institution, continues to find itself in the hands of the most insidious form of politics. it's the kind of politics that seems just devoid of reason, revolving around what seems to most americans to be a truly straightforward portion of the constitution. article 2, section 2, paragraph 2, of the constitution states the president shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to nominate and bind with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court. now i am a lawyer in name only, mr. president. i don't profess to be a constitutional scholar, but at this point i'm one of the longer serving members of the senate,
and i have placed a special priority, mr. president, a special priority on working with colleagues across the aisle trying to find common ground, recognizing that the senate is at its best when colleagues work together. but to my mind, the current approach taken by the majority towards the president's duty to nominate a supreme court justice and the duty the united states senate has to adviseant consent on the nominee has led this senate to an unprecedented and dangerous situation. mr. president, it seems to me that by denying judge garland a hearing, we're denied the opportunity to ask him questions, ask the nominee questions to which the american people are owed answers. the current position of refusing to ask those questions and hear
those answers is an insult to our form of government, one understood by originalists, strict constructionists and liberal interpreters alike. the senate's decline has been particularly vivid in the case of judicial appointments. u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia is a primary judicial forum for appeals of executive and regulatory actions prior to the supreme court. as such, it has become the focus of ideologues who oppose environmental regulation, consumer regulation, antitrust and many other hallmarks of our system of government for the past century. when three vacancies opened on this court and presidential appointments were made, senate republicans proceeded to filibuster each and every one of these nominees, claiming, in my view, ridiculously, that the
president was engaged in -- quote -- "court packing." now in the interest of fairness, mr. president, court packing is the reprehensible course of action chosen by a liberal icon, president franklin d. roosevelt, when faced with a court that opposed his will. that attempt was a dangerous time for our constitutional system with checks and balances and must be remembered, lest it be repeated. not only was it dishonest to apply this term to the regular process of filling existing vacancy, the accusers were in fact attempting to accomplish f.d.r.'s same goal of bending a federal court to their will in a blatant attack on our system of checks and balances. today we are witnessing another attack on the constitution in this refusal to do our jobs and proceed with the confirmation process for judge garland. mr. president, this is a grave
assessment and maybe i am being a bit too harsh to colleagues in laying their refusal to do duty on purely political grounds. so i want to just take a couple of minutes to unpack some of the justifications that have been given for what we have heard. some members have argued there's a long-standing tradition the senate does not fill a supreme court vacancy during a presidential election year. this has been referred to as an 80-year precedent and is standard practice. unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. there is no such precedent. or i would say there is no such precedent unless you define your terms so narrowly that the concept of precedent becomes meaningless. this can be contrived, for example, by limiting the
discussion to nominations made during a presidential election year rather than nominations considered during a presidential election year. however, that's like saying we never previously filled a supreme court vacancy in a year in which leonardo dicaprio won an oscar and denver won the super bowl. it provides no meaningful guidance. if anything, the relevant historical precedence favored the senate considering a nomination to fill the current vacancy. since 1912, the senate tass has considered seven supreme court nominations during presidential election years. six of the nominations were confirmed. pitney in 1912. louis brandeis and john h. clark in 1916. -p about ben cardozo in 1962.
anthony kennedy in 1988 was nominated by president reagan and confirmed unanimously by a senate in which democrats held the majority. in one other case, that of abe fortice in 1968, the nomination was rejected in an election year. however, even then the senate did its job and held hearings, reported the nomination from committee and voted on whether to invoke cloture on the nomination on the senate floor. in the face of this historical record, some senators have argued another point. they've invoked the so-called biden rule based on a speech that vice president biden gave on the senate floor in 1992 when he was chairman of the senate judiciary committee. in that speech, according to some members, senator biden established a binding rule that the senate should never consider supreme court nominations during
presidential election years. first off, as discussed above, there is no such thing as a binding senate rule. we make them, we break them, we change them. it is the flexibility of this institution that has allowed it to continue to serve americans these 225 years and the current inflexibility of my colleagues that threatens to bring it to harm. now let's look at senator biden's 1992 comments in perspective. he gave a speech, perhaps intemperate. but in 1988, as i just described, he led the senate in confirming justice anthony kennedy. further in 1987 and 1991, when president reagan and bush submitted the highly controversial nominations of robert bork and clarence thomas, the senate judiciary committee
chaired by then-senator biden held nominations, held hearings on the nominations and took them to the floor for up-or-down votes. so when senator biden chaired the judiciary committee, he always provided a republican president supreme court nominees with a hearing, a vote in committee, and a vote on the senate floor. it is also important to consider the overall point that senator biden was making in 1992. the supreme court was about to adjourn, which is a time when justices frequently announce their retirements. senator biden was arguing that there should not be a trumped up retirement designed to create a vacancy for which the president would submit an ideologically extreme nominee as part of a campaign to make the supreme court an agent of an ultra right
conservative social agenda which would lack support in the congress and in the country. senator biden was arguing against partisanship. he was counseling restraint. he said so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the white house and for the senate. noting his support of the nominees, though nominated by an opposing president, senator biden was urging both sides to step back from partisan ideological warfare. senator biden urged congress to develop a nomination confirmation process that reflected divided government by delivering a moderate, well-respected nominee who would be subject to a reasonable, dignified nomination process. senator biden went on to say if the president consults and
cooperates with the senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then the nominees may enjoy my support, just as did justices kennedy and souter. that, mr. president, is precisely the approach that president obama is following here. moderating his selection in nominating judge garland, the president has not politicized the process. he has not nominated -- the president has not nominated some left-wing ideologue who thrills progressives but angers conservatives. you already heard what i quoted directly from our esteemed friend, the president pro tempore of the senate, senator hatch. the president has gone to the
middle, seeking compromise. he's nominated someone who's widely regarded as sound and moderate and capable. indeed, not long ago leading republican senators, citing judge garland as the very example of the type of person they were hoping that the president would nominate. judge garland was the kind of person that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said this is the kind of person we'd really like to see for this job. now there have been other attempts to defend the indefensible, and they all flow back to the facts that i've just outlined. no matter the politics, no matter your concern about a primary challenge from the right, no matter the faint hope that a member of your party might win the white house and nominate an ideological kindred
spirit, no matter the pressure to choose party over country, it's time to do our constitutional duty. hold hearings, ask questions, get answers, and vote on the nominee. perhaps like with abe fortice, the nominee will be rejected. if that's the senate's will, so be it. but denying a duly nominated candidate a responsible and dignified confirmation process is choosing to further endanger the people we serve and the body that we serve in. finally, every republican member must know that having a meeting or calling for hearings and a vote without taking any action to make it so is pretty much naked politics, and americans aren't going to be fooled. if members of the majority
actually wish to see the senate do its job, they can force the senate to make it happen by denying the leadership the ability to act on other less pressing matters until they take up this responsibility. to go home and claim you would like hearings, that you would like a vote without taking action to make it happen is simply lip service to the constitutional responsibilities of a senator. mr. president, i'm going to close with just a couple of last thoughts. my colleagues have the opportunity to redeem this body. my colleagues have repeatedly said it's not the position. it's the principle. but it was understood during f.d.r.'s time, it should be understood now, threatening the
makeup of the supreme court is a position without principle. intemperance appears to be the hallmark of political rhetoric in this day that somehow if it just is loud and intemperate, that that's somehow what people are going to pay attention to. but this sort of intemperate rhetoric is certainly corrosive to this institution. the senate still has an opportunity to sober up, regardless of what was said, buckle down, get to work, hold hearings and vote on a nominee. political rhetoric can be forgiven. allowing intemperate rhetoric to control the solemn responsibilities of every senator is unforgivable.
mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the national defense authorization act of 2017 off the ndaa. this bill was reported out of committee two weeks ago with 100% support from our friends across the aisle and nearly unanimous support if the majority party. i'm thankful for the leadership of chairman mccain and ranking member reed. i think they've done a marvelous jobs of the these are two veterans. they have served their country well before becoming members of this body. as members of this body, they have worked very, very hard to find consensus among republicans and democrats with regard to how we work to prepare an
authorization bill for funding for our military. the reason that i'm here today is, i think it's important to share my thoughts about the need to move forward with a discussion of the national defense authorization act on the floor of the senate in an appropriate time frame. for those individuals that wonder how the senate works, sometimes we find it frustrating because we'd like to move in and as my friend, the senator from oregon just indicated, they would like to have votes. in this particular case, he was suggesting a vote on the supreme court and yet that one, there are challenges and there are concerns on the part of members of the majority party. but in the case of the national defense authorization act, this is one that has been passed out of the senate, passed by the house and signed by the president for 54 years in a row. it is a bipartisan work effort. it's one in which we have agreement. we find consensus.
it seems only appropriate that we try to move forward on this particular bill before memorial day, the day in which we honor those individuals who have given the ultimate sacrifice. let me share with you what we understand has happened. i understand when the majority leader had asked for a unanimous offer or an agreement, that we take up this bill early, take it up and begin to debate it, not pass it but to debate it and to accept amendments to this particular bill about how to appropriately direct our military for the coming year, the minority leader which is his right objected and said that he would not allow us to move forward, even to debate the bill. and in fact we had to file what they call cloture or a closure of the time with a 30-hour period which we're in right now before we can even take the bill up. that seems inappropriate or at least to me it seems like if we really wanted to show those
individuals who we honor and we talk about the memory of those who lost their lives serving our country, the least we could do is to move forward with this particular one in some sort of united effort. since there does not appear to be anything which is of a challenge in passing the bill. you know, i think about memorial day because i lost an uncle. as a matter of fact, i'm named for him. my real name is miriam michael. i go by mike. i was named for an uncle who died in world war ii on the island of okinawa in may of 1945. he never had a chance to vote, never had a chance to have a family. my family lost something. he lost his life but we lost an uncle, a brother. and this is the time period in which we remember what these folks, these soldiers, sailors,
warriors have given to our country. it seems appropriate that this would have been a great time to make an example of us working together. that sense of sacrifice didn't stop in world war ii. it continues on. i had the opportunity, the privilege to work as governor of south dakota during the time in which we were sending young men and women off to wars in afghanistan and iraq. i remember one time in particular that was an example of the generation supporting our country. it happened to be with a mobilization ceremony in the little town of redfield. in this town when we send young men and women off in south dakota, we have a mobilization ceremony which is attended by literally the entire town. in this case it was the 147th field artillery, second battalion. we came in as -- i was working as governor at the time. when we came into this town, we went to the high school gymnasium. you couldn't park within three
blocks of that gymnasium because it was filled. when we walked inside, there were people everywhere. they were even sitting on the window sills because there was a little over a hundred, i believe 105 of those soldiers who were being deployed and they were going to be going to iraq. i remember it specifically because as we finished the ceremonies for deployment in this packed crowd, we went down the line and we started thanking each soldier for their service. and as i walked through the line saying thank you, we appreciate your service, be careful, come back safely, one of the soldiers who i looked at and looked at his last name, he was gray haired and clearly he was a sergeant and he was one of the leaders. and i said thank you for your service. do your job but bring these guys home safely. and he said, yes, sir. the next man in line and i looked at his name and it was the same name as the individual ahead of him.
i looked at him and i said, is that your dad? he said no, sir, that's my uncle. my dad's behind me. three generations were three -- or three separate members of the same family serving in the 147th, three of them offering their own selves and their families' time to support our country. i don't know whether they were republican or democrat. all i know is they were wearing the uniform of the united states of america. sometimes up here as we talk about what we do, we have to remind ourselves that when these young men and women deploy, they're not deploying as republicans or democrats and they really don't care about how we see the progression of the votes that we take here. what they look at is whether or not we're united as americans. this would be a very appropriate time for the minority leader to
consider perhaps giving back some of the time that he is holding for debate on this bill to begin. let's begin the debate on this bill before we leave for memorial day. let's begin the process of letting these families know that this is important to us, too, and that we understand the significance of memorial day. for that particular family that i talked about in redfield, this is especially important this year because that young man came back and carried the cross of war with him. they lost him earlier this year. this year memorial day means a little bit more. today what i would ask is that we send a message to all of the
men and women who wear the uniform. politics is gone. and we'll debate the bill. we'll spend time on the bill. we'll make it better but we will not hold it hostage. we'll do what they want us to do as americans, protecting our country and honoring the memory of those that have given everything in the defense of our country. this is a time to vote, to vote for those who died before they ever had a chance to vote. this is a chance to share our strong belief that when it comes to the defense of our country, we're americans first, republicans and democrats last. with that, mr. president, i
would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. a senator: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to speak about the pressing need to invest in our aging infrastructure across this great country, especially drinking water infrastructure. mr. peters: what makes the ongoing crisis in flint so tragic is that it was preventible. steps could have and should have been taken over months and even years that would have prevented the poisoning of the citizens of flint. because these steps were not taken, efforts to mitigate the effects of lead exposure and repair the damage will be necessary for many years to come. our drinking water supply is largely dependent on systems built decades ago that are now deteriorating. many of the pipes in some of our older cities were installed
before world war ii and many are made of lead. the e.p.a. estimates about ten million homes and buildings are serviced with lead lines. the american water works association has said that we are entering -- quote -- "the replacement era. water systems are reaching the end of their life span and we must replace them. we have no choice." if we want to simply maintain our current levels of water service, experts estimate a cost of at least $1 trillion over the next two decades. that is why it's so important we pass a new water resources development act or warda. we have thability to dedicate resources to flint and to communities dealing with infrastructure tral lengths -- challenges all across our country. the environment and public works committee listened to water experts, state and local elected
officials, and the shipping industry as well as stakeholders to craft the warda bill that makes critical infrastructure investments in drinking and wastewater projects, as well as our ports and our waterways. my friend, senator debbie stabenow, and i are proud to work with senator inhoffe and senator barbara boxer to include bipartisan measures that would provide emergency aid to address the contamination crisis in flint and provide assistance to our communities across our country facing similar infrastructure challenges. the flint aid package included in the bipartisan warda bill includes direct funding for water infrastructure emergencies and critical funding for programs to combat the health complications from lead exposure. this includes a drinking water lead exposure registry, and a lead exposure advisory committee
to track and address long-term health effects. additionally, funding for a national childhood health efforts, such as the childhood lead poisoning prevention program would be increased in this bill. the water resources development act also includes funding for secured loans through the water infrastructure finance and innovation act or wifia program. this financing mechanism was created in a bipartisan effort by congress in 2014 to provide low interest financing for large-scale water infrastructure projects. these loans will be available to states and municipalities all across our country. there are also a number of other important provisions in this year's warda bill. it provides restoration of our great lakes and water systems like puget sound, chesapeake bay, and many more. in fact, the bill includes an
authorization of the great lakes restoration initiative through the year 2021 which has been absolutely essential to great lakes cleanup efforts in recent years. it is important to know that the great lakes provide drinking water for over 40 million people. the warda bill will also modernize our ports and improve the condition of our harbors and waterways and keep our economy moving. a saying attributed to benjamin franklin rings especially true with this bill. he says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. if we make the necessary infrastructure investments now, we will preserve clean water, save taxpayer money in the long run, and protect american families from the dangerous health impacts of aging lead pipes. the environment and public works committee passed the water resources development act with strong overwhelming bipartisan
support last month. this bill is ready for consideration by the full senate and communities across our country, including the families of flint are waiting for us to act. i'm hopeful that this body will just do that -- will do just that in the coming weeks and i urge my colleagues to prioritize this common sense bipartisan infrastructure bill for a vote on the senate floor. mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive
session to consider the following nomination, calendar number 552 only with no other executive business in order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, patrick a. burke of the district of columbia to be united states marshal. mr. rounds: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the nomination. the presiding officer: any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. rounds: i ask consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 476 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 476
designating the monday of -- month of may 2016 assistic fibrosis awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 477, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 477, promoting minority health awareness and supporting the goals and ideals of national minority health month in april 2016 and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. rounds: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without
objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 416 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 416, recognizing the contributions of hawaii to the culinary heritage of the united states and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate -- the committee is discharge and the senate will move to the measure. mr. rounds: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 459 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 459, recognizing the importance
of cancer research and the vital contributions of scientists, clinicians, cancer survivors and other patient advocates across the united states and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is disarnled and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. rounds: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, may 26. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2943, postcloture. finally, that all time during
adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island i. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i am back with my increasingly scuffed and battered "time to wake up" sign, now for the 138th time to urge that we stop sleep-walking through history. climate change, as we know, is already harming our oceans and farms, our health and our communities, yet here in the senate we continue to just stand idly by as carbon pollution piles up in the atmosphere, driving unprecedented changes in our states. i urge us again to wake up and to act with urgency.
just three years ago, the monitoring station atop hawaii's montana low with a measure -- monaola measured a significant milestone: 400 parts her million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. this chart illustrates that march upwards of our carbon levels. and it's not just at this one spot in the pa sifnlgt the world's meteorological organization maintains a global atmospheric network of stations that spans 100 countries, including stations high in the alps, andes and himalayas as well as in the arctic and antarctic. earlier this month, the cape grim station, perhaps aptly named in remote northwestern tazmania, saw its first measurement above 400 parts per
million. a few days later, casey station in antarctica measured carbon dioxide concentration above 400 parts per million. what is significant about 400 parts per million? well, the earth has existed in a range between 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide for at least the last 800,000 years, probably millions of years, but at least the last 800,000 years. now, homo sapiens, as a species, has only been around for about 200,000 years. so 800,000 really goes back a ways. primitive farming began only about 20,000 years agoment before that, we were just hunter gatherers.
800,000 in that context is a long, safe, comfortable run for this planet that has been very good to humankind in that carbon dioxide concentration window of 170 to 300. since the industrial revolution, when the great carbon dump began, we've completely blown out of that range. there at the bottom of this chart is 300. what's also apparent in this chart is the breathing, if you will, of the planet. the sawtooth effect of this line comes from carbon dioxide levels changing, as spring triggers the collective inhale of trees and other plant life in the northern hemisphere. this is another version of the same data. the line at the border between white and the lavender is the carbon data for the year 2011.
around between 388 and 393 parts per million and going up, and then going back down and then going up, as the earth inhales and exhales the carbon dioxide. in 2012, this was the line. up above 2011. 2013, this was the line. 2014, this was the line. 2015, it's hard to see, but it's right here where my finger is tracing. and then on-ward from here. and this is 2016 to date, and then the data stops. it's going to continue. that shelf is just the data ending because of the time of year we're in. so you see every single year, the carbon dioxide level is marching up and up and up.
dr. ca ralph keeling is sort afr hero among scientists. he has said that he doubts carbon dioxide levels at mauna loa will ever again dip below 400 parts per million. as our carbon pollution accumu lats, we can actually measure the change in the amount of energy trapped by the atmosphere from the sung. noaa calls this the annual greenhouse gas index and the latest edition shows that in just the past 25 years our carbon emissions have increased are the heat-trapping capacity of our atmosphere by 50% above preindustrial levels. that is our doing. the director of noaa's global monitoring division, jim butler,
commented, "we're dialing up earth's thermostat in a way that will lock more heat in the ocean and atmosphere for thousands of years." last week "the washington post" reported that both noaa and nasa found april 2016 to have been the warmest april ever recorded. what's remarkable is that april was the 12th consecutive month in a row in which that month was the warmest ever recorded for that month. that's a full year's worth of months that topped every previous such month for temperature, and it is the longest streak of that ever in noaa's 137-year temperature record. one thing we know about all this
excess heat is that the oceans have absorbed more than 90% of it. you think things are weird now with the weather. imagine if the oceans had not absorbed more than 90% of that excess heat. that's a measurement, by the way, not a theory. and unless we're going to repeal the laws of physics, we know that when this water warms from absorbing that 90-plus percent heat of the energy, that's the law of thermal expansion. as a result, sea levels around the world are measurably rising because oceans are warming and expanding, as well as because of ice sheets and glaciers melting. sea level rise is a serious matter for my constituents and for all coastal communities. we measure approximately 10 inches of sea level rise at
naval station newport, rhode island, since the 1930's. higher sea levels erode our shoreline, they push saltwater up into our marshes and, worst of all from our human perspective, the big storms that get launched in this weather come riding ashore on higher seas and they inflict more damage and worse flooding in our homes. a couple of years ago i visited south florida with our friend senator nelson, in parts of miami and orlando, sea water continues to flood streets on high tide on perfectly calm and sunny days. it is not rain. these flooding events are occurring because sea level is rising. a study published in february by "climate central" determined that climate change was to blame for approximately three-quarters of the coastal floods recorded
in the u.s. between 2005 and 2014, most of which were high-tide floods. the blue is the natural flood they experience. the red are the floodings that were driven by climate change. dr. ben strauss led this analysis, and he says, "this is really the first placing of human fingerprints on coastal floods, and thousands of them, and the body of science revealing those human fingerprints from climate change is growing." in the past i have said that climate change loads the dice for extreme weather, but that it's hard to link a particular event to climate change. that is actually beginning to change, as the science continues to develop and the evidence continues to pile up. in march, the national academies of sciences, engineering, and
medicine released a report outlining a rigorous science-based system for attributing extreme weather events to climate change. -- with statistical confidence. in other words, the scientists are now able to assess how the risk of an extreme weather event has changed since these heat-trapping greenhouse gases have altered our climate. certain kind of extreme events are relatively straightforward to assess and attribute. heaheat waves, heavy rains, cern types of drought. other kind of extreme events such as tornadoes, wildfires, and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes are more complicated to dissect. heat waves, for example, are expected to become more common, more intense, and longer lasting because of the increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. an analysis of an extreme haiti
wave last -- heat wave last may in australia found that it was made 23 times more likely to have happened because of climate change. when the odds in favor have become so great it's fair to say according to one scientist is associated with that report -- and i quote -- "some episodes of extreme heat would have been virtually impossible without climate change. ytion " the attribution to specific events is closing in. dr. heidi cullen, chief scientist at climate central has said the days of saying no single weather event can be linked to climate change are over. for many extreme weather events, the link is now strong. end quote.
australian researchers have determined that the ocean warming that led to widespread and devastating coral bleaching on the great barrier reef in march was made not 23 times more likely, but 175 times more likely by human-caused climate change. average water temperatures in the coral sea are up about 1.5 degrees celsius since 1900. we measure that. and about one half of that one and a half degrees -- one half a degree of that one and a half degrees is due to natural variability and one whole degree of it is from greenhouse gas emissions. david klein, a coral reef scientist at the scripps institute of oceanography has said we've had evidence before that human-induced climate change is behind the increase in
severity and frequency of bleaching events, but this is the smoking gun. end quote. by the way, a bleaching event on a coral reef is like a heart attack in a human. the reef may survive it but it will take a long, long time to recover and very often the reef simply dies. with all of that happening, here we are in this chamber sitting on our hands helpless. we have a responsibility, mr. president, not only to the voters of today, but to the generations who will follow us and inherit the world as we leave it to them. here's how professor of oceanography, dr. laura faye tennenbaum of nasa's jet
propulsion laboratory, describes her predicament -- i quote -- "as a college professor who lectures on climate change, i will have to find a way to look into those 70 sets of eyes, her students, that have learned all semester long to trust me and somehow explain to those students, my students, who still believe in their young minds that success mostly depends on good grades and hard work, who believe in fairness, evenhandedness, and opportunity, how much we as people have altered our environment and that they will end up facing the consequences of our inability to act. end quote.
so where do we look for leadership? well, not to one of the leading presidential contenders. this character says that -- and i quote him. he's just -- quote -- "not a great believer in man-made climate change. so there. like the science cares what his opinion is. all that science, the decades of research by thousands of scientists across the globe, the pride of the scientific profession, it's a hoax, he says, a con job. pseudo science and b. s. i guess in that latter characterization he can claim some real expertise. to my republican colleagues,
i've got to ask is that really the line that we want to have about this problem? is this your guy? are you going to stand by him on this stuff? but wait, it actually gets better. because "politico" just yesterday reported that this new york billionaire is also applying for permission to build a sea wall. he's a wall-building kind of guy, and he wants to build a sea wall to protect his sea side golf resort. what does he want to protect his sea side golf resort from with a wall? rapist mexicans coming across the border? no. what he wants to defend his sea side golf resort from with a wall is -- and i quote -- "global warming and its
effects." remember the sea level rise i talked about? that is correct, that's what he said. climate change is a hoax, when his political interests dictate. but then it's real and a threat when his economic interests are involved. throughout the discussion on climate change how often we see this. say one thing, do another. well, i've got to close by reminding my colleagues that my home state, rhode island, is the ocean state. we cannot fail to take climate change seriously. if this is uncomfortable for my colleagues, i apologize, but basically i don't care. i have obligations to my state that i must discharge. we in rhode island are going to stand with america's leading research institutions and
scientists. we're going to stand with our national security experts. we're going to stand with the great american corporations like apple and google and mars and national grid. we're going to stand with president obama and we're going to stand with pope francis to do everything we can to face this climate challenge head on. and i h hope that soon one day it will be time when we can all wake up and stand together. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.
inappropriate method. this box down the key argument in her defense the she had state officials even held back her communications were preserved here's a briefing from today estimate the first question cannister to with the ig report? do you agree to be that essentials conclusion of the secretary of state hillary clinton practices but she played by her own rules? but. >> -- i am limited because
they cannot talk about conclusions' publicly but in general with the process that is something the secretary asked them to do to undertake the review they have made recommendations they have already complied with many of those in the report it does highlight the challenges of the state department but other federal agencies try to venture with
proper record keeping of accountability. >> if you give that background briefing. >> but again you can try a the question again. . . mech we're trying to talk about some of the allegations or some of the findings rather in this report. since it was out in public. >> i understand you have some limitations but i think there
are institutional questions that ought to be addressed. what are the findings in the report, one was that secretary clinton, or the oig found no evidence that secretary clinton ever sought approval for use for the private server. it also quotes the chief information officer and the assistant secretary for diplomatic security essay not they believed that she had an obligation to ask them. if they had been asked they would've declined it. it also states under the secretary management discuss the issue with some of the secretary's top staff. the undersecretary of management is directly responsible for the
bureaus for irm, correct? >> yes. >> people can see your nod. >> do they both report to him? >> yes. >> why didn't the undersecretary of management who is responsible for the two bureaus that complain that they should have announced and have a warrant to approve this, why didn't he raise it? >> let me try to broadly answer the points you have raised or the questions you raise. first of all about whether secretary clinton was required to seek approval. we talked about this in the past so i feel like i can speak about it on the record now, that will not necessarily encourage, there was no prohibition on using personal e-mail.
the only requirement is that, and regulations do state that the records need to be preserved and i would say looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we do not have records management and cyber security policy that would make it hard to approve this kind of outside system to replace the official e-mail. secretary clinton has said publicly she would not make the same choice again. she is also said that she did not seek a specific approval for this system. i am aware that senior states department officials noted in the report would not have
approved her exclusive reliance on a personal e-mail to conduct official business. i'm not going to challenge that assertion. as i said, she herself have said that she would not have done it the same way are made that same choice again. but i do not want to re-litigate all of all of that. frankly, i'm not sure the report gets into assigning blame on that. >> one thing here, the report says, you stated that there is no absolute prohibition on the use of personal e-mail, which is true. however, beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011 the department revised the port affairs manual and issued various memorandums specifically discussing the application to use department systems in most circumstances.
so, there was an obligation to use department systems in most circumstances. correct? >> again, if you're quoting me chapter verse him not going to dispute that. it was not prohibited. >> in occasional circumstances. but it was prohibited to do it in every circumstance because the application here is that in most circumstances you have to use the department systems. so when you say it is not absolutely prohibitive, you are right, but you're not right if you use that statement to suggest that it was acceptable to use it in most circumstances because secretary clinton used it in every circumstance, correct? >> again, in answer to your second question, while people were aware of her use a personal e-mail, no one had a full and complete understanding of to the extent.
>> let me go to the next. someone some people did have a full and complete understanding, like she did, right? >> again, that is a question for her and her team to answer that. >> but there is the reason i am raising this. this. it's an institutional question because you guys, you have an interest it would seem to me in securing the communications. >> yes, we we do. >> on the topic of that. therefore, it is not just for her to ask, but surely is in it for the people around her, including the undersecretary of management who did discuss this issue with her top aides into raids these issues. >> i apologize, unless you're referring to that he did discuss an issue. >> on page 38 is says in august 2011, the executive secretary, the undersecretary for management and secretary clinton's cheap up staff and deputy chief of staff in response to this request
discussed the email providing her with a department blackberry to replace her personal blackberry which was now functioning, possibly because quote, and this e-mail has been released, quote her personal e-mail server is --. the undersecretary of management, the chief of staff, and unidentified deputy chief of staff, i'll discuss this issue via e-mail. the undersecretary management is responsible for the two bureaus, ir and nds, who say that they believe the secretary had an obligation to ask for permission, ask for approval to use this, and who say that if they had been asked they would have said no. i do not understand why their boss would not have addressed this issue because he is responsible for both of them and he discussed it with a top officials in the department, including the chief of staff.
>> it is our understanding that the full extent of her use of private e-mail was not clear to senior staff. what you are referring to. >> her chief of staff did know this? >> again, people were aware that she was using it. i cannot speak to that specifically. you're talking about the undersecretary for management. >> he didn't know. >> just to finish my response, i think what you're referring to is to use an expression, 2020 hindsight that that these two senior state department officials then said they would not have approved of this. again, i do not think secretary clinton would set as much she would not have done the same course of action. i also want to sate -- >> does the department make an effort because some people did know it, she knew it, the cheapest afternoon and her undersecretary for management, to some degree was aware that she had a personal e-mail.
>> and there is a discussion of replacing it and that was ultimately rejected. so i do not get why the department has such an obligation to secure communications, would not at a senior-level be responsible for both information technologies and dramatic security would not have raise this this and plagued it as an issue so that you would be in keeping with your own rules. >> so, again without going into too much of the details with this which i am doing because it's not public yet, but a couple of things. one is, we have set in the past and continue to say that our record-keeping, we could have done a better job at preserving emails and and records of
secretaries of state and their senior staff going back frankly several administrations. so back to before secretary clinton. we recognize that, i will also make the point that the fact that she turned over some 52000 pages of her e-mails, and i think the oig recognized that in some ways it mitigated this past preservation problem, you're talking about, and i get your question which is was their knowledge and if there was why weren't steps retake them. i am not good to litigate that, i just am not. you know, the oig report has its conclusion and recommendations, we have worked to address those recommendations, we acknowledge that we need to do a better job with her record keeping. we believe we are doing such. we have taken steps to meet all
of the recommendations that the oig report has made and in fact the oig has said that we are in compliance or rather that they consider -- all a recommendations have been resolved. >> i have one more question. in the background reaping, one official said repeatedly that the reports were that we did not do a great job. the phrase great job and didn't do a great job appear nowhere in the report. the report conclusion states, the department generally in the office of the secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements in the cyber security risks associated with electronic data communications. in its opening one-page summary and says, management weaknesses
at the department have contributed to the loss or removal of email records, particularly records created by the office of the secretary. these weaknesses include, a limited ability to retrieve email records, and accessibility of electronic files, failure to comply with requirements, and a general lack of oversight. do you believe that the official was truthful and stating we did not do a great job? because a great job, the report report says over and over again, the phrase is not there and what it says is that there were systemic weaknesses in management weaknesses and a general lack of oversight. i i ask this because the briefing was on background, i believe people should be accountable for what they say in the accuracy of it. i do not not see why an official would say we did not do a great job but the report says it when it is not actually what the report says. the report says there were systemic failures and management weaknesses and the
general lack of oversight. that is that we did not do a great job, that is -- white do you believe that official was correct in making that statement? >> you know, look pardon the imac and a part in the expression that he used to acknowledge that we, like many federal agencies were not doing enough to meet the requirements of record management preservation. i think we have acknowledge that. i've acknowledged have acknowledged it just now in the record. yet moving forward, we believe we have set in place, at the direction or under the direction of secretary carry, efforts to fully comply, meet and approve our records management preservation system here at the state department. again, i do not mean to broaden
the lens here but agencies across the federal government have been working to adapt to unbelievably enough, because emails have been around for a while but the fact that we live in an email dominated business environment these days and yet we still were relying up until a few years ago this print and file system which is inadequate. recognize that and we are set in motion. so your question or your allegation notwithstanding, we acknowledge that -- i'd. >> i do not think the bulk of it is not telling the truth about the report says. >> sorry brad, i will get you in a second. so with all due respect, the quote unquote and amenity of the background briefing that we set up was to do all the email in
this room we do background briefings all the time, we were going to at a little bit more depth and context than we might regularly on record. for obvious reasons so we can give you guys more information or share some of the inter-workings. i'm going to finish on this. there is not any effort to spin this, there's not any effort to hide or hide what the information is. one of the reasons we did this on background acknowledging the fact that other people who are privy to support before it was publicly released chose to leak it to members of the media. so so you see the dynamic here, none of us are clean on this, so to speak in a sense that you guys all got the report leak two, many of you did, but, but not all of you did. in an attempt to address that we held a background telephone press conference to try to address some of your questions. we had no choice, but it is always our preference at this as it released publicly and then we can discuss it.
>> the implication on the call is that the department did not educate people enough, wouldn't clinton, as the head of the entire department, isn't that her responsibility not the department's responsibility to her? >> so first while you are right in that we have said that we did not do a good enough job in processing and out processing to put it in a bureaucratic way, our senior officials. but even as an institution so that people were aware of what the regulations were. brad, i only say that a lot of these regulations have only been thought about her formulated since she left office in 2013, specifically that's when it came out with a new and improved recommendations. >> so the report says guidance is considerably more guided in
detail. and former practices should be evaluated criminally. be that as it may, you recognize that not everyone knew the past secretary only's private email, wasn't that wasn't that her responsibility to let them know in fact? otherwise there's no other way they would not of known. >> that's not necessarily true. but as an an institution we acknowledge that we could have done more to. >> but that is her responsibility isn't it? it says secretary clint had an application to discuss discuss using her personal e-mail accounts to discuss business, not they have a navigation to to learn independently. >> i'm sorry, i thought your talking about her responsibility to inform the department about regulations -- i'm sorry. >> no, talk about her using a private email private server. >> again, i, i would just go
back to what i said before which is that it was not encourage but it was not prohibited. >> there were hack attempts on her server. how did that not bring a reassessment that maybe this -- apparently it just got plugged back in. how did that not bring a reassessment that maybe this was not the best strategy? >> again, the oig specifically addresses the security of persistent. >> it says that she never told anybody about it. >> i do know that there were hack attempts but none of them were successful. >> how do you know that none of them were successful? >> i would have to refer you. >> how do you know that because the report does not say that none of them were successful? >> i apologize actually, i misspoke. but i would divert to secretary clinton's team regarding the security of her system.
>> on the call there is a fair amount of discussion about the facts that when there is a comparison made the three secretaries that used it almost exclusively and in that section that brett just quoted they said specifically that the rules were clearly in line, were clearly in place by the time the secretary came in. they're much more sophisticated. so, when you compare what secretary -- did and what secretary clinton did, even even though this morning it was said repeatedly that this was a problem going back several administrations, do not see a difference between what secretary powell did and what secretary clinton did? >> again, again, i am not going
to litigate from this podium or compare and contrast. i think that what we have said is the policies, the regulations regarding the use of private event -- e-mail have only been clarified in the past several years. up until that point, again understanding that it was not encouraged to use personal e-mail but it was not prohibited. i think it was an evolving process in a sense that not exclusively to the state department i might add, in the sense that many agencies are struggling with how to preserve and manage records keeping for
e-mail use, official emails versus personal email. again, there are circumstances and we talked about this before were senior officials sometimes to have to use a personal e-mail. >> eat it repeatedly said that this was a problem going back several administrations. the only given in the report was secretary powell, so but it would seem that they go out of their way to try to distinguish between the two. do you not see a difference? >> i'm sorry, in the report you may? >> the report. >> distinguished between -- >> between the circumstances and the fact that -- >> again, i would only only say that it's been an evolving understanding of some of the challenges and records keeping evolving personal e-mail but also in a sense that we have also come and i've mentioned this to brad, and how we have to do a better job and we believe we are doing a better job of on
boarding, a a processing senior officials so that they understand the constraints and rules and regulations surrounding use of personal email versus official. >> do you believe secretary powell and acted improperly question i. >> i am quite make that judgment. >> what is your reaction -- >> so i had one about the e-mail as well. >> will get you i promise. how how we normally do it as we run through. >> so this may already be known and i may have missed it, but am i wrong to have assumed that all of the e-mails, all of secretary clinton's e-mails in the state department possession would have been released to the public via foia page? or do you you are in fact have a number of e-mails
that did not meet those standards, that were not involved in the foia request so you are holding a number of her e-mails that we have not seen? >> so what we have released through our monthly foia process that all of you love much, was approximately 55000 pages of e-mails that secretary clinton provided to the department. i think at the time she said she didn't not, urge she did not have access to any work related emails beyond what she turned over to the department. she did not keep work related emails beyond those that she turned over to the department. so in answer to your question, what we have done through the foia processes turn over all of the e-mails that she turned over to the state department. we have found additional things, i'm not saying that when you have replies and other things like that that there are additional e-mails out there. in this case, i think it's an
example. >> how many do you estimate that you have that have not been made public? >> i do nothing we have an estimate and i don't think it is a large number. i think there are stray examples like this. >> some of them seem to be quite relevant as in november 2010 e-mail in which she, one of her deputy chief of staff suggest she set up a state. >> what was the foia request? >> it was enough for her to release all of her e-mails. >> whatever the case may be, some of the emails that you you still have in your possession seemed relevant to her decision to keep a private e-mail rather than uses state.gov once. which is essentially the entire
question. i'm just wondering if you are interested in releasing any of those e-mails relevant to this entire discussion about -- >> i cannot speak to that. we certainly, if there are additional boy a request. >> request. >> may be, if they're not already. >> if she had written all of these e-mails on estate account what it have been the state department would decide which ones were personal which ones were official? or will it still be her team which decide which ones go through the foia process? so the ones that you release are the ones that she decided, if she sent them to an official account which she have had the right to choose which ones were official? >> that's a good question. i can look into it. the reason i ask is that i do do not know, for example i was foia if i would have the first right to say here all my official emails are not. and then they they would be better properly, don't
have the answer to that. >> what is it secretaries carries system for sending and receiving e-mails? >> secretary carry relies primarily on his state.gov account for work. the e-mails on his state.gov account are automatically archived and this is an improvement, and part of the advancements that we have made. so any e-mail that he senses automatically copied and remotely saved electronically. again, this speaks to the fact that we are now complying, this automatic archiving approach does comply with the federal records act as well as e-mail records. >> and he says that through a computer here in the building or does he have access to a mobile device question.
>> can we go back to the other question. has the state department released all the emails that secretary clinton turned over questioning. >> yes. >> why in the background call was their discussion about about an e-mail that an official admitted was not released to public? >> it was not part of those emails that she turned over. if i explained that poorly, i apologize. there are other e-mails out there. she said that she only turned over what she still had in her possession. so that does not exclude the fact that there are other responses, replies, you how e-mail works where there's the body of an e-mail from her that is not reflected in the amount of messages. i just don't have an accurate, i don't have the numbers. i will double check, i don't know if we ate even looks. it's it's not that there's some huge stash. >> did the state department mislead the american public when it came to secretary clinton's email from the past your? >> no, i do not believe so, at all. in fact we have i said that we're simply going through we
have been very clear about this, almost tediously when we talk to you about it that systematically every month we went through this 55000 pages of e-mails that she gave to us through the foia process. we edited, upgraded them as necessary, but before we release them publicly. we only dealt with what we were season secretary clinton. >> today the ig was saying that secretary clinton was not in compliance with the policy yet for the past year are we have been hearing about from that podium is that the secretary wasn't compliant. >> we has not said that either. what. what we have said is i believe, and i'm waiting into reports finding, but it did say that the fact that she did turn over this large stack of e-mails and made an effort to do so mitigated the lack of compliance previously. >> [inaudible question] >> it actually implies the upset
of what she was same for that she actually did do something wrong and this mitigates, lessons, lessons, dampens the effect of that wrongdoing. it doesn't even out. if you steal, steal, if you rob a bank and return the money it's a mitigating aspect but it doesn't mean that you do not rob the bank. >> no, we do not say that. i cannot say this enough, we have to do it and we are doing a better job in processing senior officials. we are doing a better job of making sure from the top on down that people understand the importance of records, recordkeeping and management. all we can do is be forward looking and try to improve and correct the system that we have. >> does it violate the law? >> no, as we said there was no
restriction, no regulation that said that she cannot use personal e-mail. >> but you admit she made mistakes. >> diploma secretary clinton did violate the law as a matter of the fbi investigation to decide whether they will bring any charges. >> there are other reviews out there that we cannot speak to. but that's a legitimate point. >> one other question, i want to follow up on brett's question. you, with regard to hacking attempts, you have previously confirmed have you not that there were efforts to hack into the secretaries e-mail? >> i think we have, yes. i'm. i'm not 100% sure. but, i mean hacking, right but none of them, that's why believe none of them were successful. we have addressed that before. >> so here's my next question. then brad asked you, how do you know that they were not successful and you said, i
misspoke, i apologize. i just. i just want understand that do you have any reason to understand that they were successful. >> know what brett pointed out was that the oig report emma what i sent as i misspoke, thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. the the oig report does not address specifically the security of her system including whether or not the recording attempted attacks were successful. i would just have to refer you to her team to talk about whether they were or were any successful. >> to your knowledge. >> to my knowledge they were not. but i do not know that that's competence of knowledge. >> i apologize for this. i have to - make. >> just to very quick questions. one is about the technicality that when a report gets leaks or rakes embargo, usually the organization lift the embargo,
similarly the report is everywhere. why are you still keeping it why don't you release it. >> i would re-raise this and refer you to the office of inspector general because they are not under the state department's authorization. they are separate entity. so they are the ones who will release the report. >> and then you mention about the former director spoke at a national press conference last year before experts and they have clarified that all the secretary still to do since the e-mail came into being have been using, not using state that love, secretary carries the first one using it. then, but so this is not a technicality, the point is that they have put into place when secretary clinton was in some
sort of procedure that was not followed. by 2016, 201916, 2019 you have a deadline to put everything -- there won't, everything will be on the web. and also what about those 30,000 e-mails that she deleted? does she keep them? even if your personal e-mails you don't delete them you keep them for your private. >> you will have direct the question to her. >> c-span's washington journal, journal, live every day with news and policy that impacts you. , and up on thursday morning, virginia democratic congressman bobby joins us to talk about reports of leaked by the g i/o which says k-12 schools are segregated by race and poverty. the report was released last week on the 62nd university of
the brown versus board of education decision. they also discuss what this means for education in the future of nonwhite individuals in the u.s. then arkansas governor talks about the effort to pass republican budget and the current budget and spending impasse in the recent bipartisan agreement to restructure puerto rico's 70 billion-dollar debt. also the presidential campaign and lgbt issues before congress. be sure to watch a c-span's "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on thursday morning. join the discussion. >> and we continue today with our ongoing spotlight magazine series and featuring a recent addition to reason magazine. inside that is this piece, the high price of security theater. the 4,000,000,000,000 dollar war on terror. where do the money go? jim is joining us, and contributor to read the magazine
to talk about this piece that he wrote. let's begin with this 4,000,000,000,000 dollar price tag first. how did you come up that number. >> guest: the total cost of homeland security, the war on on terrorism at home and the cost of a broad. in the last 15 years the the u.s. government seems far more power, it has killed a huge number of people but killing foreigners is not a recipe for keeping americans safe. it is unfortunate that the entire political culture in this country has changed, people became far more differential to washington and it was almost as if people had to maintain faith that the government is keeping us safe or we will be killed. the government has been able to be far more secretive, the government is about the bush and obama administration have acted like the constitutional law does not apply in part of the result is poor government spending, most of which is wasteful and some of which is directed to destroy our freedoms. >> host: there has not been another 911, 2001 terror attackn since 2001. is it. is it money well spent?
>> guest: there is not a major attack like that before 911. n so simply because they haven't been another massive attack does not prove that all the stuff that the government is doing is justified. you know, a lot of people tend to look at the war on terror with a broad brush overview. what i try to do do in this article is walk through the details, walk through the absurdities, walk through some of the details like forur instance, homeland security is a financing fusion centers around the country which are creating databases of suspicious activity. for instance in los angeles there's a database keep track of people that were hanging around talking on their cell phones too long. or joggers who are hanging out. there. there's other databases that are targeted gun owners or a libertarian types, or people who are into immigration. you have these huge garbage bins, federal garbage bins which all of these different agencies are tossing in information, it
is a building up buildings on americans and this information can and will be used against people. so it is not simply laughable - this is programs that are hurting our liberty. >> host: $1 billion since 2001 sent spent on these fusion centers. >> guest: the senator had a good report on this and he asked some good questions about how much did you spend? we don't know. the homeland security homeland security gave him estimates that buried a 400%. it's like, okay this is not a difficult question. not only that, the feds do not even say how many different fusion centers there were. at one point they're saying 71, 72, while 77. where two, while 77. where the others? their secret. it's amazing how much secrecy the government has gotten away with the last 15 years to win se many times the veil of secrecy simply covered official lies. we saw that that with the invasion
of iraq, we've seen that with obama's a drone program, we have seen that was some of the shifting rationales for bombing of libya. yet, folks do not realize that the government is allowed to keep secrets in my to them that self-government is a charade. >> host: the biggest price take that you note in your piece is the war, spending three chilling dollars. so this 4,000,000,000,000 dollars that have been spent, $3000,000,000,000 spent, 3 trillion has been on thesesee. wars, explain. >> guest: the most expensive single issue have been the war in iraq and the war inthe war in afghanistan. the war in iraq was justified as a response to 9/11, the bush administration wanted to make people work very hard to say that saddam had a link to 9/11 even though they knew it was false.were bring three for years after the invasion they back off of that, for a while they thought there bring a democracy to iraq, it has not work so well. that also said also said that they're trying to get better treatment
for women, that is not worked well either. same thing in afghanistan. i it's understandable that the u.s. would go after the taliban after afghanistan has been used as a base for the 9/11 attack. there is no need to occupy the country and we have spent best matzoh money money and thousands of american soldiers lives in this charade of making afghanistan a democracy.which we they have had two major presidential elections, both of which were decided by massive fraud which the u.s. government admitted in this headwall the government is still kind of legitimate so we'll keep it up. american soldiers have died for nothing in afghanistan and iraq. >> host: the war on terror, the coast according to reason magazine is 4,000,000,000,000 dollars since 2001. we're taking your comments and questions on that this morning. democrats that this morning. democrats two oh (##2)748-8000 republicans eight there's are one, and independents 800 two. start
dialing them. also one of the other big price take this the fbi, 30,000,000,000 dollars. what $30 billion. what was that money for, where has a gone? >> host: the fbi has a huge increase on its budget even though the scrubs were a major reason why the 911 hijackersng e succeeded. it was a huge effort to sweep the failures under the rug after 9/11. but the cia and the pi failed massively as far as keeping track of the people carried out the 9/11 attacks. there so many many warning signs for the feds, were simply incompetent. yet at in spite of being in that they had huge increases in budget. the fbi has been massively engaged in entrapment, there setting up people all over the country. there are some people who are actually dangerous but what the fbi is often done is a fine knit wits and persuade them to do
some babble about islam and then the fbi has given them my compounds are big things and the then -- it works out great for the fbi. they have two or three days of great headlines, everybody saying thank god they're keeping a say. a week or two weeks or a month later the details come out and it looks like entrapment. you have the case done in liberty city, miami, five or six guys who are within fbi informant, those guys were so done that they asked the fbi for terrorist uniforms. okay, we don't need protection and got the answer would be terrorist to ask for uniforms. but this is the kind of thing that works out great for the up yet so for their pr and budget. unfortunately most most people in congress have been under most federal agencies. congress is supposed to do vigorous oversight, they haven't.
most of them just lined up and federal boots in the war on terror. >> host: in your book, only about 1% of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in a decade decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. >> guest: yes. his book is one of the best analyses, the one of the most thorough breakdowns of that. here's another thing, okay so a lot of the trouble with the war on terrorism is the definition of terrorism.. it is very vague and it is also works out very well for the government. if some american sends $100 to some of the groups in syria that have been classified as tears, that american can be sent to prison for five years for material support for terrorism. but, if u.s. government decides to send the same group a bunch of web injury, that is not a problem. our policy in syria epitomizes
the irrationality and mindlessness of the war on terror. l.a. times reported a month ago that in syria right now there cia had rebels fighting pentagon back rebels. we really need to have this? the u.s. government has a habit of interviewing so often on every side of the issue that these kind of the series occurred. but because the l.a. times and that the washington post, people in washington say, i did not hear about that. we have a trouble with democracy and capitol hill because most of the guardsmen are very poorly informed about the war on terror. as -- >> host: will get some callsup a here. a first in santa cruz, aner: independent color. >> caller: hello. i am very concerned that the constitution is not being held up when they go into an assassination on osama bin laden who is actually, what did
seymour hersh say, was actually just sitting there, prisoner of war. i feel like her congress is criminal. why wasn't bush ever put in jail, cheney put in jail? i don't understand any of this.o >> guest: it is a really good point about the constitution. it is very frustrating to me because i was raised and told that america was a nation that obeys the law and that we have a rule about this country.itutiont but for the war on terror it is almost nothing but sovereign immunity. the government can do whatever it wants and the government is never prosecuted. as. as far as the constitution, the fe prohibitsment torture as well as federal law prohibits torture. yet, you have started in 2002 the bush administration embrace that and then the obama came into office and he chose not to prosecute the people who were involved in torture except for the one cia
guy, who blew the whistle on torture. he was the only cia official prosecuted for torture even though he was a hero. the fourth amendment which protects us from on reasonable searches and seizures, that has been completely shredded on the war and terror. if you look at what edward snowden brought out, why were there not indictments on that? instead you have in washington where they circle the wagons, doesn't matter what laws are violated, doesn't matter how many americans rights have been trampled or shredded. the government is still sacristy. >> host: bill in new mexico, a democrat. good morning this. >> caller: good morning to bothh of you. we need to have an interview with morgan reynolds. he was a top economist under the bush administration, george busa administration. he is now a professor at a&m in texas.
you and james both need to al interfere you this individual. >> guest: i know morgan. >> caller: and discuss his book, and thank you for your time and effort james. >> guest: thank you sir. >> host: tell us about who he is talking about and how you know him.od >> guest: morgan reynolds has done good work on government interventions, government waste, his a very free-market. he is very skeptical of the official story on 9/11. i'm not so skeptical of that. it think it was basically a vast number of of government scripts which the government does well. one of the few things the government does well. it is fascinating to me to see, it's understandable to me that a lot of people would think that 9/11 was a conspiracy because the government changes the story so many times. that does not prove -- if you look at the 9/11 commission when the report came out in the 2004 which was very timely for bush's reelection campaign, it avoided finding fault with the government.
said we had all these -- it turned out the 9/11 commission came from torture. the 9/11 commissioners weree sending request to the cia to find out more information about this and that and so many of the details which they provided inid their official story of the 9/11 attack came from torture in some of the suspects. there has been done some excellent work on that. you have that look at your face like oh, where's he going with this. >> host: not at all. finish up.t >> guest: i was just saying, it was written in d.c. that you have this panel that is a bipartisan panel from the 9/11 commission which is arrived on torture and that fact comes out three or four years later people say, oh, this is how it was written these days. >> host: what i want to tab for the conversation is this debate over the 20 pages of the 9/11th
commission report because rand paul wants to add an amendment to the national defense authorization bill but thehe senate is a debating of voting on this week that would releasef those 20 pages. >> guest: i am in favor of that. i wrote a story for for usa today last july on this. there's a group called 20 pagesu that has helped propel this issue. it makes no sense for the u.s. to be covering up these key materials, this key informationi on what happened on 9/11 especially when it appears that the saudi government may have been, the people in the saudi government may have been financing some of the people that carried out the 9/11 attacks. fifteen of the 19 hijackers were saudi's, yet you have the bush administration, and others were very interested sweep it under the rug. senator bob graham of florida, former senator has done great work on this issue. >> host: we are talking about james peace in reason magazine, the recent addition of it titled
the high price of security theater. the 4,000,000,000,000 dollar war on terror, where did the moneymy go? martina, in massachusetts, republican, your next. >> caller: actually i am an independent. i would like to speak on the issue of the sale of arms be in big business, big profits, it ties into the issue of war and fear -based culture that we live in, presence obama's visit to vietnam and lifting the arms embargo for sale of arms. my question would be, why be, why are we going around the world selling arms, adding to the may hamm? big sale, big arms sales, big bucks, big may hamm, and it went a hot child hits a friend with a back, do we give them another back, no we take the bat away. i think james is a voice of reason and i think many of us need to get on board with the practicality, and common sense..
why are are we arming up all of these people and all of these, whatever you want to call them and wondering about what happens after the fact. >> guest: thank you for your comment and for the question. aa it is a good point about how all of these sales in the arms sales. i think there are a lot of parallels if you look at who donated to the clintonon foundation and who, i think there's been a big increase in the approval of arms deal since obama took office especially when hillary clinton was president. or was she was secretary of state. there is an article recently that broke down the parallels about the military contractors have donated through the clinton foundation for that done very well with it. the fear-based culture, culture, we have that in this country ase well because basically what we have is a lot of beer mongering, there has been a profound change and it is made much easier for
them to push the beer alarm -- fda our alarm. it is amazing how the war on troops and everyone a lot about the tsa and how they can do mynh work and i was hurt deeply. but it is interesting to chat with folks on the tsa line and say what you think of this. a lot of them are saying this is a bunch of crap, others are saying i'm glad they are keeping me safe. i have a bridge in in brooklyn i will sell you. but politics have so that bridge to the american people and that is why a federal debt has skyrocketed. >> host: the congress will hear from the tsa administrator today on capitol hill to testify about
what is going on with a long, airport security lines. that's at that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span three thispiece morning. you write about the tsa in this piece, so we are talking about how much money has gone to them since 2001, $70 billion for the tsa.ho tsa behavior detection officer, another billion, tsa time wasting, you calculated that at 8,000,000,000. we'll at 8 billion. we'll talk about that. >> guest: yeah, that is low. >> host: so talk to, tell us abt time wasting. >> guest: basically people need to get to airports earlier than what they would have pre-9/11 earlier, maybe half an hour or an hour. tsa was telling people how to get to the airport threee hours early. you have a place in chicago and they get there that early in their stretch out forever. that is a real cause. you mention the behavior, tsa has it detection officers around airports and looking for u-micro-sign's, micro aggressors that would give away the fact
that they have terrorist intent. now, for instance if someone is yawning or someone seems nervous or sweaty, that is a sign that you might be a terror. tsa is the only security agency in the world that considers it a terrace warning sign of someone has excessive complaints about airport security.also >> host: by the way, this hearing today about tsa also on c-span radio so you can tune in if you are in your car but also if you have yourself owner a mobile device, we have a radio app you can listen for what the tsa administered has to stay there. doug, newport virginia, an independent.t. >> caller: hello. it is a pleasure to talk with you this morning. q i have a question about the budgetary concern regarding the wars. senator bernie sanders is proposing for people for free college, he is actually proposing college reimbursement
for state colleges tuition. anybody who has gone to college understands that tuition is jusi a small part of going to college, your room and board, books and other expenses also. with the cost of the war in afghanistan be able to pay for people to go to college under his program?i am n >> guest: i do not know the breakdown of the separate costs on afghanistan. i'm also also not exactly sure what senator sanders is proposing. bec it's fascinating to see the details in afghanistan becauseen hundreds of lines of dollars in its finance corruption. in the top military hospital in afghanistan, the afghan equivalent of walter reed there is so much corruption that wounded soldiers starved to death because they cannot pay. bribes to the hospital staff for food. washington post had a great story few weeks weeks ago about
how the afghan army does not have boots because they are so corrupt and their contracting that the boots they get developer the first time the soldiers wear them. we have made afghan a more corrupt place because of it. >> host: we have a color from arizona, an independent color. >> caller: good morning. i would like james to a dress the subject of terrorism did not start in a vacuum, the creation of the hate of our way of life was due to our own actions, and now we are spending like he says $4 trillion already fighting something that is an idea and a reaction to our past policies. >> guest: that's an excellent point. if you you look back at
nine oh/11 they said there's three primary reasons, one was three stations in the holy land in saudi arabia. another one was the embargo on iraq, another one was the u.s. support of israel. especially the troops in saudi arabia and may no sense to have them there and they could strap all that hatred and other policies have also done that. what we need is a supply of antiterrorism policy. at this point the u.s.so man government does so many things that is creating new terrors and people will hate us in the future and might want to kill us. for instance, obama's strong policy, he has, he has been very secretive about how many people he has killed and there has been a lot of civilians have died ind those attacks and we do not knoe how many, the obama administration has talked about0 if it was a military aged male which is a male between the age
of 16-50 or 60, then we are going to assume that he was a terrorist suspect. this is absurd, but this is how the government covers its butt.l we're seeing this forever in the war on terror. we're seeing the logic been twisted, we're seeing the secrecy and the onlywi consistent thing is that the government always wins. >> host: how did it come about that transportation security administration puts the price tag of 70,000,000,000 dollars, how did you come to that figure and how did it come about that the tsa would get that much money?y? more than the fbi. >> guest: you have to keep in mind that right after 9/11 the transportation secretary promised tsa would hire and that's why they would get the money. now that up their budget from 2002 onward and it's interesting, tsa moaning and groaning about how it struggling right now budget entrée cuts,
tsa has more agents and i thinki a larger budget and these huge delays are largely because tsa is more intrusive. wit these whole body scanners are not with a gallon of spoiled y milk yet you have them swelling up the airports. also tsa's be much more aggressive. as if i'm back from portland on thanksgiving and i got to the airport early. i chose to opt out instead of going through tha body scanners. the tsa agent is the usual patdown, he takes off his gloves and he goes over the explosive trace detective bennett showed a positive alert for explosives. i was out in oregon, it wasn't like i was launching missiles. i said, what explosive does it show. ok, w i don't know it's a code, will how often to get a false of alarm? that's classified. so here to other agents take me to
a private screening room where i get an enhanced patdown where it is a lot more vigorous, a lot more aggressive and it concludes what the tsa guy basically granting his hand and his palm into my groin like he is trying to turn my family jewels into pancakes. so i hammered tsa on that and in usa today, i filed a foiaint. request and got videotapes of what i was going through that checkpoint.ept fo and all the different segments except when i am taken behind closed doors. when they are very aggressive. this is like a metaphor of the entire war on terror. yes it seems that is stupid and then they take you behind closed doors and it gets a lot worse. yet, very few people on capital hill have turned up the heat on tsa. there have been some people, john mica has hammered them a couple of times. >> host: he was on a show yesterday. >> guest: yes, i wish he would be more vigorous on that. i thank it was harassment from
south carolina, clyburn, he said one of the problems with tsa is that it does not treat congressmen especially, while congressman needs to be treated like a special class. i. i'd love to know how many a congressmen are going to pass and don't get hassled by tsa. president obama said that nobody would say that tsa was an example of how people are losing their freedom. tell that to the people in lines in chicago and atlanta, and tell tell that, i mean there is a lot of women who have beenen horrendously abused in these patdown's. it is a lot more trauma for a woman than a guy and it is unjustified and sheer harassment iran nuclear deal
>> will discuss what it means for education and the future of non-white individuals in the u.s. then, arkansas republican congressman, bruce westerman, joins us to talk about the republican budget and the current budget and spending impact the recent bipartisan agreement to restructure puerto rico's debt. and the presidential campaign and lgbt issues before congress. be sure to watch "washington journal" live thursday morning at 7 a.m. eastern. coming up tonight, peter neffenger testifies about increased wait times at airports. then a hearing on the iran nuclear deal.