encourage businesses to 700,000 jobs over seven years. when i took office two years ago, the debate was about whether or not that was even possible. now there's a debate on how to count all the jobs being created and who should get credit for it. maybe it's because i'm not a politician, but i think this is a great debate to have. it celebrates the fact the economy is what again creating jobs. [applause] and as ronald reagan said, there is no limit to which you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit. [applause] as long as even one florida family job, our work is not done. that is why we are committed to removing the sales tax on manufacturing to quit. florida is one of only a feast days with this tax would not have the nation in per capita manufacturing jobs. we need to level the playing field to compete for manufacturing jobs. there's some great florida manufactured leaders here with us today. we are honored to have wes bush, chairman and ceo of north grumman here. less than 24 hours ago, his company made a major amount that they will be adding more than 1000 new jobs in florida. [applause] thank you for your great confidence in our state and our workers. also, president of johnson & johnson dave brown associate here from jacksonville. [applause] and going through precedent from miami. [applause] manufacturing has a major in pact on our economy. every manufacturing job supports two to three other jobs in our state. companies like northrop grumman, then show how manufacturing businesses combined the florida's great location and 15 seaports me to more jobs for florida families. bill johnson, director of the port of miami and chairman of the florida ports is also here. [applause] when the miami port dredge project is completed, along with the panama canal expansion, thousands of new jobs will pre-created. thank you for your commitment to building jobs in the great state of florida. thank you very much. [applause] not having a job is devastating to the family. i remember when my parents couldn't find work. i remember when my dad had his car repossessed. the most important thing to a family is having a job. everything we've done over the last two years has been geared to job creation and i want to stress again, it's working. [applause] this year we are proposing will continue to roll back a business tax exemption by 2000 more small businesses to pay the business tax. the first successful, will have removed a business tax to 70% of the businesses since taking office. i'm committed to getting rid of this tax entirely. it will mean more jobs for florida families. thanks to the hard choices we've made over the last two years, we can't afford to cut taxes. and also invest in critical areas that have gone without increased funding for several years. our budget increases operating funds for florida state colleges by $70 million. and increases funding for florida university by more than $390 million. much of this increase will be tied to performance bashers to ensure schools are preparing students to get a job. i would especially think university of florida president, bernie machen for coming up with performance measurements for success. dr. machen worked with colleagues across the system to form measurement and continue to make florida universities invest in the country. dr. machen, a stance we can thank you and all florida universities. [applause] i also want to thank randy hanna, chancellor of the florida state colleges for working to make college more affordable. i want to thank for his role in eliciting all 23 state colleges suffered for your degree programs in our $10,000 decrease challenge to graduate student in high demand job field at a low cost. please join me in taking randy and all of our state college suitors for stepping up. [applause] for the first time in eight years, our budget also been creases funding for persons with disabilities by $36 million to help were disabled people receive community services and 2.5 million for job training. becky k. clements is here today. she's an advocate for persons with disabilities in the orlando area. i was honored to meet eddie recently and here's a story about her beautiful daughter, laura lang who's overcome many obstacles with her disability to get a job at target. please stand so we can thank you for sharing your great jury. [applause] are florida families first budget also invest $1.59 to provide safe houses for rooms of human trafficking. noaa and i had the privilege of meeting allison last month. houston was first trafficked when she was five years old. she eventually came to florida where she continued to be a victim of trafficking into her early 20s. today, allison is a warrior and a battle to end terrific crime. houston could not be here today, but we are grateful for the god-given bravery she has to share her story and give a voice to the millions of the dems who suffer in silence. please join me in a round of applause to thank allison and all of those working to raise awareness for siegel and stop this crime claiming even one market them. [applause] we have some other heroes here today. annette curt. we please stand up on her of son, private first class paul cuzzupe. he lost his life fighting in afghanistan. this honor to meet your family and hear about paul's bravery in combat. please join me in thanking and that in every military family for their sacrifice. [applause] [applause] to our chirps, firefighters and police officers, you are the true definition of heroism. st. lucie county sheriff sergeant jerry morales, whose life was taken tragically just was weak with the profile of courage. we are forever grateful to sergeant morales and all first responders who live for something larger than self. thank you very much. [applause] allison, recognized represent a cherry picked pigman will be deployed to kuwait right after session ends. representative said to come up to the stance we can thank you for service, not only to our state, but to our country. [cheers and applause] two years ago, we began our hard work to get our state's economy back on track. today we know it's working. [applause] we could have chosen a different course. we could have continued to drive up taxes and burgeoning freespending. that would've been the easy way out. california based their top income tax-free to 13.3%, highest in the nation. but it isn't working in california. people are leaving the date and they had the second-highest unemployment rate in the country. more taxes and more spending are working in new york either. more than 3.4 million people have fled new york for 2000 to 2009. florida was their number one destination. [applause] taxing and spending artwork in an illinois either. i should raise their tax rate by nearly 70% in 2011, they have one of the worst budget deficit in the country. here in florida, arbor to reduce spending, cut taxes along with critical investments in priorities like education is working. top ceos now ranked florida the second best place to do business in the country. we have been her one pipeline. just recently we made a major announcement with verizon at the orlando area that will result in a new facility in hundreds of jobs. michelle robinson, verizon's original press event is here today. michelle, would you please stand? [applause] thank you for invest in a florida and helping create more opportunities for florida families. thank you very much. we didn't win every battle over the last two years. after a long fight, we lost a supreme court over the president's health care law amid lost a presidential election along with the promise that the loss for repeal. now our options of either having to pay for this program in other states while denying health care to her citizens or using federal funds to help the poorest in our state with the medicaid programs as we explore other health care improvement. as they wrestled with this decision, i thought about my mom. and her struggles to get my little brother health care with no money. i concluded further three years federal government has committed to paying 100% of the cost of new people in medicaid, i cannot in good conscience denied the uninsured access to care. [cheers and applause] of course, the best way for any family to access great health care is to have a great job. [applause] [applause] like my mom, i am an optimist. i believe in big dreams. i believe florida will be the number one place in the world for job creation. i believe florida will be the number one place in the world to get a great education. and the number one place in the world where families can afford to live. [applause] i believe that as we all continue to work together, florida's job growth will outpace the nation and our unemployment rate will drop with the national average. i hope texas governor rick perry is listening. i hope texas governor rick perry is listening. as governor perry found out when he came to florida to go fishing, he came in second. florida will stop until we are number one. [cheers and applause] florida will soon see texas at the top job creator in the nation. and we also plan to beat them and how we brag about our state also. the hard work done over the last two years has set us up with a simple formula for success this year. they must remove the sales tax on manufacturers. [applause] and invest in future generations of floridians by investing in florida's teachers. [applause] president gave, speaker weatherford, senators and representatives, i look forward to joining with you a feel for florida families first and send a message to the world that florida is serious about job creation and it's working. thank you very much. [applause] do not advocate of letters that in an print and she's been dead for the team were deep undercurrents in first went through four editions in the 1840s. she was a best-seller through the 19th century. people knew her. she's always been famous. >> william hague says his government will send logistical age including armored vehicles to the syrian opposition forces. the house of commons for an hour and a half. >> the secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs . [inaudible conversations] secretary william hague. >> mr. speaker, with permission i'll make a statement on the crisis in syria. the necessary developments in policy unreadiness to develop further bloodshed continues. tears sector began it has reached catastrophic proportions. 10,000 people have died since i last updated the house in early january. that made smart people have died in the first two months of this year than in the whole of the first year of the conflict. the total estimated death toll is now over 70,000

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130307

is right, and that we, from this particular committee, provides oversight that if has in the past, and i imagine will continue to do. in our role, it is to continue help agencies in terms of their of violating their progress and making recommendations where appropriate. one last question, and i'm interested in knowing what is the most common cyber attack that your company faces and how that threat could best be alleviated. >> if you look at the higher- risk ones, these numbers sound bizarre, but when you look at the things that used to be a big deal like viruses, there are hundreds of thousands of those, and we protect those pretty well. what we are challenged with the most is threats from highly- resource to organizations today that are targeting us and persistent with us. the concern is because those are developed that they end up going down and get learned and can migrate down into less sophisticated hands to work through. i think the fact that we have a large organization and by my reading of those are some countries and organized criminal organizations, that is a big problem, something that every government needs to help business and worked on. >> ip theft? >> the framework of government today manages said. is the issue of international -supported i.p. theft as well as intelligence gathering in the companies that never had to the extent we are seeing it now. >> thank you all very much. >> one last question, if i could, for mr. kepler. your ceo spoke to us not long ago, not very impressive. he holds a leadership position in the business roundtable? >> yes. >> he is chairman. >> i think he is as well. we appreciate the continued input from the business roundtable. we welcome the input from the chamber of commerce and other business groups as well. we are mindful of the contribution that business roundtable can make and would ask that you pass along our thanks to your ceo and that we would like to hear more of that going for. this has been a good hearing, and senator thune, we're here to the bitter end, but it has not been better at all. this is a hard issue. this is not an easy issue for me to get my head around, and a couple of months ago i felt like i reached the point where i knew enough to be dangerous, and after it this hearing today, i know enough to be really dangerous. hopefully to be very helpful. we share with the responsibility. it cannot just be the legislative, it said the branches, because we have a shared responsibility, and to do this right we will help our country a hole like. senator thune, senator rockefeller, we want to do this right, and your help in everett art is a big help. the record is done to the open for another 14 years -- not really, 14 days, a short time frame, for additional questions, if anything, we would be most grateful. >> anything else? >> no. >> this hearing is a wrap. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the senate floor, they voted 63-34 for john brennan to become cia director. the vote came after the obama administration and vowed to demands from senator rand paul to specified limits on the president's authority to order drone strikes against american citizens in the u.s. senator paul said he was satisfied with the a statement. earlier today, eric holder sent a letter to senator paul which read, it has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question, following his 13-hour filibuster is today -- does the president have the authority to use a weapon is drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer to that question is no. senator paul responded to the letter by saying hurray. for 13 hours a month we asked him that question, and the results in a victory, address, and under public humiliation. the white house will respond and to the right thing. that from senator rand paul. today in new york at the united nations security council, they voted unanimously for tough sanctions against north korea for its latest nuclear test, a move that the associated press as has sparked furious reaction in pyongyang. the new u.n. sanctions are aimed at making it more difficult for north korea to obtain material for its weapons program. here is what the vote looked like today at the united the nation's. -- the united nations. >> [speaking in russian] >> the agenda is adopted. under rule 37, i invite the representatives of belgium, canada baja, denmark, the philippines to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will begin its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. members of the council also have before them a document, text of a draft resolution submitted by australia, belgium, canada, denmark, france, italy, japan, morocco, the philippines, republic of korea, rwanda, togo, united kingdom of great britain, and northern ireland, and the united states of america. it is my understanding that the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. i should put the draft resolution to the vote now. will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in documents s/2013/136 please raise their hand. the result of the voting is as follows -- the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor, the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously, as resolution 2094 of 2013. the security council has concluded its present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. the meeting is adjourned. >> those sanctions are aimed at making it more difficult for north korea to finance and obtain material for its weapons programs. here is what susan rice had to say after the security council vote. >> today the security council unanimously adopted resolution 2094, strongly condemning north korea's highly february 12 nuclear test and imposing significant new sanctions under chapter 7 of the u.n. charter. the strength, breadth and severity of these sanctions will raise the cost to north korea of its illicit nuclear program and further constrain its ability to finance and source materials and technology for its ballistic missile, conventional and nuclear weapons program. first, resolution 2094 imposes tough new financial sanctions. when north korea tries to move money to pay for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, countries must now block those transfers even if the money is being carried in suitcases full of vault cash. likewise northern banks will find it much harder to launder money for the nuclear program. imposesresolution also new travel restrictions. if, for example, a north korean agent is caught making arms deals or selling nuclear technology, countries will be required to expel that agent. countries must also now prevent the travel of people working for designated companies involved in the nuclear and missile programs. states will now have new authority to inspect cargo and stop north korean arms smuggling and proliferation. if a country has cargo on its territory that might be carrying prohibitive items like nuclear or ballistic materials, this resolution requires that the cargo be inspected. it will also make it harder for north korean vessels to offload such prohibited cargo if a ship refuses inspection on the high seas. thus forcing it to return to its port of origin. and airplanes carrying smuggled items can find themselves grounded. this resolution will also counter north korean efforts to abuse diplomatic privileges to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile activities. it will now be much harder for such diplomats to procure technology or divert funds to the nuclear program without being detected and expelled. resolution 2094 further bans the transfer to and from north korea of specific ballistic missile, nuclear and chemical weapons-related technology. it lists new prohibitive -- prohibited items and calls on states to block any item at all that could contribute to these activities. it names additional north koreans and north korean companies whose assets will be frozen and those individuals will also be subject to a travel ban. this resolution lists a number of luxury goods that cannot be sold to north korea. as a result, north korea's ruling elite who have been living large while impoverishing their people will pay a direct test. -- direct price for this nuclear test. this can be found on the u.n. mission web site www.usun.state.gov. these sanctions will bite and bite hard. they increase north korea's isolation and raise the cost to north korea's leaders of defining the international community. the entire world stands united and in our commitment to the denuclearization of the korean peninsula and in our demand that north korea complies with its international obligation s. if it does not then the security council committed today in this resolution to take further significant measures if there is another nuclear test or missile launch. we regret that north korea has again chosen the path of prove occasion. -- provocationfar from achieving its stated goal of becoming a strong and prosperous nation, north korea has instead again opted to further impoverished its people and increase its isolation. we hope instead that north korea will heed president obama's call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with its international obligation. >> the u.n. voting sanctions against north korea, a unanimous vote, and that prompted pyongyang to threaten a nuclear strike against united states. the white house said the u.s. is fully capable of defending itself. jay carney said this -- >> can you respond to the threat of a nuclear strike on the united states? >> it is important to note as he saw the security council unanimously adopted resolution 2094 condemning north korea's provocative nuclear test and imposing strong sanctions under chapter seven of the united nations charter. the strength, breadth, and severity of the sanctions showed that the security council take seriously this that. north korea will now face new barriers to developing its nuclear missile programs. 2094 demonstrates the increasing cost the autria's leaders will pay and defying the international -- cost the north korean leaders will pay in defying the international obligations. this treatment council committed to taking an additional measures and the case of an additional launch. dprk will achieve it nothing by further provocations. >> does the united states believe that north korea is capable of carrying out this threat of officials claim they have the missile on standby that can leave washington engulfed in fire. what can you tell americans who might be concerned about whether they have the ability to carry that out? >> pm adds to its is fully capable of defending against any north korean missile attack, and our recent success in returning to testing of the upgraded version of the gbi missile will keep us on a good trajectory to improve our defense capability against limited ballistic missile threats such as those from north curling area. where fully capable of dealing with that -- from north korea. where fully capable of dealing with that threat. >> starting at 8:00 p.m. on cnn tonight, the senate judiciary committee to aids bills on -- on c-span tonight, the senate judiciary committee debates bills. on c-span2, senators reacted the filibuster by a grand ball on the nomination of john brennan to be cia director. c-span3, janet napolitano and other witnesses testified on cybersecurity issues. all of that beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span networks. next the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing on the future of u.s. relations with north korea. this comes after north korea threatening nuclear pre-emptive strike against the s, and the u.n. passed unanimous agreement. the hearing is two and a half hours. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. this being the first hearing of this new term, it could not be a more timely hearing. recent developments in north korea, notably the february 12, 2013 nuclear test and the december 12, 2012 missile test highlight the growing threat that north korea opposes to the united states, allies, and france in the region and the increasing dangers of severe instability on the korean peninsula. given this growing set of circumstances, i believe the committee needs to take a close look at current u.s. policy toward north korea cannot evaluate its effectiveness cannot identify any midcourse corrections or measures required to get our policy right. i understand that in the your the nine nations security council is sitting down to consider a resolution that imposes additional sanctions on north korea. this new security council resolution based on a u.s.-china draft includes tough new sanctions intended to impede north korea possibility to develop further its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs. these sanctions include targeting the illicit activities of north korean diplomatic personnel, north korean banking relationships cannot elicit transfers of both cash and new travel restrictions. i think these actions are a step in the right direction, and very much in keeping with the sort of approach that the ranking member, senator corker, and i called in the north korean non- proliferation act of 2013, which the senate passed. i congratulate the administration for pushing thing so effectively at denied the nation's. -- at the united nations. and with a clear goal of north korea's abandonment of its nuclear programs. north korea yesterday make what i considered the absurd threat of a pre-emptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors. in response to the action of the united states, china, are seeking at the united nations. there should be no doubt about our determination and ability to neutralize and counter any threat the north korea may present. i do not think the regime in pyongyang wants to commit suicide, but as they must surely know, that would be the result of any attack on united states. even as we think about all of our potential measures and actions to safeguard the united states and our allies, there should be no doubt about our determination to work with the international community through peaceful diplomatic means to achieve denuclearized korean peninsula. it is estimated that newt -- north korea has acquired up to 30 kilograms of plutonium, and it has not conducted three nuclear explosive tests, and it is seeking to develop the capability to make a nuclear intercontinentalto cont ballistic missile. in that newt north korea could become a small nuclear power will lead other nations in the region to reconsider their commitments to non- proliferation. there is a the continuing danger of conventional military provocation from north korea that results in a serious military clash between north and south, and the potential for unintended escalation that could drop in united states and china and result in a dangerous confrontation on the peninsula. beyond the security concerns, there are the ongoing questions about human rights and a lot of the north korean people. security concerns may be our most important prior, but they are not our own prior to trick is that over a year since the leader to power amid speculation that this transition could lead to a. against the ability. that instability does not appear to have materialized. although we can never be sure about what the future is in north korea, kim has asserted control over the military and strengthen the party institutions. contrary to media hype focused on his education in switzerland, he has not proved their former creek is unclear where he has objections of other to maintain control of his economic system. altria represents a growing threat to national security -- north korea deserves our close attention. if its present course remains unaltered, north korea could pose a direct threat to the united states. today north korea poses a threat to our allies and american forces in the region and threatens to undermine the international non-proliferation regime, as its arsenal grows, by spreading its threat to other countries through a transfer of nuclear technology and materials. we know that north korea has made efforts to proliferate nuclear technology in the past, building a plutonium separation plant in syria, which israel described by bombing it -- destroyed, and there is a long history of north korean-iranian corp. i hope that a continuing dialogue with the administration will help us explore questions other critical to inform our future policy. does north korea pursue a nuclear weapons program as a deterrent, for defensive purposes, or does the pursue a program as part of a policy intended to reunify the peninsula by force? could the current regime ever conceived partly with its nuclear capability, or does a duties levels -- weapons as told as deterrents against others? getting these answers right will be critical to determine if there's hope for diplomacy or if a different approach is necessary. it is important to note the coming power of a new south korean administration led by president park at this time. we offer her parking corrections -- we offer her our congratulations on her inauguration's last week. operation, wes have an opportunity to work with a close ally to chart a future course in dealing with north korea. we need to consider how recent transitions in other countries in the region, including japan, as well as china, a present new opportunities in building in more effective approach to dealing with pyongyang. whenever one's views on the policy efforts of the past, what has worked and what has not worked and why, there can be little question that these efforts have failed to end garth korea's nuclear or missile programs, failed to reduce the threat posed to our allies, and fail to lead to greater security in the region. i am hopeful that the hearing and a conversation we start the day might help us get to a place where 20 years from now we can look back successfully heading and that north korea and's nuclear missile programs and building a greater stability and security on the peninsula and struck the asia-pacific region. that may call upon the squeamish ranking member -- let me call on the the squeezed -- on the distinguished ranking member. >> north korea's nuclear weapons program, missile program, and proliferation activities pros a threat to the united states' that the security interests. policy makers have attempted to influence north korea's behavior through deterrent tools, including inducements and punitive measures. u.s. officials have used diplomacy, a system of financial sanctions, and counter proliferation tools, including proactive interdiction activities. despite the combination of tools and the united states has failed to persuade north korean regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. we know north korea continues to engage in a range of illicit activities to generate hard currency to support the regime. simultaneously, the situation for the north korean people has continued to deteriorate. with rampant human rights abuses, the continued expansion of north korean prison camps, and some analysts estimate they may hold as to what a thousand prisoners. china continues to serve as north korea's primary benefactor, accounting for 60% of north korean trade. beijing remains pyongyang's source of food and fuel. policy-makers and not been able to persuade china, that the cost of beijing's continued support for out ways -- it is clear we must maintain our efforts. i recognize that north korea is a complex policy conundrum and there is no silver bullet solution. after 20 years of unsuccessful policies by successive administrations, is logical that we ought to undertake a comprehensive review of our north korean strategy, including new tools to crack the her policy not. that is why i work with senator menendez and other members to work on the accountability act which would require the -- undertake the review does not require abandoning efforts, nor terminating sanctions. it necessitates we redoubled efforts to think outside the box. in recent months it has become increasingly clear to me that u.s. policymakers often pay closer attention to the non- military aspects of deterrence, including efforts to weaken and debilitate the north korean measuring. in particular we often do more to expose the north hospitality toward its own citizens as a means to influence the kim regime. we have -- we should promote the flow of information including our broadcast. do not mistake my interest in the nonmilitary aspect of the turks as a call to abandon the military posture security aspects of our north korean policy. i believe that a robust u.s. nuclear deterrent is the central to u.s. security and remain critical to maintaining our security commitments to allies in the asia-pacific. including japan and south korea. ambassador joseph will speak to our deterrent later during this hearing. i look forward to hearing from you in regarding the administration cost radish, including efforts at the three council on new sanctions resolutions. i look forward to hearing from you and all are expert witnesses about our capabilities to deter north korean provocations, options to elicit enhanced chinese cooperation and opportunities to improve the lives of the north korean people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. together at the top decision makers on north korean policy from several previous administrations. represent decades of experience. i can think of no better group analyzed at what has worked and what has not. i expect they may hold in some cases differed use in this regard, and that is only natural considering the importance of addressing north korean -- north korea, and we are born to look for to this discussion. we start off with the distinguished ambassador glyn davies. he oversees u.s. involvement in the six-party talks process, as well as aspects of our security assistance policies regarding north korea. he is a career member of the foreign service, serving previously as a permanent root representative to the u.s. atomic energy administration and the u.n. office in vienna. as low as the principal deputy assistant secretary of state, an executive secretary of the national security council staff. an extraordinary wealth of knowledge. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to testify today on u.s. policy toward north korea or as it is called the democratic people's republic. north korea's everett call announcement of its third nuclear test and its threats to conduct even more follow want measures are only the latest in a long line of reminders that the nuclear weapons programs have proliferation activities pose serious threats to u.s. national security, to regional security, in the asia-pacific, and to the global non- proliferation regime. pyongyang continues to violate its commitments including its human rights record is deplorable. it's people are impoverished strip it poor sick of it sums into nuclear and ballistic missile programs that are forbidden by the united nations. north korea and its provocativethreatening actions, meanwhile, continues to grow. to take advantage of the alternatives available. the united states offeredand has continued to offerpyongyang an improved relationship with the united states and integration into the international community, provided north korea demonstrated a willingness to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and address other concerns. the dprk rebuffed these offers and instead responded with a series of provocations that drew widespread international condemnation. 60 countries criticized the december launch. the february 12 announcement of a new protest which was proclaimed in this targeted against the united states represents an even bolder threat to national security, stability of the regime, and the global non-proliferation regime. the international response has been unprecedented over 80 countries condemning the test. we are working with the international community to make clear that north korea's nuclear test has costly consequences. in adopting a resolution 2087 in january, the u.n. security council pledged to take action in the event of a nuclear test. we're working hard at the united nations security council to make good on that pledge, and mr. chairman, that is occurring even as we speak. we're hoping that the council of stops resolution that the united states put forward, that the security council will deliver a strong response that further impede the growth of north korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic weapons programs and its ability to engage in proliferation activities. the resolution today that we tabled builds upon strengthens and significantly expands the scope of the strong u.n. sanctions already in place. the sanctions contained in this draft resolution will impede north korea up's ability to proceed in developing its nuclear and missile programs and expand the scope prospective of the tolls the u.s. house available to counter these and hamas and the elements. we are strengthening our core nation with our allies working closely with partners in the department of defense and other agencies. we will take steps necessary defend our allies, particularly the republic of korea and japan. multilateral and national sanctions will remain a vital component of our effort to dprk and its activities. we continue to exercise national authorities to sanctioned north korean entities and those that support them, and facilitating programs that threaten the american people. most recently, on january 24, the department of state and treasury designated a number of north korean individuals and entities under executive order 13382. we will continue to take national measures as appropriate. sanctions are not a punitive measure, but a tool to impede the deployment of north korea's nuclear missile programs and its proliferation experts as well as to make clear the cost of north korea plus the fight of its international obligations and working toward our end-game will require an openness to dialogue with the dprk. are committed to authentic negotiate since to implement the september 2005 joint statement of the six-party talks and to bring north korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. the united states will not engage in talks for talks' sake. it will require a change in north korea's parties, demanding that pyongyang will meet its obligations on denuclearization. this leads to a few important other principals. first, the nightsticks will not accept north korea as a nuclear quest the united states will not accept the tree as a nuclear state. we will not compensate them for returning to dialogue. we will not tolerate north korea for bullying its majors -- measures. -- neighbors treat the tysons cannot approve without improvement in injured-korean relations. in the meantime, at the u.s. diplomacy on north korea on a wide range of issues continues. close coordination with our treaty allies, japan, remain absolutely central to our approach. we have expanded our engagement might develop a new dialogue key global actors who have joined the rising chorus of voices, calling on the dprk to comply with obligations. china does remain central to altering or korea's calculus and close u.s.-china confrontations will remain a key focus of the medics -- of diplomatic efforts. while the cleared -- the new queries asian is a goal, so too is the welfare north korea's 25 million people, the vast majority of whom bear the brunt of the government's decision to perpetuate an unsustainable self-impoverishing military- first policy. improving human rights conditions is an integral part of our overall north korea policy, and how the dprk addresses human rights will have an impact on prospects for improved u.s.- dprk ties. entire world is increasingly taking note of the grave human rights violations in hte dprk. knighted nations high commissioner for human rights has called for an inquiry to document abuses. we support this call. next week my colleague will travel to attend a session where he will call attention to north korea's human rights record and urged adoption of an enhanced mechanician of inquiry into the regina's abuses. the obama administration policy of engagement and pressure toward the cuts a recognition that only to a policy of openness to dialogue when possible, combined with robust pressure to sanctions when necessary, can maximize prospects for progress in denuclearizing north korea. genuine progress requires fundamental shifts in north korea's shuja countless trips the leadership must choose between provocation and peace, isolation, or integration. north korea will not achieve security, economic prosperity, and integration into the international community while it pursues weapons, while it threatens its neighbors and while it tramples on international norms of abuses its people, and refuses to fulfil its longstanding obligations and commitments. the leadership in pyongyang faces increasingly sharp choices, and we're working with our friends and allies to further sharpen these courses. if the north korean regime is at all why some it will embark on a path to denuclearization for the benefit of the north korean people, the northeast asian region, and the world. thank you again for this chance to appear before you today, and on -- and i am happy to try to address any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we will start a round, and let me just take off of that, almost closing comment, that you made, that progress depends on north korea changing its strategic calculus. the question is, what is it that we and our allies can do to defect -- can do to effect that calculus so it moves in a different direction, and in that context, it isn't the key here china? and its potential influence with the north koreans, and if that is the case, how is it that we give the chinese -- we get the chinese to be more robust in their efforts to get north korea to change its trustees tic calculus? , you have asked the biggest question that can be asked about north korean policy, and you are hitting on key themes. changing north korea's calculus is proving to be a challenge. administrations of both strikes have been at this at least since ronald reagan was president, and one can argue it even before that. what we are trying to do is continuing to present a united front in terms of concentric circles, extending to our partners in the six-part process, and going beyond that to try to build an international coalition that understands the threat that north korea poses to the international system, not just on proliferation, but on human-rights and how it comports itself with the international financial system and so forth. north korea appears not yet to be absorbing those lessons, but we will continue to sharpen them, working with colleagues and with our friends. on a more basic level, we are working very closely as we have for decades with our south korean ally to ensure that should north korea miscalculate and we call on them not to do that, once again, in the face of these new threats emerging from pyongyang, even in recent hours and days and how we work with the south koreans to make sure we are ready from an alliance standpoint militarily to deal with any threats that arise. that is very much at the macro level, how we are dealing with this problem. you mentioned china. you're absolutely right. china is a critical piece of this challenge. closest north korea's neighbor. they are often north korea's protector, and certainly an ally of north korea. they have had a special relationship of sorts for quite awhile. we're concentrating a lot of diplomatic energy and effort on deepening our dialogue with china, to present to than the proposition that there is still a peaceful diplomatic way ford to deal with the north korean issue. it will not work and cannot work unless china stepped up, placed its four role in bringing home to pyongyang the choices it faces and setting the table for any return to negotiations. i am afraid the history of trying to draw north korea into talks that can deal with its nuclear program, its missile program, and all the other issues we're concerned about has not been fully successful, because the north koreans have been able to split us. we think it is time to work more closely with china, but also of course with our close allies and other partners in the six-part process to bring home to the address they face -- >> for china, it seems to me there totwo calculus here. they can deal with us at united nations, which is pursue a noose set of sanctions, and that will rattle the north koreans, or they can choose to go had at significantly come back -- cut back on that which is essential to north korean excesses, which is its assistance in fuel as well as other sources. that would be far more significant. from your perspective, what is the chinese calculus? they have not chosen -- now they are joining us, with a welcome thing that has occurred council, but they have a much bigger, more significant ability by virtue of the incredible assistance it gives north korea. >> safest thing to say about china is it is the falling. yesterday we agree -- we were greeted with the news that chairman mao's grandson, a general and the people's liberation army, called on north korea to move forward on denuclearization. there our developed in china. one could describe it as the beginning of debate about how china will deal with its neighbor. relations have not always gone smoothly of late between the two countries. i do not think it is up to us to figure out how to engage too deeply in that internal dialogue and china, but those are helpful sides. you're right, china is always the get out of jail free cards for north korea. they can provide ways for the north koreans to export, import materials. china is part of the security council. i have been given a note that resolution has passed. chinese played a bigger role in crafting that resolution pick a permit -- and contains the provisions of the talk about. there are signs that china is beginning to stepup, more robustly than a month to play its role. they say they enforce these sanctions, we take them at their word. we trust to verify at the front, and will continue to engage the chinese to deepen our dialogue and to insure the chinese do the maximum amount they can to deal with this problem. >> senator corker. >> think, mr. chairman, and thank you for your testimony. i hear of the things that you are working on, and we thank you for your work, and we understand this has been going on for 20 years and to many administrations, but when you talk about verifiable deforestation, it seems to me that we can just continue to go in the operation -- in the opposite tertian, and while we talk about additional sanctions in the security council, it feels to me more like we're at a crossroads, that this is not about additional stages, but we're at a crossroads where if something it does not happen soon, there is no way that we can begin talking about verifiable denuclearization. do you agree with that, or to you think adding on additional pressures and the way we have been doing it will work? but it has been a combination of all the above, plus more. we need to continue to press north korea when necessary, and right now it is necessary to do that because they are in a provocation staged, so you are getting a reaction from this occurred council. pressure to sanctions is a portrait we need to stay strong and our alliance with the rok, continue to is sharpen and deepen our capabilities. it is important to build this international coalition. 80 nations is somewhat stunning, nations like south africa, brazil, even the house and vietnam are condemning this most recent nuclear test. the greek chorus out there in the world is growing in volume. you're right, that is only good as far as it goes, because what is most important change north korea's calculus, so we'd also need to be ready to engage north korea incredible an authentic talks if we can ever see that they are prepared to take a real step to the nuclear rise and address our concerns. i think all of those can things are exceedingly important, and also very quickly we need to take account of what we have achieved over the last 60 years. in south korea, we have worked with them, helped them create a bit of an economic miracle. i think the ratio is now 36-1 in terms of the amount of goods and services produced per capita versus the average north korean pick things are not going well in terms of the correlation of forces when it comes to north korea right now. i think we move on all these fronts, diplomatically, militarily, in terms of the international coalition. we need to keep drawing attention to their human-rights, and by continuing to press them and continuing to present to them the opportunity should they choose to accept it, to come talk to the international community and find a different way for the away from provocations' come away from boston, away from threat and move toward a different feature that is absolutely available for them, i am at least guardedly optimistic that at some point they will see that is the way to go and i think that is why we need to to stay true to that. >> you talked about insuring japan and south korea and allies understand we are going to be there to protect them, and yet you are aware we are not investing in modernization in our own country, regarding our nuclear armament. does that tree in the concerns with allies that we are not doing the things in our own country to ensure that that deterrence is there? >> to be fair, i work for the state department, and that is a question for our defense planners, but i can take a bit of a stab at it. i have not seen in my frequent travels in japan and the rok that there are deep concerns that our commitment to them is that all in jeopardy, and because we have begun this pivot to asia, we have begun to devote even more research is to the asian theater, and that is gone to reassure them. but the mechanism that is funding this nuclear activity uses illicit activities, and we have ways of countering that. we also -- there are people who are saying we should call the entire north korean government as a money-laundering concern, and we condemn the third -party candidates, some of which might reside in china. can you talk to us about ways of getting involved in stopping illicit activity so it is not finding what they're doing from a nuclear standpoint, and what are your thoughts about us being involved in cutting down on entities that are allowing that money to flow through? >> some of the sanctions that have been part of the many resolutions to get at this, it is important we remain vigilant -- >> at present they are not doing what needs to be done. some of the sanctions get at that, but we are still not stopping the flow of money to these nuclear activities from a list of concerns trick is there more that we should be doing there? >> we are slowly doing that, and that is good because it makes it more difficult for the north koreans to gain the input they need for their program. it is important that in a kind of all aspects of policy to look at that, that is something we continue to work on, and it is interesting if you look at the trend of great number of years there was a time that, to many years ago, these problems with methamphetamine exports, with counterfeiting cigarettes and drugs, this was really epidemic. i am not saying it is not a problem. it is, and we are vigilant about it, but a lot of the steps we're taking did a good job of making it more difficult for them to do that. a lot more work to do, no question about it, and it ought to be a focus of attention. >> my time is up, but i want to say i agree with efforts to point out the human rights issues that are taking place. that would help us build an even greater coalition, and i would like to share some point how we might influence citizens there 3 better broadcast activity taking place there. take you for your testimony, and i look forward to the rest of your answer. >> thank you. thank you, ambassador, for being here, and i very much appreciate your service and willingness to go in to these difficult situations. could you tell us with regard to the wmd programs, what is the current estimate on when north korea would have a warhead missile combination that could strike united nations -- united states, and what are the most effective means of this occurring, or slowing down progress in that area. >> great question. it is a subject of a lot of debate among some highly qualified experts in the government and among the experts community beyond, people like a professor at stanford, who has expertise. he was the director of our laboratory at los alamos pay >> that is exactly right. what i am going to have to do is take a dive, because you're asking a question that does good deeply into intelligence matters, and i do not want -- i would rather not i'm not an expert on these matters. i think as a general proposition, a lot of what is written in the popular literature about this and the think tanks and others, they are not too far off in terms of the estimates, some of which you've eluded to. but i can't get into those highly classified intelligence matters. >> i wanted you to just give us a general answer as you did. i think various folks have talked about a matter of months or even a year in those kinds of situations. and i'm sure that we'll be getting briefings on that. a lot has been said about china's great cyber wall which blocks information critical of the communist party or policies from the chinese people. but my understanding is north korea has even a more robust restrictive policy in terms of the internet. and it seems to me that one of the things we're seeing around the world when you see democracy movements is the internet playing a role, is the people being connected, people turning out in the streets as a result of that interconnectedness. and you may have noticed recently and i know the administration didn't bless this, but our governor recently visited to try to promote the idea of the internet in north korea. and i was wondering should the united states be actively engaged in helping to create access to the internet in north korea. and do you believe that this is in the interest of the north korean people as well as the other people in the region? >> great question. and it is in our interest to do that but it's a tough target stote convince the north koreans to open up. while we weren't crazy about the time of the trip to pyongyang, i was interested to see him make those statements. funny things are happening in north korea that could eventually have an effect. you have 1.5 million cell phones now,mostly among the elite and on a closed system. hume limits there, not able to access the outside. but nonetheless it promotes the spread of information within north korea. we know from lots of good studies that have been done by private organizations interviewing these 23,000 north korean refugees who found their way to south korea that there is a surprising degree of understanding about the world outside their borders. south korean soap operas are popular and it is probably a bit of a shock when they get a thumb drive and watch one of these to see south koreans with one or two cars in their garages. so i think the media picture is changing. that is happening or ganically because of the trade between china and north korea and i think we do need to look at entrepreneurial ways to promote more of that, get more information in. i think broadcasting is a part of that. the broadcasting board of governors spends a lot of time on this issue. we work with the r.o.k. on that as well. we work with private groups. there are a number of organizations who work hard to try to aleviate the challenges faced by average north koreans and their presence in the country i think is a great way to bring to the north koreans an image of what americans and the outside world are like. so i think across all of these fronts, there is much that is happening. there is much more to do and i'm very glad you raised it. ambassador, back to the nuclear weapons and i think this is less in the classified area, is getting north korea to dismantle the weapon the goal of u.s. policy and under what conditions might north korea give up its nike weapons? >> it is still the goal of u.s. policy to achieve a korean p/e anyone you is la that is free of that. we had a few short range went thans we had there. we know this is not going to happen over night even if we're able to get some sort of diplomatic process started. i was personally engaged in following up the work that steve bosworth did before he left my position to try to draw out the north koreans to begin a process to go down that road and bound their nuclear program and give them up. i think there is still a chance for i did police woman ma si, there is still a chance for talks to work. but it will require a united front. and most of all, it will require a change of calculus in pyongyang. and that is what we're working to. i'm hopeful we can get to that. i'm hopeful in a generation we can see a different picture. >> thank you for being here with us. this is a difficult assignment you've been given by evidence of the fact that ambassador rodman visited north korea and wasn't able to accomplish much either. >> but he gave up the baseline. >> you said a moment ago you are guardedly optimistic. that at some point this could be resolved thu negotiations. i want to share my impressions and get your impressions of that. some of this is not novel but i want to share it with you and get your impressions. my impressions are that the north korean regime seeks legitimate si for who they are and what they are. they want the world to accept them as a nuclear power. they want to be legitimate miesed as a world government despite all the atrosstiss they commit and all the weird things they do abroad. and they want to be insulated from foreign interference in their affairs. and they've concluded the only way to accomplish these things is by being a nuclear power which and their strategy is this series of escalations with potential offramp as long the way they conduct. they conduct weapons test. they say outrageous things like they are going to -- i forth the rhetoric used a week ago about wiping out the u.s. forces if they conduct a joint exercise. they said they are going to strike us here in the homeland. they use this rhetoric and actions they take to scare people or get a reaction from the world towards one goal. and that one goal is very sitchle to get the world to say fine north korea regime, you can keep your weapons and we'll accept you for who you are. that's their goal. i don't know how we can negotiate them out of that position at this point. they decide do we want to be kadafi or hugh sane. and once we have the capability of striking the u.s. at the homeland, they will have no choice but to accept us and everything they do between now and then is to delay or buy time. that doesn't mean i also hope one day they will wake up and say this is bad for us. i just don't think a government like this can survive if they had to get rid of their weapons and engage the world in a civilized way. my concern is -- why does this matter? number one, because i believe if injury japan or south korea or other countries in the region. if north korea continues to expand and gets global acceptance of their nuclear program, they are going to want one as well. so this fear of an escalation of nuclear weapons in the riege season very real. the second concern is other countries are measuring their behavior. iran is closely watching what happens with north korea. they want to be accepted as the government they are. and they want to be insulated from foreign interference and they think a nuclear weapon system is the way to do it and they are watching how north korea is being treated by the global community and determining from that how they need to proceed forward. the reality is i think the best we can hope for is three things. number one we have to delay and preferably prevent them from a goal of reaching the u.s. or the west with these weapons. number two, we should never allow the world to forget who these people are and what they are doing. the list of atrosstiss is too long for today. they kidnap people abroad. any relidge season banned. pun shable by death. the list goes on and on. and we need to create the conditions for reunification which is impossible today. but we don't know when the moment comes those conditions become possible. i think we need to do everything we can with our partners in the world to create the conditions where we can have a yuan fide peaceful korea. and that's not possible today but we can create the conditions where hopefully that will be possible. who could have predicted east germany would have fallen but it did. we have to strengthen. i know as a diplomat your job is to try to bring a resolution to this. i don't think that is going to happen with this guy. they are convinced the only way they can accomplish what they want is to have a nuclear program. >> i don't disagree with anything you've said. this is one of the hardest foreign policy problems out there and not just for this particular administration, but for many predecessor administrations. so you're right about all of that. everything you prescribe i think is being done in one form or another. delaying their acquisition of these materials, working hard to prevent them from proliferating these technologies, never letting people forget the nature of this regime and what it is they've done to their own people, what it is their doing to the international system by remaining an outlier. and you talk about creating conditions for unification. i think here, you're right, we need to continue to support the republic of korea. what the r.o.k. has done over the last couple of generations is nothing short of a miracle in terms of the way its pulled itself up by itself boot straps and created the largest economy in the world. become a much stronger nation. and i think we need to do all of this. and we certainly need to work more closely every day with the r.o.k. and its new president to present this united pront to north korea. and to do that also more broadly, within hours of their nuclear test, all of the other five parties, china and russian i can't included denounced what they had done. >> are we potentially in the midst of a recalibration amongst policy makers in regard to north korea. is it possible we are in the moment that the chinese are looking at the situation and saying they are no longer what they once were? we don't need the headache they are? >> they are clearly not pleased in beijing that every time they try to impress them to take a different path, they thumb their nose at them. we see stunning articles with knowledge poft central authorities. i mentioned you've got the chinese blog sphere are saying what goes here. there is a nuclear test right across the border in north korea. this country is testing weapons 15 years after the last country tested. things are changing in china. will it create a fundamental shift? very hard to say but we're watching it closely. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you for your testimony. there are three major challenges that i want to talk about. we've already talked about them. one, it's clear that north korea is moving aggressively on its nuclear weapons program. secondly as senator rubio pointed out, the record on human rights violations is the worst of any country in the world, the way they treat their people, no opportunity for decent or criticisms. they are kidnapping and torture, no or the youse and the third is the condition of their own people. the level of poverty and hunger. i want to ask you three points that have been raised. one is that north korea has threatnd to cut off the military hot line. how important is that in dealing with the threat of confrontation? secondly, the united nations is looking at a commission on human rights. should we have any confidence that that, in fact, would put on adequate spotlight on what is happening? and the third is our contact in north korea is limited. we don't have a great deal of ngo's to work with. we are not providing any significant ade at all. should we reevaluate the participation with ngo's to try to deal with the population itself in north korea? >> great questions. the hot line cut off, they've done this before. it's one of the things they do on occasion. i don't know that it's necessarily the case this latest threat to cut off the hot line or perhaps they've already cut the line is going to be at the end of the day is going to be different from what we've seen in the past, nonetheless it's serious. >> have we used it in the past? >> yes. at the peace village on the border it's often used to convey messages back and forth. your question about what is happening in geneva and the likely we hope establishment for the first time of a permanent mechanism of a commission inquiry to look at humeb rights. i think this is a significant development. somewhat stunning this hasn't been the case in the past. but we hope the u.n. is going to take that step. it's not a magic bullet but i think it will be a great way for the entire international community institutionly and indefinitely to look at what is going on in north korea and broadcast to the rest of the world the results of their efforts. >> are there still hurdles that have to be overcome for that commission to be established? >> it's not done yet. they haven't looked at it and having served a couple of years i know nothing is done until it's done in u.n. land. t but we have tron believe there is the right kind of correlation of forces, japan is behind it, the r.o.k. has announced their support for this mechanism. we are actively seeking it. and i mentioned in my statement that u.n. officials are behind it and promoting it. i think it's going to happen. and we're going to do what we can to make it happen. and it will have an effect. >> on ngo's, that's a great point. yesterday, during the snow day that wasn't, i was in the office and i was on a wonderful conference call with 7 ngo's many of them religiously baced. these people do work in north korea. they do medical programs. they get out of pyongyang and get into the country side and they do everything from you theburg cue loss sis work to digging wells and hospitals and dental clin nicks. and i think it is important to clear the path for them to do what they can do. it's not easy. and one of the concerns they had was about sanses and whether that will affect their ability to bring things in to do the work they do. i think we need to find a way to promote their work because i think that is important that this kind of people to people work go forward. why? because 1/3 of north koreans according to a number of studies are severely chronically malnourished. they are forgotten by the elicit in pyongyang building parks and holding rock concerts. so it's important that we do what we can to work with them. >> we have in past when we've imposed sanctions tried to figure out ways to get direct aid to ngo's we have confidence in to provide humanitarian aid ha is appropriate. do we have confidence if that aid were to be made available that the ngo network is strong enough and there is enough account ability that kecked ensure this the aid went for the designated purpose and was not diverted to compromise the importance of the sanctions? >> well the ngo's take it very seriously. they've got decades of experience. a lot of their work is scaled such that a lot less likely that the regime is going to try to divert the resources they provide, the services to the military or the elicit. i've been impressed as i've looked at the specifics of the programs they have under way, they've to a great extent figured out how to do this. and whether it's flood relief or bringing nutritional supplements to malnourished children, they are one of the ways we ought to go. and when we have done big feeding programs in north korea. there was the 500,000 met trick on the program under the previous administration this north koreans cut off only a third of the way into it. and the most recent one we put into place. we do the work through ngo's because they are that good and they ensure that the goods and services they provide get to the right people. >> i make the final point, for congress to allow that type of assistance, we need to know and have confidence that we can account for how the aid is being used since we're not present in the country to be able to do that. we have to have that type of confidence, so it's something you need to be able to build up as far as the questions that will be asked in congress. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. can you bring me up to speed in terms of the progress of the new leader and the consolidation of power and how much of that consolidation really leads to the hi jinx we've been seeing recently? >> that's a really hard target. a lot of terrific intelligence professionals work at that. we stay in touch with allies. i a week ago spent a couple of hours with an ambassador with one of the nations who had lots of insights to provide about the thinking of the government. just as a general matter, i think what has happened is kim came into power in december of 2011. there was a period that lasted a few months where everybody was saying this is maybe a new day. one think tank even talked about a cam lot moment occurring in north korea. i wasn't buying any of the stuff at the time and nor were many in government. but what we've seen is that debate has gone away. that the hope for the kind of more enlightnd approach to these issues, that's fading fast. i think he has consolidated his power. he's got the six key titles. he's the head of the military and the government. the logic of their system is such. it's such a dictator system that in order for that system to operate as it has for the last three generations, there has to be a man at the top to whom all issues are referred and from whom all wisdom flows. we think that he is for all intents and purposes in charge. as to why he's taken the steps he's taken, some of the purges, that's been consolidating his power, firing the generals and so forth. and all of this tough talk, hard to say why they are doing it. i think it's the classical reaction to the fact that community is coming together and making it tougher to operate. i think that's the kind of acting out we see from north korea. >> thank you. i'm new to the committee but i've been watching the lage out of sanctions and relaxing a little bit. basically the dual strath here. can you tell me in your mind what was the most effective set of sanctions? i'll start there. what worked best? i also want you to speak to what mistakes were made? what lessons have we learned in terms of effectiveness of sanctions and how we relax them and how the united states has been played like charlie brown more than once here. >> on sanctions the most important sanctions often tend to be the buy into the broadest number of nations and here i talked about the role of china and the importance of working with them to ensure that they follow through on their commitments when it comes to sanctions. what's the most effective set of sanctions? that's hard to say. i've ai'm teverted to say the sanctions that have helped to cut off the flow of luxury goods is pretty important because it's prevented the regime to some extent of rewarding members of the elite. but i think a more serious answer is the sanctions that are getting at the nuclear program, getting at the missile program, preventing the inputs they need in order to build up the mass destruction weapon program. those are important. the latest resolution i was given a note that was passed contains not only a tightening of existing sanctions, but it's got some new sanction that is get at that problem. i think we need to keep building on that. i think what you'll see is there will then be national sanctions that will be by us and others that will tighten down sanctions further. but i think it's in the nuclear and missile areas where the sanctions are having the most effect. and finally interdiction which is to say and this new resolution has a lot of good stuff in it about preventing the export by north korea of its armaments which is a key source of income by sea and by air. and there is a lot in this resolution that gets at that. and i think that's what we need to keep working on. >> didn't we freeze bank accounts for leaders? >> we've done a number of financial sanctions. there are more in this resolution approved just minutes ago. there are individual designations of key people and their apparatus who play key roles in exporting their materials, importing what they need to build up their programs . travel bans on these individuals and so forth. so it's a combination of individual designation s, institutional designations and the inputs, the actual machinery and technology that they need. we just need to push on all of these fronts and keep it up. >> the word recalibration was mentioned and strategic calculus. of the members of the six party talk, what has been the most significant recalibration of the strategic calculus, whether it's russia, china, japan, can you speak to that? where has been the move just to give me a sense of that history? >> i think the movement, i have to admit it's like watching paint drie sometimes it's such a long process. i think the movement has been incrementle. all of the various efforts and there have been quite a variety of approaches to this problem by various administrations in the past, whether engagement, whether pressure, different ack tech chures internationally, there were six party talks, four party talks. at one point here. and bosworth can speak to a great deal of this. i think the biggest change has been the steady accumulation of experience, of pressure, of sanctions, over the yeerls, over the decades and i think that's made a huge difference. then the final thing i'll say is that the world is beginning to weak up to a gretter extent to this problem. there were 80 nations from every corner of the world would issue statements condemning north korea's nuclear test. this coalition is building, it's growing, it's strengthening and it's meaningful. because these are people who sent messages to north korea and to china. it's very difficult in an international system for a nation like north korea to ignore the fact that increastingly thare actions are seen as dill tiryouse to the functioning of the world system and to the interest of these countries. hard for me to point to one calibration that's occurred. maybe what's going on in china will fit that bill. but i would just say it's this incremental broadening pressure that's been important. >> thank you very much. i wanted to start by talking about the north korean economy. there is a popular impression that the north korean economy is a vast waste land of work camps and starving people, while that is true for a big part of the country thrrks is a relatively stable economy in the capital. there is a class of ruling elicit that are doing fairly wem. you mentioned briefly about the impact that euro sanctions have had on holding back luxury goods from that class of individuals that has seemingly been pretty resistent to the type of poverty that has struck the rest of the nation. can you talk a little bit about the state of the north korean economy? can you talk a little bit about our relative success or lack of success in trying to change the calculus for the ruling elite based on their economic 1259 us the and any new thool may be at our dispose toll try to change that? >> well, the economy question is a great one. and there are a number of experts who look that the hard. it's tough to measure. they don't produce straths that are reliable. the scope of it, many people are fooled when they go to pyongyang which as i've said is a bit of a walled city state, you can't easy get in or out where the elicit live. you see people with cell phones and cars in the street and restaurants and they conclude that north korea is really coming up in the world economically. i don't think that is the case. they have some goods and services to offer to the world. they have mineral deposit that is are of value to china which seeks to exploit them. they export lab boarers to places around the world who remit moneys to north korea. thare economy is in some sectors has done reasonably well but the problem is their ago culechure sector remains unreformed. when the new leader came in, he made a number of promises at hinted at reforms he would institute. we have yet to see that for whatever reason. he seems to have drawn back from going forward with those reforms. to some extent the reform of the economy would be good for the people. the chinese are telling us we should help the north koreans reform their economy and i beg to differ on that. >> the second question is this:so to what extent is food aid an actual tool to recalibrate their strategic interest? we have had success in these temporary agreements by exchanging food aid for concessions on their nuclear program. but it can blow up within months. is this a real pressure point in negotiations or have they just used this as a means to delay and postpone? >> i think the latter is the case. we don't link food assistance to political matters. what i found when i came into the process towards the end of our year long effort to negotiate this deal with the north koreans that was the north koreans were insisting that the offer we made of 240 tons be linked to the concessions they were going to make only nuclear missiles. they enforced that from their side. we don't use food as a weapon oher a tool and we don't link it to political matters. and no country has been more generous than the united states over the years in providing food to the north korean people. i think since 1997, it's been on the order of some $800 million of food. so we support the people of north korea. we trie, and it's not easy, to bring them aid and comfort, bring them food because it's quite clear that the authorities in pyongyang don't care about what happens in the inner land of north korea and they allow this malnutrition and sometimes starvation to occur. so we don't link the two. i would never put forward that food aid is something we should use as an inducement to political change or change on denukization. >> and then one last question on china and you may have responded to this. but in particular to what senator rubio talked about with regard to the arms race that could develop in the region, we can control the north koreans if we are responsible for 70% of their economy. even if they do get nuclear power capacity, we can deal with that. but they have to understand that the power shifts if ten or 15 years from now there are five nuclear powers in the region s. that a bright line for them? do they view that as a serious threat? >> sure. the last thing i'll do is speak for the chinese on this. but there are sign that is the chinese are watching closely these debates that are occurring in japan and the r.o.k. among some. i don't think any consensus is developing or will twop in favor of going forward with developing nuclear weapons. i hope not. it's important for the standpoint of the non-proliferation treaty they not go forward in doing that. the chinese are taking notice and it concerns them. one of the things we say to them when we have conversations about what is happening in north korea is if you have concerns about america's kind of recalibration of its force posture toward asia, then if north korea continues to go on the same direction and we can't resolve it, yile see more of the same and you're not going to like it. yule see more developments such as the extension of the r.o.k. by the range of its missiles. you'll see more developments like the placement of radars in japan. you'll see more on missile defense and on the rest of it. so you have some voices in china saying it's the united states trying to enkirkle us. that's not it at all. we're trying to defend ourselves. they know these phenomenon are related and we hope it becomes an insent tive for them to step up and do more and try to resolve this problem. and we stand ready to work with the chinese 20 do that. >> thank you. i'm going to pick up on the chairman's opening question which is what is the right way to change the calculus and many questions have been about external measures and i want to get to those in a second. but i'd like to get your sense of internal measures. nations that have abandonned nuclear programs, often it's been an internal calculus that's caused them to do. so in looking at the arab spring, people grow to tolerate and live under dictatorships but they get restless under he are red tear dictator ships. at once dictatorship starts to become a hereditary dictatorship there is unrest and the population wapts to throw it off. let's talk about the internal dynamics of north korea and educate me a bit on that. is there any potential for internal decent that could drive a rethinking of the nuclear program? and is there anything we can appropriately do? it's like hydrofracking, is there anything we can appropriately do to drive that decent and increase snit >> we don't see signs of significant internal deincident north korea. and maybe that's often the case before changes occur,ion -- i don't know. that presents a challenge to us where do you drill and what do you pump in that whole to engage in this kind of fracking. i love that image. it's tough. and i think the important thing is to keep firing on all sill ders. to keep broad casting into north korea and work with our allies. work with n.g.o.'s. i think the situation is changing in north korea. they are educated. i think many of them are hungry for information about what is happening on the outside. but when it comes to the classical stuff we all know from history about is there a unit of the army or is there somebody in the regime who is susceptible. there is nothing like that that presents itself to us that we can exploit or reach out tofment and it makes it a very, very tough problem. >> explain that as somebody who is an expert in this area, the absence of this kind of visible decent. and nurfwood touch with nature that is have diplomatic presence in north korea. is it the sheer demoralization and poverty of those who don't have any credible ability to match up against a military power? is it the long term affects of famine? how would you describe what we're seeing elsewhere we don't see there given famine and the poor economic conditions that would drive decent elsewhere? >> sure. that's really hard for me to answer. i'm not a life long north korea expert. i don't think we're going to know if and when that opportunity necessarily presents aitself any better than we have in recent years when we've seen dramatic change in parts of the world where there were dictatorial systems. and the problem with north korea is it is the most sealed, high walled paranoid state out there. i don't think it really has it's equivalent anywhere in the world. >> since albania fell, maybe it doesn't have an equivalent. >> i have to admit even though a lot of very dedicated qualified people work this issue in the intelligence community n our military out of the state department. and we do that on a daily basis, there isn't anything there that i could point to now that is the pressure point, the fisher that we can exploit. i keep coming back to the necessity for staying true to our principles, staying close to our allies, working hard with our partners, in particular china given their relationship, highlighting the human rights deprivations in north korea. and i believe that there will come a day when things will likely change. i don't think that north korea has forever to make the strategy choice to go in a different direction that will involve reaching out to the world and fulfilling its promises and going down the path of denukization. 24e have an off ramp. there is a way to work this out diplomatically we've given them time and time again. they've chosen not to do it. we'll continue to do it. when the pounds per square inch pressure builds up enough, they will see the light and take door number one. >> let me ask about the five parties to the six party talks and china especially. but there are other nation that is we have strong relationships with that aid and abet or at least have interactions with the north korean government that help them to gain or continue momentum on their activity that are not the direct part of those talks. but talk about our abilities to utilize those relationships and either through the u.n. action today or other actions get them to stop anything that would promote north korea's forward momentum on nuclear proliferation? >> that's a great question. we work at it all the time. there have been some successes. you're familiar with the burma example where the new government has made the strategic decision to go in a different direction and change the nature of its relationship with north korea. that's very important. that will take time to play out and work through. the same is true of many of the other traditional customers or states that have dealt with north korea. since the al cabar reactor was taken care of in sir yarks i think that's a relationship that is no longer what it was. so i think the truth is we take it case by case. we work with these countries that still maintain an arms relationship with north korea. i think the effort to exand if international coalition and consensus about north korea is important because the moral has saturday of dealing with north korea becomes a more important factor for many of these countries. but i guess the short and honest answer is it's a case by case effort that we undertake and we're seeking to step it up. and this resolution passed today in new york i think is going to help us to a great extent to get at that problem. >> thanks very much. >> i just want to ask and i'm not sure how this has been asked or answered before. but do you believe for the reductions on our part as a result of the treaties will do anything to persuade the north koreans to move ahead with reductions or not move ahead with what they are doing? how effective is what we do with their own actions or is that completely independent? >> here i can draw on my couple of years working at the national atomic energy agency where in the wake of speech where he said a world without nuclear weapons, i found representing the u.s. in that body, 150 nation body that that had a tremendous effect on convincing a lot of the fence is iters around the world that the united states was serious about trying to move forward. if you go back to eisenhower's nuclear bargain which he laid out in the speech it was clear those with nuclear weapons would seek to get rid of them. those without would pledge not to aquire them. so for many countries in the world the united states demonstrating that its serious about keeping up its end of the bargain has a tremendous sket. when it comes to north korea, i'm not going to spin you and tell you the north koreans are going to pack up their nuclear weapons and give them up if we pass further treaties with russia and so forth. but it has a tremendous affect on all 189 countries of the treaty and it makes it easier for us and others who care about this treaty to move that agenda forward, reduces north korea's running room, makes it tougher for them to climb they need these went tons defend themselves. so i think it's a vital aspect of winning over hearts and minds globally and eventually setting up asset of circumstances in which it's very, very difficult, if not, one hopes eventually impossible for them to continue to maintain as an international out lier to maintain nuclear weapons. >> i listened to you and i know that you are working hard and many people have for many years. but i think have you ack we esed and said this is probably going to continue on and we don't see any changes and more pressure will be a34r50eud. i'm curious. we have a situation with iran where there is a red line. and we've been pretty bellicose about the line we would usele military action to keep them from having nuclear weapons. and in korea, equally nutty folks and human rights even worse. why is it we have a policy in north korea that is so different than in iran when you have equally bellicose and i would say regime that is are rogue regimes. why would we have such a different policy? >> actually the policy has more common al tiss than divenses in both cases what we seek to do, as i said earlier, in the case of north korea use pressure when we have to use pressure and seek to exploit engagement when it's possible to engage them. i don't agree there's been no change. i think that the pressure, the sanctions, the coalitions we've built, the work in six party, a lot of the diplomatic efforts went a great distance to -- >> they are certainly way past any kind of red line that we would accept in iran. they are way beyond anything we as a country stated pub blickically we would accept in iran. it seems to me we have two very different policies. i'm just curious why that is the case? >> i think we have two situation that is have developed. and i think it's because of the different set of circumstances in both. i'm not an iran expert. i could quickly get myself in trouble by trying to compare the iran case to the north korea case. but as the north korea case developed. i think we have sthrodethare efforts to create these weapons. i think we've built this coalition that is going to don't decrease their running room and space in which they can operate. i have faith if we stick with the principle that is have be deviced in a bipartisan basis over 20 or 30 years that we will see the kind of changes we would like to see. and i'm sorry, it's true, these are per nishes problems. this is the land of a lot of bad alternatives. and so i think the way you deal wit you is stick to your principles, you stick to your allies. you 345euk modest progress here, sometimes dramatic progress there. occasionally there are set backs but you keep at it. american leadership is essential. it's born a lot of fruit. sadly it hasn't changed the strategic situation yet. but if we keep at it, if we keep together, we are going to see sooner or later, hope it's sooner, the kind of changes we hope are needed and i want to re-emphasize this one point, it's up to north korea to understand that it has another path that it can take. it has a partner in the international community that will engage with north korea but it has to be the one to make this decision, make this strategic choice to ban nuclear weapons and if they do there will be a different future and one that will be for the benefit of all the careen people north and south. >> i think that's a highly aspirational statement that doesn't seem to be based on reality today. but i thank you for your optimism. and i'll go back to my original premise and would like to understand that more fully. thank you. >> let me make an observation. first of all, we're very aspirational here. >> you have to be on north korea. >> i think in part just an observation on the question which is that obviously one of the reasons we have so vigorously pursued a sanctions regime on iran is because y van not where north korea is in terms of its nuclear program and we do not desire it to get to the point north korea has. whether or not it was a different point intime maybe a previous administration should have adopted a similar position as we have now with iran. we are past that moment. and the question is how do we deal with the realities of the moment and change the calculus inside north korea and i hope the strategic calculus of china which plays a kee role of getting us to the point we want to be. with the thanks of the committee. we appreciate your appearing and we look forward to the continuing dialogue and the administration on this critical issue. as we excuse ambassador dave viss let me call up the next panel. he served as the u.s. special representative for north korea policy. from 1997 to 2001. ambassador bosworth was the ambassador to the republic of korea. he was the executive director of the korean organization and japan. and ambassador bosworth has a distinguished career in the u.s. foreign service for nearly three decades. joseph is the president of the intelligence and national security aligns. he previously worked as the senior advisor in the office of the director of national intelligence, proliferation center and as the north korean mission manager. prior to his work at odni he served as the special envoy for north korea. he's worked in numerous roles throughout the central intelligence agency and has extensive experience in that regard as well. robert joseph is the senior scholar for public policy from 2005 to 2007 it was the secretary of state for arms control and national security. and he served in the national security council as special assistant to the president in home lapped defense. he also served on the department of defense as secretary of defense for international security policy and deputy assistant secretary of defense in arms control which we have a very distinguished panel here. i'm going to ask each of you to summarize your statement in around five minutes. your full statements will be entered into the record so we can have time for dialogue here as we move forward. we want to pick up on your expertise to draw some of questions and answers to some of the issues that's already been raised with our previous panel. so we'll start in the order that i recognized you. ambassador bosworth. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee. i will not try to summarize the current scene with regard to north korea. i think ambassador davis did that quite well. i would say a few things as an opening. first, this is a very, very difficult problem. and it follow that is there are no good options for dealing with it. if there were, i trust that some of us would have found those in the past. instead i think what we've found is that north korea by enlarge has conted to exceed -- continued to exceed what they could accomplish both in their missile program and their nuclear program. having followed this issue for now 20 years, i would venture to say they have consistently outperformed the expectations of the outside world. and i don't think we have time to get into the question of why. but they have created a situation in which now they are demons trabblebli within reach over some period of time of being able to mate a nuclear device with a missile. and that changes the strategic balance in a number of ways. as i said, the options for dealing with them are very limited and very ob cure. we can as we have in the past as various times simply stand back and wait for what we consider at the time to be the inevitable collapse. that policy has not succeeded. we waited for their collapse back in the late 1980's and when i last checked, they are still there. similarly, we can rely on a policy of containment and deterrence which we will have to do in any event. but i think what we've found is detainment and deterrence do not prevent the threat from growing more acute. also we can, of course, as has been hinted in various questions this morning, we can rely more heavily on china to solve this problem for us. i am not optimistic that china is going to do that. i am encouraged by their willing rns to continue plate tougher sanctions as they have this last time around in the u.n. but i think china continues to face an serble co-none drum which is on the one hand they do not want north korea to become a nuclear state, on the other hand, they do not want north korea to collapse. in their view they are concerned that bringing sufficient pressure to bear on north korea to stop their nuclear program, much less to demantle it would risk creating a situation in which north korea could collapse. and for china, an equally undesireable outcome of all of this would be to wake up and find the border of south korea is now the river because it's collapsed and south korea with a with the military alliance with the united states. that changes in a fundamental way what has been called the correlation of forces on the korean peninsula and chinese strategic thinkers have this very much in mind. all this being said, my own personal view is that at some point, i cannot say exactly when, but i would think sooner rather than later, we will come back to an effort to engage with north korea. in some manner only because the alternatives are so bleak. and i think that that is what we should try to do because we have no good options. the question that will exist at that time is, engage on what basis? do we again seek to engage on the basis of denuclearization pretty much by itself at least as a primary objective, or do we seek to engage on a broader basis going back for example, to the joint statement negotiated in the six-party process in september of 2005 in which all the parties signed on to a four goals, and for your objective -- four objective agreement. they agreed to provide energy and economic assistance to north korea. in my view it would be more productive to look from the outset to engage with north korea on the basis of that broader agenda which seeks in my judgment to get at what is the fundamental problem on the korean peninsula. the problem which gives rise to the nuclear threat and that is the inherent weakness of north korea and the strong conviction of the north korean regime that it will not do anything which will risk its demise. only by my judgment, only by addressing these broader considerations of a peace treaty to replace the armistice, economic and energy assistance, and diplomatic relations, do we have a prospect of getting at where it remains and will remain our central and abiding concern which is the north korean nuclear the north korean nuclear problem. rather than simply focusing on that and try to identify it and to try to resolve it, in and of itself, which is not proving to be very feasible over the last several years, we would be much better off looking for a broader focus and i think the prior agreement of september, 2005 provides the seed for such a broader agreement. and with that, i will conclude my remarks. >> thank you for the invitation. my statement is on the record. a few comments. i agree with senator bonds worth. denuclearization is the name of the game with north korea. committing north korea to maintain that program and as we see, enhance their program with additional nuclear weapons not only plutonium but uranium, would be a destabilizing factor for the countries in the region. it is a fair question. countries will be looking to acquire similar capabilities, we're talking about the potential for a nuclear arms race and the potential for nuclear terrorism. others who want to get their hands on nuclear devices. in 2002 we confronted the north koreans with their uranium enrichment program. it was a clandestine program. they denied having that program. in 2010 the admitted to it. they had 2000 functioning centrifuges operating. as he said this was the state of the art facility. austria was and is ensuing the uranium enrichment program to a company nuclear program. theypoint to and i agree totally with the ambassador, the september 2005 joint statement as a single statement. kim jong il committed to this when he said even in beijing they commit. and it says clearly in exchange for economic assistance, security assurances, ultimately diplomatic relations with the address the illicit activity issues of counterfeiting currency and pharmaceuticals and cigarettes, trafficking in methamphetamine. and where this -- there is transparency on the human rights issues, then we would talk about diplomatic relations. with denuclearization comes normalization, no. that is a process toward normalization. hopefully that would be enough of an inducement and the north koreans signed upwith to the statement and also in that statement, the provision of eight light-water reactor. they have a bright to a civil nuclear program and is in there. coming back as a non-nuclear weapon state back to the ntt and so forth. that fell apart. on 19 september the north koreans were offended by the fact we had [inaudible] that was the patriot act, section 311 and that was the predicate being money laundering. north koreans or laundering their money. there retained $25 million of the money current -- north korea had in the bank. eventually the bank was in compliance and the money was returned. it was referring to returning to our banking system. the north koreans insisted they did not want to get back into the international financial market. thank god it is back on the path to and denuclearization. we eventually took them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. that was to be in response to north korea committing to a verification regime that moves us toward comprehensive, verifiable irreversible dispense and of their programs. they refuse to sign a verification protocol and that led to the unraveling of where we were with the september 2005 joint statement and that is unfortunate because it has gone downhill ever since. in 2006, 2009, nuclear tests, missile launches, we have seen in 2012, and we have seen last month in february with the third nuclear test. north korea is enhancing their nuclear capability and enhancing capabilities. china in april of 2003 brought north korea to the table after holding back on some fuel that went into north korea. it sent a message. come to the table. that was the beginning of the six party process. my personal view is china can do the same thing. we bring south korea to the process and sit down no. 3 and say what are you doing? un committed to denuclearization? and determine if there is any viability to go back to the joint statement. that is a process and that is a meaningful one and my last comment is, i was one of the few in 2012 who was optimistic. i saw some personnel moves being made by kim jong un. he replaced his ministry of defense and replaced his chief of staff. he put people in there, the party officer who is overseeing the military general. he put his uncle into a high position where he treated -- there was some momentum and that fell apart. because of the process. they just launched an they tested and that has come to this position where we're at. a very dangerous stalemate. the chinese now can move this process forward. get them to the table and get some momentum going rather than continued escalation and potential for confrontation. >> thank you. ambassador joseph. would you put your microphone on, please? >> thank you for the invitation to be here and to testify. i will try to be very brief. while one can argue and i think some would legitimately that u.s. policy has succeeded in slowing the north's progress and galvanizing international support, the successes that we have reached that we have achieved our at best, tactical. as president john adams once said, the facts are stubborn things and today, north korea has declared itself to be any clear power. and it seems determined and well on its way to acquire the means to hold american cities hostage to their long-range missiles and nuclear weapons. i see a long pattern of failed policies that must be changed. this change should be based on experience, not on hope and is on this basis that i offer the following lessons learned from my own experience. north korea will only agree to abandon its missile and nuclear programs if it is judged essential for survival. the d p r k places the highest onues on the easthese cable -- these capabilities. these are means of preventing intervention such as occurred in libya. they are building prestige at home and earn hard currency. the north has used its nuclear program to extract inducements to those who seek its elimination. the should be seen as a long shot. at times previous administrations have thought they were all but there. but it never happened, whether it was in 1992 and 1994, orion 2005. p'yongyang would agree to abandon its nuclear program only to violate its commitments each time. this pattern of failed negotiations followed by violations of obligations, provocations, and the offering of more inducements in turn by the u.s. and others to get north korea back to the negotiating table, has been the main characteristic of u.s. policy for two decades. the u.s. and others have and will no doubt continue to apply sanctions on the north but imposing economic hardships and threatening isolation have not alter the regime's behavior. in part, this is because the dprk cares little about whether it's people start and the ability is dependent on isolation. in part it's because china has kept open all lifeline of assistance to the north no matter how blatant or lethal its activities and it is in part because of our own practice in releasing pressure on north korea in exchange for empty promises. the record of failed negotiations is not an argument that diplomacy should be abandoned. but negotiations by themselves is not a strategy. a comprehensive approach that integrates all tools of state craft is required if negotiations are to have any chance of success. these tools, financial, intelligence, interdiction, law enforcement, and diplomacy and we talked about the mall this morning, must be brought together to bring sustained pressure on the regime. pyongyang must be faced with a choice. it can retain its nuclear and missile programs or pays a high price. it must no longer be allowed to use these programs as a means to extract concessions that only serve to strengthen the regime and perpetuate the missile and nuclear threat. as for diplomacy, our main focus should be on china. the principal obstacle to bring effective pressure on north korea. four, the promotion of human rights. while part of u.s. official talking points for years has not been a significant element of u.s. strategy. it should be as it was in the reagan administration and its dealings with the soviet union. exposing the domestic brutality of the regime is the moral course and potentially an effective means to influence dprk leaders. because north korea is likely to retain its as -- nuclear and missile capabilities the u.s. must insure that it can defend against the threat. this requires missile defenses that protect allies and the u.s. will lead from attack, failing to deploy offenses -- defenses that keep pace with the growing threat, whether as a means to encourage russian participation or reduce the budget will only undermine deterrence. and increase the risk of destruction to the united states. similarly we must continue to deploy a credible nuclear force that can meet the spectrum of deterrent requirements and provide solid assurance to allies. going to lower and lower levels of forces in pursuit of a nuclear-free world is likely only to embolden our adversaries and shake the confidence of our friends and allies. if our allies doubt our capacity or will to meet security commitments, the outcome will be the reverse of the golal rather than fewer lechler weapons. the u.s. must lead. we have failed to show the required leadership, avoiding confrontation on a number of its most harmful activities including its missile and nuclear proliferation. this absence of leadership affects not only the calculations of p'yongyang but also of tehran where another repressive regime is seeking missile and nuclear capabilities to undermine u.s. interests in a region of vital interest. iran does watch closely u.s. policy and u.s. resolve to reverse what three presidents, clinton, president bush, and now president obama have declared to be unacceptable, and nuclear- armed north korea. what they have seen so far is certainly not dissuaded them. thank you again for the invitation of being here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. thank you for testimony. -- your testimony. let's start and i would like to have an interplay between ambassador bosworth and -- if this was the best pathway toward achieving our goals, and you suggested that the issue of patriot sanctioning of the bank and the $25 million, that would flow back to north korea and that was a disruptive element in pursuing the process. in any such process there are going to be bumps along the road. does that not call into question how serious no. career was in even in this more expanded process of 2005 to achieving its goal and i would like both of your observations on that. it sounds to me that especially when the money ultimately flow back to north korea that the process would have resumed again if there was a real desire to pursue it. >> you are right. my point on the 2005 was this. we told the north koreans clearly, illicit activities will not be permitted. diplomacy is one thing. you can continue to counterfeit our currency, you continue to deal with the methamphetamine and traffic in ampemethamphetame and we will continue to go after you. do not marry that to this policy -- diplomacy. the federal registry put that out that the bank was being sanctioned because of the predicate of money laundering based on the section 211-311 of the patriot act. that was a message that cannot link them and try to get us to go soft on illicit and human rights and put out denuclearization as a carrot for us to go on. >> while that may have been our message, that did not -- they did not accept that message as a means to move forward. >> they protested and the walk away from the table for about eight months until that money was returned. the bank was in compliance of the work -- they were permitted to return. >> if that is the case and so easily disrupted, how do we see that as the path we forward? >> it is easily disrupted. we have seen north korea's adherence is tenuous at best and they have to be continually reassured they're not giving up their pace of negotiating leverage. in return for an empty promises. it is important that as we try to move forward, north korea come away with some conviction that it is not just denuclearization we're going to make progress on. we are encouraging -- making progress on a peace treaty to replace the armistice and that is a very high priority from a north korean point of view as well as diplomatic relations and economic assistance and energy assistance. please understand me. i'm not saying that this is somehow a magic solution to the problem. it is the one piece that we still have that they have agreed to. and as -- has constituted a foundation to move forward. they have not disavowed it in that sense. >> there is some pressure reports that suggest you have been on jocose egressions to north korea. i am wondering if you could tell us what was the temperature of the interlocutors that you met with. >> those reports have been addressed to the senate and house intelligence oversight committees and i am not at liberty to discuss it here. >> you have discussed this with the house? >> the house and senate oversight committees have been addressed. these issues have been addressed with these committees. >> we will pursue it with the intelligence committee. let me ask you, with reference to your comment that the chinese were the ones who got the north koreans to the table in 2005 as a result of tweaking them with some of their assistance. what was the calculus at that moment that made them do that and how do we think about, how do we get them to make that calculus now? >> april 2003, it was a very tense time. north korea said they were processing the spent fuel rods. they had asked the iaea monitors to leave the country. they left the mpt and asked the auditors to leave in 2003. they advance their reprocessing the spent fuel rods that were in the cooling ponds. with the indication they would represses with the purpose of weapon is asian. -- they would reprocess with the purpose of weaponization. how do we defuse this tense situation? a number of days prior to this meeting, there was a few shipments that were not as extensive as they were in the past between the countries and that was the reporting at the time. some analysts at the time, it could have been a message from beijing to the dprk. they should comply and if they're being asked to sit at the table they should sit at the table. >> >> thank you and thank each of you for your testimony and/or past efforts. regarding this issue. it does not sound hopeful to me as i listened to each of you and you agree with that. and let me ask this question. we had some discussions about our libya intervention. here we had a person that was not a good person. we had a person who had done away with weapons of mass destruction. we had a person who was working with us with al qaeda. we took them out when they did not have weapons of mass destruction. what kind of learning moment was that for the leadership of north korea? >> i suspect it took lessons from that that were inevitable. they're going to complicate our policy-making with them for the foreseeable future. the most obvious lesson would be if people think you have weapons of mass destruction and you take action to show that you do not have weapons of mass destruction, this gives your adversaries room for maneuver they might have -- might not have had previously. there are legitimate reports that the north koreans came away from iraq and libya with the conviction that if these countries had in fact had weapons of mass destruction, what happened to them would not have happened to them. >> the point i was trying to make at the time and -- go ahead. >> i would agree. the message in pyongyang is they saw what happened to sit down and to -- saddam and gadafi. we don't want to move down that path. there are those in p'yongyang who are committed to retaining nuclear weapons. >> i do not see any -- i cannot imagine why north korea would not consider going down the path they're going because of recent experiences. it does not sound like we have much of a way to deter that. i have not heard anybody speak to how we do that. other than china. sounds like they're the only ones that have any cards that are worth playing here. other than something i think our country does not want to engage in at this time. it seems to me that the entire issue around north korea is not us but china. and i wonder if you might speak to that. >> i was -- i would look to my colleagues. it is a failed economy. north korea now with the additional sanctions, there are three sections in play with this morning's. having consequences. when that leadership realizes they're not getting the funds necessary to sustain their lifestyle there will be pressure at a higher level. beside the provinces that are not getting much of the benefits because it is a two-state system. pyongyang feels they're having problems sustaining, i imagine there would be leadership to change and take some of the pressure off and to live as a prestige. one has to wonder how they will survive to the mid term. >> there is one time in my experience in which i observed the chinese on the cusp of making a strategic commissiodeco change its relationship and that was in october 2006 after the first test. the first nuclear test was a profound shock. it was a profound shock in the region and it was internationally giving the risk to the non-proliferation regime itself. within a couple of days of that test, condoleezza rice was asked to go to the recent -- region and asked me to go with her. we stop in japan and in japan, the focus of prime minister shinzo abe, the foreign minister also, was on the reassurance of the japanese public that the united states would stand by its security commitments and explicitly restate its nuclear guarantee to japan. what is interesting is when we got to beijing, the first thing the chinese did was think as for reaffirming our security and our nuclear guarantees to japan. what china was concerned about was unclear dynamic. it was the dynamic of the possibility of japan and south korea going nuclear in that context. that was the only time that there seemed to be a prospect, a window of opportunity for getting china to change its policy. this is the first time that china went along with the u.n. security council resolution which had real sanctions. 1718. china offered to work with us to implement those sanctions including denying the luxury goods for the elites of north korea. but it was not too long after that that china went right back to its comfort zone and did not challenge the north korea provocation and it did that in the context of the united states and others releasing pressure on north korea. instead of increasing pressure, we released pressure. we did that because of the false prospect of negotiations. the false promise that north korea would stand -- come back to the negotiating table and it did. only to start once again this cycle of negotiations, provocations, concessions, and failure to live up to its obligations. i do not know what is going to take to get china to change its assessment. china has many reasons for supporting north korea. the concern about what happens with unification, concern about refugees coming over the border. it is going to take a real concerted effort and it is offering to take pressure on the part of the united states and china to change. more dialogue about the six party talks is not going to do it. we're going to have to decide whether this is important enough to us that we put some pressure on china to change its policy but even if china changes its policy that will be a very important step for getting north korea to alter course but that is not enough either. we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with this. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me follow up on that important point. i asked a version of this question to special representative davies. i tend to agree that possibly the only thing that brings the chinese to the table is the fear that there becomes a nuclear arms race in the region and we throw around the inevitability of nuclear arms races in the middle east and that sector of the world without term understanding of all the barriers that would stand in the way of that happening. particularly in a place where we hold a lot of cards with the other players in the region. you may be just answered this but you talk about applying real pressure to china but without china feeling that they lose control of the nuclear situation in the region, what cards do we have to play there and the second question is, is there any chance that we do lose control of the nuclear capabilities in the region? is there any real chance that the japanese and the south koreans do change their disposition and decide to remove themselves from our nuclear umbrella and develop their own capacities, or is that not realistic? >> senator, i am taking your second question first. i think there is a chance that if we fail with north korea, and if we do not demonstrate through both our declaratory policy and our capacity in both the nuclear area as well as the missile defense area, there is a likelihood that japan will overcome its long term allergy about nuclear-weapons. and begin to hedge. south korea also very much a concern about proliferation in the future if we fail. if we fail with north korea. in terms of what cards we have to play with china, there are not an easy ones. if there were easy ones i think it would have played them by now. this has been going on for 20 years. i think we have to make the assessment whether or not this issue, the issue of north korea and china pose a continuing support, continuing lifeline of assistance to north korea, is sufficiently important to us that we begin to put economic pressure on china, that we began to call out china for its part in sustaining what is most -- the most abhorrent to regime in the world today. there are a number of things that we can do but up until today we have been more interested in china's role as a facilitator in the six party talks. that does not get as to where we need to be with china. >> do you agree that the thing that china fears most is the nuclear arms race and whether that is a concern? >> tschida is concerned about proliferation within the region. >> is that their primary concern? >> no. one of several concerns. they are concerned about the stability of north korea for the reasons we spoke of earlier. they're concerned about the nature of their relationship with the united states and i think it has been made clear to them that north korea policy is not a pit of that relationship. it is very important to that relationship. they have very many points of interest at play here. i think we sometimes make the mistake of thinking that china is somehow a policy monolith in which problems are fed and solutions come out. one of the things i came away with dealing with this problem convinced of is that the chinese are of various lines of how to deal with north korea. there is no single fuel and is something that is debated and addressed within the policy circles of north korea. within the government, the party, and the so-called think- tank world. they do not have a solution for these concerns. they recognize the nature of these problems. it is something they have to deal with. they also understand how complicated and how many different points of interest in china our concern about possible outcomes in north korea are. that includes the party, the military, and the government. >> thank you. >> thank you. and thank you to all the panelists for being here. i am sorry i missed the earlier part of the hearing. i appreciate your insights into what is happening in north korea. nice to welcome you here. i want to follow-up on the proliferation issues that have been raised because it seems to me that given the past history, given their efforts to help syria building nuclear weapons facility, that we may not know exactly what we do not know about what china -- north korea is doing with respect to proliferation efforts. i wondered how comfortable each of you are with where our knowledge of what is happening with respect to north korea and proliferation might be right now. and if you can elaborate on exactly what we now about that. >> can i just comment briefly, i look to my colleagues and you mentioned syria. that was in many ways a week of call for many. that was going on for a number of years and until the israelis took it out in 2007, that was almost going operational. nuclear proliferation is so central to the issue of the nuclear station for north korea and that drives china and everyone else but china is a neighbor and ally. if there is any instability, what would happen with nuclear weapons or fissile material? we know the element of the potential of nuclear terrorism. there is -- this is a central issue to why denuclearization has to be part of the goals and objectives. it is not arms control. it is denuclearization. proliferation is central. >> anything either of you would like to add about what we know about those efforts? >> i would only add that as a longtime consumer of intelligence, i have been impressed on the one hand by how hard our intelligence community works on north korea but i have been impressed by what a difficult target north korea is. i think their ability, their capacity for surprise is not limitless, it is greater than we might expect. >> i come at this from a non- proliferation expect -- perspective. that is my expertise if i have expertise. clearly, north korea has been the no. 1 proliferators. it is a serial proliferators. we know from its missile sales and the transfer of missile technology to a number of countries. we know it from the syrian experience and providing a plutonium reactor to syria. north korea will sell what it has. i am very concerned not only about state proliferation relationships but also as the ambassador mentioned, the non- state and access through north korea to fissile material and weapons. it is a hard intelligence problem. and we have been subject to a number of strategic surprises in this area. despite knowing how hard the intelligence community works on this problem, i also share the sense that there is a lot we simply do not know and we need to be prepared for the worst based on north korea's experience. >> you have dashed my hopes to be reassured. as we enter another round of sanctions, how can we be more successful at implementing those sanctions in a way that really has real impact on north korea, because maya understanding is that today, we have had a rather sporadic success at implementing the sanctions. >> we have to start with the realization of the reality. sanctions by themselves are not going to solve this problem. sanctions can make life even more difficult for north korea. sanctions can force north korea to contemplate issues they might not have contemplated without them. sanctions are not the solution to this problem. it is part of the solution. sanctions have the effect of making us confident where we are doing something, we're not sitting here passively and waiting for divine intervention of this problem. we're taking some action but we should not be under any illusions that sanctions are going to solve this problem. >> i would look to the ambassador joseph and i do not disagree. i will say what we saw today was china part of this new un security council resolution. it is indicative of the fact that china is saying what is going on here? when we have the countries coming together whether it is proliferations or going after the banking system or the diplomats and how to move money, that is causing pain. is that going to be the answer? that is not the answer as such but it is part of a process to tell north korea you have to change your behavior. you need to come back to the table and you need to commit to denuclearization. >> just to add to my colleague's comments with which i certainly agree. sanctions will only work and they have limited impact. there will work in the context of a broader strategy. we have to put these various instruments together and that has been lacking. what has also been lacking is a sustained effort. when we have made a difference, when we have created pain and the bank experience is apt here. when we have put pressure on the north, we have allowed that pressure to be released and we have done that through this false and fanciful promise of negotiations. negotiations will only work if we apply pressure and that is one thing we learned from the libyan experience. it was not you get into negotiations and release the pressure this is negotiating 101 but time after time, republican and democratic administrations made the same fundamental mistake. we hope north korea will change. we ignore our experience for the sake of hope. >> thank you. i am out of time. i would love to follow-up and see how that fits with what is being proposed on iran but that is a different topic. thank you. >> thank you for your very insightful comments and answers to questions on a very challenging but important national security and national interest issue before the committee and before our country. with the thanks of the committee, the committee's record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow and with that, the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. >> earlier today as you heard during this hearing, the u.n. security council voted for new sanctions against north korea for its latest nuclear test. the resolution put some restrictions on north korea to finance and obtain technology for its nuclear weapons program. here's a look at that brief meeting. >> the agenda is adopted. under rule 37 of the council's provision of rules and procedure, signed by the representatives of belgium, canada, denmark, italy, japan, and the philippines, to participate in this meeting, it is so decided. the security council will begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. members of the council also have before them a document, the text of a draft resolution submitted by australia, belgium, canada, denmark, france, italy, japan, morocco, the philippines, the republic of korea, rwanda, togo, the u.k. of great britain and northern ireland, and the united states of america. it is my understanding that the council is ready to proceed to the vote. from the draft resolution before it. >> i shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. >> will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in documents s-2013-136 please raise their hand? >> the result of the voting is as follows. the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor. the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 2094 of 2013. the security council has concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. the meeting is adjourned. >> here's a look at our prime- time schedule on the c-span network. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the senate judiciary committee debates gun- control while passing a measure that toughens penalties for those who buy guns for people cannot legally owned them. on c-span2, senators react to yesterday's 13 hour filibuster by kentucky senator rand paul. and on c-span3, janet napolitano and other witnesses testified on security issues. all these that a p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. -- at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c- span networks. >> the u.s. has many fantastic qualities. i do believe may be many people have the possibility of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. i think every year, that is less and less probable but the united states especially in its foreign policy which is what i have worked on for years and years is not the great nation. it is an interventionist state. it is extremely aggressive militarily. we mess with other people's politics in ways that i cannot imagine americans tolerating. imagine if some country invaded us to bring their system of government the way we did in iraq, for example. can you imagine americans sitting there and thinking that is okay? and yet somehow we still in this country have a mentality that people are thrilled when we invade them. that is insane. i believe 99% of the time we create new enemies. >> she has made a career as an advocate for world peace. more with jody williams on "q & a." >> earlier today, house speaker john boehner held his weekly briefing and spoke about the federal budget and the reason automatic spending cuts during this 10-minute event. >> good morning, everyone. where is your tie? [laughter] i would like to start this morning by letting the american people know that the united states capitol is open to visitors. we love to have the american people to visit their capital. even though our budget has been cut like everyone else's, thanks to planning we are able to avoid furloughs amongst capital workers and the tours will remain available for all americans. i think it is disappointing that the obama administration did not follow our lead and find savings in other parts of their budget. i think it is silly they have insisted on walking down the white house which the american people actually own. yesterday the house passed legislation to keep the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year. it is a straightforward bill that includes a bipartisan agreement between the house and senate on improving military readiness. everyone has something they would like to add to this bill. -- everyone has something they would like to add to this bill, but the house is not using this as a vehicle to advance other agendas and i would hope the senate, too, would avoid doing so and either pass our bill and make straightforward changes. senate democrats try to load up this bill with extraneous provisions, partisan riders, budget gimmicks, we will be prepared to move a clean continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year. i don't want to do that. i don't think that would help our troops. i would urge democrat leaders in the senate to not get greedy and get carried away and try to put forward the possibility of a government shutdown. our goal is to cut spending, not to shut down the government. the c.r. left in place the president's sequester. as i have made clear many times, sequestration will remain in effect until cuts and reforms are put in place to put us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years. there are smarter ways to cut spending and that's why the house has acted twice over the last year to replace the sequester. unfortunately, the president and senate democrats have yet to recognize that we have a spending problem. yesterday, i released a list of 170 economists who have agreed that spending the problem. over the last 24 hours, 10 more economists have signed on to this letter. we have to start digging our children out from this mountain of debt, not continuing to add to it. that's why next week under chairman paul ryan's leadership and republicans will begin to advance a balanced budget that would promote economic growth and create american jobs. our plan would cut wasteful spending, fix our broken tax code to create more jobs and increase wages and strengthen priorities like medicare. every family balances its budgets. washington should balance its budget as well. democrats talk an awful lot about balance, so here's my question to them. -- where is their plan to balance the budget? there is nothing about a balanced budget that doesn't actually ever get to balance and i think the american people support our efforts to balance the budget over the next 10 years. and i would challenge president obama and senate democrats to embrace this commonsense reform and offer their own plan to balance our budget. >> is the debt ceiling going to increase in may and july? >> yes. >> what about the idea of possibly changing \[inaudible] >> paul ryan, and budget committee members have been reaching out and listening sessions with our members over how do we get to our plan to balance the budget over 10 years. and they have done a very good job of listening to people and still continuing to make their tweaks as they get ready for next week's markup. when they are finished, i'll see it when you do. >> comments have been made \[inaudible] in exchange for resigning. can you comment on that? >> this is a disgraced congressman who went to jail and made a lot of baseless and false book. it's sad. >> reaching out to number two republican senators, we went through campaign-style events all eefer -- over the country and i had a discussion with the president last friday. and this week, we have gone 180. now after being in office now for four years, he is going to sit down and talk to members. i think it's a hopeful sign and i'm hopeful that something will come out of it. but, if the president continues to insist on tax hikes, i don't think he will get very far. the president doesn't believe that we have a spending problem. toon't know if we are going get very far. but i'm optimistic. >> you think that \[laughter] >> are you hopeful they can do what you guys were not able to do, going around you, meeting with ryan without senate leadership, that's the strategy? >> as i told the president last week, the more members that we engage in this process, i think the better off we are for a couple of reasons. there are a lot of people with good ideas around this congress, both in the house and the senate. and secondly, if you are ever going to pass a major bill that will begin to address our spending problem, we are going to have to grow this support and it's going to have to be an organic process. i think it's a hopeful sign and maybe something will come of it. >> on that point, is there any worry that there will be a deal coming up in the senate and push you guys to the wayside? >> we have a process in here that both chambers have to pass a bill and if we disagree, we go to conference, that's what i would expect here if we were in disagreement. >> you have been so adamant, i encourage the senate to take up the house bill. i have talked to a number of people on this side of the building that it would be tough if they make changes. that is their prerogative to do so. they could risk a shutdown but some people might blame house republicans. >> listen. i can't decide what the senate will or won't do. trying to predict what they will or will not do is like trying to predict the weather here in washington d.c. my forecast was closer than anybody else's around here. >> do you support representative gohmert's amendment to ban obama's golf trips until the white house brings back tours to the public? >> i know he was talking about offering something, but as you know, i don't typically vote on the house floor and i didn't yesterday. >> two questions. are we to understand you are cool with the idea that the president in the sense going around you --? >> i don't feel like the president is going around me. you look all the presidents i have worked with in the years i have been here, each president has engaged the leaders and members on an ongoing basis for some time and i think it's somewhat hopeful sign that the president now in the second term, even the leaders have to have support of the members and if you look at regular order, those come through committee where there is a process and bringing them to the floor and you are right about what happens in committees and more members understand it. it is an organic process to move a bill through each chamber. >> is ryan bringing a message at all? have you spoken to him? >> i have spoken to chairman ryan yesterday a couple of times. he's not carrying a message from me to the white house, no. >> are there any provisions that will curtail any aspects of obamacare that you intend to attach to must-have legislation in this congress? >> the house believes that obamacare will drive up the costs of health insurance in america and make it more difficult for employers to provide it. we have voted several times to defund obamacare and i'm sure we will again this year. there are other provisions in obamacare having an effect on employers today. the employer mandate starts january. but there are look-back procedures in the law that are affecting the way the employers hire their staff today. there are a lot of effects of obamacare that we are starting to see and the house, i expect, will have extensive oversight hearings on the devastating impact of this law and the american people. >> \[inaudible] >> we'll look at them when we get there. >> will that go into the budget? >> i don't know that. last one. >> have you worked out a schedule when it comes to conference? >> i'm not -- the president talked about coming up and having a conversation with our members. i'm not sure when that conversation will be. as you know, he is getting ready to embark on a trip to the middle east and that's one of the issues he'll want to cover. but i'm sure the issue of sequestration will come up as well. we are going to welcome the president to come up and talk to our members and i'm looking forward to it. >> wednesday morning? >> when we are ready to announce it, you'll know. \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] \[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

Transcripts For MSNBCW The Reid Report 20140923

authority? again, you don't have an explicit authorization from congress on the air strikes, on what we're doing now. what congress voted on was arming syrian rebels. the question i'm asking, is the legal authority to go into syria now, to do air strikes now, based on this idea of an imminent threat, is that how you're coaching it to congress? >> with respect to this group of al qaeda operatives and this group of al qaeda veterans, yes, they pose a threat to the united states and to our partners, and we were watching them conduct what we determined to be advanced stage plotting. and the president's been clear under current authority, he has the authority to go after, take that fight to disrupt al qaeda operatives and their associated forces to disrupt that plotting. he's also been quite clear he's got the authority he needs to take this fight to isil, but this is not america's fight alone. what you saw last night was five arab nations working in a broad coalition to take that fight to isil under the authority that the president's been clear he has. he's also said in his statement of a week or so ago, we welcome congressional action on this because we are better off as a nation when we're working together with congress. >> would the white house like to see an explicit vote to authorize air strikes inside syria from congress? >> the president's been clear on this. there's a number of different ways congress can show their support. we saw one form in the authorization, the broad bipartisan support for the train and equipment program for the syrian opposition we'll be working, again, with partners to implement. >> lisa monaco, thank you very much. with me now is msnbc's chris matthews, host of "hard ball." you add the khorasan threat, the imminent threat. that's how white house can couch this without going to congress for vote. we had a vote from congress which is different. arming syrian rebels. >> i always wonder why a leader tells us something, is it to get us to do something usually or support him in doing something? what are we to do to know -- what are we to do in reaction to the fact that we hear people have gone over to join isis from america and are coming home, what are we to do with that information? that's a great question. just support him in his air strikes? i think that is the answer. i think what they want is the left especially to back the president because of the threat to the united states and the united states. what i'm thinking of, if i'm running an airline coming out of -- coming out of istanbul, i'm going to make sure no one who's been with isis is getting on the plane. no worry about frisking them. they won't get on. khorasan, whatever route they take to the country, but you have to look at geography and the history of the people that went over there and what they were doing there and their explanation. i mean, israeli airlines are pretty smart about this. they do about a 45-minute interview with you if they think there's a problem. they did it to me a number of times. that's one thing that scares the heck out of anybody, a bomb. they're talking about the khorasan group learning how to plant bombs on airplanes. i talked to a guy that's an expert, you can only carry a certain amount of liquid with your kit is because, beyond that, it can blow the plane apart. have you to be very careful about what kind of liquids they're carrying or dynamite on their hands. that's a huge action thing to do. i hope the airlines are listening to the speeches. there's nothing we can do, say yes or no to the president about whether to support. in the en, rational americans, the thing that got us into in war is the gut reaction to the beheadings. biggest news story you and i know in five years. everybody can imagine being beheaded. they think, i whoa, i don't want that. they're the bad guys. >> the metastasis on this has been very interesting. americans say, we have no interest going into syria and continuing the arab springs by u.s. air force toppling bashar al assad, the president characterizing them as dentists and farmers, we're not arming them, then the beheadings and a complete turn-around. the american people for this. this is separate from what congress said he could do. this is air strikes inside syria. americans with it, republicans in congress -- >> because they killed these guys because they were americans. not because they were jewish or any other reason they had in their cause. they did it because they're americans. the american people got the message. if it was me, you or i would say, they would have done the same thing. they're going to do women now, do other people. just think about the reaction that's coming now to these air strikes. there's going to be reaction. their way is beheading. it's going to continue. we'll see whether, you know, should be fighting a war on that basis? we are. >> we definitely are. what is the significance of having at least four arab countries, that it's not just americans over there. >> i said this earlier on ronan's show. i think it's remarkable. the first time in history arab countries, arab states have gone out and killed arab terrorists. really killed them. i mean, and i always say there's one reason you never have any peace in the middle east is because the palestinian people have never been willing to kill palestinian terrorists for killing jews, forced the jews to kill them, which has kept the war going. like all history f you're going to sign a treaty, have you to enforce it. when irish got their free state back in the '20s, they had to kill people who broke the treaty. that was the deal. they had to do it. so, when you find an arab country that's willing to enforce a treaty, respect for another country or go after terrorists and they're willing to do the dirty work, but i'm still waiting to see if they're in the skies with us. i want confirmation we have airplanes up there flying and bombing. the uae has admitted to doing it, jordanians might have admitted to it. friends in high places. i want to see the pilots up there bombing, not just using their airfields. >> in history we've used a strong man to contain the islamist in their country. we did it in egypt with mubarak containing muslim brotherhood, hussein contained whatever shiite militias inside that country and now we have strong men are back -- >> every one of our allies is a monarchist. the emirates, jordan, king hussein, a good one, but another inherited monarchy, same with saudi arabia. we got rid of the baathist who look good compared to what we got. we got rid of hussein. we got rid of gadhafi. the other tradition in egypt begins with nasr in the army. inherited through the army. we don't have any democratic allies. we either have army people or we have monarchists. >> is that why there's still a reluctance, even though now we are arming and training for a full year, i guess, militants, but we're not willing to go to the point where we're willing to train them to topple the saddam regime because you have one more place you don't know what you get? >> yeah, look, the arab street has never been with us. the arab street didn't like jewish immigration of '20s, never liked israel state. if there was a vote over there? is there wouldn't be a israel state. you've got to be kidding. the neocons, what i held against them was the dubious argument is that we have to topple every neighbor that's a problem with israel and then israel would be better off or we'll be better off. i never saw the evidence of that in history. so, whatever their motives were, they weren't right. >> well, and the countries that are helping us now, none of them, with the exception of jordan, are really cooperating in that other project, which is trying to gettis the israeli/palestinian peace going. >> who is doing a good job is kerry. it's not time for applause but they're working hard. the united states government is working hard to avoid a war with iran. we have an ingredient to fight terrorists. >> in the end, is that really going -- isn't that the most positive outcome, potentially, here? as you said, now we have a new basis for coalition, that we all agree we have to fight this? >> you know why they're on our side? self-interest. they're the number one targets. they can talk about coming to get us, the united states, the real targets are the monarchiem, jordanian, saudi arabia, emirates. that's where they would like to grab control and build a caliphate. they're not going to build a caliphate in san jose. that's not the plan. may be the dream but not going to happen. >> chris matthews host of "hardball". >> we're going to send the entire show on the aspects of this war. we are at war. we're actually saying it. >> chris matthews, ind indisspinsible "hardball." >> we are listening to bill clinton who is giving some remarks at clinton global initiatives. >> i want to bring out the president but i want to start by thanking him for being with us for what is a very busy week every year, the opening of the u.n., but because of all the turmoil in the world, it's a particularly busy week this year. he's been part of our annual meeting every year since 2008. and i'm very grateful for that. it reflects his lifetime commitment to and belief in citizen activism. just a koim weeks ago i was honored to join the president at the white house to celebrate 20th anniversary of americorps. it was one of my proudest achievements because all of those 900,000 young people who have done that are now out making a difference in the world, like you are. an astonishing two-thirds of them chose a career in some form of public service. although not a lot of governmental. a lot ngo work. i'm grateful to him for continuing that movement. and far too many places around the world, people are still not free, however, to join together to do this kind of work. and that reminds us of the importance of government, at least to empower people, to do the kind of things you're advocates and spend your lives on. every successful government needs a strong government, a strong private sector and a vigorous civil society. i know from hillary's time at the state department that the president has always supported this and has done what he could to support people like you from his current position. so, for many reasons, i'm especially grateful to him for being here, for continuing to believe that as he strives to stop bad things from happening around the world, the rest of us are supposed to do more to make good things happen. so, please join me in a warm welcome to president barack obama. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thaushgs everybody. please have a seat. good afternoon, all of you. i was just discussing with president clinton that if chelsea begins delivery while i'm speaking, she has my motorcade and will be able to navigate traffic. because actually it's pretty smooth for me during the week. i don't know what the problem is. everybody hypes the traffic, but i haven't noticed. always wonderful to follow matt damon. i saw people trickling out after he was done. these are the hard core policy people who decided to stay for me. i want to thank president clinton for your friendship and your leadership and bringing us together. as only he can. bill first asked me to come to cgi when i was a senator. and as president i've been proud to come back every year. as president bill asked americans to serve their country. we recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of americorps on the south lawn. bill asked you to better our world. and together you've touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people. and it's a testimony, i think, to any leader, not just what they themselves do but how they can inspire action from others. by that measure, obviously, bill clinton has continued to exert extraordinarily global leadership for decades. and i expect for decades more to come. [ applause ] now, in agreeing to come i had an ask as well. i think one of the best decisions i ever made as president was to ask hillary clinton to serve as our nation's secretary of state. [ applause ] she just welcomed me backstage. i'll always be grateful for her extraordinary leadership representing our nation around the world. and i still have a lot of debt to pay, though, because of two of them were separated far too often. hillary put in a lot of miles during her tenure as secretary of state. she has the post-administration glow right now. she looks much more rested. so, it's wonderful to be back at gci. i cannot imagine a more fitting audience with whom to discuss the work that brings me here today. and that is our obligation as free peoples, as free nations, to stand county courageous citizens and brave civil society groups who are working for equality and opportunity and justice and human dignity all over the world. i'm especially pleased we're joined by our many partners in this work. governments, civil society groups, including faith leaders, and men and women from around the world who devote their lives and at times risk their lives to lifting up their communities and strengthening their nations and claiming universal rights on behalf of their fellow citizens. and we're honored by the presence of these individuals. as we do every time this year, presidents and prime ministers converge on this great city to advance important work. but as leaders, we are not the most important people here today. it is the civil society leaders who, in many ways, are going to have the more lasting impact, because as the saying goes, the most important title is not president or prime minister. the most important title is citizen. it is citizens. ordinary men and women determined to forge their own future who throughout history have sparked all the great change and progress. it was citizens here in america who worked to abolish slavery and worked for women's rights and civil rights. they are the reason i can stand here today as president of the united states. it's citizens who right now are standing up for the freedom that is their god-given right. and i've seen it myself. in the advocates and activists that i've met all over the world. i've seen it in the courage of solar, the leader of cuba's ladies of white, who faced harassment and prison. i've seen it in the determination of russians in moscow in st. petersburg who speak up for human law and rule of rights. i've seen it for those in senegal who nurture their democracy and young african across the continent who are helping to marshal in africa's rise. i've seen it in the hope of young palestinians in ramallah who dream of building their future in a free and independent state. i see it in the persevere republicans of men and women of burma striving to build a democracy against the odds. these citizens remind us of why civil society is so essential. when people are free to speak their minds and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective. when entrepreneurs are free to create and develop new ideas, economies are more innovative and attract more trade and investment and ultimately become more prosperous. when communities, including minorities are free to live and pray and love as they choose, when nations uphold the rights of all their people, including, perhaps, especially women and girls, those countries are more likely to thrive. if you want strong successful countries, you need strong, vibrant civil societies. when citizens are free to organize and work together across borders to make our communities healthier, our environment cleaner and our world safer, that's when real change comes. and we see this in the spirit in the new commitments you're making here, all the people of west africa and their fight against ebola. we've also seen the spirit in other cause, the global campaign against anti-personnel land mines. tireless advocates like jody williams fought for the ottawa convention. leaders like patrick leahy have led the charge in washington. 20 years ago president clinton stood at the united nations and pledged that the united states would work toward the elimination of these land mines. and earlier today we announced we will take another important step outside of the unique circumstances of the korean peninsula where we have a long-standing commitment to the defense of our ally south korea. the united states will not use anti-personnel land mines. so, we will begin destroying our stockpiles not required for the defense of south korea. we'll work to find ways that will allow us to ultimately comply fully and cede to the ottawa convention. the united states will continue to lead as the world's largest donor of global de-mining efforts for communi efforts, freeing communities and countries from these weapons. but the point is, this started in civil society. that's what prompted action by president clinton and by myself. and promoting civil society that can surface issues and push leadership is not just in keeping with our values. it's not charity. it's in our national interest. countries that respect human rights, including freedom of association happen to be our closest partners. that is not an accident. conversely, when these rights are suppressed, it fuels grievances and a sense of injustice that over time can fuel instability or extremism. so, i believe america's support for civil society is a matter of national security. it is precisely because citizens and civil society can be so powerful. their ability to harness technology and connect and mobilize at this moment so unprecedented that more and more governments are doing everything in their power to silence them. from russia to china to venezuela, are you seeing relentless crackdowns vilifying dissent as subversive. in places like make it incredibly difficult for ngos to operate. hungary and egypt, increasingly target civil society. around the world, brave men and women who dare raise their voices are harassed and attacked and even killed. so, today we honor those who have given their lives. among them in cameroon, in libya, in cambodia, in russia. we stand in solidarity with those who are detained at this very moment. in venezuela, lopez. in barundi, in egypt, ahmed mayer, in china, shuba, and now ilham tohti. in vietnam, father lee. and so many others. they deserve to be free. they ought to be released. this growing crackdown on civil society is a campaign to undermine the very idea of democracy. and what's needed is an even stronger campaign to defend democracy. since i took office, the united states has continued to lead the way and as secretary of state, hillary clinton helped champion our efforts. across the global, no country does more to strengthen civil society than america. and one year ago, here in new york, i pledged that the united states would do even more. and i challenge the world to join us in this cause. working with many of you, that's what we've done. and today i'm proud to announce a series of new steps. first partnering and protecting civil society groups around the world is now a mission across the u.s. government. so, under a new presidential memorandum i'm issuing today, federal departments and agencies will consult and partner more regularly with civil society groups. they will oppose attempts by foreign governments to dictate the nature of our assistance to civil society. and they will oppose efforts by foreign governments. [ applause ] they'll oppose efforts by foreign governments to restrict freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. this is across the government. this is part of american leadership. sending, we're creating new innovation centers to empower civil society groups around the world. i want to thank our partners in this effort, including the government of sweden and the agakon development network. starting next year civil society groups will be able to use these centers to network and access knowledge and technology and funding that they need to put their ideas into action. and we'll start with six centers in latin america, subsaharan africa, in the middle east and in asia. oppressive governments are sharing worse practices to weaken civil society. we're going to help you share the best practices to stay strong and vibrant. number three, we're expanding our support in funding for the community of democracies to better coordinate the diplomacy and pressure we bring to bear. this means more support for those who are fighting against the laws that restrict civil society. and-n recent years we worked together to prevent new limits on civil society from kenya to cambodia. and we've helped expand the space for civil society in countries from honduras to tunisia to burma. and standing together, we can do even more. and finally we're increasing our support to society groups across the board. we're going to increase our emergency interest to embattled ngos. we'll do to match groups with the donors and funding that they need. and in the coming months our treasury department will finalize regulation so it's even easier and less costly for your foundations to make grants overseas. [ applause ] we'll increase our legal assistance and technical support to those pushing back against onerous laws and regulations. we'll help more governments truly partner with civil society. we'll continue to stand up for free and open internet to individuals can access information and make up their own minds about the issues their countries confront. and through our programs to engage young leaders around the world, we're helping to build the next generation of civil society leaders. our message to those young people is simple -- america stands with you. we stand with educators like waleed ali of kenya. where is waleed? there he is. in his village near the border of somalia, young people without jobs are tempted by drugs, recruited by terrorists, so waleed offers them counseling and business class and small plots of farmland, helping them rebuild their own lives and their communities and giving them options for the future. he strives, he says, not just for the idea of democracy but to cement the practice of democracy. so, we thank you, waleed, for extraordinary efforts and we stand with you. we stand with humanitarians like miriam. where is miriam? there she is right there. in communities that are racked at times by horrific violence. children are so terrified to walk the streets that many begin that dangerous and often deadly march north. and miriam's outreach centers give them a safe place to play and grow and learn. and she says her dream is that people in honduras can walk free. and the young people will have opportunities in their own country. and we couldn't be prouder of you, miriam, and we stand with you. we stand with activists like sopi jock of cambodia. where is -- there she is. sopi saw a fellow human rights advocate hauled off by the police. she could have fled, too, but she said she never thought of leaving cambodia even for a minute. she keeps organizing and marching and mobilizing youth to demand justice. she says, i dream that cambodian citizens can enjoy the freedoms they're entitled to. we could not be prouder of you and we stand with you. and we stand with advocates like john gad of egypt. where is john? like all egyptians, john has lived through the turmoil of recent years. as an artist he uses his poetry and performances to help people discover the power inside them, which is as good a description of being an organizer as anything. and being a leader. and he's been working to help women and girls recover from violence and sexual assault. he's focused, he says, on how to teach egyptians to accept each other. and he has said that we have rights that we can achieve in a peaceful way. john is the future. that's why we stand with him. these individuals are just a small sample. they're just an example of the extraordinary drive and courage and commitment of people that oftentimes are outside of the headlines. people don't do stories on them. when they're endangered or harassed, it usually doesn't surface in the news. but they are those pushing the boulder up the hill to make sure that the world is a little bit of a better place. and we live in a complicated world. we've got imperfect choices. the reality is sometimes, for instance, for the sake of our national security, the united states works with governments that do not fully respect the universal rights of their citizens. these are choices that i as president constantly have to make. and i will never apologize for doing everything in my power to protect the safety and security of the american people. that is my first and primary job. but that does not mean that human rights can be simply sacrificed for the sake of expediency. so, although it is uncomfortable, although it sometimes causes friction, the united states will not stop speaking out for the human rights of all people and pushing governments to uphold those rights and freedoms. we will not stop doing that. because that's part of who we are. that's part of what we stand for. and when governments engage in tactics against citizens and civil society hoping nobody will notice, it is our job to shine a spotlight on that abuse. and when individuals like the ones i introduced are being held down, it's our job to help lift them back up. when they try to wall you off from the world be we want to connect you with each other. when your governments may try to pass oppressive laws, we'll try to oppose pem. when they try to cut off your funding, try to give you a life line. when they try to silence you, we try to amplify your voice. and if amid all the restrictions and all the pressure and all the harassment and all the fear, if they try to tell you that the world does not care and that your friends have forsaken you, do not ever believe it, because you are not alone. are you never alone. your fellow advocates stand with you and your community stands with you. your friends around the world stand with you. the united states of america stands with you and its president stands with you. no matter how dark the hour, we remember the words of dr. king. the time is always right to do the right thing. and dr. king also said that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. the reason we support civil society is because we have seen in this country of ours that it does, in fact, bend towards justice but it does not do so on its own. it does so because they're hands of ordinary people doing extraordinary things every single day and they pull that arc in the direction of justice. that's why we have freedom in this country. that's why i'm able to stand before you here today. and that's we will stand with them tomorrow. god bless you you all. god bless all those who are working under tough conditions in every corner of the world. thank you, cgi. thank you, president clinton. thank you. >> that was president obama speaking at the clinton global initiative in new york city talking about the civil soc soc projects that the white house intends to undergo around the world. supporting ngos and other groups that are trying to foster positive civil society around the globe. while the president was speaking, nearby at the united nations, secretary of state john kerry just wrapped up a meeting of his own. a meeting with iraqi president. secretary kerry spoke about the air strikes in syria. >> we will not allow geography or borders to prevent us from being able to take action against isil. we will not allow them to have a safehaven where they think they can have sanctuary against accountability. we will hold them responsible for their grotesque acrotrocita. >> secretary kerry is also meeting at this hour with arab league secretary-general al arabi. they hit over 20 targets overnight and inside syria. we'll have more when we come back. i've always loved exploring and looking for something better. that's the way i look at life. especially now that i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib, a type of irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin, but wondered if i kept digging, could i come up with something better. my doctor told me about eliquis... for three important reasons. one, in a clinical trial, eliquis was proven to reduce the risk of stroke better than warfarin. two, eliquis had less major bleeding than warfarin. and three, unlike warfarin, there's no routine blood testing. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. those three important reasons are why eliquis is a better find for me. ask your doctor today if eliquis is right for you. mm. feel it. j.j. watt? you know there's a game on tonight right, amy? oh, i know, but it's my turn to chaperone. right, but you could do both. how? nfl mobile is now free with the more everything plan from verizon. i have verizon! download it, you can watch the game right here. come on, let's boogie! oh, helen. for the first time watch live local sunday games on nfl mobile. included with the more everything plan exclusively from verizon. here we go, here we go, here we go. ♪ fifty omaha set hut ♪ losing feeling in my toes ♪ ♪ nothing beats that new car smell ♪ ♪ chicken parm you taste so good ♪ ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ mmm mmm mmm mm mmm mm mmmmmm ♪ [music] defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. easily absorbed calcium plus d. beauty is bone deep. welcome back, everybody. as we continue our coverage of the first wave of u.s.-led military action inside syria to combat terrorist groups, including but not limited to the islamic state of iraq and al sham, known as isis, here's what we know as of right now. the pentagon says air strikes in syria targeting isis and the al qaeda linked group called al -- not getting name correct. are just the beginning of u.s.-led efforts to destroy and degrade the isis terror network. the stepped up military action comes as president obama and world leaders are gathered in new york right now around the united nations general assembly. president obama spoke at u.n. climate assembly today. and secretary kerry is meeting with al arabi. united emirates states it with strikes against isis and khorasan with u.s.-led coalition. they hit over 20 targets overnight from the air and the sea, including isis headquarters and training sites. a little known al qaeda branch just mentioned called khorasan, which you're probably hearing about for the first time today, administration officials say they were plotting attacks against the united states and its allies. here's what tony blinken told my colleague andrea mitchell a short time ago. >> with regard to khorasan, this is a much smaller group but these are very experienced folks, unfortunately, who have been in pakistan, in afghanistan, in north africa, chechnya. they are very focused on homeland attacks, attacks in europe and because the plotting was getting advanced, we thought it was very critical to take advantage of this opportunity to go after them as well. >> and i'm joined now by lathe, senior terrorism analyst. this new group, khorasan, which i'll now get the name correct s one most americans have never heard of. this is something that's just come up as of last night and of these air strikes. who is this group? what is their relationship to al qaeda? and if any, relation to isis. >> khorasan is a word that means the afghanistan/pakistan region. first to really splint eer jiha cell splinter of al qaeda veterans who have trained at their training camps in afghanistan. they are the true legacy of osama bin laden. they joined this path as a result of his influence over them. they include a number of saudi and kuwaiti most wanted men. they also include a number of foreign nationals from a number of countries where jihadi zones actually exist like chechnya. it's not exactly associates with al qaeda officially, but we know that it's mostly comprised of, you know, al qaeda veterans. and, of course, there is a threat that stems out of that concerning they've received operational training, you know, during days of bin laden and they've traveled to a number of countries where they were able to not only fund-raise for jihadi factions but give them tactical training. >> so you have a group you just explained, khorasan group, offshoot of al qaeda. you have al qaeda in iraq. you have covered the span of the region of the two groups trying to lay claim to territory in that region. are these two groups coordinated with each other? are they two branches of a single tree? or are they potentially at odds with each other? >> they're not exactly coordinating with each other, but i think because of what they call this crusader war on the islamic stake that it could potentially create an environment where some of these groups would start cooperating despite the disputes they've had. we know that isis has been at odds with most of al qaeda groups, especially in syria. even beheading a number of their commanders. but i think this -- you know, this may create an environment where they're forced to cooperate together. that's not good. it's almost like a deadly recipe. >> indeed. really quickly, are we starting to hear any chatter, any response from militants connected with isis to the air strikes that the united states is conducting inside syria? >> most of the talk has been, you know, from anonymous individuals online that expressed their support to the islamic state. some are undoubtedly fighters with the islamic state active on social media. the call has been to basically jihadist fighters around the world. not only fighters but supporters, to really attack civilian and military targets associated with the west. primarily the united states, france, australia and other nations. they've also encouraged attacks on so-called proxy states like the kingdom of jordan, the kingdom of saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. so they feel like targeting western interests, as well in the region, they're able to do great harm to the united states and weaken its campaign on isis. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. regita is a u.n. bureau chief. thank you for being here. i want to ask you to kind of give us a sense of what regional actors, those represented at the united nations right now, what is their reaction to what the united states is doing with four to five arab partners? syria? >> it's significant, arab partners, five of them are open about discussions and making it public that they have participated in this operation against the extremists inside syria. it's significant because they whe saying to the united statesu atev yeho t d i at defeing 'sha eyth d not wto g d an ioatngainiayr that stenimth hyn perr murs the i methg tndhe scesha tt bes entruck r whas xtho, ws it ngo be ssle t tkeneg rehey analimitinge moentnd a poino em y ofheyriaha rege tt ishetsam . 's briountt icpartatg htag ains extmi g roup on the oere uidav he zbolh,sppoer f ol aco ond has been some coordination between hezbollah and the government of bashar al assad. on the other side you have iran con deputying the air strikes saying they're illegal but not saying they're against the idea of striking isis. how does iran play into this equation and how does hezbollah potentially play into the equation? >> well, hezbollah plays exactly the way iran wants him to play in this equation. there's no independence for hezbollah, who is fighting inside syria, along the side of the president -- or the regime of bashar al assad. so, these are the guys that are fighting with isis are against isis. so, it's a very interesting position here. they want the united states and its allies to go and beat up on isil, isis, et cetera, but they really don't want to look as if they -- as they are accepting to be excluded from the coalition. they want to be part of it, legitimately, if you want. they want to legitimize the continued al assad in power where president obama says, no, he's lost legitimacy. so, they hide behind issue of sovereignty. they say, have you to have the consent of bashar al assad before you go in. even if you are going in to do him a favor by getting rid of his enemy. i think this is not the end of the game. i think it would be -- it's a long haul. i think we're going to be seeing so many different things developing including hopeful liv if the united states clarifies for us, what are they saying to the iranians as far as their role in syria, how are they going on with their support of bashar al assad, who the president of the united states has lost legitimacy, and what are they doing next door to saudi arabia, the ally in this coalition, and i mean exactly in yemen. >> yeah. it's a fascinating game of three-dimensional chess. thank you for helping us understand it. we appreciate it your customers, our financing. your aspirations, our analytics. your goals, our technology. introducing synchrony financial, bringing new meaning to the word partnership. banking. loyalty. analytics. synchrony financial. enagage with us. ♪ [music] jackie's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today her doctor has her on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. whenwork with equity experts who work with regional experts who work with portfolio management experts that's when expertise happens. mfs. because there is no expertise without collaboration. i'm a troubleman in san francisco.lopez. i've been with the company for 29 years. a troubleman restores and troubleshoots electrical issues, getting customers power back on. we're 24/7, 365 days a year. i love my job. going up in the bucket and seeing all of san francisco is an exhilarating feeling. i was born and raised in san francisco. this is where i live and there's a sense of pride in providing great power to our customers. when i go out there, flip the switch and get their power back on, there's a great sense of satisfaction. our plans supported bipartisan majorities in congress to ramp up our effort to train and equip the syrian opposition who are the best counterweight to isil and the assad regime. >> president obama this morning reiterating his bipartisan support from congress to arm and train syrian rebels. however, some members of congress believe that a debate over syria air strikes should be happening right now. >> and we voted, luke, as you know last week for probably the most controversial piece of the president's plan, which was the arming and training of rebels inside syria. i wish we were having that debate on the authorization right now. if it's not just a defensive mission but an offensive one, that's when congress is needed. that's what the constitution says. >> congresswoman of ohio is chair of the congressional black caucus, holding its annual legislative caucus this week. hence, my presence here in d.c. congresswoman, senator cain just said the most controversial part of the president's plan was the arming and training of syrian rebels. would you agree that is more controversial than air strikes inside of syria, by the way air strikes, which we have not discussed with the sovereign country we are bombing? >> i think he's absolutely right. i think that is the most controversial piece, because there's so many of us who do not believe, first off, there is a moderate opposition. secondly, we know this whole concept of training the moderate opposition is going to take more than a year. we're talking about as many as maybe 5,000 over a year. but isis is a threat now. they have more than 30,000 fighters and tons of money. >> you voted against it. you voted against that part that was connected to the continuing resolution in and of itself, might be a questionable thing for a lot of americans why it wasn't a stand-alone vote. you voted against that piece. do you support what's happening light now in syria? >> do i. >> why? >> i always believed the air strikes was the way to go. i think that once you start to train people, once we're on the ground, to me that's mission creep. and i just don't want to see us do that. i think as long as we can make real significant progress by air strikes and, this is the bigger piece, to bring our allies in. i think that is what has made this and is going to make it a very successful event. a successful effort. but i do believe that the president was right when he says that other nations, arab nations, need to stand up. that's what i'm pleased about today. >> but should congress -- i mean, we do have this bizarre situation where we are now conducting air strikes inside syria. we have a military action. the president is calling members of congress and briefing them on what is happening, but congress isn't here. should congress come back and have a separate, distinct debate and vote specifically on what you have to say is our war conducting in syria. shouldn't congress come back and vote on that? >> yes. congress never should have left except for what we have is a majority who doesn't want to take a vote before the election. they say in this instance, the president has all the authority he needs. >> yeah. >> but then you'll turn around and say, nope, you know what, he shouldn't have done that. >> they give him the executive authority except when they want to get out of town. john boehner -- the republican who is have spoken except for the more libertarian members, are in favor of these air strikes. what would john boehner -- what would there to be worried about coming back and holding a vote? >> his people being re-elected. that's what he would worry about. they don't want to take any vote about anything that's difficult, where weather it it be war, immigration, voting rights, anything. >> stunning. congresswoman, you're here in d.c. and i appreciate you being here with me today. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that does wrap things up for "the reid report." i'll see you back here tomorrow at 2 p.m. eastern. be sure to visit us online at thereidreport@msnbc.com. news i, bad news in email. good news -- fedex has flat rate shipping. it's called fedex one rate. and it's affordable. sounds great. [ cell phone typing ] [ typing continues ] [ whoosh ] [ cell phones buzz, chirp ] and we have to work the weekend. great. more good news -- it's friday! woo! [ male announcer ] ship a pak via fedex express saver® for as low as $7.50. [ male announcer ] with nearly 7 million investors... oh hey, neill, how are you? [ male announcer ] ...you'd expect us to have a highly skilled call center. kevin, neill holley's on line one. ok, great. [ male announcer ] and we do. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. "hello. you can go ahead and "have a nice flight."re." ♪ music plays ♪ music plays traveling can feel like one big mystery. you're never quite sure what is coming your way. but when you've got an entire company who knows that the fewest cancellations and the most on-time flights are nothing if we can't get your things there, too. it's no wonder more people choose delta than any other airline. lots of them, right? but when you try to get one by using your travel rewards card miles... those seats mysteriously vanish. why? all the flights you want are blacked out. or they hit you up for some outrageous number of miles. switch to the venture card from capital one. with venture, use your miles on any airline, any flight, any time. no blackout dates. and with every purchase you'll earn unlimited double miles. now we're getting somewhere. what's in your wallet? breaking news continues here in "the cycle." targets not one but two terrorist groups. the pentagon says this is only the beginning. >> beginning of a sustaining campaign to destroy isil. >> i can tell you that last night's strikes were only the beginning. >> and our response has to be all hands on deck. >> the first target is isis. >> last night on my orders, america's armed forces began strikes against isil targets in syria. the overall effort will take time. there will be challenges ahead. but we're going to do what's necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group. for the security of the country and the region and for the entire world. >> coalition strikes targeted isil training camps, control and command headquarters facilities, armored vehicles and leadership. >> we're not talking about hundreds of people. we're not talking about a 9/11-style trained operatives. but there are americans who have been trained there. they are coming back here. i can tell you from working directly with the fbi on this issue and european law enforcement on this issue, they are extremely concerned that they are going to -- they're going to miss somebody coming back. >> i think this is undeniable and the subject of broad international consensus that these extremist groups cause an imminent threat to peace and security. >> a coalition of five arab nations are standing with the united states. president obama is meeting with these leaders today on the sidelines of the u.n. >> america's proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations on behalf of our common security. the strength of this coalition makes it clear to the world that this is not america's fight alone. above all the people and governments of the middle east are rejecting isil and standing up for the peace and security that the people of the region and the world deserve. >> represents is not something that iraq or even the region can or should take on alone. weac

Exclusive: Kailash Satyarthi Warns over a Million Children Could Die Because of COVID-19 Economic Crisis