supporting and abroad you have with obama and our unemployment rate and with the debt, why do you still supporting president obama for reelection so we can afford more years of failed policy with the unemployment stuck at 8% and trillion dollars deficits? i think the viewers would like to hear why it is you are supporting president obama. hochul: first, my answer to this, unlike you, chris, i don't believe either party has all the right answers. i won't say in congress i only support one party. there are concepts and policies i support with president obama like standing with the middle-class but i voted for middle-class tax cuts so they are no longer held hostage. you're willing to join majority and hold him hostage and not giving it should assurance. i want him to have that i want a farm bill passed so our farmers now delayed olympic i want to stand with our seniors and make sure that we don't balance the budget on their backs and break the promise to medicare we had

to i believe mitt romney has ideas as well. i'm not so my way or the highway that i can't look at people objectively and go with what i think is best to every issue that comes before me, my question will be, what's best for this district. that's how i've operated and i continued to do so as a member of congress next year. >> just to be quick on your voting for president obama? hochul: i've said that before, yes. >> okay. there is another question on the floor. other congresswoman to mr. koh, if you will. hochul: chris, i joined mitt romney, president obama, kirsten gillibrand come when the long and many others in full disclosure because i put transparency is important. full disclosure of personal tax return by putting them online so people know where money comes and. you have made my personal finances part of this campaign, fine. i'm open and transparent. but you've said that you don't think the voters could

understand him is too complex for them to learn your 25 pages tax return. so why'd you think you should be held to a lower standard than others just because you'll think the voters can understand your taxes? what are you trying to hide? collins: ms. hochul, under federal election law there's nothing that calls for personal financial disclosure which both of us felt that the issues both you and your husband are sector millions. i fully filled out those forms in full compliance. and i went a step further but i three years of my tax returns. it was published that take 30% of my income in taxes. i have no loopholes. i've no for an account. it's my small businesses where i make my money. you make your money working for the government are doing your money -- you and your husband make almost three and $50,000 a year. my income is earned by having companies that employ workers in this a. i think the bigger question is,

you've got something hidden in your to secret family trusts that you won't disclose and you haven't disclosed. so ms. hochul, ladies and those to secret family trusts ask because i've a feeling they may be something you don't want the voters to know. hochul: you've got to be kidding me. give it a pretty big you're the one who has refused to put your personal taxes on one because you said the voters basically were not smart enough to understand. i think that's pretty derogatory toward voters personally. but you're the one, mitt romney has 300 page tax return but even he put his out there. we all felt at that financial disclosure. big deal. i don't have to do it. why won't you tell us where your assets are, the question is what are you hiding? all of us can even mitt romney and other people running for office have done. why won't you, chris? collins: i have disclose all my assets and we did notice a lot of yours are in china.

so much assets are not. my assets are here in the community where i have a dozen companies employed 600 people. and i did disclose my personal tax rates. what my income was. there's nothing there that there is july but i'm not going to release my companies individual income and put my companies in jeopardy by providing my competitors information that they would like to have as to how much money each individual company makes or doesn't, and i'm not going to disclose my partner's income as private citizens. i've made that clear many times. my income was disclosed. my tax was disclose. all my assets were disclose. but you did not disclose what is in the secret family trust. and you've got two of them. >> we have to move on in the questioning. this question is for mr. collins, and regarding the -- from taxation to cigarettes, and ongoing dispute over millions of dollars in casino revenue.

hiyou've been an executive in te past, isn't like to take such an aggressive approach to an important business partner as a representative of the federal government, should you be elected, is there anything you can do to mediate? collins: casey, i'd like to go back to our relationship with this senate. they stood with us as americans, stood with us in the war of 1812 with other indian nations did not. we always debt of gratitude to the seneca nation's i think a lot of americans have forgotten. they are a sovereign nation. and as a sovereign nation they have certain rights but right now there's a dispute that is not a federal dispute. that is a dispute between albany and the nation. but, you know, what i focus on? the history of us as proud americans partly because of the work that was done by the seneca nation, standing with us and were celebrate the work 1812, ladies and gentlemen. we need to remember that these were our allies, and we need

remember the important role they played in our freedom today. and i speak about that everywhere i go. thank you to the seneca nation for standing with us in the war of 1812, and being with us ever since the spirit does the seneca nation of responsibility to buffalo, to niagara falls? hochul: yes. the question was what's going on now. yes, there are obligation, commitments made to our state, places like -- had to lay off police for the city of buffalo is hurting but niagara falls was gone on the revenues from the casino and is being held hostage. we need to get in her room and work it out and make sure our cities are counted on this money, neither count is for important, the city of niagara falls has great potential to do even more. but right now they've not been receiving the revenue their expecting so we need to get interim, work with the governor and work with the nation and resolve this as soon as possible.

>> you want of a good good relationship with seneca nation? collins: here's the difference in ms. hochul in a. i respect the tenth amendment. the 10th amendment says local decisions made at the state level are better than washington. i understand that is represented in congress i should not be meddling in state affairs but i have my opinions and yes, we need to get this resolved. ms. hochul believes its washington that's always got the right answer. it's big of a coming out of washington, washington to tell the states and counties what to do. that's a big difference. this is a state issue. i will respect that this is a state issue. i respect and honor the tenth amendment of our constitution. >> give you a quick rebuttal but is it a state issue? hochul: guess it's a state issue but also with when your your leader in congress you are in position to set to bring people together. i don't think i should just walk away and say i don't care about the community's i represent. this is hurting them. we need to resolve this so i take it to framework to my job

in washington. it's not just what you do sitting in a job at capital. when is multimedia grocery store, you've got to get involved and help them. when anakin needed help, we are there for them. i don't wash my hands and say that's not in my job description. we can be much more helpful to our people that we represent. >> we're going to move on. dr. ryan budget. it's been a huge issue. you this question for you, congresswoman to give repeatedly sought to tie your opponent to the ryan budget. is a very successful strategy that you employed in the special election what you want to see jakarta occupy but given the fact that mitt romney while saying he is on the same page as congressman ryan has outlined plans including for medicare that are substantially different from what right has a post twice now and gendered you voted no on, is this a fair line of attack is. hochul: they are still trying to break the promise made to seniors in 1965 that would have

a guarantee program that will pay been since her high school job that money should be waiting for us when we retired. it didn't work in 1960 of any idea of even turn part of it back to the insurance companies basically would jeopardize the solid promise we make your cities. so i understand why their water it down and backpedaling from what they had come and thank god we had an election last year to put the spotlight on whether -- [inaudible] and not just fundamentally change medicare but the same budget, the same time continued tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. chris, times are tough. you don't privatize and voucherize. i understand why they're backpedaling. i would too, if i were the victims the wrong decision in but it's the wrong decision and. chris collins has the ryan budget doesn't go far enough. the biggest part of the ryan budget is the medicare plan.

how far will you go? speak just to reiterate the question, mr. collins has also noted the ryan budget is no longer on the table, given the fact that mitt romney has said himself i had these plans, they're not exactly what my running mate has. is it fair game to continue linking him to something that is no longer out of? hochul: of course it. let me tell you one. mitt romney doesn't run legislation. there's a separation of policy. congress rights legislation, and twice, 2011, 2012 the ryan budget in the fourth. i have no doubt in mind if president romney is in place, and i'm going to work with him if he is, republican-controlled house, will have a ryan budget par three before us again next spring. we need people like me will continue pointing out what's wrong with the policies come and mitt romney does not write legislation. regardless of what he says, congress rights legislation.

collins: says be clear. is only one candidate who does not support cuts in medicare for current seniors. ms. hochul in their support of obamacare, $716 billion of cuts for current seniors including my 85 year-old mom. they have already started to cut payments to the providers for medicare advantage that my mom depends on. she has in the pee, it's are provided. they will take 100, $130 a month, per month for current seniors to ms. hochul broker promised a you go. she said and i quote, i will never touch medicare. ms. hochul, you broke that promise. you broke that promise to my mom. you broke that promise to every senior in this district when you voted to support obamacare and its $716 billion of cuts. >> just to clear things up, had you been in congress you would've voted no on paul ryan's budget? collins: that is correct that i would've voted no on paul ryan's budget.

i've told that to ms. hochul. i can tell you how many times. she disregards the truth. she continued to say this but maybe hopefully now this will be the last time she says it. try to this is the first, i understand debate on conversion, your pulse or be so you need to say that now. but here's the difference between. you have already said when you get to congress you will never vote with the party. and yet you have just said the democrats -- its ryan budget three comes out next thing in your in congress, which is a? you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, chris. you said you'd never vote with the democrats. you said you wouldn't go for the ryan budget. you go back and forth and say what you want. collins: ms. hochul, that's just a to at all. you like to put words in my mouth. debuts need to know i'm going to be fighting for small business all the time, not have the time like you.

i'm going to be fighting for our seniors all the time, not you something out with obamacare. and i'll be fighting for our children and grandchildren get to get off my granddaughter, $52,000, to get an economy moving. so my kids can have a job when they graduate. that's what the voters can count on but i'm not going to sport nancy pelosi like you do in her job telling policy. i will not do it. i will be 100% voting for the future of this country. the american dream and getting our budget balanced in the next eight to 10 years. that's what the voters can count on. >> let's move onto the next question. in a a "wall street journal" article you described your opponent, the congresswoman, as an effective retail politician. at the same time the chronicle editorial board we solicit you have a have a hard time compromising the you are to be elected to congress why should voters believe that if you are elected you could work with both parties and get things done? collins: it's obvious the voters certainly in the buffalo area know me as account executive the

transfer of a bankrupt account into one that is pretty much the strongest recognize the strongest in the state today. i did that to compromise the that's what life is on the. we compromise with her family and certainly with my teenage children. we compromise with employees and vendors and customers in the business world. that's what like this but you can't be successful in life without compromise. what you don't compromise on his principles. vision and principles. so am going to say i'm going to congress with a vision that the united states of america will reclaim its past glory with the land of opportunity, providing a bright future for children and grandchildren. there are six core values i will not come to my son. a belief in smaller government, personal account of the, local decision-making, fiscal discipline and a government that serves taxpayers and respects future generations. i will not cover my some vision and values. beyond that we've got to get the job done. we've got to get our unemployment down. our economy growing. we got to bounce the budget. that's where i will be

compromising in congress. >> you worked with account executive you were the county clerk. do you feel like he does have a record of confidence? hochul: no, that is not the legacy left and the reputation left behind when voters made a decision about his tenure in office last fall. i tried, i tried to work with chris, inviting him to participate in ways to save taxpayer dollars by relocated to downtown auto bureau and doing other things. and i did the best i can, but at one point the stone wall went up. he got very contentious and bowling and always other things. i could handle both, but when it's through the county legislature to raise taxes, i don't think that's representation of good compromise. it just doesn't work. i know party of your record as county executive balancing budgets, i hope you voted they can do to present obama for the 84th million dollars in stem is money that to do that. hochul: what can you say,

sometimes like are disappointed but i've got ms. hochul and i worked together very well for four years. i respected her as a separately elected official. i supported her efforts. if in which helped with my director to -- and i pretty much border efforts to move the dmv and set up an office. i agree with every request she had come into minot have liked certain aspects. i respected her as a separately elected officials when she want to give raises to employees, she wanted to hire more employees, but i did all those things come and so i was a to the voters, i think we had a good relationship. i don't know what else to do. >> were going to move onto a topic, a foreign policy question. congresswoman, you come to obama administration of course we seem has been criticized for its handling of the deadly attack on u.s. consulate in libya. this attack resulted in the death of ambassador chris stevens but we also now know that he made multiple attempts to get more security and that these efforts went unheeded.

do you believe that the obama administration mishandled the situation even after and also in the aftermath of the attack? what could have been done better and should be done better going forward? hochul: absolutely mishandled, and to learn how that their cries for help from people asking for additional support, and to know they were unanswered is unacceptable. estimate of the house armed service committee when we get back to washington will conduct oversight hearings and make sure that our ambassadors and all the consulate personnel across this globe are protected. we've got to make sure they have within me. i would not do as republican leadership in congress, cut $300 million from embassy security. we need to make sure they have the resources, the protection they need. i do believe there's any explanation other than it was not handled properly and i believe that congress needs to make sure this never happens again. it's a tragedy that could have been prevented. it's challenging when you go into other countries but with

the anniversary 9/11 we should have been on heightened secured and i want to make sure that every who put on the uniform or diplomatic charge and goes abroad to support our interest in other countries and try to establish peace, that we have their back. >> mr. collins? collins: well, ladies and gentlemen, finally ms. hochul and i absolutely agree. president obama did a terrible job leading up to that, not providing the security that should have been provided, ignoring what now turns out to be the reports of a terrorist attack and going all over the place. so ms. hochul and i agree, the president failed the american public when it came to security. at the embassy resulting in the death of the u.s. ambassador for the first time in 30 years. it should not have happened. by also say i find it a little distressing when the president has secretary of state hillary clinton stand up to take the blame, a leader takes the blame. someone should be held accountable, it should be

president obama. i really was disturbed when he had hillary clinton stand up and take the blame. that's not what a leader does. >> you want to respond to that at all? hochul: we agree on how the situation was handled. we must in watching different debate. i remember the president the united states take responsibly for those actions. >> go ahead spent we will move onto the next question and that is for mr. collins. super pac ad was released recently claim you fired one of 50 workers at buffalo china but several sources have criticized this had called it false. now, the question is, do you hold your opponent responsible, or can can this be held responsible engine for super pac adds that are made on their opponents behalf? collins: , i'm glad you brought this up. she's running wild. in fact, i save 245 jobs if ms.

hochul with just a privacy and go china. i was lauded for a good step in into that back in '04, and every media outlet channel two, the buffalo news channel seven, channel 13 in rochester said they won't run that ad. it's so it reaches. ms. hochul has crossed the line between misrepresentation and distortion into line. that's an important distinction to see. but it's not just the super pac, casey. ms. hochul is run this a bad thing that i fed 150 workers. didn't happen. the facts show otherwise. that it should not be a. but desperate politicians will do desperate things. and she's gone too far on this. i don't know of many of the case in recent history where an ad is so egregious that it has been pulled, it is not running on the air which is what happened when we demanded they take up and down. she's making the same

allegation, the same false allegation in her at. she needs to take her at down as well. spent are you making the allegation? hochul: yes, i m. and i a way. let's look at the facts. according to the buffalo news, march 152004 chris collins, had 325 employees on a friday, on monday morning it reopened, different name but same building, same parking lot, same front, same customers, but chris collins and his management team is now in charge. i know people think have done this, but to go to someone who works for you as the authority, as a source on this, i've got a problem with it. so, you know, chris, the fact is you can talk about semantics and it's to come to for people to understand you don't think they can understand your tax returns, people are smart. they can do the math. 325 on, 115 less.

the company is lost even more jobs since you've been in charge and that's all different issue. you are the only one who has a chance to manufacture right here in america. you outsource manufacturing products in 2008. check the record traffic okay. let me tell you, ladies and show me what i spent my life doing and let me read you the names of the companies that i've spent and see. not all here, niagara's ceramics. meet supply, front years of like an electric motor supply company, clinical partners, gs-5, starboard side, int solar, and automation of all companies destined to fall that are alive today because i took the risk i do not ignore saving 600 jobs for families in western new york. ms. hochul, you've never created a job. you've never signed a paycheck.

able to sign the back. two paychecks is what you took when you're in the hamburg town council. you underestimate $350,000 working for the federal government. i tell you, i'm proud of my private sector job creation, including niagara ceramics, no jobs without me. 245 jobs saved. that was eight and a half you to go, ladies and gentlemen. eight and half years ago. trying to for someone who really can't stand government, chris, your skate goat is so apparent. in contrast, nothing guarantees. $20 million of public sector dollars. you've given your definition to the phrase public sector millionaire, chris but even with the buffalo china thing you do $2.1 million of taxpayer money to make that you. so you're very good at what you do, chris figure very good at making profits. god bless you. i don't the grudge a bit of that but how that translates into bill to make decisions, help

middle-class families and seniors and our farms, i don't see the connection. the voters don't either. collins: clearly,. hochul: has never created a job. and many of my cubbies aren't empires of the empire zones to bring certain incentives to hire people whether are no jobs. higher people where the economy is very bad. so i make no apologies for creating 600 jobs for 600 families in western new york. i'm proud of my record and as a business executive we do the best we can all the time to make sure these companies are going to be successful. that's what i spent mike redman, not on the government payroll, like you. >> we're going to move to everyone's favorite part of the debate. the lightning round. i'm going to start often going to ask you first, congresswoman, and then mr. collins. have you had any greek joker to this week. hochul: yes. collins: now.

>> have you ever been audited? do you agree with you on that last dances can be tax? hochul: that's the rub is, yes. collins: who could argue with the courts? yes. >> this is a tough one. are dubbed chicken wings better? hochul: yes. collins: i like them both. i liked us. that's what i play baseball. >> have you ever tailgated at a buffalo bill's can? hochul: yes. collins: many times, yes spent is he a good advocate for western your? hochul: know. collins: yes spent have you ever built a complex. hochul: yes. collins: my daughters come. >> have ever seen the anti-fracking documentarian try to do. collins: no stick was the 2% property tax cap a good idea? hochul: yes. collins: no.

>> would you support building a nuclear power plant in addition? hochul: no. collins: yes. >> have you received a speeding ticket in the last five years? hochul: no. collins: no. >> we will break, with one last question and break from the yes or no response. just for this question. more heartbreaking, why? hochul: why dried. collins: why dried spent agreement. >> i can't believe it. kacey? >> it's time now for closing statements. mr. collins will go first. collins: ladies and settlement that has been a lively debate, thank you for doing it. if you want a member of congress was always worked for government and had a government paycheck, a liberal who supports barack obama and nancy pelosi's policies of more government, more spending, more taxes, and ms. hochul is your candidate if one and you want a member of congress who is spent his life

creating jobs in this district, some who believes in smaller government, personal account of billy, local decision-making, fiscal discipline, serving taxpayers and by spending future generations, i respect to ask for your vote. on the from six to go to washington as your member of congress to do what i can to help restore the promise of the american dream for our children and grandchildren. thank you for tuning in tonight. i hope you have a great evening. and god bless america. hochul: chris, thank you for joining this important conversation, for hosting us tonight. all across western new york, moms and dads are doing homework with the kids, small business owners are closing the books on a busy day. our farmers are looking forward to an early start tomorrow and senior citizens are looking at pictures of the kids and grandkids to what did they all have in common? they want to damage to live the american dream and you know their families are safe and secure. you've heard a lot here tonight.

crystal clear differences between myself and chris collins. not just who we stand with but our approach to china. i know neither party has all the right answers. that's why i'm linking reach across the aisle and work with republicans and democrats to solve our problems. i know that together we can and will meet the challenges facing this great nation. all you can arrest a shirt and at the jeddah representative in congress it is a fighter, who has got your back. i've continue to fight for our middle-class, our farmers, our veterans, are small business owners. i consider being your member of congress my highest honor in life. i respected ask for your votes i can continue fighting for you. thank you. >> i like to thank both you for participating. that does conclude our debate. it was very likely indeed. election is less than two weeks away. it is november 6. we encourage everyone to get out and to vote. >> if you want to watch the debate again it's on ynn on demand. for all of us here at ynn,

thanks so much for watching and have a good evening. spent i like watching the gavel to gavel coverage but it's really the only place to get the real deal. i also enjoyed newsmaker and about programs. i like that the commentary is only intended to let you know what's going on. there is only too much analysis but there certainly isn't opinion and i appreciate how i can really see through and understand the program itself./ and i can get my analysis elsewhere. if you want to send your government works directly, then c-span is just not the only place to go. >> justin friedman watches c-span on comcast. c-span, greeted by a american cable companies in 1979, brought to you by a public service by your television provider. >> and now to london for prime

minister's question time, live from the british house of commons. every wednesday while parliament is in session, prime minister david cameron takes questions from members of the house of commons. prior to question time, the house is wrapping up other business. this is live coverage on c-span2. .. >> are you committed to doubling the number of people with access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation? but we've yet to see any new

plans. can the secretary of state tell the house what progress is being made on this objective in. >> we have focused a lot of our development aid on making sure there is access to clean water and sanitation. in fact, i think some to have starkest statistics are in this area if you look at afghanistan, just one in twenty people have access to a pit latrine which then gives you the sail of the problem that -- scale of the problem that we are seeking to address. i can assure her that my department focuses on clean water very carefully, and i'll write her with more detail. >> be obliged. questions for the prime minister. question number one. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to corporal david o'connor and corporal channing day, rural army medical corps. we owe them and all others who have lost their lives a deep

debt of gratitude. their courage, their dedication, their sheer professionalism will never be forgotten, and our sincere con doll lenses with their colleagues and families. >> here, here. >> andrew stephenson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will want to associate itself with the prime minister's remarks and send our deepest con doll lenses to the families. can the prime minister confirm that he will reject the veto and give advice on those who gave our veto away? [cheers and applause] >> i can absolutely, i can absolutely give my honorable friend that assurance. this government is taking the toughest line in these budget negotiations of any government

since rejoined the european union. at best we would like it cut, at worst frozen, and i'm quite prepared to use the veto if we don't get a deal that's good for britain. but let's be clear, mr. speaker, it is in our interest to get the deal because a seven-year freeze would keep our budget down. labour's position is one of complete opportunism. they send the budget through the roof, and now they want to posture and get a good deal for britain. -- [inaudible] see right through it. >> ed miliband. >> can i start by paying tribute to corporal david o'connor and corporal channing day, their deaths are a reminder of the unrelenting danger that our troops face on a daily basis on our behalf. they both showed the utmost

courage and bravery, and our condolences go to their family and friends. mr. speaker, the prime minister has an opportunity today to get a mandate from this house for a real-term production on the eve of -- [inaudible] which he said he wants. over the next seven years, which he could take to the negotiations in europe. why is he resisting the opportunity? >> i think, mr. speaker, the whole country will see through what is rank opportunity. people haven't forgotten the fact that they gave away half our rebates in one negotiation. that they agreed to a massive increase to the e.u. budget under their government, and now today they haven't even put down their own resolution on this issue. the nation will absolutely see straight through it. he's playing politics, he's not serving the country. [cheers and applause] >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, when it comes to

consistency, if we've forgotten what he said as leader of the opposition just four months before the last general election. this is what he said. i would have thought they were interest inside what the prime minister said when he was leader of the opposition, mr. speaker. this is what he said. at a time when budgets are being cut in the u.k., he said, does the prime minister agree in reviewing the e.u. budget the main purpose should be to push for a real term cut? that's what he said when he was in opposition. so, mr. speaker, when it comes to opportunism, this prime minister is a gold medalist. [cheers and applause] at a time when he's cutting the education budget by 11%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%, how can he even be giving up on a cut in the e.u. budget before the

negotiations have been in. >> we have to make cuts in budgets because we're dealing with a record debt and deficit. [cheers and applause] if he wants to talk about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own members of the european parliament voted against the budget freeze in -- [inaudible] last year? perhaps he can explain why the socialist group in the european parliament that he's such a proud member of are calling not for an increase in the budget, not for a freeze in the budget, but for a 200 billion euro increase in the budget, and while they're at it they want to get rid of the rest of the british rebate. is that his ?oil. >> ed milliband. >> it's good to see -- it's good to see -- it's good to see the crimson tide -- >> order, order. government back benches including ministers, apparently approaching maturity. they've really got -- [laughter] no, i dare not. they've got to tackle their

behavioral problems before it's too late. ed miliband. >> well, he's certainly getting very angry, mr. speaker. maybe he's worried about losing the post this afternoon. and the reality is, our people feel the same way as him on the european parliament -- [inaudible] ten days ago. the reality is this, he can't commit anyone on europe. last year he announced out of the negotiations with a veto, and the agreement went ahead anyway. he's thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. he can't convince european leaders, he can't even convince his own back benchers. he is weak abroad, he is weak at home. it's john major all over again. >> his position is completely incredible. he says he wants a cut in the e.u. budget, but he doesn't sanction a veto. we've made clear we will use the veto as i've used it before, so let me ask him, will you use the

vie toe -- veto. >> order. order. i won't be using the veto, and i will ask the prime minister, about the tenth time i've asked him to respect parliamentary procedure in this matter. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the -- [inaudible] region faces many challenge, particularly with the announcement of job losses at ford last week. will my right honorable friend agree with me that the case for a city deal for south hampton and portsmouth is particularly compelling? >> i do think it is particularly compelling that we make sure south hampton has a city deal. i understand they are on the list. obviously, the news from ford was very disappointing. it was black spot in otherwise a very, very strong performance by the british automotive industry, and i know the business secretary will be working very closely with the city council to do everything we can to help

people find jobs. >> mr. andrew miller. >> mr. speaker, might i ask a very straightforward question that should command a straightforward answer? in the forthcoming police and crime commissioner elections, it's predicted that the turn is going to be as low as 20%. does the prime minister think that gives democratic legitimacy? >> i want the turnout to be as high as possible, but i recognize in new elections for a new post it is always a challenge. it's even a challenge when you've got dedicated labor mps resigning from this house to stand as police and crime commissioners. but one point the crime commissioner will be able to make is to celebrate the fact that since the election crime's down 20%. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. in recent months northern lincolnshire has benefited from a number of positive announcements from local governments and the private sector that will boost the economy. however, my right honorable

friend will be aware that kimberly-clark announced the closing of their factory in my constituency last week with a lose of up to 500 jobs. can my right honorable friend assure me that everything possible will be done by the government to attract new bids to the area? >> i know it is very sad news for the workers. as i understand it, the job council's working to establish a local task force, and the government will give it our support to support employees and help them find alternative employment. >> steve robberham. >> thank you, speaker. following the phone hacking scandal, self-regulation of the press by the press is simply no longer acceptable to the public. response to two recent polls to media self-regulation. mr. speaker, your ministers have been briefing against --

[inaudible] whose side are you on? >> members really must adhere to the proper procedures of this house which they ought to know by now. prime minister. >> i think we should wait for the leveson report to come out. a lot of work has been done. what i want to see is a robust regulatory system, and as i said in the house i think last week, to make sure if newspapers get things wrong that they can be fined, journalists can be properly investigated. we know what a proper regulatory system should look like, we don't have one now, we need one for the future. >> jack loprestie. >> thank you, mr. speaker. first, i'd like to echo the tribute to our armed forces and our fallen comrades, their families and our loved ones, a huge debt of honor and gratitude. last week we saw the sentencing of former staff of -- [inaudible] hospital who were found guilty of ill treatment and neglect.

i had hoped these prosecutionings would help to bring closure, at least a sense of justice to the victims and their families. however, now we've learned the -- [inaudible] may have been subject to abuse elsewhere. does the prime minister agree with me that care providers such as -- [inaudible] should be subject to prosecution for willful corporate neglect? >> well, i pay tribute to what my honorable friend said about our armed forces. on the issue, i think anyone who saw those television pictures about how very vulnerable people were being treated would be absolutely shocked and just like me and i'm sure like him what about to make sure that the law will go exactly where the evidence goes. they are shocking pictures, shocking things that happened. we should judge our society by how we deal with the most vulnerable and needy people, and what happened was completely

unacceptable. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, our economy has the longest double-dip recession since the war, but lord -- [inaudible] said today and i quote, the message that i keep hearing is the u.k. doesn't have a strategy for growth and wealth creation. who does the prime minister blame for that? [cheers and applause] >> what michael actually said is the coalition is fundamentally on the right track. he said i praise its work for the industrial strategy plans, for pioneering city revolution and for the revolutions in education and tackling unemployment. that is what michael said. but frankly, we can sit here all afternoon trading quotes. i think he is making a much bigger point, and this is an excellent report. what he's saying is actually over decades in our economy it became too centralized, regions and nations of our countries fell behind, manufacturing halved as a share of national income during the last

government, and during the boom years, for instance, in the west midlands there were no net new private sector jobs. he's dealing with the big issues. what a pity that all he can do is stand up and try and read out a quote. >> ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, he says the report is on the right track, goodness knows what he would have said if it was on the wrong track. business has no confidence in him, and deregulation -- his chosen approach -- is not the answer. now, let me turn to a specific area of the report, recommendation 61 which i'm sure he's familiar with. [laughter] he says, and i quote: the government needs to set out a definitive and unambiguous energy policy. [laughter] this is, obviously, mr. speaker, an appropriate day to be considering this recommendation on energy after the last 20 -- it's good to see the business secretary down the bench, by the way. i'm sorry that growth committee that he's on is so unmemorable

that he can't remember it. this is an appropriate day to be considering this recommendation. so his energy -- i'm rather enjoying this, mr. speaker. his energy secretary, his energy secretary says he's against wind farms and enough is enough. well, if -- >> order. order. let me just say the government back benches is very straightforward, they either calm down, or the session will be extended at whoever's inconvenience that may involve. let's just be very clear, incredibly straightforward. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, the energy minister says he's against wind farms and enough is enough while his energy secretary is gung ho for them. who speaks for his government? >> well, today the jokes have been bad and the substance has been bad too. it's not a good day. i tell you why it is a good day. it's a good day to talk about

energy policy because today -- [inaudible] investing 20 million pounds in our new -- [inaudible] [cheers and applause] today is a good day to talk about energy because there's more investment in renewable energy under three years of this government than under 13 years of their government. and it's a good day to talk about energy policy because we've got a green investment bank up and running. that is what's happening under this government. there's been no change towards renewable energy. let me explain exactly. we've got a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects coming through. we're committed to those. but frankly, all parties are going to have to have a debate about what happens once those targets are met, and he ought to understand that if he could bother to look at the substance. >> ed miliband. >> that was a completely useless answer, mr. speaker. [cheers and applause] there are investors all around this country who want certainty about energy policy. you've got -- it's very simple

for the prime minister. you've got one minister who says he's totally against wind energy, that's the energy minister he appointed having sacked the previous guy, and he's got the energy secretary who's gung ho for it. now, he just need to make a choice for where he stands. he's got a wind turbine on his house, so i thought he was in favor. lord castlestein said in his report there are people who resisted his ideas. we know who they are, the chancellor and the prime minister. the evidence of the last two and a half years is the deregulation, sink or swim, their answer is not the answer. the lord's right and they're wrong. >> well, i've o got one thing to say. not you, mr. speaker, he, he's no michael hesselstein. [cheers and applause] >> [inaudible] order. order.

i want to hear mr. swales, and i'm sure the people of redcar do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the russians want to award the prestigious medal to the governments of australia, canada, new zealand and the usa have agreed, the u.k. government has refused. will the prime minister get this decision reversed quickly so that my constituent, john ramsey and the rest of the dwindling band of veterans get the recognition they so richly deserve? >> i have every sympathy with my right honorable friend and with his constituent, and that is why we have asked sir john holmes to conduct this review not just into medals in general, but specifically at some of the most specific cases of which the arctic convoy is the most pressing. and he is getting on with it. >> chris bryant. [laughter]

>> the foreign secretary, the foreign secretary said yesterday that the rules of this house require that ministers answer questions. so there is a stash of embarrassing e-mails, isn't there? adam smith had to publish every single one of his e-mails and ended up resigning. why won't the prime minister publish all of his e-mails? can he really be a fit and proper person to judge on the future of press regulation if he won't come clean with the british public? [cheers and applause] >> there is, actually, another rule of this house which is be that you insult someone in this house, you do an apology, and i have to say i am still waiting. the fact is, it is this government that set up the lev szob inquiry, and -- leveson inquiry, and i gave all the information asked to that inquiry. >> [inaudible] >> the honorable --

[inaudible] pussycat, mr. speaker, is a coffee shop in my constituency. they've just had their business rate hiked up by 700%, and the chancellor's coming after the money even though they haven't yet heard the appeal which means it might have to close and jobs will be lost. can the prime minister come to the rescue? is. >> i have every sympathy with the business he mentions. of course, business rates are a devolved issue, so this needs to be taken up with the welsh assembly government. we've doubled small business rate relief to help half a million small firms, we've made it easier to claim small business rate relief, and we've given local councils new powers to levy discounts in order to support the sorts of shops and pubs that he's referring to. i'm sure that's the right approach to england, and i'm sure he'll want to take that approach to wales. >> heidi alexander. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in 2007 the prime minister

identified one of 29 hospitals he would be prepared to get into a bare knuckle fight over, yet on monday it emerged that louison's a and e and maternity services could end up paying the price for financial services and elsewhere. which side of this bare knuckle fight is he now on? >> the fight we're on is increasing the resources going into the nhs. that is the decision we have taken, and she is on the side of cutting money into the nhs. what we have done, which the previous government didn't, is set out that there will be no changes to nhs configurations unless they have the support of local gps, unless they have strong public and patient engagement, unless they're backed by sound clinical evidence and provide support for choice. those protections were never there under the last government, they are now. >> margaret james. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in light of last week's positive

growth figures, does the prime minister agree with me the policies regarding more spending, borrowing and debt is are the precise opposite of what the country needs. >> my honorable friend is entirely right. the economy is growing, unemployment is coming down, inflation is coming down, the rate of small business creation is going up, there are a million more people employed in the private sector than there were two years ago, and the one absolute certainty is that the worst approach -- and michael hesselstein confirmed it in his report -- is to see more spending and debt. we need to grow the deficit. >> jim shannon. >> i think the prime minister -- corporal channing day always wanted to join the army and for eight years served as a medic.

our job is to save lives -- [inaudible] to see someone willing to hell when all -- help when all hell is bursting down them. he will soon return to a mother, father, fors, brothers who loved her dearly. to the the community who are proud of the contribution she's made. [inaudible] her courage, her bravery and also her heroism. prime minister, would you agree with me that army medics are often the unsung heros of conflict, and would he degree to meet with me to discuss the implementation of -- [inaudible] >> well, first of all, i'd be very happy to meet him and his colleagues. it's something i have spoken to the deputy, the first minister and the deputy first minister in northern ireland. it hope it can be done, and i'd be happy to have that meeting. i think he's absolutely right

that hose in the medical regiment do a fantastic job. it's been a huge honor and a privilege for me to meet some of them including in afghanistan, and when you see the service they provide, you really can put your hand on your heart and know that british military personnel in theater are getting as good medical care as i think anyone ever in history has got. it is truly remarkable what they do. >> [inaudible] >> number eight, sir. >> prime minister, the hospital will retain its actions emergency and maternity services. any suggestion otherwise is simply scare mongering of the worst kind. >> [inaudible] >> kettering has the sixth highest household growth rate in the whole country, and a&e admissions are up 10 percent year on year. given the hospital has been at the heart of the community for well over 100 years, don't local people deserve a clear assurance

that our much-loved and badly-needed local hospital has a bright future ahead of it? >> well, i gave my honorable friend the strongest possible assurance, and the point i've made as i made to the honorable lady opposite is that there can't be any changes unless there's full public consultation, unless there is the support of local gps and strong public and patient engagement. but in the case of debtor oring, that is not on the agenda. as i said, any suggestion by the opposition is simply scare mongering of the worst kind, and i can see they're at it again. >> lindsay roy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's been said again and again to the house, but the importance of skill is to promote economic growth. so why, mr. product, did the -- [inaudible] >> the number of apprenticeships under this government is about 900,000. it is a record number, and it's hugely increased.

>> julian sturdy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the government recently announced plans to extend the freeze on council tax for the third year. unfortunately, the -- [inaudible] and has moved with remarkable speed to confirm a 2% increase next year. can my honorable friend agree with me that such a -- [inaudible] apparently out of order and would he urge counsel to look again? >> i will certainly join my honorable friend in doing that. the government has made money available so that counsels can freeze their counsel tax for a third year in a row. i think this is a very important way of demonstrating that we're on the side of people who want to work hard and get on who struggle to pay the bills, and i think, frankly, all councils should recognize that a council tax freeze is in the interest of all our citizens. >> dr. alan whitehead. >> when did the prime minister become aware of the plans to close ford's south hampton -- [inaudible] and was he aware of those plans

when his government awarded a large sum of money from the regional growth fund to that company just a few days earlier? >> obviously, these issues were discussed, and we worked very closely with all the automotive industry companies in the united kingdom. as i said earlier, the news from most of them, from nissan, from toyota, from jaguar land rover has been extremely positive. what happened at ford is clearly regrettable, but we must do everything we can to help those people into work. >> dr. julian hopper. >> green growth is a key part of the economy. is the prime minister still committed to this being the greenest government ever particularly when it comes to policies on renewable energy? >> well, it is under this government we have seen more investment in green energy in three years than we have in 13 from the party opposite. the green investment bank that we promised,s that is up and running. the carbon floor price that we spoke about, that is in place.

this is, indeed, a very green government, and it's sticking to its promises. >> [inaudible] >> the number of people waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency units has more than doubled in the last two years, and the prime minister won't intervene to stop the closures of a&e units at middle sex hospital, we now -- [inaudible] and i suspect despite his weasel words, kettering hospital too. [inaudible] >> i have to say to the honorable gentleman, i could not have been any clearer about the future of connectionerring hospital, and for him to say that, i think, is scare mongering of the worst kind. but let me tell him what is happening at the hospitals that serve his constituents. in may 2010 there were 52 patients waiting longer than 12 months. how many are there now? none under this government. that is what is actually happening because we're putting

the money into the nhs, and they take it out. >> -- barron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. further to the vote on the 18th of october regarding the contentious decision and acts of the second battalion -- [inaudible] and given that we have very recently, only last night, met with the secretary of defense. would the prime minister meet with me and other interested members to discuss this issue? >> i'm always happy to talk to colleagues about this issue, as i know the ministry of defense and the secretary of state is. as he knows, we've had to make difficult decisions to put in place the future structure of the army with 82,000 regular soldiers and a larger reserve of 32,000 territorial army soldiers. i think that is right. clearly we've had to make some decisions about the regiments and battalions, and we were trying to save as many as possible. i think the proposals have taken that into account but, of course, the defense secretary will go on listening to representations. >> [inaudible]

>> mr. speaker, will the prime minister confirm that the changes to child benefit due to be introconstitutioned in january -- introduced in january this year, next year, is -- that the cost of that, the overall cost is very much over 100 million pounds? >> the changes that we are making to child benefit where we are taking child benefit away altogether from those making over 60,000 pounds, that is going to save two billion pounds. now, it is necessary to make tough decisions in order to deal with the massive deficit bigger than greece, bigger than spain that his party left us. and i have to say i find it completely inexplicable why the party opposite that says they want those with the broadest backs to share some of the burden oppose the idea of taking a child benefit away from people over 60, 70, 80, 90,000. i don't see why the front bench sitting there should go on collecting their child benefit when we're having to make so

many other difficult decisions. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. will my right honorable friend join me in con develop late -- congratulating douglas -- [inaudible] in my constituency on their queen's award or while successfully supporting -- [inaudible] does he agree with me that that is a fine example of british business on the up and, indeed, the best of -- [inaudible] >> i think the honorable lady makes a very important point. we need to have export-led growth in this country, we need a rebalancing in this country. that is what the increase in manufacturing and export production is all about, but we need to go further and faster and, indeed, that is what michael hessel stein's report is about today. >> order. ten minute rule motion. >> here on c-span2 we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m.

eastern while parliament's in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at 9 eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> today the new america foundation looks at ways to strengthen the social safety net. policy analysts will discuss what state and local governments are doing to reduce costs and improve the program's efficiencies. you can watch it live here on c-span2 beginning at 12:15 p.m. eastern. >> these are the stories your textbooks left out. they're great stories about real people in american history, very important moments in american history that we don't know about. the first pilgrims in america came 50 years before the

mayflower sailed. they were french, they made wine, they had the good sense to land in florida in june instead of december in massachusetts, but then they were wiped out by the spanish. but we've completely left the story out of the textbooks. the most famous woman in america, hannah dustin, she was taken captive by indians in 169 5, marched up to new hampshire. she killed her captors, realized that she could get a bounty for scalps, indian scalps. she went back, scalped them and made her way to boston where he was a her o win. they actually erected a statue to her, showed her with a hatchet in one hand and scalps in the other. >> kenneth davis is our guest sunday on "in depth." he's the bestselling author of the don't know much series. the most recent, don't know much about the american presidents. watch live at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. >> at a conference of the

national council on u.s./arab relations, a panel of middle east analysts looked at iran's nuclear program and a response from the u.s. and arab governments. they debate the effectiveness of economic sanctions and the consequences of a military strike against iran. this is an hour and a half. >> and we're privileged to have as the chair for this session dr. thomas mattair. he's a longtime professional, writer, researcher in this field. he's also the executive director of the middle east policy council, and the middle east policy council as you may know puts out one of the foremost periodicals if not the foremost periodical on issues pertaining to the united states and the arab world primarily, but the larger middle east and islamic world as well. he's spent some time, several

years in the united arab emirates as a researcher at the emirates center for strategic studies and research and wrote a voluminous study of the issue of the three islands that are occupied by iran and became occupied on december the 1st, 1971, with the, one of the three islands that the iranians occupied was smaller than the hip or the naval version -- ship or naval vessel that occupied it. so it's been a controversial issue ever since within gcc circles and the united arab emirates foreign policy circles. dr. thomas mattair. >> thank you very much, john. i look forward to doing this, and i appreciate the invitation. i especially look forward to it because i, as chairman, don't have to make formal remarks. that's up to my panelists.

i think this is a very well chosen topic and a very well chosen panel because we are about to have an election for the presidency. whoever becomes president will have a number of very important decisions to make, and we could evaluate -- we should evaluate how successful we've been and what shortcomings need to be corrected. and the reason the panel is well chosen is because you're going to hear different points of view on these topics. and i won't take long, but they obviously involve an examination of whether our diplomacy has advanced our objectives, whether the sanctions have advanced our objectives, if they have, are we going to be intelligent in our diplomacy? the defense and cooperation agreements we have with the gcc countries, if they've been valuable in terms of deterring or curtailing iran, and then in a larger sense the intervention in iraq, what impact did that

have on iran's geopolitical position. the current policy we have in syria where we seem to be attempting to limit their regional influence in the arab world. are we doing the right thing there, are we doing not enough, are we doing too much? and i can't, i can't end without mentioning the palestinian question, because more often i hear the argument that the two-state solution is dead, and that's a shame because if we are going to negotiate with iran, it might be intelligent to do more than just talk about the nuclear issue. it might be better to talk about the whole range of issues that are outstanding between us, and at one point in time iran indicated willingness to talk about israeli/palestinian issues and indicated an interest in the two-state formula proposed by king abdullah at that time, he

was crown prince of abdullah. it makes agreements on all the regional issues that are of concern to iran a lot more difficult. so, and then, of course, there's war. hard to evaluate now, beforehand, but we have a number of studies that they're looking at the costs and benefits of war, and the costs are significant. i would like to mention one study that i think adds something that hasn't been done by other studies, and that's the study from the university of utah which is called the nuclear ayatollahs which details the human casualties that will occur if there's a war from the blast, from the heat, from the toxic chemical fumes, from the radioactivity on both sides of the gulf. and that is something you don't hear much about in washington. so without further ado, i'll introduce the panel.

i think we're going to have alire, and a nader speak first, and then i'll introduce each one as they are ready to speak. he's a senior policy analyst at the rand corporation, he's also written about israel and iran which trita parsi has also written about and about succession in the islamic republic. before coming to the rand corporation, he was research analyst at the research center of analysis, and he's actually a graduate from the council of u.s./arab relations, so, alireza? >> good afternoon. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on a very important topic that is, indeed, in the fuse these day cans quite -- news these days quite often. i'm going to talk about the effect of the arab spring on the islamic republic and its power

in the region and, also, talk about the effect of sanctions and the effectiveness of u.s. policy toward iran. sanctions have hit iran at a very terrible time for the islamic republic, at a time when tehran's regional influence is in decline. and if you remember a few years ago, iran was really ascendant in the region. some analysts and commentators spoke of iran as the region's superpower. the iranian regime claimed that it was a key security actor in the persian gulf and the region. and this was really due to the u.s. invasion of iraq and iran's empowerment and its western neighbor, of course. after saddam hussein, shia and kurdish parties with friendly ties to iran took power in iraq, and iran's power in iraq expanded significantly.

and saddam hussein had served as a bulwark to iranian influence in the region, and he was gone. and one key debate right now is how powerful is iran and iraq, and it is, indeed, powerful. also iran's influence in afghanistan has increased since the overthrow of the taliban. the islamic republican played a key role in the establishment of the karzai government, and it is a very powerful regional actor especially in western afghanistan. in 2006 hezbollah and israel fought a war, a relatively short war, but it had very important implications. hezbollah managed to stand up to israel's military might, and a lot of the arabs in the region perceived hezbollah as having won the war, of course. it wasn't necessarily a technical military win, but in some ways it was a psychological political/military win for hezbollah.

not a lot of armies have managed to perform so well since 1973 against israel. and, of course, iran's ally, palestinian ally, hamas, managed to take over the gaza strip. so this demonstrated that iran's championing of the resistance front against israel was successful and combined with successes in iraq for iran, iran was in some ways the ascendant power in the middle east, you could accurately describe it as such. but things have really changed in the last few years, and it really all started in 2009 with the iranian presidential election and the ensuing protests. the regime's harsh crackdown against the protesters which included executions, torture, rape, summary executions, running people down in the streets, this really damaged the regime's credibility in the region, and this was an event that was widely televised in the

middle east. a lot of arabs, actually, that i talked to at that time were inspired by the green movement in iran because they saw iranians as going into the streets and challenging an authoritarian government. and i had my raich friends tell me -- arab friends tell me that arabs should be dynamic and energetic like the iranians in the 2009. of course, the regime in tehran still stands today for a variety of reasons. i won't have time to get into them. but that was an indication in 2009 that the islamic republic was in trouble, and its behavior demonstrated that it lacks legitimacy in iran and across the region. so the 2009 demonstrations really damaged the islamic republic's credentials as a force of resistance and support of the downtrodden in the region. the arab spring has made things a lot worse for the islamic republic, namely due to tehran's

support for the bashar al asad regime in syria. iran has welcomed the other uprisings in the region, egypt, bahrain, because the iranian leadership saw those uprisings as really hurting u.s. power and influence in the region, specifically the leadership of the islamic republic had been waiting for hosni mubarak to be overflown for decades -- overthrown for decades. he was one of their prime enemies in the region, a competitor and a bulwark to iranian influence in the region. and so the iranian leadership portrayed the arab uprisings as a victory. eye tole ya khamenei, the supreme leader in iran, has claimed that the arabs were inspired by iran's own revolution in 1979. interestingly, the head of the green movement -- the symbolic head of the green movement who's under house arrest -- actually claimed that, no, the arabs

weren't inspired by iran's revolution in 1979, but by the 2009 protests. regardless, the regime's actions in syria have done a tremendous damage because it is viewed as being on the wrong side of history not just by arabs necessarily, by iranians as well. as you know, the regime in syria has killed tens of thousands of people, and iran has effectively abetted the syrian regime's crackdown and brutal treatment of insurgency. and it's not that the iranian leadership doesn't view iran's policies uniformly. there have been figures in iran within the political elite that have questioned iran's approach. they realize that if bashar al assad falls, iran will lose all if not most of its influence in syria and the levant, and syria's iran's gateway of

influence in the arab world. so the stakes are high. and iran's inflexibility on the issue has been open to debate in iran but, again, the iran supreme leader ayatollah khamenei is reported to have said that syria is a front line against the united states, and we're not going to back down in syria because if we back down in syria, we'll be next. so we can't expect a lot of flexibility in iran's policy towards syria. we can expect the iranian regime -- especially the revolutionary guards -- to support al assad as much as they can. ..

>> he embarrasses iran. he criticize the regime of bashar al-assad and implicitly criticized the iranian regime for its support of syria. this was an embarrassment for the iranian leadership to the point that they changed the translation on television. he criticized syria and iranian television about bahrain. so trying to save face basically. but we've seen that each of this is not necessary going to follow around policies in the region.

in fact, the egyptians have capped their distance from tehran. they have not resumed relationship and there's a lot of tension between the two countries on some issues. in addition, turkey has emerged as an important competitor to iranian influence in the region. in issue you look at whether it's the palestinian issue, syria, iraq, turkey is competing with iran. the competition is not kinetic. they are not fighting it out. they're cooperating economically still. the turks are in principle opposed to sanctions against iran for all the nuclear crisis, but there's a lot of competition between the two countries. hamas has distanced himself from syria and damascus. recently the hamas leader was in turkey and he said to the prime minister erdogan that you're not only the leader of turkey, but you're the leader of the muslim world. one of the leaders of the muslim world. so this goes to show how much

iran's axis of resistance which has included a mosque has been weakened. now, on to sanctions, as you know sanctions have had disastrous effect on the iranian economy, and in large parts this is due to the government on this management and dysfunction, specifically the ahmadinejad administration handling of the economy. but sanctions have embedded the economic administration and the, are exacerbated. the currency has appreciated by 90% the last year. middle income iranians are hurting. it's hard to put food on their table. and try her -- and our countries are really suffering because of sanctions but also really because of the policies and mismanagement. and sanctions have raised the cost on iranians nuclear pursue. we often talk about that sanctions have not been

successful, that we haven't seen any signs that iran is will back its nuclear program. i would argue not yet perhaps, sanctions have raised the costs of iran's nuclear weapons decision if it chooses to go in that direction. ayatollah how many have traditionally dismissed sanctions, but recently he said sanctions are brutal and so the regime is under a lot of pressure. we saw in recent iranians, into the streets to protest against the regime. and it wasn't just the action against ahmadinejad specifically. these were ordinary people in iran. who were protesting the government. and their chant was leave syria alone, think of us. demonstrating that iran's regional policies are not necessary popular among the iranians. because they realize the costs of iran's nuclear pursuit and support for the bashar al-assad sheen. in fact, a range don't want their government to support bashar al-assad, a brutal dictator in the region.

sanctions have also the effect of weakening iran's influence in the region. iran will have a harder time funding syria, groups like hamas, hezbollah. the statement of reasons hamas has distanced itself from tehran. tehran is no longer able to fund hamas and some of the other palestinian groups as effectively. now, of course sanctions are not a magic bullet, they're not a silver bullet, not a magic solution to a have to be coupled with engagement with the islamic republic, and there are indications that tehran is serious about coming to the table, and it has been serious for several months. there's been indications that it wants to discuss or perhaps resolve the nuclear crisis. i would argue that preceding the latest sanction against iran and the fact, debt when the p5+1, the u.n. security council and

germany sat down to talk to iran, it was a problem of sequencing. iran wants p5+1 to recognize and lives sanctions where the p5+1 wants iran to build confidence, to undertake measures that shows the international community that tehran is serious about compromising on the nuclear program. because if you think about it's much easier for iran to stop enriching uranium to 20%. it's much easier for iran to stop building the 40 facility which is buried underneath the mountain. it's easier for iran to open up some of its sites including, a suspected military nuclear weapons site to international inspection but it is much harder, however, to lift sanctions that united states and its allies have spent years and years building. so right now we find yourselves

in an advantageous position. the equation has changed. iran is not the power in the middle east. there's one thing, however, that sets back and that's a military with every bit an israeli attack against iran could roll back some of these achievements. it could destroy the sanctions coalition that has been built against iran. they could have a rally around the flag respect in iran, and really enhance the regime's popular amongst some of its core constituents. and it could lead to an increase in popularity among the arab population, regarding iran. so at this point the best solution really is to not necessarily solve all our problems with islamic republic, because i think as long as ayatollah khomeini and the current power, we can have a final solution, regarding any issue that we face with iran,

but to really confuse the nuclear crisis for now and let events take their course. because in the long term, the trends are in favor of the united states and for those who seek democracy in iran. thank you. [applause] >> and i'd like hillary to speak next. she is senior lecturer, at the american university school of international service. she has a book coming up called going to tehran, why the u.s. need to come to term with the islamic republic. jcl and strategies which analyzes international decision-making, and she's a co-author of www.race for iran did you also have a bio you can be but hillary also has an extensive service for --

national security council policy planting status. was one of the few american diplomats in power to negotiate with iran 2001 and 2002, about afghanistan and other issues. so we have a person with firsthand knowledge. >> thank you very much. thank you for such a kind introduction, and to dr. john duke anthony for inviting me. to this very important conference. it's good to see some friends here and some students from american university. thank you. thank you again for having me. 50 years ago this month, the united states faced perhaps the defining challenge of the cold war in the cuban missile crisis. today, some say we are facing a similar defining test for the u.s. foreign policy in how we deal with the islamic republic of iran. in this context it's striking to

recall the words of then president john f. kennedy. he warned us as americans that the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. too often, president kennedy said we hold fast to our clichés. we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. today, i'm going to challenge you to step away from what may be the comfort of your opinion, because i think president kennedy's warning applies very much today to how we talk about the islamic republic of iran. for over 30 years, we in the united states, particularly here in washington, have put forward a series of myths about the islamic republic of iran. that it's irrational,

illegitimate and vulnerable. and in so doing we have consistently misled the american public and our allies about what policies will work to go back and contain the islamic republic of iran. from the beginning, americans treated iran's revolution in 1978-1979 as a major surprise, but the only reason it was a surprise was official washington denial of the iranian people growing demand for an independent state political order free from american domination. for over 30 years, the islamic republic has defied constant prediction of its collapse and defeat. but american policy elites still

put forward myths about the islamic republic that ignore or in fact contradict basic forces driving political life inside the islamic republic, with the idea that if we just believe these myths enough, if we just believed, we would see how to deal with the islamic republic of iran. the most persistent, and i would argue dangerous myth put out there, is the depiction of the islamic republic as a system so despise by its own population it is in imminent danger of overthrow. a vulnerability that is a prevailing view here in washington can be exploited i the united states and our allies. today, this idea comes out into interlocking arguments. the first is that sanctions are working, and the second is that the arab awakening has left the islamic republic isolated in its

very own neighborhood. with the sanctions supposedly working, some policy elite argued that iranians will rise up to forge fundamental change, political change inside the islamic republic and forced the government to make concession. those who make this argument should tell us how iran's economy now, today, is so much worse than it was in the 1980s when the gdp in the islamic republic was half its value. half its value. and the population did not rise up in to forge fundamental change or to concessions, or concessions to hostile foreign power. those who say that sanctions are or will work should also point to any precedents, any precedents anywhere where a population rose up because of sanctions to overthrow its government and replace it with one that would