or no for veterans. and i hope, mr. president, that we will all stand together and understand the pay-for are the people who have served in our states and continue to serve us today. they have paid in full. we need to vote yes and get this done. madam president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i come to the floor today to

discuss the stagnant obama economy and how obamacare is making it worse. this is the fifth anniversary of the day the president's signed his trillion-dollar stimulus bill into law. the remarks he paid gave that day the president stated that the legislation marked the beginning of the end of the nation's economic troubles. five years later, however, the end of the nation's economic strubles nowhere in sight. the headlines of the jobs report released friday say it all. the headline from the associated press said u.s. economy may be struck in slow lane for long run. "new york times" headline, weakness continues as 113,000 jobs are added in january. from cbs news, another month of weak job growth raises slowdown fears. from "the wall street journal," u.s. adds 113,000 jobs in latest worrying sign on growth. from reuters, u.s. employment

fails to rebound strongly from winter chill. madam president, before passage of the stimulus presidential advisor christina romer predicted the stimulus bill would -- stimulus bill would reduce the unemployment rate to 5% by 2014. in fact the employment rate has never come close to falling that low. last month's unemployment rate was 6.6% and if so many people hadn't dropped out of the labor force over the last several years that number would be even higher. if the labor force participation rate were the same as it was when president obama took office, our current unemployment rate would be a staggering 10.5%. despite the fact that the recession technically ended 55 months ago we're still nowhere near where we need to be in terms of economic recovery. cbs news reported on friday that the economy would have to gain an average of 285,000 jobs per month for the next three years

just to get us back to where we were before the recession. job creation for the past year hasn't even come close to that. in fact, our economy has averaged just 180,000 new jobs per month approximately over the past year. if we continue at that same rate, it will take us over five years to return to where we were before the recession. madam president, president obama's economic policies have left our economy mired in stagnation and his health care law is making things even worse. last week the nonpartisan congressional budget office released a new report on obamacare. it found that obamacare will result in the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time jobs over the next ten years. 2.5 million fewer jobs. our economy is millions of jobs away from where it needs to be. our labor force participation rate is near a 35-year low. and the president's health care

law is going to result in 2.5 million fewer full-time jobs. madam president, how long that work? well, the c.b.o. report made it clear that the obamacare provides disincentives to work particularly at the low income of the spectrum. receiving subsidies to pay for his or her health insurance may decide not to accept more hours or a higher paying jobs so he or she doesn't exceed the income cap for receiving scibdz sibdz. at -- subsidies. at the higher end, workers may decide not to rise tour far up the ladder so their income doesn't reach the point at which it would be subject to obamacare taxes. thus obamacare essentially traps workers in lower-paying jobs, putting a de facto limit on the prosperity of literally millions of americans. madam president, the c.b.o. reinforces that notion not just by projecting that 2.5 million

people will drop out of the work force but also by projecting those who stay in the work force will earn less. according to one analysis of the c.b.o. report, obamacare will reduce total wages by an estimated $70 billion per year. without question, most of this burden will be placed on lowers and motorcycle families who are struggling to make ends meet. further by providing americans with disincentives to work obamacare will limit our economic growth. as the editors of the national review put it -- and i quote -- "the depth of the obamacare crater in the labor force isn't some be abstract unemployment re but the lost value of the work those americans would have done" -- end quote. americans working creates economic growth. it's as simple as that. encouraging americans to work less or quit work altogether will undermine american

prosperity and american values and american families i should say, security. those who find work and are willing and able to fulfill their jobs deserve wages that are unhindered by a government takeover of health care. combine the c.b.o. report with our experience of obamacare so far, and the future does not look promising. lower-income americans living off meager salaries and government health care subsidies just to get by. middle-income americans struggling to pay higher health insurance premiums and deductibles. upper-income americans and small business owners reluctant to create jobs and wealth for fear they'll be subjected to obamacare's burdensome taxes and regulations. that's not the kind of future any american desires. but that's exactly the future obamacare is bringing us. in fact, for too many americans that future is already here. with obamacare's full

implementation this year, americans are facing huge premium increases and steep hikes in their out-of-pocket costs. they're losing access to their doctors and hospitals, and all too often, they're facing fewer hours or benefits at their jobs as their employers struggle to comply with obamacare's taxes and mandates. even the president has tacitly acknowledged the burdens his health care law places on employers by once again delaying one of the law's job-destroying mandates. i'm glad some businesses get relief until 2016, congress should go further, much further and ensure that every single american is protected from this disastrous law. madam president, we can do better than obamacare and the president's economic policies. the president has called for 2014 to be a year of action. and republicans couldn't agree more. it's past time to take action to start reversing obamacare's damage and finally, finally get

our economic recovery off the ground. almost two weeks ago the obama state department releasted -- released the review showing that the keystone pipeline would have no significant impact on carbon emissions. there are strong bipartisan support for approving that pipeline and the 42,000 jobs it will support. the president needs to stop pandering, madam president, to far left environmentalists and immediately approve the pipeline and the good paying jobs it will open for americans. next the president should pick up that phone he keeps talking about to call the senate majority leader and tell him to bring the bipartisan trade promotion authority legislation to the floor. passing it would help farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs to gain access to one billion consumers around the globe. the majority leader needs to stop obstructing the jobs this bill would dreat and join members of both parties to pass this important legislation. finally the president should

slow his support behind a repeal of the medical device tax in his health care law. this tax on life saving medical technologies like pacemakers and insulin pumps is forcing medical device companies to send american jobs overseas. there is strong bipartisan support for preelg the tax -- repealing the tax and the president should add his. madam president, far too many americans have spent the fast five and a half years of the obama presidency struggling to get by. household income has fallen. health care costs have risen. jobs and opportunity have been few and far between. for many americans, the possibility of a secure economic future seems further and further out of reach. madam president, it doesn't have to be this way. we can turn our economy around by abandoning the president's failed economic proposals and embracing the kind of legislation that will open up new jobs and opportunities for

the american people. the three proposals i've jowt lined above are -- i've outlined above are a good place to start. i hope the president will join republicans and democrats to get these priorities done. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the vice president: without objection, it willen terminated. the chair lays before the senate a certificate of appointment to fill the vacancies created by the resignation of senator are max baucus of montana. the certificate, the chair is individuals, is in the form suggested by the senate. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waived, and it will be printed in full in the record. if the senator-designate would now present himself to the desk, the chair will administer the oath of office.

the vice president: please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. walsh:. mr. walsh: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senator.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator -- the senator from hawaii. ms. hirrono: there is overwhelming bipartisan support to repeal the military cola reduction. of the debate now is whether and how to pay for the cost of this repeal. i agree with my friend, senator mark begich of alaska, that our veterans have already paid for this repeal with their service to our country. however, there are some senators who take a different view and have offered what we refer to as "pay-for amendments." today i rise in strong opposition to the ayotte pay-for amendment. the bill before us, s. 1963, the military retirement pay restoration act, would repeal

the cola reduction for military retirees. this bill is sponsored by senators pryor, hagan, and begich, and i applaud their leadership on this issue. cutting military pensions was a bad idea. an even worse idea is to set up a contest between providing pensions to veterans and providing antipoverty assistance to children. that is the choice republicans want us to make. i wish i could honestly say this so-called choice is hard to believe, but i can't. it is like choosing between cutting off an arm or a leg from the body politic. vets or poor children -- aren't they both in need of fair treatment? again, there is bipartisan support to restore the cola cuts for veterans, but i'm told that my republican colleagues won't allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the military retirement pay restoration act unless we

also vote on the ayotte amendment number 2732. what does this amendment do? the ayotte amendment would deny antipoverty assistance to the children of undocumented immigrants who are working and paying billions of dollars in taxes. it would cut this child poverty program by more than $18 billion over ten years to pay for the restoration of colas for military retirees, which would caught about $6 billion over ten years. -- which would cost about $6 billion over ten years. the ayotte amendment would deny $3 of antipoverty assistance to children in order to restore $1 of retirement pay to our veterans. that is unconscionable. we should not take the benefits we provide to veterans by hurting children in the process. hurting children does no honor to our veterans' service.

but children targeted by the ayotte amendment did not decide on their own to come to this country illegally. they were brought here by their parents. these children are dreamers, our dreamers. we should not punish them for their parents' decisions. we should help these children to succeed so they can contribute to this great country. their parents are doing their part by working and paying more than $16 billion in taxes each year, more than $160 billion over ten years. we should not deny them this small measure of help. let me acknowledge that it is politically difficult to vote against the offset in the ayotte amendment. why? because the amendment targets people who have no political power. these are children of parents who cannot vote. these are children of parents who are very poor, who themselves live on the edge of poverty or far into the depths

of it. their parents work one, two, or even three jobs and pay the taxes they owe, but they are barely making ends meet. their far removed from the level of wealth that too often today translates into political power. these are children of parents who came to this country the same way many of our an ssess terse came to this country 100 or 200 years ago and for the same reasons: to escape poverty, to seek opportunity, and to give their children a better life than they had. their parents are working and paying billions of dollars in taxes each year, which is extending the lives of the social security and medicare trust funds, as examples. their parents are working and paying taxes, but they came here illegally and, therefore, they must live in the shadows and live in fear. put simply, these are children of families who have no

political power -- none. they they are ththey are the eao after, and that's had a wha this ayotte amendment does. but we should help these families and dreamers. it is a universal principle that we should help the least among us. to paraphrase the book of matthew, "we should treat the least among us as we would treat the mightiest among us." that is why the u.s. council of catholic bishops opposes the ayotte amendment. we should not hurt the least among us in order to help our veterans. how much money would the ayotte amendment deny to these children? the maximum child tax credit is $1,000 per child. which is about $2.74 per day per child. to many of us, $2.74 per day seems like a small amount, but to a child in poverty, it is

literally the difference between eating and not eating. according to the bureau of labor statistics, in 2011, the average cost of one meal for one person was $2.67. that was the average cost, which means a lot of people spent less than $2.67 on each meal. by way of comparison, snap benefits average about $4 per person per day. $4 for three meals. not just one. so our own food program is less than what our own bureau of labor statistics say is the average cost of a meal. so for our low-income child, the $2.74 per day she gets from the child tax credit is equivalent to about one meal. if a child is very poor, it probably means two meals. put simply, if gheets the child tax credit, she eats.

if she doesn't, she doesn't. of course, not every child receives the maximum refundable credit. the amount of the refund is determined in part on the family's income. so poor families receive even less. the average income for the families who would be affected by the ayotte amendment is about $21,000 per year. they have to be working and paying taxes to get even one dime from the child tax credit program. their average child tax credit refund is about $1,800, which is about $5 a day. that may not be much money to the senators in this body, but that $5 pays for a meal for the whole family. it is about 8% of their income. we should not be denying this basic level of assistance to any child in this country, no matter who their parents are or how they came here. we should not deny children this

assistance when their parents -- and i'm going to repeat it again -- will pay over $160 billion in taxes in ten years during which this provision is cutting $18 billion. the way the child tax credit is structured, only working families who are paying these kinds of taxes can claim the refundable portion. it is not fair that families work and pay taxes but are then denied help, $2.74 per day per child. we should not deny children this assistance under the guise of combatting fraud. imposing a social security number requirement on qualifying children will not end the fraud that the proponents of this amendment have cited. we should go after the fraud, but it should be obvious that any criminal willing to commit the fraud described by the proponents will not be deterred

by having to fill in a nine-digit social security number. this does not solve the fraud problem. the fraud we have heard about involves undocumented immigrants who are falsifying where they live and where their children live in order to claim their tax credit. we are told about four immigrants using a single address. yet, we hear nothing about the 18,000 corporations that use one address in the cayman islands to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes. instead of going after working families who are paying taxes, we should close the loophole that allows these corporations to evade their taxes. how many groups in this country is congress going to hurt? we hurt women when we don't raise the minimum wage. we hurt people who are out of work through no fault of their own when we don't extend unemployment benefits. now we're hurting dreamers. we should not do this.

i urge my colleagues to oppose the ayotte amendment. i yield back. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold her suggestion? ms. hirono: yes, i will. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until stands in recess until >> a few moments ago joe biden who as vice president serves as president of the u.s. senate of the u.s. senate swore in the body's newest member john walsh. a former lieutenant governor and former head of the montana national guard. senator walsh replaces former

democratic senator max baucus the last week was confirmed as u.s. ambassador to china. over at the white house president obama and the first lady of the french president francois hollande this morning during an arrival ceremony on the south lawn. the two leaders right now are participating in a joint press conference. we will take you there live now. >> i wanted to ask the bit about that. so the latest round of the geneva ii talks have proven to be as unproductive as the first round was. the conventional -- the chemicals weapons agreement that you both alluded to have removed some weapons but by all accounts it's a small fraction of the overall stockpile the assad regime has and the syrians have missed a couple of deadlines. deadlines. and as a donated to the syrian regime is essentially starving thousands of syrians in homes and elsewhere. everybody agrees that more pressure needs to be brought to bear on the assad regime to

change this deadly equation. and so i wonder, beyond the general statements you made, what additional tangible steps did you discuss in your meeting today to help the moderate opposition to try to change that equation on the ground? and secondly, for mr. president -- [speaking french] >> asked in english. >> how is it okay for a trade delegation for -- to travel to toronto to explore business opportunities within the p5 and the e3 plus three have committed to maintaining the strength and integrity of the sanctions regime? thank you. >> why don't i take a stab first at the serious question. -- syria question. we still have harangued his situation on the ground in syria. i don't think anybody disputes

that. what is absolutely are is that with each passing day more people inside of syria are suffering. the state of syria itself is crumbling. that is bad for syria. it is bad for the region. it is bad for global national security, because what we know is that there are stream us who have moved into the vacuum come in certain areas of syria it could threaten us over the long term. so this is one of our highest national security priorities and i know that france lost feels the same way, and any of our european partners as those are partners in the region feel the same way. the geneva process recognizes that if we're going to solve this problem, then we have to find a political solution. and the first geneva conference

committed to a transition process that would preserve and protect the state of syria, would accommodate the various sectarian interests inside of syria so that no one party was dominant. and would allow us to return to some semblance of normalcy about all the people have been displaced to start moving back in. we are far from achieving that yet. i would not completely discount the fact that in this latest round of negotiations, what you saw was a coherent, cohesive, reasonable opposition in the same room for the first time negotiating directly with the regime. now, the regime, assad's regime was and particularly responsive,

and i think even some of their patrons were disturbed by their belligerents. but we are going to continue to commit to not just pressure the assad regime but also to get countries like russia and iran to recognize that it is in nobody's interest to see the continuing bloodshed and collapse that's taking place inside that country. now, you ask tangible steps that we can take. both france and the trend continue to support a moderate opposition. we are continuing to provide enormous amounts of humanitarian aid. one of the problems we have right now is humanitarian access to deliver that aid, and as we speak today, u.n. security council, we will be debating a resolution that would permit much greater access for

humanitarian aid workers to get food, water, shelter, clothing, fuel to people who need it. now, there is great unanimity among most of the security council on this resolution. russia is a holdout, and secretary kerry and others have delivered a very direct message to the russians that they cannot say that they're concerned about the well being of the syrian people when they are starting civilians. and that it is not just the syrian so responsible. the russians as well if they are blocking this kind of resolution. so that is an example of the kinds of diplomatic work that we are engaging in right now. but, ma more, nobody is going to deny that there's enormous frustration here, and i think the underlying premise to the

question may be, is there additional direct action or military action that can be taken that would resolve the problem in syria. i have said throughout my presidency that i always reserve the right to exercise military action on behalf of america's national security interests. but that has to deployed wisely. and i think what we saw with respect to chemical weapons situation was an example, the judicious, wise use of possible military action. in partnership with france, we said we would be prepared to act if syria did not. syria and russia came to the conclusion that they needed to, for the first time, acknowledge the presence of chemical weapons and then upgrade to a very extensive -- agree to a very

extensive deal to get those chemical weapons out. you are right that so far they've missed some deadlines. on the other hand, we have completely chronicled all the chemical weapons inside of syria. a portion of those chemical weapons have been removed. there's been a reaffirmation by the syrians and russia that all of it has to be removed, and concrete steps are being taken to remove it. and we will continue to keep the pressure on, but we now have a u.n. mandate with consequences if there's a failure, something that we did not have before. whether we can duplicate that kind of process when it comes to the larger resolution of the problem, right now we don't think that there's a military solution per se to the problem. but the situation is fluid and we're continuing to explore

every possible avenue to solve this problem, because it's not just heartbreaking to see what's happening to the syrian people. it's a very dangerous for the region as a whole, including friends and allies and partners like lebanon or jordan that are being adversely impacted by it. let me make one last comment with respect to the iran sanctions. we have been extraordinarily firm that even during the center of agreement we will fully enforce all applicable sanctions. in fact, we have taken very steps just over the last six, seven weeks to identify companies that we felt were violating those sanctions and have been very clear to the iranians that there's not going to be any let up in discussions with president hollande. he feels the same way, as do all

the p5+1 members. and so businesses may be exploring are there some possibilities to get in sooner rather than later, if and when there is an actual agreement to be had, but i can tell you that they do so at their own peril right now. because we will come down on them like a ton of bricks, you know, with respect to the sanctions that we can curl, and we expect full compliance with respect to the p5+1 -- that we control. we don't want a new sanctions because the ones we have in place already squeezing iran to brought into the table but we also want to send a message to the iranians that if they don't resolve this broader issue of their nuclear program, that there will be consequences and that the sanctions regime not only will stay in place, but

will likely be tightened in the event that these talks fail. [speaking french] >> translator: a very copperheads of answer. i shall now sketch the french approach on the issues that were mentioned in a few words. first of all, geneva ii. the only purpose of this conference is to make political transitions possible. it's not about discussing -- measures only. it's all about making sure that a political change be possible, which eventually will have to take place in syria. we encouraged the democratic divisions go to geneva, and to demonstrate that they are prepared to commit themselves to

this process and to this approach. and if some of them are blocking, there's no surprise guessing at what is. it is the syrian regime. one other observation, a conclusion, as a matter of fact. we should help as long as you mentioned situation and that is why resolution will be very typical. and we will see again who speaks clearly on the issue of the syrian question and who is partisan. how can you object to humanitarian corridors? why would you prevent the resolution if, in good faith, it is all about saving human lives? so we decided to go all the way and take it is verification.

third question, the chemical weapons stockpile. barack obama and myself, when we were presented with proof of the use that have been made by the assad regime, we decided -- and data precisely because we made the decision. that's the option of the negotiation was also kept on the agenda. it is precisely for that reason that president putin made the circumstances you are all familiar with. this led to the destruction of some of the chemical weapons, but i agree with you, it is a very long why did process. it is only a partial destruction and did doesn't go nearly far enough. so rules were adopted, particularly within the framework of the security

council resolution, in case of -- and we shall resort to these measures and enforce them. in the coal weapons have to be destroyed fully, and pressure will be exerted fully. and then there are choices. we chose to support the democratic position. we chose to make sure that the democratic opposition is an alternative, even though negotiations will have to take place at the geneva conference. you asked me a question about french businessman in iran. to those of you who are unfamiliar with the french situation, the president of the republic is not the president of the employers union in france, and he certainly doesn't wish to be. and i don't think anyone wishes for him to be. so companies just make that

decision when it comes to traveling. but i certainly let them know that sanctions were in force and would remain in force, and if contacts were to be made with a view to new situation in iran, a situation where iran would have renounced the nuclear weapons fully and comprehensively, well, unless such a new situation would prevail, no commercial agreements could be signed. that's what i told french businessman and they are very much aware of that situation. and they will only be lifted if and when there is a definite agreement. and during this period of interim agreements, they remain in force. french question perhaps now.

>> for the french nation and for taking our questions. you have actually a phrase, -- granted our president first state visit of your second term. does that mean that france has become the best european ally of the u.s.? and has replaced great britain? [laughter] in that role. and if so, why not extend france the agreement that you have with england after -- nsa program. [speaking french] >> translator >> translator: mr. president, you praise the excellency of the franco-american cooperation, but on iran, are there differences in terms of analysis between france and america on the

necessity to have an ambitious agreement? d.c. that americans be prepared to make too many concessions? thank you. >> first of all, i have two daughters. [laughter] and they are both a gorgeous and wonderful, and i would never choose between them. and that's how i feel about my outstanding european partners. all of them are wonderful in their own ways. now, to the serious part of the question, what i do believe is that the u.s. french alliance has never been stronger. and the levels of cooperation that we're seeing across the whole range of issues is much deeper than it was, i think,

five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. and that's good for france. it's good for the united states. it's good for the world because we share certain ballots in certain commitments and are willing to i don't have office commitments and values. with respect to the nsa, obviously i expressed my strong commitment to making sure that our rules and how we approach intelligence and surveillance, not just here, you know, not just with respect to any particular country, but worldwide, that we do it in a way that takes into account the incredible changes in technology and the new capacities that have evolved over the last several years. and the first place that we look up to in terms of how do we make

sure that our rules are compatible with our partnerships and our friendships and our alliances were countries like france that have been longtime allies of ours, and some of our closest allies. it's not actually correct to say that we have a quote unquote knows by agreement with great britain. that's not actually what happened. well, we don't have -- there's no country where we have a nose by agreement. you know, we have, like every other country -- a no spy equipment. we have an intelligence capability and then we have a range of partnerships with all kinds of countries and we've been in consultations with the french government to deepen those commitments. at the same time what i've also said, both publicly and privately and want to reiterate today to the french press is that we are committed to making sure that we are protecting and

concerned about the privacy rights, not just of americans, not just of her own citizens, but of people around the world as well. that's a commitment by the way that is fairly unprecedented in terms of any country's intelligence operations. and what we've said is that we are putting rules in place so that we are not engaging in what some of the speculation has been when it comes to ordinary citizens of france. we are respectful of their privacy rights and we're going to make sure that our rules are abiding by concerns about those privacy rights. we do remain concerned, as france is, as most of the eu is, with very specific potential terrorist networks that could attack us and kill innocent people. and we are going to have to continue to be robust in pursuit of those specific leads and

concerns. but we have to do it in a way that is compatible with the privacy rights of the people in france, riley to exit just like they do here in the united states. and the last point just because i know you asked president hollande, but i want to go ahead and comment on this. the reason iran is at the table is because we have a very high threshold in terms of what we expect out of iran to prove to us that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons, and we were able to stitch together an international coalition to apply sanctions to make sure that would be the case. i don't think the concern during the course of these negotiations is whether or not we're going to be making too many concessions. i think the concern is going to be whether or not iran can recognize the opportunity to prove in a verifiable fashion to the world, in ways that

scientists and technical experts can confirm, that any nuclear program they have is for peaceful purposes. and the facts are what will guide these negotiations. if they meet what technically gives us those assurances, then there's a deal to be potentially made. if they don't, there isn't. and it's not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. there are some judgment issues involved, but part of the reason we are where we are right now is because iran has been able to give those assurances to anybody in the international community that they were pursuing a nuclear weapon. that's why there was such unanimity and apply the sanctions and keeping them in place. [speaking french]

>> translator: in response to your first question, well, i have for question so that makes it even more difficult to me to make any choice at all. but we are not trying to be anyone's favorite. there are links, we share common values, and i can see that -- but it's not about hierarchy. it's just about being useful to the world. because the friendship between the united states and friends is not just about strengthening our ties, economic ties, cultural or personal ties. and that already would be a great deal. it's not just about bringing our two societies closer to what another. it's not just the sure and technology. no. what makes this friendship between the united states, america and france is the fact that we can hold values in, at a

specific point in time with the american presidency and the french presidency, if i may say so. with regards to iran, your second question, just as the united states, we wanted to work on the basis of the p5 scenario. this was the basis of our actions. nothing prevented us from having bilateral contacts, and i have some bilateral contacts in new york during the u.n. jiyai. i received president rouhani during the general assembly. so it is perfectly legitimate discussions to take place. however, we have to meet together in order to be strong together. and in order to make sure that our toughness brings about this interim agreement. which it did. but there is still work to be done just because we find an interim agreement for a few

months, doesn't mean there is no longer and iranian problem. there is an iranian problem, for we need to make sure that iran renounces their nuclear weapons and that definite and comprehensive manner your the nsa now, i was going to say the question wasn't asked to meet but a president obama answered the question, so i will answer the question, too. even though if you choose to ask me a more specific question, i can be more precise, but following the revelations that appeared due to mr. snowden, we clarified things. president obama and myself, clarified things. this was in the past. and then we endeavored towards cooperation. we wanted to fight against

terrorism, which we also wanted, we, -- and we are making headway in this cooperation. mutual trust has been restored, and that mutual trust is based on respect for each other's country, but also based on protection, protection of private life, of personal data. the fact that any individual in spite of technological process can be sure he is not being spied on, these are principles that unite us. >> national public radio. >> thank you very much. mr. president, yesterday your administration again delayed the aca employer mandate for midsized companies. last week your economic adviser talked about the new choices that people have defined health care outside the workplace.

i wonder if you could first explain the delay and also talk about whether over the long term you see a future where health insurance is less tied to the workplace? ..

they meet their responsibilities to their employees aren't going to the emergency room jacking up everybody else's cost and the employers don't end up having any responsibility for that. what we did was simply make an adjustment in terms of their compliance because for many of these companies, just the process of complying -- aramid. midsize between 50 to 100 folks -- it may take time if they are operating in good faith and we want to make sure the purpose of the law is meant to punish them but simply they are either providing help and are in to their employees or that they are helping to bear the cost of their employees getting health insurance. that is consistent with what we have done in the individual mandate. a vast majority of americans want health insurance.

we provide in tax credits but even with the tax credits in some cases they still can't afford it and we have hardship exemptions to made sure that nobody is unnecessarily burdened. that is into the goal. the goal is to make sure folks are healthy and have decent health care so this was an example of administratively making sure we are smoothing out this transition giving people the opportunity to get right with the law but recognizing there are going to be circumstances people try to do the right thing and it may take time. our goal is to make sure that we've got people who can count on the financial security that health-insurance provided you have companies that want to do the right thing and are working with us and we want to make sure

we are working with them as well and that's going to be our attitude about the law generally how do we make it work for the american people and their employers in an optimal sort of way. what was the second part of that? we have a unique system compared to many parts of the world where partly because the historical accident fdr made back in world war ii the health care has been tied to employers and that isn't the case in other developed countries. it has worked for a long time but what is also true is that it is meant for a lot of u.s. companies a greater burden, more

costs relative to their international competitors but it also meant folks that were self-employed or independent contractors were not always getting the same deal as somebody who had a job. it meant they would work for small businesses and had trouble getting decent premiums into different rates so it created a great amount of funding even if in the system. i don't think an employer based system is going to be replaced anytime soon but what the affordable care act does do is give people flexibility and says if i am looking at a big company like ibm or google and i decide i want to start my own company, then i'm not going to be inhibited from starting a new company because i'm worried

about keeping health insurance for myself and my family. if i am a -- and i would like to work on the farm but we can't afford health insurance on our own so i have been working at the county clerks office for the last ten years now maybe i've got the opportunity to no longer work in a different job and instead work on that far a farmd increase the likelihood of economic success for my family. so it's giving more flexibility and opportunity to do was make sense for them and ultimately i think that is going to be good for our economy. but we understood from the start that they were going to be some challenges in terms of transition. you have one system where a whole lot of people didn't have any health insurance whatsoever for a very long period of time and we thought we passed a law

to fix that, we knew there were going to be some bumps and transitions in the process and that is what we are working with all the stakeholders involved to address. a question on the trade partnership. you wanted to know when the partnership would be signed and we discussed it with president obama as it is currently underway in congress, but none of the principles have been set up as the long mandates have been decided and that interests of everyone are known, speed is not of the essence. we need to find a solution. of course if the agreement would

be a good thing otherwise there would be threats. so if we are acting in good faith and if we respect each other and if we want to promote growth as we said a few moments ago, we can go fast. and i think now we will hear a question since last year the foreign investments have been crumbling and we are not benefiting on the world recovery. president obama do you think that he doesn't do much to encourage the american investors in france and you will meet the businessman said and you are a socialist and you think the world of finance is an enemy and attacks both at 75% so how on earth are you going to come its business plan here and what will you tell the head of the union

in france that here in washington he wanted no compensation for the labor cost cuts. >> it's good to know that, you know, reporters have something in common in france and the united states. applause elite [laughter] you know, i think -- which ones would these be? >> i think all of us were traumatized by the crisis of 2007 and 2008. the united states has to take responsibility for its role in the crisis. we made some quick decisions that allowed us to stabilize the

financial markets and "-begin-double-quote process of recovery, but it was painful and it was slow and because of the incredible resilience of the american people in our business as well as i believe some well-founded policies that we were able to begin a growth process tha that was not sustaid for some time and we brought our unemployment rate down. but europe has a different set of challenges because of the zone, because of the nature of the shared currency but not a te completely shared governance and supervisory authorities. that has created some particular difficulties that others have had to deal with that we did not have to deal with as a country with a reserve currency that makes independent choices.

despite that they have made strides over the last few years and france in particular has tough structural reforms that i think are going to help them deemed to be more competitive in the future. i think all of us in the developed world are having to balance the need for growth and competitiveness to be what we say lee in and mean and to make sure that we are maximizing efficiency as well as innovation but also doing it in a way that allows for the benefit of growth to be broad-based and so the workers are benefiting from a sense of security and decent wages and rising incomes and the

ability to retire securely. so each country is going to have different circumstances. the kind of reforms we need in the country revolve around things like investing in infrastructure where we have not made the kind of strides i would like us to see and would boost the growth even faster. gross even faster. we have to invest in skills training, which every country is going to have to do because the businesses will locate where they think they have the most capable highly skilled workers. we still have to do more on the innovation front as innovative as we are i think that we are still under investing in research and development. so america has some inherent strengths that we also have areas where we have to make progress, and i think that françoise would be the same they are in the same position. i would encourage american

companies to look at opportunities for investment in france. i would encourage them even more to look at opportunities to invest money back in the united states and i would welcome any french companies who want to come here to do business. the one of the great things about the relationship which is also part of the reason why i think the transatlantic trade partnership could be valuable is a lot of the growth is in the small and medium-sized businesses and they are the ones who could stand to benefit greatly from the export. they don't have the ability to decide where to invest. they are going to be in their own countries. if we can open up trade opportunities for them because we don't have a lot of lawyers and they don't have have a lotf accountants. they can't move locations and open up different places. if we expand trade opportunities for them and that can mean jobs and growth in france and jobs

and growth here in the united states. so i am hoping we can get this deal which will be a tough negotiation that i a but i am ct that we can actually get it do done. >> france is one of the countries that receives the largest amount of investment. one of the countries in the foreign capital. and i want to strengthen and enhance the attractiveness of france. if you look at the physical investments not just financial investments and transfers between companies, if you look at the genuine investment into tangible investment, job creations, in spite of the crisis in 2013, we maintain the level of investment in france

which bears witness to the confidence in france of the talent and know-how and this is nothing new. there are more than 2,000 american companies that work in france applying -- thousand people in my country. and the united states of america, one of the main investors in france, and i hope the trend will be strengthened in the future. he is perfectly right there is nothing to fear in the french investments here in the united states. there are many companies here in the united states and they create jobs not only in the silicon valley but everywhere in the united states. they come to invest in the u.s. so this is good for the united states and this is good for

france. focusing on the protection and blaming anyone that invests it because it will be useful especially if they can come back so we need to make efforts when it comes to the attractiveness. and i shall invite many of the foreign companies to take that to inactivity council which we call the investing friends council to see what can be done to improve the situation including when it comes to be tax stability. so, this is what is very often referred. but american companies that have operators in france ask them why

they stay, why they invest in france. it is because they find it particularly welcoming. you also asked me a question on a statement that was made by the employer's union on what i call that responsibility factor. this has nothing to do with the declaration of a statement. what is the responsibility packed i'm explaining mostly to the american journalists because the french journalists are familiar with it. the responsibility packed is about mobilizing the entire country to reach one goal. barack obama mentioned the american economy following the crisis. there comes a point when after no deal you have to be stronger than you were before the ordeal committee for the crisis. you need to be up to mobilize

more strength. you need to be able to make sure that the economy focuses not on what it was before, but this is precisely what is at the very root of this recovery in the american economy. companies mobilized their workers to go ahead and this is precisely the responsibility packed that we have mobilized the labor markets, and updated via vocational training and there is a list of things that we have done and are doing but there's other things we can do if we want to strengthen the competitive cost and streamline the regulations, create stability but everyone the state is going to make an effort and

there are tax breaks that have already been warranted and we also need to look up the fiscal policies to have a sufficient room for maneuver but the commitments made to be shared by companies and businesses to create jobs and improve the training to try to go to the outsourcing of activities to promote investment and i hope that discussions move along quickly between the unions and employee unions because this is a prerequisite for confidence and trust and a true of the national relations and the economy.

[inaudible conversations] president obama and the first lady will honor the president with an official state dinner at the white house. we plan to bring you live coverage of the arrival of one with the official toast at 6:30 eastern on c-span2. the senate is any recess further party lunches and will gavel into 2:15 eastern and resume work on a bill to repeal a 1% reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment for military pensions. earlier today the senate's war isworein their newest member.

the house working on a bill that changes how the consumer financial protection bureau is funded and run within the rules for debating the bill is a provision that allows for the debate on the debt ceiling legislation to be brought up later today. the vote is expected tonight. the debt limit will be reached by february 27 if no action is taken. you can watch the house on c-span. yesterday a former israeli ambassador to the u.s. spoke about the future of the middle east and the perception that the u.s. is recoiling from the region. during the remarks at the atlanta council, michaeatlantico discussed the israeli-palestinian peace talks, the fallout from the arab spring and what is next for the policy in the region. we are going to show you as much of his remarks as we can until the senate gavel's backing this afternoon at 2:15 eastern.

>> it's a great pleasure to welcome you all this afternoon to the atlantic council. i'm the president and ceo. this event marks the beginning of an important new initiative at the capitol, the introduction and the first public event around the first ambassador in residence to the brent scowcroft center on international security of the council. there are a lot of reasons why the council was delighted to have been able to bring on board a former ambassador to the u.s. michael "after words" starting february 1, so we are getting him here just shortly after he began at the atlantic council. at the press release we circulated in january i said the

following. ambassador "after words" brings to the council the powerful mixture of the top historians knowledge, the highest level diplomatic experience and the best-selling skills. and i think that you will see a taste of all of that in his opening comments in the q-and-a today. he is a person who not only knows how about diplomacy is done and sometimes how about diplomacy should be done. but in general in trying to solve some of the problems in the middle east. but also the historical context more richly than any ambassador that i've ever known. we face a crucial moment in the middle east and as i think you will hear today, he's a sometimes provocative out-of-the-box thinker. during his year in the council, the ambassador will address the topics concerning america's future role in the middle east

along with cutting-edge research on the relationship with other partners. first and foremost join me in welcoming the ambassador. ' second, before i turn over the podium, join me in joining the out-of-the-box thinkers for the newest center at the atlantic council on the america's center. it was also her idea to pioneer the idea of the ambassador into the residence of the council, and she has supported two of them and michael "after words" at the scowcroft center. she couldn't be here today but she sends her greetings. finally thanks to the director of the center to support the ambassador's work during his time with us. to call attention to all of

them, we have ambassadors, senior officials in the u.s. government, officials from the embassies around town. the initial questions and then turned to the audience. [applause] >> the credibility to solve all of the middle east diplomatic problems my mother would have done that to try to give me the credit. good afternoon everybody, thanks for coming out and thanks to the brent scowcroft center on the national security and the atlantic council and i'm the zaire to be a part of your extraordinary order organizati organization. to be comparable adrian is a visionary and outstanding human

being. and my former colleague welcome into the distinguished diplomatic community. i'm going to start with a little bit of history. some of you may know this. the middle east as a geostrategic concept was an american intervention. it was claimed in september of 02. he was a former naval officer of the navy, naval strategist. major concern was moving warships and guarding the international scene ways guaranteeing access to trade. now those days, trade expanded from the near east of greece and the balkans to the far east of japan, china and en route it passed through the canal into

the arabian peninsula and the areas between the near and far east. and it's most characteristic of the area from the perspective of the geostrategic strategist was its most almost total absence of strategic significance. the only strategic value of the middle east plead in its location. it was an area that one have to cross while going from one area of importance to another area of importance and it would take another decade before the british navy realized the affordability and the abundance of middle east oil decided to convert their entire fleet from coal to oil. it took another 40 years to the height of world war ii before the american navy began to look

to quench its thirst for energy. america's growing postwar dependence on middle eastern oil coincided in the collapse of the british and french empires in the middle east a process by which america placed its colonial powers to place on a very short period of time and you can trace it from the enunciation of the doctrine of 1947 to the crisis of 1956, and it also coincided with the advent of the cold war in the middle east. just as britain and france back in the 1850s to stave off the russian encroachment into the middle east and so the united states a century later to prevent soviet encroachment in the middle east. but the lines on the cold war were never completely drawn.

there were the pro- american traditional monarchies and this was the radical state of egypt, iraq, yemen and libya but any given time but monarchies were also sometimes at heads with jordan and the radicals themselves were bidder rivalries. the conflict cut across the lines though in here e. it was a proxy war in the united states and soviet union supporting the soviet union and supporting the arab side and it was against a pro- american jordan and pro- american saudi arabia. and yet it was the rub israeli war that enabled the secretary of state henry kissinger with singular vision and drive to lay the foundations that we could

today call in which respect call americana and the keystone to the efforts was egypt. it was from the soviets to the americans spear the rapid decline of the soviet union as a serious challenge to the hegemony in the middle east. it officially began in the 1979 egypt and israel and established a precedent for the peace treaty between israel and jordan as well as the 1993 accord between israel and the palestine liberation organization and also set the peace conference is whether iconferenceswhether it n apple list -- and apple -- "after words." even the pro- soviet states like

serious had hopes to over 30 visits by the secretary of state christopher in the 1990s. and as the soviet union disintegrated, so did its military presence in the middle east. remember that the great blue water feet in 1973 that went from eyeball to eyeball on the american fleet? that virtually disappeared and between this fleet in the persian gulf, the american military power went virtually unchallenged with the exception of the ubiquitous rifle american arms gradually replaced the soviet arms throughout the middle east and american investments predominated. paradoxically, though the tax americana ushered in decades of uninterrupted american influence in the middle east isn't very much of an attack but it also

inoculated decades of american military conflict in the middle east something of what you can call a 30 year war beginning in 1979 with a takeover of the u.s. embassy in tehran and it continued with the american intervention in lebanon and the 1980s and the ronald reagan administration armed conflict with both libya and iran, the terrorist attacks in the american targets, kidnapping of the american nationals in execution of the american missile attacks in iraq and sudan and the proxy war in afghanistan followed by the real war in afghanistan which was on the route to becoming america's longest conflict in the region after the barbary war of the 18th and early 19th century. ..

since 9/11, middle eastern terrorists have tried to carry out some 60 major terrorist attacks on american soil, one of them not far from here at the café milano. and, of course, it was 9/11 itself which as a military historian you could make a case, could be the most effective in terms of its cost benefits, most effective military operation in modern military history. with little training and four hijacked planes, 19 terrorists from the east succeed in killing

3000 civilians, dragging america into two wars that cost the united states well over 10,000 dead and over a trillion dollars, and left the american people very where we. cost-benefit. a case could also be made for citing 9/11 as the high water mark of the pax americana. a year later, a year later president bush created the quartet, the united states, the u.n., russia and the european union, which effectively ended america's 30 year monopoly over middle east peacemaking. indeed, america's repeated inability to achieve piece between israel and the palestinians, first under bush and laid under the obama administration, was both a symptom and a cause of the waning of the pax americana. the other milestone in the

deterioration of america's preeminence in this region are well known. it begins with a rather ignominious retreat from iraq, the looming withdrawal from afghanistan, the reluctance to aid syrian rebels, the inability thus far to remove chemical weapons from syria, about 94% of those weapons remain in place. zigzagging of american policy towards egypt hastening and then celebrate the downfall of mubarak, a close a friend -- a close american friend of 30 years. to proceed in the region embrace of morsi and egyptian brotherhood followed by recoil from lcc and the military elite. the eagerness of the obama administration to reach a negotiated solution to the iranian nuclear issue, the great consternation of israel and other pro-american governments in the region. the effects of sequestration on

america's ability to project power in the middle east, the withdrawal of the uss truman from the area, the coldest towards trish alice such as our rain and the willingness to show distance with saudi arabia all the while floating america's newfound independence from middle east oil sources. the refusal to take a leading role in the toppling of coffee in libya or in repelling al-qaeda's libyan allies. the fading of president obama's intensely close relationship with turkish prime minister erdogan. i could go on. i won't but i will say that like in nature, geopolitics of boards a document middle east power vacuum has left, left by america's wacom has been filled by other countries. now, the cornerstone of the pax

americana, though it is widely thought to be the u.s.-israel relationship, something i've had some familiarity with, but i will tell you that the cornerstone of the pax americana was the u.s.-egyptian relationship. and that egypt has now in these times been hosting military delegations from the russians. the chinese delegations has also been circulating around the middle east. the french have stepped up to what they see as a vacant home plate in the middle east. now, impressions and middle east are cardinal come and the people, peoples of the region, if we were to poll them, they will not agree on anything, but i'm willing to wager that if you were to ask sunnis, shiites, iranians, israelis, druze, they would overwhelmingly agree with the proposition that american power, america's power in the middle east is on the wane and that the age of american preeminence is over.

the house that henry build is tottering. but can we distinguish them between an impression and a reality? is america's fun in the middle east -- son in the middle east settling? the answer has to be far more nuanced. the key to the future is technology. i apologize, but it's true, and with all due respect to russia, china and france, american technology remains regnant throughout the middle east. rush against an couple old destroyers, but russia's naval presence fails to that of the united states still. secretary of state gary, is mediating between the israelis and the palestinians. and taking a diplomatically -- syria and iran. keeping in mind that the pax americana was always heavy on americana and light on pax,

little has changed in the middle east except for the fact that today more middle easterners are killing more of each other, and killing fewer americans. in fact with fewer boots on the ground, or even ships at sea, the u.s. is killing numbers of middle easterners by remote means, as you know. and for all of their war weariness it would be a big mistake i believe for any party in the middle east to target americans. in short, it is surely premature to speak of it post a pax americana in the middle east, but it is not too early i think to speak of a post-middle east america. distinguish between the two. an america that will seek to streamline its commitments in the region to revisit old alliances while seeking the ones, and america that will balk

at acting as the middle east exclusive or even primary lease men and firemen. that much has changed. but here, too, we may have to wait. that judgment also may prove premature. those of us from a certain generation, fred, they remember 1975 and the american withdrawal from vietnam, and the iconic image of those helicopters being pushed off into the sea. back in 1975, america could withdraw its forces in vietnam and be pretty confident that the vietcong weren't going to follow americans down to l. street in washington, d.c. there's a sense, i encountered americans can go home from middle east, turn its back on the middle east, give it away from the middle east. and that belief may prove illusory because the middle east is not like vietnam. and the middle east and follow

america here. and i do not believe that disengagement entirely is possible. pax americana, okay? >> finished? thank you. [applause] >> wonderful introductory remarks. a lot of neat to dig into, and follow up on. i will come back to post tax americana and post-middle east america, and come back to that. before i do that, however, as much as you've gone into history in your remarks, some people in the audience might not know that you've gone even further back in history of the united states, the middle east, going back to

1776. and you provide an overview in your most recent book, "power, faith, and fantasy: america in the middle east from 1776 to the present." i wonder if you can go into that in sort of a cliff notes version here. >> cliffsnotes would be 200 pages. >> cliffsnotes, but this comparative analysis between middle east and the founding of the united states and how the u.s. development has influenced the middle east development, and at some point i think we will also get into what that has to do with the civil war and the statue of liberty come but let's start with the overview. >> the overview is, american middle east has had profound impacts in shaping one another. the middle east was fundamentally involved in the founding of the american

constitution. i knew that would get you. it's actually very simple. i mentioned the barbary wars. the barbary wars were america's first foreign wars, the first wars america fought outside the shores against the pirates of what today are libya, tunisia, morocco. america didn't have a need and they could make a navy unless they had a central government to collect taxes to make the navy. and so the question how to fight the barbary pirates became integral to the debate of whether not how they had a constitution. go into the constitution, every state the barbary wars where there page after page, extraordinary. we don't -- we lose our foreign trade. the middle east fired the imaginations of american authors like herman melville, mark twain, freedom fighters like frederick douglass, john f. kennedy. huge influence, cultural and

economic influence well before the advent of middle eastern o oil. in fact, during the 19th century america was the main exporter of oil to the middle east, mostly in the form of kerosene. but the united states also had a no less transformative impact on the middle east, and mostly not through economics, not the oil but education. america's built the university of beirut, built the american university of cairo, and universities in turkey through which american educators and parties american ideals and perhaps the most intellectual i did with the idea of nationalism and independence. and those ideas percolated through educated classes first through many of middle eastern christians, then into the military, and to understand there is a direct link between america's educational involvement in the middle east and the arab nationalist ideas.

the arab awakening, and to use -- and the struggle our arab state independence throughout the course of the 20th century. mass tourism, not arisen which has a huge impact on the arab-israeli situation in the 1967 hours and was looking to dig ourselves out of it. american -- much can be traced back to america's involvement in the middle east, and i believe it is underappreciated. >> we had a passing conversation before regaining your, and because i'm a great lover of historical anecdotes, you really have to share two of them with his audience if you would. first of all, the impact of the civil war on the history of egypt. and then after that perhaps the history of egypt impact on the statue of liberty. >> well, at the risk of sounding deducted from middle east would

not look like the middle east today if it were not for the american civil war. why? the north lockheed the south and southern cotton which is vital to the economy for britain and france was cut off and the only other place in the world that had cotton of a similar quality was egypt. so the price of egyptian cotton went up 800 fold. egyptian make a lot of money. they started to build a thing called the suez canal. in 1869 southern cotton came back and the egyptian economy went bankrupt. they went into the readers and that led to the british occupation of egypt in 1882 -- arrears. which ended in 1956 with the suez crisis. nasser emerged as the great here of the suez crisis, so much so that nine years later he tries to take an issue in the 1967 war and we're still as i said earlier even with the outcome of that war, the final disposition of the west bank, gaza, jerusalem, all this can be

traced back of course to the civil war. the parallel to that has to do with the military delegation that was sent by tecumseh sherman of civil war fame who was chief of the u.s. military in the late 1860s. egypt want to modernize its armies to break away from the ottoman empire so they turn to the united states, a nice neutral power back then, and tecumseh sherman said a group of his buddies, some of them have been former federal -- confederate officers to egypt. they went to egypt and the modernize the egyptian army. the same time they created schools and in schools they imported american ideals, nationalism, patriotism, democracy to egyptian officers. and it's not by accident that the people believe the first great revolt against the british were the egyptian military. they are still doing it today. i will probably disturb people by saying you can trace it back

to american involvement in the late 1860s in egypt. talk about reductionism. but egypt went bankrupt because of the return of southern cotton. they had planned to not only opened the suez canal but to put a beautiful statue at its entrance. and the statue showed a failed arab woman holding a torch. you can see the designs for it. they took on a brilliant french sculptor to do this, and then they ran out of money. and he still have the design so he was able to sell it to some french man who gave it to the united states, and they brought it to new york to an island at the entrance to new york harbor, but they didn't have anybody to put it together because it was built in cam in many parts. so he remembered all these american engineers, former civil war officers who met in egypt and he brought them back from egypt to put together the statue of liberty.

so the statue of liberty's concept and its construction were both related to america's involvement in the middle east. >> i just want to give you, i just wanted to give you a little bit of taste of what we've opened up the atlantic council to. [laughter] >> and now that i'm not ambassador i can talk about my own boat. it's available. is fabulous. >> i'm sure the amazon numbers are going up even as we speak. i wouldn't mind fast boarding a little bit now to your comment on post middle east america. and let's -- i have a couple of questions, and i'll go to the audience and maybe we'll go back and forth between the audience and myself a little bit. but you talked some about energy, but perhaps you could go all bit more deeply. the role of oil and energy in the picture that you're painting of pax americana in the middle

east, but also now the impact or potential impact as you see it of the u.s. energy revolution. as you said, the u.s. was exporting to the region, now importing from the region. we are now facing another change in terms of our energy relationship with the region, and i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you think this might influence the issues you're talking about? >> look back at the history of the presidential doctrines about the middle east, and a percentage of all presidential doctrines, since truman, have to do with the middle east. the carter doctrine had to do with protecting the free flow of energy, oil, from the middle east. specifically from the persian gulf region. whether it be from the threat of soviet encroachment, later from iran, and even some of america's military engagements. people forget the flagging

operations at the latter part of the reagan administration where american warships were actually firing on the iranian boats and even on iranian coastal installations. forgotten. this have to do with protecting american energy sources. but over the course of the subsequent decades, you can trace it, the percentage of america's oil consumption that was imported from the middle east decreased. i know that by the time it came on my job in 2009 as ambassador it was down to about 11%, very small. today it is almost negligible. and the notion that america might have to use force to protect the free flow of energy out of the persian gulf area today would be a far more remote assumption than it would be in the 1970s and 1980s. having said all that, that doesn't mean that the middle eastern energy, oil, is not

final to other countries in the middle east, including a country like china, increasingly. and that america's economy is inexplicably tied up with that of china. so albeit indirectly, and the american economy remains a deeply attached to middle eastern oil. even though they are not importing. first step, a strategic issue but it's certainly a financial, a supreme financial interest. >> so you don't see the energy boom in the united states is going to significantly shift the u.s. approach to the middle east? >> i am afraid it won't shifted, a strategic interest more of a financial interest. >> president obama in his state of the union when talking about the middle east didn't talk much about the transitions that we

were all focused on before the arab awakening. talk more about nuclear iran, palestinian piece negotiations and, of course, syria. what is your view of how policy has evolved during the obama administration? and do you see an underlying strategy behind this shift, or how would you explain what we are watching? >> i think the obama administration came out of the gate in 2009 with a very robust and highly specific outreach to the middle east. if you look back at the cairo speech of june 2009 which in many ways was the foundational document for the obama administration's outrage, it was perhaps the most sui generis document in the annals of american foreign policy. is the only instance that i know in which the president of the united states addressed the

adherents of a faith. can't imagine the present getting up in addressing the world methodists or even going to rome and addressing the world's catholics, but he went to cairo and did an address to the muslim world. that in itself was highly unusual. addressing a muslim world and not addressing the citizens of muslim states i think inadvertently conformed to an islamist notion of states being illegitimate, and there's only one truly legitimate state which is the universal muslim state. and that outreach in retrospect has proved less than successful. and you don't see many echoes of it in more recent statements by the president and by his administration. events in the middle east have simply outstripped the ability of just about anybody to formulate a cookie-cutter, one

policy fits all situation. you can't. the events have transpired so rapidly and so radically in the middle east, and so differently, whether it be egypt or syria or bahrain. we talked about libya. i would challenge just about anybody to try to come up with a single policy that's going to address all of these. having said that you could, criticized the aspects of benghazi whether syria or egypt. in retrospect, in terms of america's image in the middle east, they're probably should've been a deeper breath taken before pressing for mubarak's removal. do it anymore graduate. -- in a more gradual way. america has been involved in syria in an earlier stage perhaps jihadists imprint would've been preempted, would have been lessened.

but all that is what they call, not in the middle east but in the united states, monday morning quarterbacking. >> well, let's do -- is monday and we are looking to saturday. so let's look actually ahead. what's at stake, and then after this question i will turn to the audience and take a put people in the audience have on their minds. what's at stake in the negotiations with iran for the region, for the united states, for israel? and i know that's a big, broad question. i will let you narrow it down, but i'm just wondering from your standpoint, and with a view, your historical view of what's at stake in these talks. >> everything. everything. it's the future of the middle east. there is -- are we now at, as

tectonic shifts point where, again, whether any post pax americana mode, is there, is negotiations implicitly recognized a certain hegemonic role for iran in the region? and what would that hegemonic role look like from an israeli perspective, from the perspective of most gulf countries, and today there is a greater conference of interest between israel and his gulf countries that anytime in the last six decades, we agree on the egypt or agree on the piece process, on the fundamentals of the piece process. most of all israel and the gulf a great on the iranian threat that in a band that maintains not a nuclear weapon that the ability to make a nuclear weapon

in very short period of time, presents an unsustainable threat to the region. and that it's a threat that is multifaceted. it's not just a threat of iran being able to put a nuclear warhead atop one of the missiles it has that could hit any capital in the region or any city. and i just watched a video clip of the iranians put out, what they would do if they were threatened by israel and other countries, and they show iranian that this issue but striking american allies throughout the region, very unequivocal about this. that is the least of the threats. the bigger threatscome in the form of providing nuclear umbrellas to terrorist organizations that could either attack israel or other pro-american countries in the region with relative impunity because those same leaderships will then have to think of themselves, if we strike back at hezbollah, for example, will but

then precipitate an iranian breakout? it becomes a huge part of their calculus and an immense break on latitude. but beyond that, terrorists could get access to nuclear abilities and you don't have to worry about rockets. you have to worry about nuclear ordnance being delivered through ship containers. or through trucks. it's an entirely different magnitude of the threat. so that's what's at stake for israel and other countries in the region. and the big litmus is going to come at the end of his six-month negotiating period where the united states, which is a big country far away from the middle east, not threatening national annihilatannihilat ion by the iranians which has immense capabilities that nobody in the region had, israel does not have

aircraft carriers by the way, or b-2 bombers, if the united states can strike agreement with the iranians, israel and the gulf countries are going to have to ask themselves, is this something we can live with? america may be able to live with it. the big question is, our countries in the region going to be able to live without? it's going to be a very tough decision. >> can you go through to parts of that decision. first of all, from the israeli standpoint what israel will have to measure if things go forward in this direction with the u.s., which could not just be a nuclear deal of some sort but a normalization of relations, whatever that means. so from an israeli standpoint. and then interestingly one of the things we're going to atlantic council is work on the relationship between israel and regional countries. how has this shifted already the

relationship between israel and the gulf? and with all the berries to closer relations which we know about, and those actually be removed, an it could one have a step change in those relations? >> one would hope so. again, the influence of those interests are very conflict today. more so than at anytime in the past. whether that confluence translates into open, more open sort of relationship remains to be seen. israel has had relations of one type or another with several gulf states. most of them are quietly pursued, but with other gulf states it's been a much colder distance, and a great example is saudi arabia. where there really hasn't been no formal contact. and it's something that i think would be the interests of all of these countries to pursue, and hope they can happen in the future.