to conference is scheduled for 5:30 eastern today. see live coverage right here on c-span2, and see the house this afternoon when they gavel in on c-span. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. guide us, great god for we are pilgrims in this land. we're weak but you're mighty. guide us with your powerful hands. transform our memory. so that whenever we encounter

challenges. we will call how you have blessed us in the past today, give our lawmakers insight to discern truth from untruth, the high from the low and the enduring from the transient. may they discern truth through the illumination of your sacred word. may they know the high from the low through your holy spirit's guidance. and may they distinguish the enduring from the transient by numbering their days and becoming more aware of life's brevity. strong deliverer, continue

to be a shield for america. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this week promises to be a busy one. just across the street, an important obamacare case will be argued before the supreme court and tomorrow here in the capitol, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu will address a joint session of congress. it's an important speech that comes at a very important time. iran's long-standing determination to develop nuclear capabilities poses a threat to israel america and the world and it's a threat netanyahu is singularly capable of explaining at such a critical moment in u.s.-israeli relations. meanwhile, the new senate will continue to pursue good ideas for the middle class on the floor and in committee both this week and in the weeks to come. we expect to see more bipartisan action on behalf of the american people on a range of issues, from human trafficking to the

nlrb. for instance, we'll offer senators a chance to stand tall for basic fairness in the workplace by overturning the administration's ambush rule that weeks to weaken workers' rights and we'll keep up the fight for sensible bipartisan ideas like the keystone jobs bill. this positive approach stands in stark contrast to the partisan posture we have seen from our friends on the other side of the aisle. the president's veto of the bipartisan keystone bill represents a victory for partisanship and for powerful special interests. the president's veto of the bipartisan keystone bill represents a defeat for jobs, for infrastructure and the middle class. that's why congress needs to try and overturn it. we had hoped to have that vote tomorrow but for some reason -- now listen to this, mr. president -- democrats are actually filibustering that vote. it takes 67 votes to overturn a

veto more than the 60 required to overcome a filibuster, so there is no reason for a filibuster other than to delay and cause gridlock simply for its sown sake. it's certainly disappointing but the new congress won't be deterred from fighting for jobs and the middle class. we'll keep fighting for this good idea and we'll keep fighting for other good ideas. we'll also keep up our fight to fund the department of homeland security. the american people watched democrats filibuster homeland security funding for weeks. on friday, they watched democrats, including many who implied they would actually do something about the president's overreach filibuster a commonsense bill from senator collins, and now americans are learning that democrats might even try and prevent the senate and house of representatives from reconciling their bills to get the department funded. it just doesn't make any sense especially when you consider the words of the feinstein -- of the

minority leader himself. he said that going to conference in the senate has been the custom in the senate for 235 years. at 5:30, we'll have a vote to do just that. we invite the minority leader and his party to join us in supporting this effort to go to conference. it's interesting to see the distance between rhetoric and reality with some of our good friends on the other side. not just on conferencing bills not just on addressing the president's overreach but also with the use of the filibuster itself. some of the folks who are now filibustering simply for the sake of delaying and causing gridlock are the same folks who used to denounce the use of the filibuster. it's interesting to see that they really weren't very serious. the truth is a better way is possible for our colleagues. i would invite our democratic friends to drop all the nist and drop all the gridlock, join

republicans in advancing a positive agenda for the american people instead. the presidingthe president pro tempore: under the previous order the leadership is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the house message to the -- to accompany h.r. 240 which the clerk will report. mr. mcconnell: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. after reporting. go ahead. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 240 an act making appropriation for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30 2015, and for other purposes. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president our strongest and most loyal ally in the middle east faces a growing existential threat under the specter of a nuclear iran. i am deeply troubled that our president's solution won't work. rather than enforcing fortune tiff measures that would stem iran's nuclear process this administration has opted for a policy of conciliation that does nothing to curb this growing threat all the while the threat to israel grows stronger every day. now more than ever, the congress and the american people must stand with our israeli allies to ensure the safety and security not only of our two nations but the middle east as a whole. far from being a political stunt, the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's speech to a joint session of congress provides our nation with a vital opportunity to demonstrate our unyielding

resolve to stand with israel and oppose iran's development of nuclear weapons. to demonstrate our solidarity with israel, congress should compliment the prime minister's diseas with the threat of sanctions that properly secure both of our countries against the iranian threat. we must achieve three commonsense objectives. first, we must prevent iran from developing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. second, we should reaffirm that iran does not have an inherent right to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. third, we must seek to reverse the development of iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure and bring iran into compliance with all united states security council resolutions. president obama has failed to realize that iran poses a serious threat to the west and

our response to that threat must be equally serious. prime minister netanyahu understands the precariousness of the current situation and he is doing his best to help us here in the united states understand. as the prime minister stated -- quote -- "i am going to the united states not because i seek a confrontation with the president, but because i must you fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country" -- unquote. the prime minister has good reason to be concerned according to the heritage foundation, since the obama administration began to relax sanctions after an interim agreement was implemented, the iranian economy grew by an estimated 4.6% in the first quarter of iran's calendar year. the first time it has grown after shrinking for the last two years under sanctions. as we lose leverage by relaxing sanctions we must not forget the

most likely reason iran agreed to negotiations in the first place was economic restrictions. when the iran -- iranian president was reported to have said after the joint plan of action that the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop, should we curtail our efforts in the one area that appears to give iran pause? times such as these require strength of purpose which have is why we should clearly out a series of sanctions that will be imposed on iran if negotiations fail. we should provide for short but reasonable periods of time for congress and therefore the american people to consider if the obama administration has succeeded in accomplishing the three objectives necessary to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. tomorrow the president and and the congress will hear from prime minister netanyahu.

in his message believe he will -- i believe he will tell us how we can together confront the growing iranian threat. this is the time to rally as one nation with one of our strongest allies to ensure the safe and secure world. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. tomorrow we will gather in the house chamber to listen to an address from israeli prime

minister minister nint -- binyamin netanyahu. i eagerly await his speech. it is expected he will paint a very have i individual and real vivid and real picture that iran poses. this threat seems of little concern to the administration. so little in fact that the president almost immediately dismissed the idea of meeting with prime minister netanyahu while he is in washington. this is disappointing to say the least. instead of taking the opportunity to join with us to reaffirm our support for the state of israel, the administration has chosen to send the wrong message to our strongest ally in the region. unfortunately, this has become a pattern. while the administration's official policy is being supportive of israel, actions speed louder than -- speak louder than words and

regrettably this administration's actions are often too quiet. this hasn't always been the case. during his first term president obama fought prin efforts to de -- palestinian efforts to delegitimize israel. he made sure such tactics were counterproductive to the peace process and palestinians would put their relationship with us in jeopardy if they sought action against israel at the international criminal court. many israelis are rightfully concerned that we won't have their backs in april when the palestinian authority becomes a full member of the international criminal court. i raised this issue with secretary kerry during an appropriations committee hearing last week reminding him that the law explicitly prohibits funding for the palestinian authority if they initiated or actively supported an international

investigation into alleged israeli war crimes. the secretary said that the palestinian authorities actions amounted to a terrible exercise in judgment that stopped short of saying they had violated the law in a way that triggers a cutoff of aid. three-quarters of this body, republicans and democrats alike don't see it that way. we see the israeli people a strong bipartisan message of support when we called on secretary kerry to suspend economic aid while the state department reviews the palestinian authority's actions. according to secretary kerry's response at the hearing the state department will wait to see what the palestinians do after the first of april before making a decision on economic aid. by then it might be too late. this is exactly why the people of israel are uneasy with the ongoing negotiations.

the same administration that once spoke out forcefully against these types of tactics now plays a game of wait and see with the palestinians. somehow expecting them to be an honest partner this time around. israel's lack of confidence in the administration's support is certainly underrable. let's not -- understandable. let's not forget the same administration employs high-level officials who publicly disrespect our ally including at least one willing to use derogatory language to call prime minister netanyahu names during a media interview. every time this happens the administration carries on like these breaches of administrative protocol were irrelevant to relations. l administration sees these actions as having no bearings on the relations between the two heads of state.

yet if prime minister netanyahu dares to speak up the administration labels israel a problem child. case in point the president's national security advisor calling this upcoming address from prime minister netanyahu destructive of the fabric of the relationship. accepting the invitation from the speaker of the house to address congress on the severity of the nuclear threat posed by the regime in tehran is only destructive for u.s.-israeli relations in the president's eyes because he wants to keep congress in the dark about the ongoing negotiations. this administration seems intent on doing just that. not content with the message the prime minister is likely to deliver, the administration has moved from abstaining to actively trying to subvert his address to congress. according to the associated press, the obama administration is actively considering ways to undermine the prime minister's visit. why is that?

could it be that the prime minister sees the flaws of any agreement the paris talks will yield and does the administration want to keep this from congress? there is a toxic stand on delay tactics? it is apparent that the obama administration is pursuing a weaker deal with iran that will allow the country to continue its illicit nuclear program. this agreement has become a must-win for president obama. so he's willing to concede key requirements that congress and members of his administration previously outlined in order to get the iranians to sign on the dotted line. any agreement will be a victory to the obama administration's eyes. our long-standing policy that the iranian regime must abandon its nuclear ambitions is itself being abandoned. this former secretary of state henry kissinger noted in his

recent testimony to the armed services committee the paris talks have long moved from eliminated iran's ability to enriched uranium to limiting and monitoring a smawrm -- smaller program that would be unable to produce material for a warhead in less than a year's time. this is a far cry from the starting point secretary kerry once argued when he said -- and i quote -- "no deal is better than a bad deal. " with iran. now he seems to be moving the goal post from dismantling a nuclear program with iran to containment. that is not what the president said these talks would accomplish. that is not what the resolutions intended to prevent and it is certainly not something this congress should allow to happen without our say. nothing short of full elimination of iran's nuclear program can honestly be considered a victory. if these talks fail to produce

an agreement that requires that of iran, congress must have the authority to reject it. with that, i is yield the floor. perhaps i notice the absence of a quorum. one of the two. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president just in an hour or so, hour and a half, two hours anyway quickly the senate will shortly vote on the house request to go to conference with the important homeland security appropriations bill. this push by house republicans to go to conference is the very definition of an exercise in futility. i've been very clear for days now that we will not go to conference. the majority knows that. the speaker of the house knows that. senate democrats will not support going to conference because it would be just totally

counterproductive. house republicans have no intention of using that conference to craft legislation or -- that will pass houses in congress. in so doing they would make sure we have a shutdown of the homeland security. that would be really bad for the country. house republicans want to take a bill they negotiated, a bill that was written by house and senate republicans and democrats last december. it was bipartisan, bicameral and now they want to turn it into something that cannot pass. that won't happen. we will not be a party to yet another charade by house republicans because it would inevitably shut down the department of homeland security and put our nation at risk, and that's an understatement. the senate should reaffirm our bipartisan vote last friday for a clean bill preventing a shutdown. we had 68 votes. we can do it again. we should do it again. that will happen at 5:30 this

afternoon. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i send that cloture to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke he invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to insist upon the

senate amendment agree to the request by the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to h.r. 240 signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the signatures be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the monk under the provisions of rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you madam president. madam president, during the 2012 presidential campaign, president obama made a claim and the claim was, he said i have israel's back. well, this week, president obama and his administration are turning their back on israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. and they're doing it during the prime minister's visit here to washington. while the prime minister won't have a meeting at the white house, he will have a very supportive audience right here on capitol hill. the prime minister will receive a warm welcome from members of congress who are concerned about israel's security and the value of this very important relationship.

in his speech to congress tomorrow the prime minister's going to address the ongoing negotiations with iran over illicit nuclear programs. if president obama's past negotiations with our adversaries are any guide israel is right to be apprehensive. the obama administration started negotiating with iran more than five years ago. a series of increasingly tough sanctions have damaged the iranian economy and have finally convinced them to discuss their nuclear program seriously. in 2013, the president announced his six-month interim agreement. the united states would suspend enforcement of some of the sanctions that have brought iran to the table. in exchange, the iranians would freeze and reverse specific elements of their nuclear program. this was supposed to provide time for the final agreement to be negotiated within a year. that six-month interim agreement has now extended to 17 months.

president obama mishandled these negotiations from the very beginning by conceding iran's right to enrich uranium. in my opinion, the president is compounding the problem as he chases a comprehensive agreement to maybe justify his nobel peace prize. information has leaked out occasionally about the negotiations. each time there seems to be another point on which the united states has given in to the iranian position. iran has gotten about $10 billion in much-needed hard currency since signing the interim agreement. it's gotten additional income from the suspension of other sanctions. we have no way to stop iran from using this money to support terrorists around the world or to prop up bashar assad in syria. and what i heard along with a number of other senators who went to saudi arabia a little over a month ago to meet with

some of the free syrian army, the freedom fighters from syria who had come down to saudi arabia to meet with us, they said that's israel what iran is doing with some of the money gained from the relief of sanctions. they are using it to prop up assad and also to fund hezbollah and hamas. the obama administration has said its goal is to keep iran one year away from being able to construct a nuclear weapon. that's the same level the administration said iran was at in 2013 when sanctions were still fully in force. apparently the obama administration is aiming for a final deal that suspends sanctions on iran and does not constrain its nuclear program any more than it was before the interim agreement. let me be clear. if the obama administration allows iran to continue with its illicit nuclear program the global community the global community will be less safe,

less stable and less secure. any treaty that we sign with iran must be accountable and forcible and verifiable. so far it doesn't appear to me that the obama administration is negotiating a deal that would meet that standard. the administration has also undermined israeli security in other areas as well, specifically when it comes to middle east peace negotiations with the palestinians. the u.s. law prohibits sending any money to international organizations that admit the palestinians as a state. the idea was to support the peace talks by letting the two sides work out their differences without others putting the thumb on the scale. so it was a problem when the palestinians sought and received recognition as a full member state in the united nations group unesco. this happened in 2012.

that's the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization. palestinians' actions triggered the law and that stopped u.s. money going to unesco. in every budget request since president obama has tried to restore the money in spite of the law. this would excuse the palestinians and the u.n. from the consequences of their actions. it sends a signal that the united states does not in fact, have israel's back. you know, vice president biden said don't tell me what you value. show me your budget and i'll tell you what you value. by that standard, it's obvious that president obama does not value supporting israel in the middle east peace negotiations. national security advisor susan rice said just last week that prime minister netanyahu's visit is too partisan and i quote destructive of the fabric of the

relationship israel has with the united states. the members of congress disagree. we welcome the prime minister. we are eager to show our support, and republicans will continue to push for additional sanctions to keep the pressure on iran. we intend to do all that we can to ensure that the vital alliance between the united states and israel remains strong. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum calls this afternoon be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you madam president. i yield the floor and suggest suggest. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: madam president last week i came to the floor to launch what i have called "waste of the week. requestings-- i'll put my prop up here. waste of the peek is designed to provide awareness in simple ways to our colleagues here how we can look at government spending that is really -- that really doesn't sphak stack up in terms of something that is needed. perhaps it was needed at one particular time or perhaps it is

something that taxpayers shouldn't be paying for in the first place. i will like to raise awarps, and i'm going do that each week. this is my second week. and this evening i would like to present the second waste of the week. as you recall, madam chair wornlings i think you were in the chair chair last week, we talked about the $6 billion that could be saved if we simply fixed a program that was duplicating checks to taxpayers that only qualified for payments from one of those programs, not both. social security disability, if you're disabled and can't work, you can qualify for social security disability. unemployment insurance is you can work but you're not able to find a job. you can qualify for unemployment insurance. but you can't get both. you either can work or you can't work but here are two federal programs and shockingly -- shockingly -- those programs cost the taxpayers $6 billion.

$6 billion and we're going to start totaling that up. well, this is the second week of "waste of the week." and i'd like to talk about diewmquationduplicationin government. while it is a little harder to put a specific fiscal number on the savings clearly we can save the taxpayers money and start this process even in small ways of reducing our debt and deficit and not load being all this on our children and grandchildren. we've tried the big stuff for years, and i was directly engaged as much as i possibly could the last four years all to be rejected by the president. so let's at least look at the little stuff or smaller stuff and do something to get started with this process of getting us back on to fiscal health. what we have found is that there are 52 separate programs that provide workplace training,

financial instructions, and preparation for people so that they can find a job in the workplace. 52 separate programs. you have to ask yourself how in the world did we ever get to 52? well i think what happens here is some with good inteptions say, let's get a training program put stoght through some agency in the government that can prepare people, have people better prepared for employment and job opportunities. and so the small business administration put sog together and then the department of agriculture said we ought to have a training program and the department of commercialcy assays we should have a training program and then maybe a member of congress says, you know, that's a good idea. i'd look to set up a new program that can fit somewhere in the governmental structure and another congressman or senator gets an idea and says, well, that's a good idea. i'd like to propose that, too. anywayings over theway, over the years

we have come up to to 52, the number of programs. obviously this is ripe for reform and there should be consolidation of these pour the benefit of the taxpayer. i was pleasantly surprised to learn that the president's 2016 budget incorporates a measure that doesn't deal with all 52, but is it starts with six major programs and asks for consolidation. i'm not often standing here on the senate floor commending the president for taking a positive step dealing with our debt and deficit. he has refuse d.o.d. that on any kind of major basis here in the last four years. but here is his budget for 2016 that basically says, we can start with six programs to

consolidate that, programs that primarily do business -- affect business and trade agencies as well as other related programs. integrating -- i'm quoting from the budget -- "integrating the budget's core trade and competitiveness functions into one new department." well surprise of prices. i'm down here promoting something that the president has put in his budget. let me just specifically state what these consolidations would affect. it includes the department of congress' core business and trade functions. it includes the small business administration programs. the office of u.s. trade representative the export-import bank, the overseas private investment corporation and the u.s. trade and development agency. each of these six as outlined by the president's budget, could be consolidateed into one program. what does that save?

it means that all the rent or the purchase or the cost of property for the government to house six different programs with six different administrators six different sets of employees and bureaucrats and personnel computers, phone costs and on and on it goes, setting up an agency they continue to just metastasize and grow and grow and grow, and so here's something that we can go forward with. now, putting a price on this so that i can add this to my they thermometer here -- we're in the process of trying to save the taxpayer $100 billion. and last week we came up with $5.7 billion of savings if we can consolidate the programs that we put up last week. this week it's much smaller than that but i.t. it's not chump change.

$200 million. around here that's deemed a small number. to the people that i represent back inner ip in, in indiana that's a lot of money. you say the government is spending that? no the government is spending taxpayer money to provide duplication of programs and a small step forward in dealing with that would caisson ^+saeufrb them $200 million. we think it will save a lot more as we go forward and define additional consolidations down the line. so we're going to put a little more red ink -- not red ink; i mean, this is savings. i.t.it's in the red because it is now being spent by the government. but this is like the they are momterred and i.t. going to keep rising and riser and riser as we come down here and deal with the

waste of the week. so $200 million not a small little amount, savings that can be achieved simply by consolidating programs that are duplicating each other in terms of what they're providing. we can't solve all our country's debt and deficit problems overnight but we can make needed steps to identify those that the government's own accounting agencies independent of republicans and democrats have identified as wasteful money. let's get this money back to the taxpayer. let's get this money in reducing our debt so our children and grandchildren don't have to pony up and let's get this money there that we'll end up with a much more efficient and effective federal government. madam president with that, i finish this week's waste of the week and look forward to being here next week for the next iteration of that.

and i yield back my time. if there's any left. but i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president i wish to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president the united states will mark the 50th anniversary of the march from selma to montgomery, alabama. those of us who are not old enough to remember 50 years ago have read the history. those of us who are old enough at that time saw what happened. that historic march across the edmund pettus bridge five decades ago.

scores of courageous americans refused to be stopped by the need for equal protection under the law. this is a case where our blood sweat and tears helped move our nation toward a more perfect union. one of those who actually shed blood, in fact nearly died on that march the march for freedom and equality, is one of my closest friends in the congress congressman john lewis of georgia. last thursday i was so proud when congressman lewis came to the senate judiciary committee hearing room to see the vote on the historic nomination of loretta lynch to serve as our next attorney general. he said he was compelled to come because this was no ordinary markup. and this is no ordinary confirmation. when the senate finally confirms her, loretta lynch will be the

first african-american woman to serve our country as attorney general. she is extraordinarily qualified for the job. letters and testimony from law enforcement and both republican and democratic prosecutors attesting how good she is are amazing. i urge the senate to consider her nomination immediately. confirm her this week she's waited much longer than nominees ever have for this position. but as i urge her confirmation, i cannot help but reflect on the fact that ms. lynch's confirmation will be another step towards realizing dr. martin luther king's dream that people in our country would be judged by the content of their

character. well, loretta lynch's life epitomizing that dream. she was born in groans breaux -- in greensboro, raised in durham, north carolina. she is the daughter of a fourth generation baptist preacher and school librarian. i've met reverend lynch. he's an amazing and inspiring man. but her parents instilled in her the american values of fairness and equality even when those around them were not living up to those values. ms. lynch has spoken about riding on her father's shoulders as a child to the church where students organized peaceful protests against racial segregation and the freedom songs and church music that went hand in hand with those protests made up the sound track of her childhood. throughout loretta lynch's life those who encountered her intelligence and tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her and her impressive

accomplishments, but each time they didn't accept it, even if they weren't prepared, the content of her character has shown through and led her to even greater heights. in elementary school, administrators did not believe that loretta lynch could score as high as she did on a standardized test. they demanded that she retake the test. well she did and she scored even higher the second time. in high school, she rose to the very top of her class. it would have made her the first african-american valedictorian. school administrators, however decided that even though she earned the title, that would be somehow too controversial. so they decided that she must share the honor with two other students one of whom was white even though she was the one who

scored the highest. it didn't hold her back. she kept going forward. she went on to graduate with honors from harvard college and then earned her law degree from harvard law school. that's been the story of loretta lynch's life. while some are not ready to embrace her distinction she just marches forward with grace and to prove she's even stronger, the more qualified her detractors could imagine even though she was required to be better than those who were holding her back, she didn't let that stop her. she just kept going forward. she intends to give the majority of her remarkable career to public service. we're fortunate as a nation that she wants to continue to serve. but now 114 days have passed since ms. lynch was nominated. she has been made to wait longer than any one of the previous

five attorneys general. five attorneys general in both democratic and republican administrations. and for what reason? to those who have already said they oppose the nomination and tried to score additional political points, when ms. lynch is told she must continue to wait longer anybody else has ever had to, that she must wait for her confirmation vote, i'm reminded that those dedicated to the fight for civil rights have long heard their detractors tell them just be patient. we can't give you your rights yet. just be patient. just wait your turn. well come on. madam president cialtion -- madam president, no member of this body of either party would ever stand for somebody saying,

not withstanding your qualifications wait your turn. ms. lynch grew up hearing her family's stories about the jim crow south. she knows the meaning of injustice. she would never compare the partisan political games being played with her nomination to the epic struggles her family faced. but as we in this chamber reflect this week to honor those americans who marched to selma and the role that our department of justice played in the civil rights movements, it should not be too much to just ask how much longer with loretta lynch, how much longer does this woman have to wait before she can become the next united states attorney general? these perilous times our nation deserves to have its chief law enforcement officer considered without further delay.

we played politics with too many things already in the young days of this 114th congress. from the spending bill the house republicans refused to take up to fund the department of homeland security to the nomination of this highly qualified woman to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, we can no longer put national security at risk just for the sake of a few talking points or a second or two or a television program. so i call on my friend, the majority leader, to simply set a date for her confirmation. do not let the american people -- do not leave the american people wondering if this extremely qualified woman will get a timely vote. treat her like every previous attorney general nominee. the nation faces too many challenges to play politics with

this important nomination. too long, too long some in this body have told her you have to wait. you have to wait your turn. you have to wait. no. she's proved her qualifications. she shouldn't have to wait any more than those who went before her. set a vote up or down. let's confirm her. madam president, i don't see anybody seeking recognition so i'll suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. well mr. president here we are again where we were last monday, with about five days left before funding runs out for the department of homeland security, so if it feels like groundhog day, it's because it is groundhog day. we just can't keep playing those kinds of games with this agency's funding. those who are blocking action on the funding bill for the department of homeland security have a clear choice. are they going to prioritize politics or are they going to

prioritize national security? last friday, the senate passed a bill with 68 bipartisan votes a bill that fully funds the department of homeland security without any controversial riders attached to that bill. i'm hopeful ever hopeful that the house will follow our lead and immediately take up the clean senate bill. we cannot, we should not replay the chaos that we saw last week, the brinkmanship really needs to end. it's time to -- for congress to pass the department of homeland security funding bill. whether it's threats to the mall of america in minnesota plots foiled by d.h.s. and the f.b.i. in new york city, attacks on our cyber networks, our threats at our nation's borders we live in a time when the safety and security of this country is at risk. we can't play politics with the agency that's tasked with

keeping us safe, and we shouldn't play politics with the funding that supports our first responders who are the people who are there any time something happens in our states and our local communities. now, what must our enemies think when they see congress fighting over whether to keep the department of homeland security open? last week, d.h.s. secretary jai johnson -- jeh johnson wrote a letter to the congressional leadership, and i ask mr. president, unanimous consent to place that letter into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: the secretary wrote, and i quote -- it is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of the government in the current -- terrorists are now openly calling for attacks on western targets." he also noted how taxing the

current funding crisis has been on the agency and the employees who put their lives on the line every day to protect the nation. he said in his letter again and i quote -- "these working men and women depend on bye weekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their families. for them personally work without pay is disruptive and demoralizing." and i can imagine that -- can't imagine that anyone here thinks that people should be expected to go to work where many of them put their lives on the line without getting paid. last week, d.h.s. officials had to prepare shutdown plans they had to give employees notice that they might be furloughed or they might not get paid, and at a time when resources should be spent protecting the nation, spending them dealing with a possible shutdown just doesn't make sense. none of us would run our households that way. the private sector doesn't run

business that way and we shouldn't run government that way. instead of focusing on critical missions like securing the border counterterrorism efforts, maritime security, d.h.s. officials have been consumed with the threat of a shutdown to their agency. that is not the way we should be doing business. it is making our nation less safe. it's time for the house to end this brinkmanship. it's time for the house to vote on a bipartisan bill that the senate passed last week. we came together in the senate under the leadership of senator mcconnell and senator reid, and i applaud their working together across party lines to pass a bill that funds d.h.s. for the rest of the year. you know, that's what the american people expect of us. they expect us to work together to address the challenges facing this country. they want us to get things done, not to play politics, and certainly not to jeopardize our country's safety and security. i hope the house will follow the

senate's lead, that they will pass a bipartisan bill to keep the department of homeland security on the job for the remainder of this year. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president i ask for consent to speak for up to ten minutes on house bill 240. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoeven: mr. president this afternoon we'll vote now on whether or not to go to conference on house bill 240. so for senators that want to return to regular order, this is their chance. i mean, regular order is the opportunity to offer to debate and to vote on amendments, and we established that on earlier legislation that as a majority party we're willing to return to regular order and offer an open

amendment process. so part of establishing that regular order process is, as i say, the opportunity to offer amendments to have the debate and to vote, and it's that process that should and has historically produced the best legislation, not only here in the senate but in the house and in this congress on behalf of the american people. another part of regular order though is conference committees. when the house passes a bill and the senate passes a bill and there is differences in the bill how do you resolve the differences in the bill? you go to conference committee. and so that's what's before us right now. this vote is simply to send house bill 240 to conference committee so that the house and the senate can work on the legislation. on house bill 240 our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered the bill. only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to proceed to the

bill. that's unfortunate. but clearly, it was done to protect the president's executive order on immigration. the irony is that the president's overreach should not be a partisan issue. our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. the legislative the executive the judicial branches, they all have a role to play in this system of checks and balances. when one branch exceeds its authority, others have an obligation to check that overreach, an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens. and that's exactly what's happened in this situation. the president's executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of the executive branch. now federal district court in texas has issued an injunction to stay the president's action,

and that stay is in place while the lawsuit the lawsuit against the president's action, which has been filed by 26 states, 26 states is adjudicated. soap that's our role, too. just like the states stepping up when the president has overreached his authority, just like the federal court stepping up when the president has exceeded his authority that's our role, too, to protect the legislative power which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the power of congress. so i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send house bill 240 to conference, to see if we can find common ground. that is, after all, regular order for the congress. and, again i remind our

colleagues that this bill provides full funding for the department of homeland security. let me just once again summarize some of that funding. the bill provides $10.7 billion for customs and border appropriation, c.b.p. including tactical infrastructure technology, and air and maritime assets. it provides $5.96 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, i.c.e., and maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds. the bill strongly supports the vital missions of the secret service and provides for cybersecurity efforts. it provides more than $10 billion for the coast guard for its many missions, including search and rescue. since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to love

firefighters emergency managers, and law enforcement. the bill also provides for research and development taxes ' aviation security screening operations, the federal law enforcement training center and everify which supports businesses across the united states in hiring legal workers. but as i say, in addition to that funding we also need to check the executive action of the president on immigration. that's what our system of checks and balances under our constitution is all about. that's the opportunity we have to send this bill to conference with the house to find a solution. let's do that. let's find a solution, let's return to regular order in the congress. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

also i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: i ask that the order for the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cochran: mr. president my intention is to speak for two or three short minutes. i encourage the senate to vote to send the homeland security appropriations bill to conference with the house. that should be the order of business. we've been wrangling over this bill for three months now. the legislative maneuvering has crowded out all of the real issues before the senate on this legislation. we should have debated and voted on the president's actions the executive orders which provoked this entire situation. on multiple occasions members on the other side of the aisle have

voted unanimously to avoid having that debate. first, four times they voted over the course of three weeks to refuse to even consider house-passed funding bill legislation. their bill was passed by the other body in plenty of time to avoid the shutdown that currently consumes the senate. so mr. president this won't be the last time during this congress that the house and senate disagree on an appropriations bills but it should not be the last time the legislative branch disagrees with the executive branch and vice versa. soon we will begin consideration of the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills. each of these bills will prompt differences but we should have opportunities for robust debates on these differences. that's all i'm suggesting.

we can proceed to conference with the house in a timely manner on the bills. doing so will help avoid opportunities for orderly and direct resolution of differences as reported by the various committees. we've done too little of that in recent years and it's been detrimental to the legislative process. mr. president, i urge the senate to support the motion to accept the request for a conference committee on the homeland security appropriations bill. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that today quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to insist upon the senate amendment agree to the request by the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to h.r. 240 an act making

appropriations for the department of homeland security and so forth and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to insist upon the senate amendment agree to the request by the house for a conference and authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with respect to h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 43. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator will hold off. the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president for the information of all senators, the bill is not amendable in the senate and we cannot take further action. therefore, i move to table the house message and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. there appears to be a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. and the clerk will call the

roll. vote:

mr. guard vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 58, the

nays are 31. the motion to table is agreed to. mr. cochran: i move to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the veto message on s. 1. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message. the clerk: an act to approve the keystone x.l. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture on the veto ocean cloture motion. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the veto message on s. 1, an act to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum

call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on banking be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 413 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 431, an act to award a congressional gold medal to the foot soldiers who participated in bloody sunday and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:45, tuesday march 3, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day following leader remarks, the senate be

in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and that the majority control the first half and the democrats control the second half, further at 10:30 a.m. the senate recess until 2:15 to allow for the joint meeting of congress with the prime minister of israel, benjamin the netanyahu as well as weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection is. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn following the remarks of senator cornyn. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president i rise today to commemorate a very special day in history particularly in texas history a i did that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of all the people who call texas shoal.

i rise today to commemorate texas independence day. i will in a moment read a letter written 179 years ago from behind the walls of an old spanish mission called the alamo in my hometown, santonio written by william barrett travis. in doing so i carry on a transition started by the late senator john tower who represented texas in this body for two decades. this transition was upheld by his successor senator phil gramm, and by his successor kay bailey hutchison after him. it is a tremendous honor that the privilege has fallen to me. on february 24, 1836, with his position under siege an outnumbered -- and outnumbered nearly 10-1 by the forces of

antonio lopez desantana travis penned the following letter -- "fellow citizens and come patriots. i'm besieged by a thousand or more by the mexicans under santa ana and sustained cannonade for 24 hours and i have not be lost a man. the enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. i've answered the demand with a cannon shot and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. i shall never surrender or retreat. then i call on you in the name of liberty of patriotism and everything dear to the american character to come to our aid with all dispatch.

the enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt knife to 3,000 or 4,000 in four or five days. if this call is neglected i'm determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. victory or death. signed by william barret travis. as history reveals in the battle that ensued all 189 defenders of the alamo lost their lives. but they did not die in vain. the battle of the alamo actually bought precious time for the texas revolutionaries under the leadership of general sam houston to maneuver his army into a position for decisive victory at the battle of san jacinto and with that victory

texas became a sovereign and independent republic. for nine years, texas thrived as an independent nation. then in 1845, it agreed to join the united states as the 28th state. many texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the united states congress. i'm honored to hold the seat once occupied by sam houston one of the first two united states senators to the new state of texas. and more broadly, i am honored to have the opportunity to serve almost 27 million texans because of the sacrifices made by these are brave men 179 years ago. may we always remember the alamo and may god continue to bless texas and these united states. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

9:45 a.m. tomorrow.

>> the c-span city store takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to us cities. next weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wind certainly driven they watched in amazement as both of these factors that at the beachfront structures at that time we had wooden bat houses all over the gulf of mexico and peers and a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the storm struck galveston

saturday, september 81900. the storm began toward noon in creased in dramatic intensity and then finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. this work and was is still is the deadliest reported national event domestic. >> this saturday and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv. >> discussion now on us uk relations posted by the center for strategic and international studies. this is one hour.

>> well, good morning, everyone. my name is heather connolly. senior vice president here. i conduct our research for europe, eurasia, and the arctic. absolutely delighted to have a member of british parliament for 22 years looking after. secretary of state for defense. csi s claims doctor fox is one of our own for coming last year for a convention

we held in williamsburg, virginia on the future of europe. i assure you doctor fox gave us a lively and spirited debate about what the future of europe would look like and i am sure some of that will be reprised. secretary of state he served as many shadow secretaries.secretary as well. health as they relate to the united states. generals go craft with this former us national security advisor. delighted to have you both with us. the importance that we subscribe to this conversation. and we look forward to your opening remarks and then we

we will transition into a discussion and welcome our audience today for a lively quick q&a on the future of us uk special relationship but i think we will have a broader conversation about the variety of international challenges that we face. with that please join me. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is a great pleasure to be back your. quiet time and global events. i can never remember more turbulent time. in fact, when winston churchill 1st used the term special relationship he did it during his speech in missouri which is better remembered for his use of the phrase.

but when churchill spoke about special relationship he did so as a wartime leader. and it was basically an intelligence relationship, military relationship. the somewhat disneyesque do we hide connotations that the special relationship gained in later years are not for me the concrete foundations that it has. this is a relationship about our security command they're are so many threats in this very interdependent is very interdependent world, and one of the changes that churchill would have been astonished to see is the level of interdependency that we now have. so many warnings about just how interdependent we have become whether it is the terrorist attack of september 11, the natural event of sars, the japanese tsunami, the 2,008 banking crisis. what is clear is that contagion and one part of the global economy will quickly spread to the resty2m. in fact, the whole concept of over there i think, is a

term that might become somewhat dated as we go ahead. the book that i wrote about global security threats and rising tides it was pointed out to me that back the back in 1993 not exactly a very long time ago they're were 130 websites in the world. at the end of last year they're were 654 million which is a change quantum leap in information, but it is also the loss of terrorist haystacks in which to hide turner's noodles which is something i want to come to the moment. some of the specifics, but the most feeling states, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the spread of transnational terrorism

financial imbalances competition from commodities, and this before we even got to the state on states rights that we face. began by looking at failing states and identify pakistan pakistan not as maligned intent but sheer instability. mostly politically, used to dealing with the opposite numbers, but in a country like pakistan where, frankly, we are never really sure who was in charge whether it's the politicians, the military or the isi we have to develop a whole range of relationships. of course, from a british relationship i was very interested when we have to partition from a relatively stable and increasingly middle-class economy pakistan effectively we will backwards from the very beginnings perhaps to

something we can discuss, but i was interested. natural historical or geographical entities. a made-up name from the initials of the provinces. and i think it's a fair bet that it's not probably the most stable entity. this is a word because here in washington with all the focus on iran people seem to have forgotten that pakistan is sitting on something like a hundred and 20 nuclear warheads in his been recently brought into play a a tune you have a waterfronts that will enable them to produce about 24 nuclear warheads per year. it is the nuclear problem that nobody seems to want to acknowledge and talk about in detail. then, of course, we have the rise of transnational

terrorism. nothing knew but changes its manifestations people said nobody seems to know that in 1995 the nuclear material was they're was is was attached. attached. so the threat is they're and command it will increase command we need to look at the whole issue of proliferation in light of the increased errors that. we also need to understand some of the other risks that are coming from the field. one of the ones that i constantly talk about in

particular water. people talk about china but they very often miss one of the really important parts of the equation which is that 48 percent of all people the people live on a planet today get there drinking water from the river that arises on the tibetan to. so why do you think china is so intent on tibet? the dalai lama? the fact that it is the world's greatest resource in terms of freshwater? unless we know the data we will not make sense of the interpretations and therefore are likely to make policy mistakes. the rise of religious fundamentalism, particularly islamic fundamentalism is there for us all to see command we are facing this crisis now with isis, the latest manifestation. we need to be very very clear about the threat that

islamic state poses. first of all the humanitarian threat of the immediate threats of the population that lives under their control. we have seen what they are capable of, beheadings crucifixions, setting people on fire in front of video cameras, things that we thought had been left behind in the middle ages. the 2nd threat, of course the further destabilization of the region. they would love to see a full-blown religious war. this is, in fact, part of what they are trying to achieve. and then it would be the university of jihad if we allowed to do so. western democracies, if we get the opportunity the united kingdom, people that have gone to fightxd and then come home call personally i don't believe you can have a sabbatical civilization and then come home. there is no where you can come back and say you're very sorry.

so we have two, again think about the domestic problems. on the nuclear proliferation and so irani clearly is a big issue. when rohan he became president they're were so many in the western commentary a story describing it as a breakthrough, new moment in the relationship. a big disappointment they're for the people of iran they did not notice much difference. the repression, the executions continued at pace. and what people seem to fail to understand was that the shots are still called by the supreme leader. most western politicians would kill. and the belief in the purity of the islamic revolution, hatred for the united states, content for the

existence of the state of israel, all very very consistent. and i think it is absolutely unbelievable that people still look at the evidence in front of them in terms of ┌ say well, maybe they're not trying to achieve a nuclear weapons program. there is no possible excuse for the levels the nuclear work that there doingym. the rights were developed but this is not a country that is open about his intentions. there is a problem here a generic problem in the west which is they're are too many occasions in recent times in foreign-policy we have a lot of wishful thinking to take the place of critical analysis because we want something to happen.

we have used the data to try to make it look as though that is what is happening, and it is not in the case of iran. why should we worry about a nuclear iran? first of all, it does provide an existential threat to israel with all the implications that that has for write a policy. secondly, it would mean the npt is not worth the paper it's written on. and if iran gets to nuclear weapon status why should egypt saudi arabia turkey not want to follow them? and that means a nuclear arms race in one of the most unstable regions of the world that after all the work that was done singularly in the united states at the end of the cold war. proliferation and the former soviet states being able to have nuclear weapons, surely we sure that you want to leave something better for the next generation the knew nuclear arms race. this is a challenge for all of us.

i worry about what is happening today in terms of the negotiations. some say we needed to get a deal. i actually think no deal is better than a bad deal. what do, i mean by a bad deal? i think any deal is a bad deal that allows a rant to become a threshold nuclear state because of the dangers that i have mentioned. mentioned. i particularly worry that -- about the potential of our bilateral agreement between the united states and they ran that does not come from the p5 plus one. we need to stand together in the face of international threat and not be divided. am sure that something we will talk about in our wider conversation. and then on this happy list of threats that we face we did not really think that we would be facing state nonstate threats to the extent we are today from russia. and if ever there was an example of wishful thinking

displacing critical analysis, it is in computers3w russia because we have so wanted russia to become a useful partner in the international family of nations that we haveçó simply been turning a blind eye for too long. there are two basic principles followed by put in which make itu.tremely difficult if not impossible to normalize relations with russia. the 1st is that he still clings to the ideag

we need to recognize the defense of the baltic states begins in the ukraine. we're only one miscalculation away from potentially getting an article five involvement in continental europe and need to wake him up to it. we have been serial appeasers of pollutant and it has not gotten us very far. a cyber attack on estonia we did nothing, cut off ukraine's gas .-dot we did nothing.

invaded georgia and he is still they're. sanctions in response to what is happening in ukraine and crimea but appeasement has a bad track record. a bad track record before a bad track record now. why should we in the united kingdom still look so much to the united states and they area of potential problems. because you are the worlds biggest military budget bigger the next 11 combined which is very reassuring when you are a profile with the united states. we need do have a partnership of values. we need to understand that we are who we are not by accident. we are who we are by design and by decisions that were taken by those who went before us. we are built on the concepts

of both our nations to our ability to exercise free market economic liberty understand the value in terms of prosperity and security and free trade understand the need for paul leblanc applied equally to the governing in the governed understand the concept of rights across race religion, and gender. these are what make us who we are. we need to take ownership and be expanding these in a very unstable world. and to my american political colleagues i would say there has never been a time when we were more able to shape the world in the era of mobilization that we need to shape it in our image and by our own values. this is not a time for

america to look inward. this is not a time for america to become more isolationist. there has never been a time when america was more needed on the pitch than today which is probably the best place to begin a conversation. >> perfect. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you. that was wonderful a great tour de force. i will spend a few minutes having a conversation. and i we will turn you over to our audience. csi as audiences are is audiences are tough. i am a mere warm-up. you gave us a broad tour de force. i will focus more on europe. let me start with russia. the murder of boris. do you think that is a turning.? will we see a different environment within russia? i think one of his most

poignant remarks literally days before his murder was that he felt that their needed to be an awakening in russia which in some ways i think is the most powerful threat. did you see this unbelievable image from roscoe? did you see that has potential as potential turning points? >> potentially. again, we have in the level of control and repression that exists they're. we find these. being a vocal opponent is not a safe position to be in a very long list lists, the growing lists of enemies with the russian president's that have been silenced. it would be nice to think that we would get a change.

i'm just not optimistic about it. >> you had some competition as recently as yesterday on bbc1 radio talking about the level of defense spending. very concerned about british defense spending, the lack of commitment to 2 percent of gross domestic product or defense spending. i would like to pull you out of bed a bit on that and really offer some reflections. is nato ready? we have seen extraordinary military mobilization, snape exercises. statistics this is david cameron has been prime minister russia has gotten very close to air sovereignty. i we ready to confront this challenge? >> he added militarily.

it's political. that political that i worry about. i think this is where the 2 percent comes in. it's not just the ability for the equipment. it's about the willingness to show longer-term. and only four of the nato allies me the 2 percent. to the floor of our spending. and if you look at what happened, for example, in the libyan crisis, the european elements of nato would not have been able to even carry that out without the united states because we simply did not have the air to air refueling capability.

the big problem with a lot of the european members of nato is this so that so many of them were very quick to get into nato. and they recognized what an opportunity it works for everyone was for everyone to get the insurance policy but asking just a few others to pay the premiums. we are in a position where there are too many countries taking a free ride which is why it's important that britain shows the moral leadership to make that commitment. we we will play our four-part in the alliance. the world from warsaw looks very different. there is a palpable fear. the geographic proximity is

getting them to waken up. they're going to increase the defense spending of countries like estonia. but they are coming wait in the day. we do need to get a political act together. i no we did talk about this. i go back to it again. part of the problem is the european union. the european union trying to take on a defense and security role. that is not what the eu is for. that is what nato is for. if we try to duplicate what nato is doing inside the european union and if it ends up having the diversion of funds the scarce funding that we are getting nato and to duplication and the european union, that can be hurtful. >> am going to turn to the eu because of what your i want your thoughts on the euro zone and immigration

issues. your opening remarks, you mentioned the prime minister and i struggle with what he would say today. he described the rise of nazism wartime prime minister to create that defense. there is no choice between war and shame. we need a knew strategic framework for this challenge how do you strike that balance between the values proposition and the political we will to meet him with strength? >> first of all, we have to preside -- provide ourselves with the capability. we also need to be willing to confront them where necessary. we have seen his modus

operandi. we need a stronger presence in the baltic states. let's be frank about what he is doing. he has been bullying the smaller baltic states. he has been encouraging the balkans to see the illegal referendum of crimea as a precedent. he still has forces in georgia. how many lessons do we need? this is the ability to cause instability at will in terms of european security. we need to counter that with a large a permanent presence in the baltic, beef up the baltic controls, look at countries like poland and

see whether we need to have a greater nato presence use the powers that we have to show that we are not going to allow this concept the sphere of influence to take all. we should be sending her naval power into the waxy just to show that we have every right to do that and that this is not the personal bond open. there are things that we can do but we have to have the will to do it the leadership to do it. ..

how the e.u. is doing with issues like immigration and maritime security and things like that. you have a minute, you can go. >> first of all in terms of the u.k. election my party the knesset party believes we should have a referendum because no one under 57 has been able to take part in a referendum about membership. it's one of my earliest memories of the political referendum of 1975 because my parents campaigned on opposite sides. >> that's a tense household. >> it was a tense household.

but peter mandelson, lord mandelson said in britain and that quote europe is too important an issue to be left to the lottery of the electorate which i think tells you we need to go back to the mindset of the bureaucracy in brussels. in an era where people across western principle systems seem to be losing faith in the political system itself giving people a say over their own destiny is one of the ways in which you restore faith in our system and you keep the faith with the people so that's one side of it. the eurozone well a lot of our european partners are not becoming serial economic self farmers and the whole concept of the euro which we decided to stay out of, i think it's been a disaster. i remember on the night we were voting in the house of commons john major sing to me who in

their right mind would go into anything in life that doesn't have an exit and with the greek situation we are discovering exactly what happens when you don't have an exit and the euro was always i think intellectually flawed. there were two basic models first of all to say it is so important for this concept we will do everything to make it work right up to and including full political economic and monetary but we didn't do that. or they could've said it's purely an economic project in only the countries that make the grade are about to join. we didn't do that either. in fact the wrong countries were allowed to join, countries that were never close to making criteria and then having been allowed to join before the fiscal policies that made them died there throughout there -- building and instability into an already flawed architectures and we are living with the

consequences of that today. what you are getting his monetary policy effectively applied across the world continent that soothes germany the biggest continental economy. i'm afraid memories are too long and industry is too short for people to accept what we perceive as austerity being applied to them from their living and the reason i mentioned my appearance -- parents positions on referendum was my father said we must join what was then the common market and be said to diminish the tensions that drew europe to destruction twice in this century and i worry now that what we are getting in the euro is the recreation of those tensions economically that will lead us to many of the same positions we have before. how do you go about be risking the euro is the big question? well you can go back to the national currencies and that's

not going to happen. you can throw out the outliers in southern europe in particular, that's greece portugal spain probably italy but that would undermine their drive towards ever closer union so that's not going to happen. the third would be to throw out the biggest outlier which is germany and clearly that's not going to happen because germany likes the euro because it's a way undervalued currency for the size and strength of the german economy. in germany has done very well at that. the fourth way is for the countries inside the eurozone to move to full political economic and monetary union. i spoke to a senior member in brussels recently who said you are quite right those are the four options and we will take them and what we will do is continue to take the risk effectively hoping the bomb goes off at someone else's watch. i regard the euro as being the single biggest threat to global

security. what is happening in greece will be replicated in the future because the basic problem is not being solved now and the most important issue for european politicians i think is that the risking of the euro. 58% of young standards -- spaniards are unemployed. how long can you tolerate those levels of unemployment being foisted upon a population for what is effectively a political project and this is not a sensible way to be running either the economics are the long-term social stability in europe and i wonder how many young europeans of the current trend will be sacrificed on the altar of the single currency before europe wakes up to the truth of what's happening. >> setting aside the eurozone which in itself has had its own rhythm at the moment are you undervaluing so the incredible

benefits the united kingdom has received by being part of the single market? over the last five years trade between the united kingdom and the e.u. has increased. i mean this conversation about u.k.'s role within the european union, are you not completely unarmed for sizing the great economic benefits as well as london and the financial center which is benefiting from being in the european union but not obviously of the euro? >> while we were were told of course if we didn't join the single currency that would be the end of london as the economic center. it didn't quite work out that way. i take a simplistic view of this is which money goes to where money can be made and money can be moved in when it comes to london for both of those reasons money can be made because of our regulatory markets especially at the moment and it can be moved because of our system of financial law so that will continue to make it attractive

whether we are inside the european union are not and i haven't really noticed to norway or switzerland suffering hugely for not being members of the european union. what i would like to happen is a debate that looks at the ledger in terms of its pluses and minuses but in a very realistic and quantitative way. britain would have to look to see whether for britain to leave the european union what that means in terms of our trade and what point the rest of our european partners export much more to us the one country who exports to them, the other 27. so the balance is pretty much in one direction. i think we do need to have this debate but i would really rather dislike some of those people say we couldn't stand on her own 2 feet. britain couldn't exist outside of the european union which is purely nonsensical given the

successes of the neighbors geographically you are. what i would like to see is a renegotiated relationship with here. i would like us to go back to the concept of common market. i want to be able to cooperate with european partners and it's in our mutual interest to do so but i want to keep believers that britain might use which they do on a whole range of issues. >> one political party that has benefited from the anti-european union anti-immigrant stance has been the united kingdom independence party so i would like to turn to the domestic politics and put that crystal ball on the table from may 7. we have a commentary class has certainly been speculating that what we are about to witness on may 7 is going to be a real mess mess. a hung parliament, a very difficult coalition framework for the smaller parties particularly scotch national

party, perhaps you on the other side may be determining what a future british government looks like. the average american understands what can happen on may 7 and what are the implications? >> i should also give you the lottery numbers this week. >> i have to say you always have this right. >> i think people are more circumspect about where they put their money. what does look like it has happened is the two main parties gained strength at the expense of the smaller ones, a classic squeeze as we get to the election. for all the talk of the breakthroughs in the country like britain is very difficult and for parties to break into that. i think, and you will see with some justification you will see this as a former chairman of the consenting party i believe that

when you have an economy where we have created 1.85 million jobs, thousand jobs a day since being in office with historically low interest rates with people really feeling the growth in the economy feeding into their own pockets is very hard to see why the public with broad a government that has provided them with that. i happen to think the labour party leader is uniquely unqualified to lead in the country that i have known in my 23 years of parliament. i think that when it comes to the election people will look at the economic record of government and look at the fact that david cameron they have an experienced prime minister who is not looking great and i think he will decide not to make the change. i think we will be close to an

overall majority and i remember the first election i was elected in the 1992 the scenario was not similar to this one where in fact we were not at any opinion polls and the highest number of votes in history. so the electorate is faced with putting the cross -- very hard. >> is a member of parliament who served on the constitution committee and had a great deal of focus on constitutional affairs for those of us who have been watching the scottish debate obviously less false referenda which is a bit of the heartstopper weren't quite sure how that would involve and now we see where the scottish national party is we think doing very well on may 7 which may cause labor not to do as well. what does this mean for the united kingdom? is it becoming more disunited

and will this election began to pull at the very fabric of the united kingdom? >> iis that tony blair's constitutional proposal towards devolution were imbalanced and we argued at the time it was my responsibility at the time in the house of commons and i argued that what was happening was a recipe for the rise of nationalism. i didn't think it was such a hot stop on the referendum. there's an 87% chance of getting the referendum and in fact they paid out the day before. the referendum took place of the sons of the outcome. the trouble with it is the pro-independence site but lost the referendum one and have been continuing to push more and more in that direction and that has is the problem. it has also not apparent that

the labour party look like you would do badly in scotland and i think that's a problem. again and how they have approached it and what it would mean if there was a big s&p grouping. that would depend on -- the nightmare scenario is for me a labor s&p coalition and the reason that's a nightmare for me is not just that more money will move from our constituents north of the border into scotland and scottish voters at far more spending per head than the england but the real worry is the s&p will be the unilateral party. they believe in abandoning nuclear and they have wants a nuclear-free party. that worries me more than anything else and it should

worry our american friends. >> my last question and i want to bring our audience in. i want to ask the question that i asked -- get asked frequently by journalists. does the united states still have this close exclusive relationship with united kingdom that it has in the past? does united states still consider itself a european power? is it still engaged as it was in the transatlantic relationship or has it decided we are going to maintain our lives but we are really focusing on the asia-pacific region india these other great opportunities and we don't see those opportunities? >> i thought the whole concept of the pivot was a little bizarre. it's not as though the atlantic was going to disappear any day soon. clearly the united states does have to focus on civic affairs. it has not got the luxury of choosing which way to look and

global security for the very reasons we were discussing because of our interdependence is not something you can decide which geographical area you are able to worry about in which area you are able to disregard. it's not like that as events in ukraine are showing. the u.s. is still the global superpower economically and militarily. with that comes responsibilities and we need the u.s. to be in the game. so i wonder what signal mr. putin got that america was not going to be as focused on the transatlantic area but was going to focus on the pacific. i wonder what signal he took from that and whether that has been advantageous to security? >> interesting. i'm ready to unleash the obvious given your warm-up. if you could please raise your hand. we have a microphone. if you could identify yourself with your name and affiliation. we have about 15 minutes so i

ask for the comments to be short and the questions to be very focused. with your permission i will bundle a few questions and you can fire away at them. we have one right there in the front and then one to decide. >> thank you very much for a realistic view of the world. my question follows on asia and i was going to ask you about the pivot that is that the u.k. or e.u. or nato seen as an outsider's purview and how did you define your interest in east asia and how are you pursuing this? >> thank you and we had a question over here. we will stick to the side for a moment. >> thank you. you have spoken quite a bit about diplomacy and defense and the need to build political will in those areas. i wonder if you have any thoughts on the third d, development and how the relationship between usaid and the united states and the

department for international development in the u.k. has transformed how you think you should transform in the future and if that's a significant aspect of what you are talking about? >> thanks. >> let's take one more. >> dr. fox thank you for joining us today. major scott vincent. it seems like one of the emerging narratives about the future of nato is that there are some member states that increasingly are oriented to east and the ukraine where as others from the southern per free are concerned about instability in libya. how did we in the united states and united kingdom help change that narrative from in order to enhance? >> we have the outside asia per view, the question of development which the u.k. is playing a great leadership role. that's a great question. can they do both or do they have

to choose have to choose orca. >> united? >> the very first question i think goes to the heart of this entire discussion. i think increasingly you have to understand the implications. we can't simply disregard other parts of the world because they're not close to us geographically. i think of the 20th century as being the century of the block which was defined by our geography. so we cooperated with countries that were close to us in terms of physical geography rather than countries that are like us in terms of our values or our political systems. increasingly the world is shrinking because of the effects of globalization and as i said at the beginning we can't afford to disregard risks that are rising in asia anymore than we can risks rising in europe because they will both affect the sureley printing politicians have a problem with this.

i think politicians on the right resent the loss of sovereignty that inevitably comes with globalization and not wanting it to happen. politicians on the left dislike the unavoidable strategic risk that comes with globalization that has to be paid for. and our systems of governance also with a very neat way in which we have silos that say best economic policy that's trade policy that's foreign-policy that security policy failed to grasp how globalization is developing in the interdependence and the unavoidable risk that comes with that. so we do have to look at it more widely at risk and emerging risk and recognize that whether we like it or not it's going to happen and how well we prepare for it today think it's the end of geography not the end of

history. it hits closer to the mark in terms of the world. in terms you cannot choose the complex. this is the problem of security. we are going to reduce their spending because we think the world is becoming a safer place. complex choose you more than you get to choose the complex and that's one of the lessons of history. we have to be ready for the unexpected and libya showed some real shortcomings. it also showed the dislocation i think of our military action and our plans for longer-term political stability. in fact i can't think of an example of where we got both the military action and the reconstruction and stabilization right. so we have a lot of thinking to do their. where does they'd come into all of this? it's very useful in terms of being able to help out in the

short-term russia's main value. my view is that if you want to alleviate global poverty you do it through free trade and i think capitalism has actually given a much greater step up to the worlds -- than any amount of aid program can do but i do think specifically well targeted aid is very useful. i don't just mean in terms of physical or monetary poverty. i think we should be using our aid budgets to change behavior and values in particular i think our taxpayers who provide this money live by certain ethical values and i think that we should be using our aid budget more to get a change in behavior. for example, i think that countries that exhibit religious intolerance that do not give women equal rights but don't send girls to school we should be trying to use our aid as a

leader in those cases. we should be trying to apply the values that are people live by to those countries that we give aid to. i think it was in the aid debate and it's been understandably focused on public health which is a doctor i regard as important and the alleviation of poverty but i think there are other things that the aid budget should also be involved in enough of the promotion of our values. and i think if you go back to what i said at the very beginning that we are who we are by design and not by accident if you believe that as i do but i think you have a moral responsibility to ensure other people are able to benefit from those values to which is what i see our aid program is being a very important part of. i just don't however by this idea that you can diminish your need for hard power by having more soft power. that really is an and not in order.

>> one quick question and i will turn to the audience. i'd been meaning to ask this question. we followed closely the house of commons vote on syria and clearly u.s. syrian policy has been a great conversation topic here, lack thereof though we do have a coherent policy. is there a real turning point in how at least democratically the united kingdom looked at foreign-policy challenges or was that in some ways trying to litigate the past and past decisions about tony blair's decision on iraq? >> it was an aberration. it was a mistake. i would take it as reading too much into how britain sees its role. this was a house of commons recalled from their summer holiday three days before they had to. people don't take kindly to

that. there was a great deal of preparation done in terms of briefing members of parliament about the issue what about domestic politics and i wouldn't read too much into it however i think the damage irrespective of the reasoning that produced the outcome of that vote has been very substantial. i think there are two things you should do in politics as in life. first of all don't make promises you know you can't keep and secondly don't make threats you are not willing to carry out. if you draw a red lines and you say they will not be crossed and they are crossed and you don't do anything about them the one thing you can be sure of is your next red line will be tested. i think it wasn't only about the specific issue. it was about how many of our allies as well as our enemies perceive our willingness to enforce the policies that we have to out for ourselves. it's a very dangerous world to get into. >> i think we have time for two more questions. we have one there and one over there.

>> good morning. my name is paul and i made british exchange office. i would just like to ask about information regarding russia in particular and i would like your opinion on just how costly it was to cut the russian speaking bbc world service in 2011 as far as i can tell the only reasonable means of capturing party russia today is a state-sponsored information controlled network and if you agree with me that it was with hindsight extremely costly weather can be reversed? >> thank you. >> among the big defense issues you face in 2016 will be making a decision on replacing the current -- how strong his support within

the conservative party for a like for like replacement and very quickly since you were defense minister at the time you signed the two defense treaties with france in 2010 are you satisfied with the level of the british and french defense cooperation? >> any predictions on the strategic defense for this ear? >> all right. >> that is how you're going to end on a strong note. the last five minutes. >> the question of information as well as forgiving about the concept of terrorists in general we also seem to have forgotten the value propaganda. you would think we have lost her memory of the cold war. both of these are really important things. russia is now becoming extremely adept as isis are for example in conducting an information war despite having the technology and tools at our disposal. we seem to have failed to understand the importance or the

potential that it gives us. so i'm entirely with you that we need to really raise our game right across the information piece. in terms of nuclear deterrence their strong support inside the party for replacement. the biggest argument in britain against it are why would you spend so much money on a system that you will never use which utterly fails to understand the concept of deterrence which is that we are using it everyday as a deterrent. when they say you can't really afford 20 billion in terms of capital costs for the new program i point out that we are very happy to spend 9 billion for three weeks at the olympics but we are reticent of spending 20 billion for 35 years protection from nuclear blackmail. we want to think hard about our priorities on that one. as for the sdsr clearly the next

thing you will have to take into account that had the initial cost in the capital program for the nuclear deterrent. that i think is factored in but it's a big cost and i would say the defense budget is driven by four things poor drivers and constraints. the first is the international security environment which is deteriorating which suggest we need an uplift in the budget. secondly is driven by the commitments entered into, the 2% made a commitment our commitment to upgrade our nuclear deterrence and it's also the gaps that we decided to take in 2010 but which we will not be able to take again and surveillance capability for example has probably been a billion on the budget just for the one item. then you have got fiscal position which is improving

dramatically in the united kingdom because of the long-term economic -- that we put forward in the fourth one i think is the international obligations and your willingness to have a role in global affairs. i think that we have given our word is a country and as a member of the alliance. we need to keep that word and i think if we want to be able to propagate the values and systems that i've been talking about we have to be willing to provide the means necessary to protect them. so i can see new out -- no option than a rise in the budget. i fail to see how you can produce what we didn't in the future for 2020s set out in 2010 without increasing the budget nevermind filling in the gaps that we would have to because of the deteriorating security picture. i think it's inevitable the budget will go up. i think smart politicians would

turn necessity into a virtue. >> dr. fox's eyes a great opportunity to have a great discussion with you. you have given us a lot to think about. we are going to focus in on the outcome of may 7 and see what the future holds for british politics but although the u.s. u.k. relationship may be complicated and evolving its clearly vitally important and we are delighted you could spend some time with us. please join me in thanking dr. fox for this great discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> earlier today israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu spoke at the american israel public affairs committee here in washington. he discussed u.s. relations with this country and tomorrow's address to a joint meeting of congress. this is 25 minutes. ♪ ♪ [applause]

♪ [applause] >> thank you. ♪ ♪ >> wow. 16,000 people. [applause] anyone here from california? [applause] florida? new york? [applause] these are the easy ones. how about colorado?

indiana? i think i got it. montana? texas? [applause] you are here in record numbers. you are here from coast to coast coast, from every part of this great land and you are here at a critical time. you are here to tell the world that reports of the demise of the israeli u.s. relations is not only premature they are just wrong. [applause] you are here to tell the world that our allies are stronger than ever. [applause] and because of you and millions

like you across this great country it's going to get even stronger in the coming years. [applause] thank you bob cohen, michael cason, howard and all the leadership of aipac. thank you. [applause] for your tireless dedicated work to strengthen the partnership between israel and the united states. i want to thank most especially members of congress democrats and republicans. i deeply appreciate your steadfast support for israel year in and year out. you have our boundless gratitude. [applause] i want to welcome the president

of the czech republic. [applause] mr. president israel never forgets its friends and the czech people have always been steadfast friends of israel, the jewish people from the days of the inception of zionism and mr. president when i introduced him in 1967 i received a -- that was one of the rifles that was given to us by your people in our time of need in 1948 so thank you for being here today. [applause] [applause]

also here are two great friends of israel former prime minister of spain. [applause] and as of last month former canadian foreign minister john baird. [applause] thank you both for your unwavering support. you are true champions of israel and true champions of the truth. [applause] [applause]

[applause] i also want to recognize u.s. ambassador to israel dana shapiro for your genuine friendship and for the great job you are doing representing the united states and in the state of israel. [applause] and i want to recognize and thank the ambassador for the exemplary job he is doing at the u.n. and it very difficult for him. [applause] thank you. and i want to recognize the other a man who knows how to take the heat. israel's ambassador to the united states, ron gerber. [applause]

ron i couldn't be prouder to have the representing israel in washington. and finally i want to recognize my wife, sarah his courage in the face of adversity is an inspiration to me. [applause] sera divides her time as a child psychologist as a loving mother and the public duties as the wife of the prime minister. sarah i am so proud to have you here with me today, too happy with me at my side always. [applause]

my friends i bring greetings to you from jerusalem, our eternal undivided capital. [applause] and i also bring to you news that you may not have heard. i will be speaking in congress tomorrow. [applause] [applause] you know there has been so much

written about a speech that hasn't been given. and i'm not going to speak today about the content of that speech but i do want to say a few words about the purpose of that speech speech. first let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama or the esteemed office that he holds. i have respect for both. [applause] i deeply appreciate all that president obama has done for israel, security cooperation intelligence sharing supported the u.n. and much more, some things that as prime minister i

cannot the polls because it remains in the realm of the competences that are kept between an american president and an israeli prime minister. i am deeply grateful for his support and so should you be. [applause] my speech is also not intended to inject israel into the american partisan debate. an important reason why our alliance has grown stronger decade after decade is that it has been championed by both parties and so it must remain. [applause] both democratic and republican presidents have worked together with friends from both sides of the aisle and congress to strengthen israel and our alliance between our two countries. working together they have

provided israel with generous military systems and missile defense spending. we have seen how important that is just last summer. working together they have made israel the first free-trade partner of america 30 years ago and its first official strategic partner last year. [applause] they have backed israel and defending us and our efforts to achieve a durable peace with our neighbors. working together has made israel stronger. working together has made our alliance stronger. [applause] that is why the last thing that anyone who cares about israel, the last thing that i would want is for israel to become a partisan issue and i regret that some people has perceived my visit is doing that. israel has always been a

bipartisan issue. israel should always remain a bipartisan issue. [applause] ladies and gentlemen the purpose of my address to congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with iran that could threaten the survival of israel. iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. look at that graph. look at that map. you can see it on the wall. it shows iran training arming dispatching terrorists on five continents. iran envelops the entire world

with its tentacles of terror. this is why -- what iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. imagine what iran would do with nuclear weapons. the same iran who vows to annihilate israel. if it develops nuclear weapons it would have been met means to achieve that goal. we must let -- we must not let that happen. [applause] as prime minister of israel i have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them. for 2000 years, my people, the jewish people were defenseless, voiceless.

we were utterly powerless against our enemies. who swore to destroy us. we suffered relentless persecution and horrific attacks attacks. we could never speak on our own behalf and we could not defend ourselves. well, no more. [applause] no more. the days when the jewish people are passive and threats to annihilate us, those days are over. [applause] today in our sovereign state of israel we defend ourselves. [applause] and being able to defend

ourselves we ally with others most importantly the united states of america to defend our common civilization against common threats. [applause] in our part of the world and increasingly in every part of the world no one makes alliances for the week. you seek out those who have strength, those who have resolve, those who have determination to fight for themselves and that is how alliances are formed. so we defend ourselves and in so doing create the basis of a broader alliance and today we are no longer silence. today we have a voice. [applause]

and tomorrow, tomorrow as prime minister of the one and only jewish state and plan to use that voice. [applause] i plan to speak about an iranian regime that is threatening to destroy israel that is devouring country after country in the middle east, that is exporting terror throughout the world and that is developing as we speak the capacity to make nuclear weapons and lots of them them. ladies and gentlemen israel and the united states agree that

iran should not have nuclear weapons but we disagree on the best way to prevent iran from developing those weapons. our disagreements among allies are only natural from time to time even among the closest of allies. there are important differences between america and israel. the united states of america is a large country, one of the largest. israel is a small country, one of the smallest. america lives in one of the world's safest neighborhoods. israel lives in the world's most dangerous neighborhood. america is the strongest power in the world. israel is strong but it's much more foldable. american leaders worry about the security of their country. israili leaders worry about the

survival of their country. you know? [applause] i think that encapsulates the difference. i have been prime minister of israel for nine years. there is not a single day not one day that i didn't think about the survival of my country and the actions that i would take to ensure that survival not one day. [applause] and because of these differences america and israel have had some serious disagreements over the course of our nearly 70-year-old friendship. that started with a beginning. in 1948 secretary of state george marshall opposed david ben gurion's statehood. that's an understatement.

he vehemently opposed it but ben gurion understood what was at stake and went ahead and declared israel's independence. in 1967 as an arab news was tightening around israel's neck the united states warned prime minister that if israel acted alone it would be alone but israel did act acted alone to defend itself. in 1981 under the leadership of prime minister menachem begin israel destroyed a nuclear reactor. [applause] the united states suspended arms for three months and in 2002 after the worst wave of palestinian terror attacks in

israel's history prime minister sharon launched defensive shield in the united states -- but sharon continued until the operation was complete. [applause] there was a reason i mention all of these. i mention them to make a point. despite occasional disagreements the friendship between america and israel grew stronger and stronger decade after decade. [applause] and our friendship will weather the current disagreement as well to grow even stronger in the future. [applause] and i will tell you why. because we share the same dreams dreams, because we pray and hope and aspire for that same rule because the values that unite us are much stronger than the

differences then -- that divide us. values like liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, compassion. as their reach and his sons into medieval barbarism israel is the one that upholds these values common to us and to you. [applause] as assad jobs bombs on his own people israeli doctors treat victims in our hospitals across the fence and the golan heights. [applause] as christians in the middle east are and ancient communities are decimated israel's christian community is growing and thriving. the only one such community in the middle east.

[applause] [applause] as women in the region are repressed, enslaved and raped women in israel serve as chief justices, ceos and fighter pilots. two women chief justices in a row. well, not in a row but in succession. that's pretty good. and a dark and sad desperate middle middle east israel as a beacon of humanity, of light and of hope. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, israel and the united states will continue to stand together because

america and israel are more than friends. we are like a family. we are practically -- disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable but we must always remember that we are family. [applause] rooted in a common heritage upholding common values, sharing a common destiny and that's the message i came to tell you today. our alliance is sound, our friendship is strong and with your efforts it will get even stronger in the years to come. thank you aipac, thank you america and god bless you all. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ..

literary life. we partner with galvesston to dallas texas. >> the rising tides and wind certainly drew them by watch and amazement as both of these

factors battered the structures at the time we had wooden bath houses on the gulf of mexico and we had piers and we even had a huge pavilion called loving by the sea. as the storm increased in intensity, these beach structures literally were turned into match sticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8th, 1900. the storm began before noon, increased in dramatic intensity, and finally taped off toward midnight. it is still the deadliest event in the history of the united

states for storms. >> watch this on saturday on cspan2 and on sunday on c-span 3. the "the communicators" features greg walden chair of the subcommittee on communication and technology. and then former maryland governor, bob erlich holds a town hall meeting. and then an interview with the senior advisor to president obama. >> c-span rated by america's cable companies 340 years ago and brought to you -- 35 -- as a local service from your cable or satellite provider. >> host: and greg walden is republican of maryland and chair of the subcommittee on