is to our foreign policy and to reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons that these two countries have pointed at each other, it is important to get this thing done now. >> the president was on air force one. >> i do not know if it is wednesday or thursday. sometime around then is my guess. i would not harbor to make that any more specific than probably one of those two days. >> will we be able to see him before? >> it is entirely possible. >> no football metaphors. you seem to be stopping short of saying that the republican opposition on start is political. and you said that all substantive objections have been met with an answer.

>> there can be >> if i have a question about our posture of the impact of any language on start, the person i would want to talk to would be the person in charge of missile defense for the united states. that is the preeminent expert on that is general cartwright. i think he was powerful and has been for many months on what the language in the preamble does and does not do. >> [inaudible] >> that is for them to decide what their opposition is. there is an in congruence with some that have said they oppose the treaty because they have not had enough time to debate it,

which is not matched by the facts of how many hearings have been had and how long it has been debated on the floor. the same people making the arguments also even in some of the same statements they have concerns about missile defense. it appears in congruent how one could determine if they have not had enough time how they determined missile defense is a problem. >> why did the president not come out on camera to appeal don't ask, don't tell? >> he was busy probably working on start. >> i just wonder if there was any sensitivity to republican concern about don't ask, don't tell, in the context of start? >> i think the president believes senators should make determinations on the issues and the merits of those issues alone, and not as a group of the

issues. >> some republicans have suggested and proposed creating a date certain early next year for start growth. he said that would satisfy a lot of the griping about process in the lame duck. what do you think about that? >> the time that has been allotted to debate this treaty exceeds the most previous treaty that has been on the floor. it is something that has been on the internet for eight months. is a lot ofk there credence to the argument that there is not enough time to get this done. >> given their anger about wang tao consideration -- about lame- duck consideration -- >> i don't think it will be

rejected. >> can you say if there was any other effort from the white house perhaps from the department of defense for general corporate -- >> i will check in and send that out. >> on the cr, even if it is short-term, will you be seeking money for implementation of health care and wall street reform? >> let me get some guidance from that. thank you. >> when you went [unintelligible] the idea of a news conference this week. is that possible? did he canceled plans to go to the wizards game on saturday? >> he did. >> why? >> he spent most of saturday

working and continued to do so in the evening in the residence. he thought it was -- despite being a good game, a better use of his time. >> is the administration concerned the census report shows there is a population shift around democratic states to republican leaning sun belt states? are they concerned how this will reflect the president's reelection? >> i think the shift -- i heard somebody say six. >> [inaudible] >> again, let me rephrase my question. are you looking for the congressional impact or the presidential impact? the census determines -- based on aug. population shifts determines representation in

congress -- based on obvious population shifts. the notion that six electoral votes would have been different in 2008 if the same states were won in 2012 does not mark a dramatic shift that would be any think anybody would be remotely fearful. >> 10 seats in congress would not worry you? >> it is like worrying about the weather. the census determines where people live and determines the number of seats that represent them. that is the way the law is written. i don't think shifting some seats from one area to the country marks a concern that you cannot make politically potent argument in those new places.

>> state -- did north korea to restrain itself more or less than the white house to be accepted? >> all i will say about the exercises with korea, they are our strong allies. and we support them. >> how does the dream act affect the president's desire to bring up broader immigration? >> it does not impact that. the president is disappointed that this was a piece of legislation with bipartisan support and with more than a majority. but because of senate rules, it is not something that will be passed in this congress. >> do you think something broader is achievable? >> it is, because we have to

deal with this problem. we have seen the little affect of states trying to write their own immigration laws. the courts don't find that compelling. they find that appropriately -- the appropriate venue for that to be the federal government. the only way we will solve the many issues out of emigration is to deal with it at a federal level. >> the president has a view on how same-sex spouses should be recognized? >> there are a series of the implementation issues that will be tackled as a result. >> is this just the pentagon? >> i think these issues are being looked at by lawyers. some lawyers here obviously.

let me check on that. >> jimmy carter thinks america is ready for a gay present. it is president obama ready? >> i have not asked him. >> the president said recently that attitudes evolve, including mine. he was referring to gay marriage. is he laying the groundwork in some sense for taking a different position than he has on the past? >> i think we had a fairly extensive conversation about this in the transcript of that interview. i would point you to that. i think the repeal of don't ask, don't tell was a significant accomplishment for many bad sought for more than a decade to repeal a policy that they

believed was on just. >> does the vote on saturday make a president think the country is perhaps more ready for gay marriage? >> i have not talked to them about how they vote on saturday impacts that. i think it is -- clearly if you look on the issue of repealing don't ask, don't tell, there is clearly a shift in voter attitude. there was broad bipartisan support in public polling for the repeal of a policy that did not make any sense. on wednesday it will no longer be the law. >> nobody talked to the

president about jimmy carter's comments? >> to tell you that nobody i know has talked to the president about jimmy carter's comments. >> i have two questions. the center for immigration studies reports in 2008 and 2009 2.4 illegal immigrants arrived while u.s. citizens were losing 8.6 million jobs. why are we importing 1 million workers a year when 17 million americans cannot find work? >> yesterday as you pointed out, we have a policy problem that has to be dealt with through comprehensive immigration reform. that is the only way we will deal with this. >>a "washington post" columnist

wrote, and this is a quote," robert gibbs picks fights with conservative talk radio hosts and the professional left, which uniformly backfire." do you believe he is wrong? >> i think maybe i should try out for speechwriter. >> you are clever. [laughter] >> on the cr, the republicans want to go back to 2008 pre- obama levels. is that a deal breaker for the president? >> you are not suggesting not that the 2008 levels are in the current cr? >> they want to go back before that. >> not surprisingly we would

have grave concerns if you look at the aspects of what you are talking about. making some huge cuts with things like education in a time in which we have real competitiveness issues throughout the country. now is not a time to do some of those things. we are going to have to make some tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order. that is why the president outlined the three-year spending freeze on non-security items in the budget. i think we are going to have to make some of those tough decisions. over the next course of the few years we will have further

debate about tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, which comprise a level of funding greatly in excess of the difference between 2008 levels in the cr. >> i would point you to the state department on back. i don't know the specifics of that. >> suspected terrorists, do you know anything on that? >> obviously we are in constant contact with our allies in the u.k. we do not know of any connection with something that might be going on here as it relates to that.

but we continue on a daily basis to communicate with and share information between these two governments. >> my assumption is governor richards and is not choosing -- he cleared his trip with the state department before he went. will he give a debriefing? >> i know of no plans to do that. governor richards and is traveling as a private citizen. >> he cleared this with the state department before he left. >> i will refer you to the state department. >> are you speaking with any reluctant democrats were mostly republicans? >> he has made calls to both parties. most of his focus is on republicans. i know that also the vice president has been tasked to do

-- head up the passage of start. i don't know who he has been calling. i assume a lot of the republicans, too. >> what other officials have been conferring with the senators? >> on start, i know on certain occasions director clapper has answered questions. obviously secretary gates has been involved in this. the secretary of state has been involved. this is a priority that is not just the president's, but all those who have expertise in our country's foreign policies. >> [unintelligible] >> i have been told they were making calls before the president and vice-president met with --

they continue to do so. >> [inaudible] >> i am not going to get into his trip. >> you mentioned the implementation process is underway. there is a provision that says that repeal will not take effect until the president and joint chiefs of staff is ready for repeal. is the administration open to the possibility of issuing an executive order to stop this charges? >> as i said earlier, there are a host of the implementation of legal issues that are being studied throughout the government. >> what do say about a service member who has been discharged? >> by the time it is signed in law? i would say to that person there

are lawyers looking at all of these legal issues. i would also say to that person when the president walks into -- he will sign into law the repeal of that law on wednesday. >> how long will it take until that certification takes place? >> i think that is part of what groups of people will be working on. but i will say this, we know that because of the attitudinal studies the pentagon conducted, we know that the vast majority of those serving in our military don't believe this will be disruptive. that points to an implementation process that will not be burdensome. >> thank you. going back to start, i would

like you to address one of the concerns that was raised. were the russians to pull out of the agreement over missile defense with the u.s. still proceed in senator kerry's words, within the perimeter of start? >> let me get some guidance from car right on that. -- guidance from cartwright. >> [unintelligible] what is the white house' message? would you consider a military option with the french? >> as it relates to the election, the president was the rightly and justly elected

president. we stand ready to impose targeted sanctions individually- planned -- individually and in concert with -- those associated with him. and those who continue to cling to power illegitimately. that election was clear. its result was clear. it is time for him to go. >> what is your response to criticism of the 9/11 responder bill would save billions and it should wait until the next session of congress? >> the administration endorsed the 9/11 bill in august. we put out a statement before the house vote and before the senate vote. i think there are plenty of safeguards to ensure that money is not a diaz. but what is important is we

ought to take care of those who took care of us. that is why every democrat voted to move that legislation forward. i cannot speak to why every republican opposed it. >> you could talk about how personal this issue is for the president. it has been a big issues since the senate. serious -- clearly he wants this as part of his legacy. can you tell me how personal this is? >> this is an issue that goes back to even before he was sworn in during the senate, having conversations with the senator lugar, who have been great champions of this issue. i don't think we would be where we are on getting it passed without those two leaders. i think the president is less concerned with his legacy and

that sort of thing than he is with the reduction of the risk, the -- the risk of having too many weapons and the risk of those fallen into the hands of somebody that seeks to do harm to millions of innocent victims. it is important for -- important we have a verification regime. it is important we continue to have a productive relationship with russia. it is personal but far greater than that. it is as he and virtually every -- who was that? i have to know. >> i don't know how it got there. >> you can change that. you can change the ring town.

[laughter] please put it on something called tomorrow and call him around this time. >this is an issue of far greater importance to the world than it is to him personally. it just demonstrates how important this is for our relationships. >> can you give us a quick read out on the labour meeting friday? >> nothing more than the written readout that would have gone out from that. >> we heard there were not clear lines of communication between the white house and the labor unions. was anybody set up as a liaison? >> i think there are pretty clear lines on that but i will

check to say to what degree that was brought up. >> vice president biden said troops will be out of afghanistan by 2014. is that u.s. policy? >> i will point you to what was decided in lisbon a few weeks ago. we will much likely have primary security of afghanistan to the afghans as nato and a staff agree by the end of 2014, which would end our, that -- which would end our combat in that country. what the vice president was discussing was combat. >> he said july 2011 withdrawal would not be a token withdrawal. how does he know that when he says that is supposed to be

based on conditions on the ground? >> it will be determined by conditions on the ground, but the vice president knows as many do hear that the president made -- the president in conjunction with the military worked through a plan one year ago that they think is achievable to meet the date of july 2011. there are many that believe we would not meet our dates in iraq and we did. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the state department today commented on the new mexico gov. tol richardson 's trip

north korea. the government promised it would allow inspections of its nuclear facilities. p.j. crowley also addressed secretary of state clinton's efforts to get ratification of the nuclear arms treaty with russia. this is 35 minutes. due to a technical issue, we are unable to bring you the first few months of this event. >> a couple of things you mentioned at the top before you get north korea questions. on the ivory coast you said you are preparing to oppose additional sanctions. are there any sanctions? >> additional to what the european union has announced. we have a process under way to reduce sanctions against the president, his immediate family and those supporting him. we will announce this as we

finish that process. >> but it is still your position he should step down and leave the country? >> yes. >> are you concerned sanctions might affect his ability to lead the country? >> nothing we decide to do will impede his stepping down and making way for the government of president elect. >> on venezuela, what is said is the same thing someone else said who added at the end of the -- venezuela will bear the responsibility, that he or she then said washington would presumably have more to say about this. it sounds as though you don't have anything more to say. is larry still going to venezuela? >> larry has not been confirmed by the senate. his nomination still remains

before the senate. with the bridge which -- withdrawal, it is not likely he will pick up his duties in caracas. that is still a decision before the senate. >> they could withdraw the nomination and nominate someone else. >> we have no plans to withdraw the nomination. >> when you say that you thought it was important to maintain high-level dialogue and venezuela will bear the consequences for its actions towards larry, are you saying the consequences are there? >> the decision has been reached by venezuela not to accept larry as the ambassador should he be confirmed by the senate. obviously, that has consequences

in terms of our relationship with venezuela. we have been discussing this issue with authorities for a number of months. we have cautioned them if they were to withdraw, he would have an impact on our ongoing relations. obviously we will evaluate what to do in light of it. >> does that include the ambassador here? >> we will evaluate the consequences of our relationship. >> what is the range of consequences? >> when we decide what to do we will let you know.

>> concerns they have had about questions answered as part of his nomination process 0.2 authorities -- he is the kind of person that can lead u.s. venezuela relations in a new direction. >> what would be the next step? what would be plan b for venezuela? >> we will evaluate the implications of this. we made clear at this kind of action would have consequences. we will evaluate what to do. >> do you see any possibility during this [inaudible] >> i don't know a particular

meeting is planned. while she is in brazil she will have the opportunity to interact with many of her counterparts. nothing is planned as far as i know. >> could you of elaborate more on which would be the consequences of this action by the government? >> this just happened this morning. it is something we had hoped venezuela would not do. it is a step venezuela has taken. we made clear to venezuela that there will be a consequence. we will evaluate what to do. >> what is the whole point of a process in the first place? shouldn't it be the prerogative of the host country whether they want to accept that person or not?

you have the choice to not except anybody that any country puts forward to you. >> we are not arguing it is within venezuela's rights to take this action. having taken this action, they will be having a relation -- there will be consequences in terms of the u.s.-venezuela relations. >> can we go to north korea? >> sure. >> you saw what happened and what did not happen in response over the weekend. do you have any reaction to the decision by the north koreans not to retaliate? what do you make of what the north koreans were told by gov. richardson? >> there was no basis for any

other response by north korea. this was an internal matter for north -- for south korea. its military has a right to exercise within its own borders. it was not a threat to north korea. south koreans announced the exercise in advance. it was not a surprise to north korea. this is exactly how countries are supposed to work. >> so they don't get a gold star for not doing anything? >> no. >> this is not something you think is positive? you have been pushing them to take steps to reduce tensions. >> there was no basis for a provocative response like there was to the exercise last month. >> what about what the north koreans told governor richard send -- richardson about letting

inspectors back in? >> and a joint u.s. north korean and south korea and hot line or something? >> governor richardson is on a private visit. he did not ask our permission before he went. we did not approve his visit. we would expect to get a report from him when he returns from north korea. it will have that perspective as to what it was north korea told him. north korea talks a great game. the real issue is what will they do if they are agreeable to returning inspectors to their

country they need to tell the iaea that. if they are willing to participate in mechanisms that reduce tensions with south korea, we certainly would favor any step that reduces tensions and improve communications in the region. we will await a full report from gov. richard send. >> do you accept this -- from gov. richardson. >> until you see it specifically from the north koreans themselves? are these ideas -- whether they are going to implement them or not, are these ideas you would see as positive? >> if implemented. we have seen a string of broken

promises by north korea going back many years. we will be guided by what north korea does and not what they say they might do. we want to see north korea live up to its obligations. if north korea wants to engage with the iaea and reintroduce inspectors into facilities, that will be a positive step. the key is following through and implementing that decision and meeting its international obligations both under international agreements and the 2005 joint statement. >> even though this was not an official visit, you said you did not approve it. did you talk to him before he left? did you give any briefings?

>> governor richardson has a fair amount of experience in these matters. i would expect we would receive a full report from him and his team when they returned from north korea. >> it seems even though it was not official that the combination of he was urging them not to take provocative actions, he was on the ground urging restraint during that time and he seems to have elicited these concessions from north korea. it looks as if he was able to talk some sense into north korea. >> we will see. hope springs eternal. >> even though he was not going on behalf of the government it seems he was able to get some

movement to the north koreans we would not. >> we have enormous respect for the governor. he has great experience with north korea going back to his days as our ambassador in the un. not arguing this interaction may have value, but we will see. it depends on what north korea decides to do. we have been clear as to what we need to see from north korea in the coming weeks and months. if north korea takes actual steps to meet its obligations to fulfill its promises under the joint statement, we are prepared to respond. >> would you say one of these subsets post are enough to return to talks? you said there is a list of

things you would like them to do. >> we will watch to see what north korea actually does rather than what it says it might do. >> you want to see them do days before there is any negotiation at all? >> we made clear if they meet their obligations and take steps to reduce tensions in the region and take steps to denuclearize, we will respond accordingly. they have to take those steps before we move forward. >> you said four interesting points. he was not carrying any message from the administration. can you give us a window into what happened yesterday as to any meetings that happened when the exercises were about to begin.

the possibility of north korea retaliations? >> it is hard for me to give you a full picture. we were concerned about the uncertainty of how north korea would respond even as we completely support the right of south korea to exercise as they see fit. we were closely monitoring events over the weekend at the state department. a number of meetings involving our ambassador and the commander of forces in korea. >> can you talk about the secretary possible in these meetings? >> the secretary along with the assistant secretary were closely monitoring this through the week. >> as far as escalation in the

north, it is -- is it up to [unintelligible] they may be acting because china is the north against the south. are you talking to the chinese? >> yes, deputy secretary steinberg was in beijing last week. we had conversations about developments on the korean peninsula. there was a debate within the un security council yesterday led by susan rice. she was interacting with her counterparts on the council including representatives from russia and china. >> we will get there eventually. >> you said you did not approve

the trip. doesn't the treasury department have to authorize this if they are going to spend any money there? >> i don't think so. we will take that question. governor richardson did not ask for our permission. are there things that have to be done? >> i am not sure north korea is in the same boat. >> he did not go suddenly. you did not talk to him during that time? prepared for a few months. >> the timing of the visit was

between governor richardson adn officials in north korea. >> this list -- this plan that came out of this. there would be positive steps, would that be enough to resume negotiations? >> we will be guided as we have said all along by what north korea does. not by what it says publicly or tells governor richardson. if north korea reduces tensions and takes steps to reduce tensions in the region, if north korea builds a more constructive relationship with south korea, if north korea meet its international obligations, if they take steps to denuclearize

as consistent with the 2005 joint statement we will respond accordingly to those specific actions. >> do you think we really need the six party talks for the peninsula? >> we are not against returning to sixth party talks, but we don't want to talk just for talk's sake. north korea has a responsibility to take affirmative action that warrants a return to a sixth party talks. >> it seems as if they say they are willing to take steps. i know you said you will see what they do. don't you think the things you said they were willing to do are the basis for some kind of discussions directly with them? you want to see them admit the inspectors and send some

communique that they are willing to set up a joint military command before you are willing to talk to them? there aret have -- things that we think north korea can do that would demonstrate a seriousness of purpose that would justify a consideration of returning to the six party process. these are brought descriptors. we want to see better relations between north and south korea. we want to see north korea meet its international obligations. we want to see north korea follow through on its commitment under the joint statement.

there are lots of ways to demonstrate that. if north korea takes those steps, we will respond accordingly. >> [unintelligible] >> try it again. >> is there still hope there? >> the six party concept has value. if our concerns about regional developments are shared by other countries from russia to japan and south korea, so the mechanism by which we have this international consultation and collaboration is very valuable. but the six party process requires action by six parties and not just five.

>> the u.s. has been clear they will not accept it but a lot of people think if you let the inspectors back in, and say we will these bombs, and the international community will get sucked in. they are a little bit worried. it is about a strategy to recognize them as a weapon state. how is that being watched? i know that is something u.s. officials have talked about in the past. >> we are not going to accept north korea as a nuclear state. >> as a nuclear state or nuclear weapons state? >> as a nuclear weapons state. north korea is no longer part

of the proliferation treaty. we are willing to consider how to meet legitimate energy needs north korea has. >> but there are a nuclear weapon states. >> i am losing my voice. >> could we change topics? >> you can knock -- talk to north koreans to reach [unintelligible] >> we would hope as a humanitarian measure we can continue cooperation with north korea on the return of remains, but that is separate from these other considerations. >> when you talk about the 2005 statement -- it does not include north korea.

what do you think it will be? >> we want to see north korea come clean about its nuclear programs. we want north korea to meet its international obligations not to pursue a weapons program. we are prepared to have a discussion about north korea's energy requirements going forward just as we did in 1994. but north korea has not follow through and met their obligations. >> yesterday human-rights issued a lengthy report and it was quite downing. it said all of this was for the benefit [inaudible] are you aware of that?

>> i have not read it. >> is a traditional for you -- >> i will take the question as to whether we have seen it. >> what action do you take? >> what is the latest on this american in jail, paul wagner, arrested on kidnapping? >> is this haiti? can we stay on the middle east? >> you said they were having talks this week. >> they are in the region. they are having talks in the coming days with israeli and palestinian teams today or tomorrow. >> will they be back here? >> i think so. >> [inaudible] it seems that he is opposed to it.

>> our position on this is this is why we favor a return to negotiations. we believe earnestly that is the best route to a viable palestinian state. >> what is the latest on this gentleman? apparently he has been denied medical care. some people would say he was denied food and is set in jail and receiving threats from a prison guard officers. >> our officials at the u.s. embassy visited paul on december 13 and 15. they were at a preliminary hearing last week. they have been in communication with this lawyer. we have reached out to the government of haiti and received assurances they will safeguard this while he is incarcerated at

the penitentiary. >> have you received indications of him being treated in jail? >> part of our duties at the embassy is to provide him assistance. part of our effort is to ensure our citizens are not mistreated. we have monitored their health and welfare. i am not aware we have heard any concerns. >> what about his charges that the baby in his care had died and he put it along with other people who have died. the father is claiming he stole the baby and that is why he was arrested for kidnapping. >> he was arrested on the kidnapping complete and it is under investigation. >> do you think these are trumped up charges? >> we are closely monitoring

this case. we will make sure he has full rights as he goes through this. >> one of the women killed -- i realize israeli police are under way. there have been some officials who suggested in the israeli media that this was a terrorist attack. do you have any indication it was a terrorist attack? >> we have not reached a judgment at this point. >> is anyone on the way there to help any investigation? >> not to my knowledge. >> can you talk about any specific outreach secretary clinton is making and to who? >> she has been closely monitoring events on the hill. she has made a number of calls to senators on both sides of the aisle over the past several

days. i have not got a list to tell you hill, but she has been engaged in this process. going back a number of weeks. she has had meetings with senate leadership and individual senators to try to assure them the treaty is in the national interests and there are concerns about impact on missile defense to the verification regime to satisfy those questions. she will continue to engage in any questions as we go through the final couple of days of debate. we are looking to the senate tomorrow. i continue to believe this is the time or the senate to act. >> do you know senator mc

connel.l >> she and the senator have had conversations. >> can you give us that list? >> we will see if we have a list of colds she has made. >> is she making calls to congress about the armenian genocide? >> do you have any comment about the treaty being ratified this week? >> we are closely monitoring best. we are doing our own account here. we believe the votes are there to ratify the treaty. >> are you surprised at the republican objections to this? >> what do you mean by that? >> initially there was an amendment that wanted to change the preamble. then there were amendments

offered and defeated. they wanted to put tactical nukes into teh preamble. the objections to the treaty seemed to be involving. once one challenges are beaten back the republicans are coming up with another one. >> i suppose we are not surprised. we always understood this was going to be a difficult process to get to seven votes. we believe the votes are there. we are hoping for a successful vote tomorrow and vote on ratification. but that is evidence we believe we have answered all the questions that have been raised. there are still suggestions this

is right even though the senate has been considering the tree for nine months. we believe we have answered the questions. it is in the national interest. it is important to ratify the treaty to get our inspectors back to russia and we can move forward with further negotiations on things like tactical weapons and other considerations. >> if you believe you have answered the questions why are you answering them over and over again? >> when does the administration take its gloves off? >> senator reid has put the vote on the docket for tomorrow. we believe the votes are there. >> do you think these are delayed tax six -- delayed t

actics? >> we believe we have answered those concerns. any objections are more about politics than substance. that is regrettable because it is contra -- for arms control treaties going back decades. >> the u.s. was lopsided with nuclear weapons. the russians will have a lopsided quantity compared to the americans. second, [inaudible] who don't know of anyone wants to trade our forces for russian forces. >> from the newly elected members of a congress about not passing this because they want to consider this.

as the secretary gotten any of the newly elected members? >> on the senate side, the secretary has spoken with senator kirk among the newly elected members, but we have done a comprehensive interaction by the secretary and also by undersecretary and assistant secretary. we have been at this for many months. we believe we have answered questions. it is time for the senate to step up and the votes to be counted. >> going back to the un special tribunal for 11 non, -- tribunal for lebanon, it implied the tribunal is [unintelligible]

do you consider such statements as interfering with international affairs? >> the supreme leader does not have the authority over the tribunal. it was convened by the un. we are supporters of it, but as our state and made clear, it is independent. we look forward to whatever judgments the tribunal issues. >> do you consider this as interference? >> we regret there are many in the region who have chosen to politicize the work of the tribunal. >> what about the armenian genocide solution which already cost the turkish ambassador -- there is talk about it going to the floor. what is the administration doing? >> we have made clear our opposition to that resolution. >> is the secretary making calls

>> i cannot say it was a secretary. >> has anything happened since she first answer the question on friday? are you aware of anything happening? >> this question came up on friday's meeting. has anything happened? >> the state department -- no. we are in touch with the house on this. >> thank you. >> >> tonight, on the communicators, with the holiday season in full swing, a discussion with scott peterson and jerry cereeasale. that is on c-span2. >> is hard to get here and it is hard to leave here. but all of us to leave and the

senate always continues. >> search for a farewell speeches and retiring members in the senate and house on the c- span video library. more than 160,000 hours are online and free. it is washington, your way. >> your watching c-span, bringing new politics and public affairs every morning. we connect you with elected officials and policy makers and journalists. >> the u.s. house every week and every week night, congressional hearings and supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our documentary programs. you can also watch our programming anytime at c- span.org is all searchable on our c-span video library.

c-span, washington your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> the head of the commodities futures trading commission said that his agency is likely to phase in new curbs on speculative trading. next, a portion of a hearing looking into proposed rules on what is known as restrictions on the number of deaths traders can make on a certain commodity. >> we have the executive chairman of the group, mr. joel newman, and mr. jefferies specter, chairman and chief executive officer of intercontinental exchange and

mr. robert jones, senior vice presidents of the group in chicago. please begin when you're ready. thank you for a long need to speak. out of concern of possible speculation in the markets, the department and other business and consumer groups formed the coalition. i am delivering testimony on behalf of this coalition and i have submitted a list of supporting groups for the record.

the commodity markets oversight coalition is an informal coalition who's participating members represent an array of business interests, including commodity producers, processors, distributors, retailers, commercial and industrial and users as well as groups representing average american consumers. the dot frank pack includes speculation including requirements the law requires we're disappointed that the our coalition -- we have not had

enough time to bet the potential effects of such limits. the committee should note that the dodd-franc act does not provide us with limits but expands additional authority. the act requires -- the u.s. exchange has abandoned speculation in favor of softer accountability limits. under the -- many traders and made no action. there was a round of hearings in 2009 and introduced a proposal in january.

and during that time, some argued against the proposed action out of fear that it would drive market activity to the dark market. and the cftc should not act across the board. under the dodd-franc act, it would require exchange trading for clearing. it requires that they seek u.s. access to compare oversight and regulation. in addition, they are imposing speculation. the cftc must act.

prices have surged to unjustifiable levels. manufacturers and other transfers are affected as well peeving despite ample evidence, some continue to doubt or deny the speculation was ever or could ever be excessive. make no mistake, we believe in transparent and competitive markets. speculators provide the market with its liquidity. excessive speculation drives commodity prices to levels unjustified. as you saw, there the commodity

bubbles in 2007 and 2008. this will send a signal of stability and help create functional markets. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to any questions that you might have. >> thank you for inviting us to testify regarding the implementation of the dodd-franc position. i am going to focus on the requirements of dodd frank. dodd frank requires the commission to make a finding that position limits are necessary to diminish eliminate speculation before imposing limits.

corporates will five, section 5 also demonstrates that the levels are not required. dodd-franc also requires that that we wait to impose limits on economically equivalent swaps. the purpose of this provision is to prevent a bit of trading. given these requirements, and we may not act against teachers. the commodity exchange act allows limits to be imposed only on excessive speculation, not speculation generally. this is a clearer recognition that futures markets cannot operate without the participation of speculators. arbitrer position limits distort

markets, increased costs to hedgers and consumers. this is unnecessary unless excessive speculation is present or is likely. academic literature and the studies produced by the cftc show that this does not deal with supply issues. efforts to focus on these efforts are certain to do more harm than good. worse yet, position limits in that preclude investors from seeking economic exposures to particular asset glasses drive those investors had to specific commodities. this has a significant and often detrimental impact on the flow of commodities in commercial channels. we have seen the beginnings of such distortions in the metals

markets. this is not a development that any of us should favor, but one ofat is an unfortunate result bad economics. we employ limits on most of our contracts. however, we use limits and accountable to levels as permitted by the levels and to help us respond in advance to any effort to manipulate our markets. we believe that the core purpose of limits should be to reduce the threat of price manipulation and other destructions to the integrity of prices. such activity destroying public confidence.

we appreciate the opportunity to offer the comments regarding these provisions on certain contracts. we hope that the views expressed today are helpful and we look forward to answering any questions the committee will have. thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. newman? >> chairman boswell and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. the american feed industry association is the largest organization to represent the u.s. animal feed industry and its suppliers. we applaud the subcommittee and its members for calling today's hearing. a f ia members produces 70

percent of the animal feed in the u.s. which amounts to over 160 million tons annually. we depend significantly on an efficient and well functioning futures market for both price discovery and risk-management. agricultural commodity markets were established to provide an efficient price discovery mechanism and hedging/risk- management tool for producers and end-users. while the system encourages and require speculative participants to provide liquidity, the significant increase of financial investors, but permitted by special exemptions from speculative position limits that have been granted over time has distorted the function of these markets. in the agricultural commodity markets first implemented

limits. however, this changed in 2000 when congress codified earlier regulatory actions granting wall street banks and other financial institutions and exemption from speckled to a position limits for hedging over-the-counter swaps and index transactions. while there are several factors that have led to increased volatility and price swings of agricultural commodities, excessive speculation by index funds is one in of these factors. these larger financial players were never contemplated during the development of the original act. most of the index holds their positions rather than sell. this provides them a chance to be artificial. the magna tool cost the magnitude is obvious.

in 2008, this jumped to billions. in 2010, these investments remain with index funds representing 94% of that amount. earlier this year, we look for precision's that would authorize the cftc to set this one as i commodity contracts as well as for aggregate and exchange specific position limits. specter of the position limits that enhance market performance and the pri narrowing of market values as they near the contract delivery. the retention and application of the existing limits car

retaining the heads definition that is in play. the removal of speculation. without removing these exemptions, we will have a much more limited effect when they get into place. we support speculative position limits and a speculator. however, there is rarely a perfect solicitor -- a solution.

this will only delay that much- needed transparency and controls required in these markets. we support interim limits that can also be adjusted with further data. i would be remiss if i did not express our appreciation of the chairman and his fellow commissioners for their openness and diligence and addressing our concerns during this entire process. thank you for letting me participate in today's hearing. we stand ready to assist you in this effort and we look forward to any questions. >> >> chairman boswell, chairman peterson, i am the chairman and chief executive officer of american metal exchange which is

known as ice. i am grateful to provide all pertinent -- to provide comments on the position limit remain pending before the commodity futures trading commission. we believe that limits should be set in the equivalent markets. financially settled contracts should be handled differently. there have been exhaustive hearings by congress and the commission over the last several years and they have concluded that economic equivalent

contracts operate as an aggregate market. therefore, we believe in -- we agree with congress and believe this is the proper authority to set limits on u.s. energy futures. only the commission is in a position to view and market participants positioned in all the news. however, we also believe that the rule making it should focus on implementing the core requirements and that is setting aggregate position limits across markets and should avoid the consideration of experimental rules .

this could negatively impact liquidity. we effectively heads the price risks. this would be an unintended consequence and it would be inconsistent with the goals. finally, the commission should tree contracts differently for different purposes. the commission already recognizes there is a distinction between financial and physical settled contracts. these rules eliminate the need for had exemptions that exist in the energy futures market. in conclusion, we are a strong proponent of markets and we are pleased to work with congress. mr. chairman i would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you today. >> we thank you.

mr. jones? >> i am robert jones, senior vice presidents. we appreciate the opportunity to discuss limits on commodities. federal limits are already in place for those commodities and we believe that they are at a corporate levels. we have found that the commission understands the impacts of its actions on commercial businesses and it is response of to our concerns. the deadlines have been set and their challenging. price discovery occurs in the futures market so it is extremely important that we get these rules right. given the choice, we would prefer to go slower and make sure we get it right rather than rush through the rules.

to provide some context for this, i would ask you to think back to 2008. basis levels before producers is essentially the difference between the cash in the futures and it widens dramatically. this causes extreme financial stress. at the same time, marketing by producers was limited. the only factor does not the only factor. this could lead to a repeat of that situation. if another investment spike occurs, grain buyers must be forced to buy from other producers. buyers would be forced to consider tighter limits on contract purchases and that the

time, producers would like to take the benches -- take evanish of those prices. -- take advantage of those prices. in particular, we have a strong reservations about an approach that would create a combined position when on futures based on interest levels. the majority of the risk- management activities for the commodities involved peaches -- involves futures. this would limit futures. the result would be a perpetual motion of commodities and wider basis swings. in addition, the chicago board of trade has worked to reestablish convergence in wheat contracts.

proper functioning of the futures markets for traditional commercial users should be the overriding consideration in establishing position limits. a reliable relationship between cash and futures must be maintained. convergence matters. not just some times, but consistently and predictably. we do not favor this because we believe it provides liquidity. we must provide reasonable limits on commodities so that the small markets are not overwhelmed by investment demand, ignoring the unique characteristics of these markets could have consequences for agricultural producers and hedgers who use these markets for price discovery and risk- management. thank you for the opportunity to

present our views today. we will be happy to respond to any questions. >> we have boats that will be coming up in about 15 minutes. we are not one to limit the discussion that takes place, but i am going to go right to mr. johnson. >> just a quick question, two of my fellow illinoisans are here. i would ask you, it seems the commission is of the mind of that if we hurried to regulate domestic exchanges, our european counterparts will follow. it is my judgment, and i may be wrong, is that the correct process for the think that that course would put our markets at

a competitive disadvantage? do you think that if we do put the cart before the horse, the europeans will impose similar limits or will they live back and taken advantage of our premature action? >> i think the congressman for his question. i met with a gentleman from france whose name escapes me. i asked him when he told me that they were in lockstep with the united states, i asked him if they would pass dodd-franc in the u.k. and he said no. there were other provisions put in place and they had no such provisions. there are making a lot of rhetoric as it relates to regulatory conforming with the u.s..

the u.k. and is very dominant and they will say many things to gain a competitive advantage over the united states and it would be a shame that that was allowed to happen. we want to keep this business in the u.s.. we want to be the central place to discover price. i assure you that our friends in europe would love to have the business that we have today. i do not believe that they're going to follow suit with the united states, they may do some things were not to the extent of the united states. >> there christmas and happy holidays to all of the. >> mr. peterson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this article that i referenced earlier, as i understand it, i do not know if they call to, did

they? you offered a service. was it true that you could not get people to sign up? >> we had an offering with citadel investment company about a year-and-a-half ago to bring to market trading of credit defaults swaps initiatives and we did not receive any traction on that initiative with the citadel investment firm. we have had a lot of businesses that we invest him and some work and some don't. we test hundreds of products and maybe one will be successful. this was another venture that did not succeed. >> the agree with the characterization that these secret committee of nine bankers close out? >> i do not know any fax -- any

facts. we do not have barriers to enter into our clearing house. there is not a multibillion- dollar commitment today. there are risk-management issues. i am not saying that is not important. in today's business, we do not have the barriers of entry that the chairman might have characterized incorrectly. >> did the research committee change? as the makeup of that change? >> the make up our risk committee can change very we have certain members have come and go. we have a composition of people that have an interest in the marketplace and that is reflective of the marketplace and we think that that is the best thing for all. >> you would not agree that this

risk committee is dominated by these secret committees? >> i do not believe that. i think that there is some collusion going along. >> do you have a risk committee, too? >> we own five or regulated clearing houses and one is specific for credit defaults lots. the reason for that or 14 large banks. each of those banks as a representative on the committee. while we need, the risk and is overseen by a chairman and the issues that are discussed in our

committee are risk issues. speak to the meetings downtown. i am not aware of those. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. connolly? >> what are you coming to congress to ask us to do with respect to rule making is going on? the one us to continue to watch what is going on? >> as we identified in the association, we appreciate your continued oversight and watching the process.

right now, we work more directly with cfdc to make sure that our interests are taken into account and that process. >> it all of your organizations or your individual members have the appropriate level of access to the rule making process? >> yes, we have. >> we have now reached -- we have an out reach into have in reach.- the out reache >> we have had adequate access and as a coalition, which submitted comments. some of those suggestions were

actually throw around in a previous panel. one of those points made was very well taken about the importance of a lot of groups that are concerned about index speculation. i hope that the proposal that we are making will attempt to address that situation. >> what type of various forms of speculation are there? he said various forms of speculation. help me understand what a former speculation is. >> i am thinking of traditional speculation such as head funds. >> it is not the form? >> verses the index funds. >> you said that the

speculation bets on higher prices. is there a different reason to speculate that higher prices? is that a site of the deal that is by low sell high? you used the phrase in the majority that the speculators were betting on higher prices. i was struck by that that i am not aware of a speculator -- >> my comment was in respect to the other comments about index speculation. >> are there speculators that are in the market? >> we think that speculators in general should be in the market.

>> the comments -- your members, are they willing to accept higher prices for transaction costs as a result of limiting the number of speculators in the market? >you both mentioned higher transaction costs. is that one of the burdens that we talk about? can you measure those higher transaction costs? >> i think that you can't, sir. prior to going into management, i spent 25 years actually trading these products and providing liquidity for all different types of products. i know that when there are fewer participants in the marketplace, the bid offered rises significantly. i do not care if your trading in

government securities or pork bellies, it will rise. i have seen this firsthand. if i could just comment while i have a microphone, on these index funds, just so we are all clear, these index funds do not come to expiration in the market. we all decided that the price discovery function happens during the delivery. they are not affecting the price discovery of any one particular product. when you look at delivery of these products, there are several hundred contracts on that delivery cycle when millions of contracts are being traded. i apologize for answering two

questions at once. >> mr. marshall? >> i guess is the influx of the index fund money that would push prices higher. >> they would actually be selling the nearby contracts for it they would be putting pressure on the price discovery contract month if they are index funds. >> again, i just don't think that we are competent to judge this. that is why we defer to the cftc to not do it if it is not good to do it.

we heard that the influx of commodities money into the market could force prices for a period of time and then there would be a stable state that you have described. >> anytime there is an influx of money into any product, whether it is the security of stocks or a barrel of crude oil, you could have a short-term impact on price. you can do that at the grocery store or the gas pump or anywhere. the market will come back to fundamentals right away. our point is that these people are not affecting the price when it comes into the delivery. >> the cftc has been gathering data since late 2007. i think it is doing it more frequently. i guess that will occur early in

2011. are any of you aware of any studies -- we have already talked about the cftc looking at the data to determine whether it has had an impact on price have they had an impact on price? are any of you aware of a study done by anybody, lincoln or princeton, and taking that data which is probably the best thing to be looking at and try to figure out whether or not it has had it in a corporate impact? >> we look at the data and we have seen no evidence to support the index funds are doing what you're suggesting. the cftc economists have nothing to support the speculators are

influencing that. >> i believe that we might have some in formation which i cannot reside of hand. -- off hand -- off-tenn. . offhand. if you can help them identify the problem, internally, they are really struggling with this. some commissioners say that there is a problem, but they are not able to describe it end the staff says they do not know what the problem is so they do not know a solution to suggest. mr. jones, you said that your group was troubled by imposing position limits across all markets, not just in the exchange's, but in the otc market.

i have your language here. the practical impact of a combined otc futures position limit would likely mean limits would ratchet up towards steeply. when you say that the limits would ratchet up, what you mean by that is that your members would have position limits that were gradually pushed down so that they were really not able to take as much advantage of the exchange in the past? >> i would say that most of our members fall into the qualified hedger category. as i said early on, the majority of these, price recovery happens on the exchange and most of it is hedged.

unlike the energy markets, there is a much larger otc portion of that that occurs. if we were combining the otc, it would create a much larger position lynette. >> the trouble i am having is what affect that has on your ability to hedge. >> if you were to get into this investment fueled higher price scenario, -- >> you're suggesting that position limits would encourage additional investment markets? >> i would say it would allow it. it is currently allowed at that limit. >> you do not have an otc

comparable contract with regard to those? >> i would refer to mr. duffy. it is not the developed markets. >> you are worried that this would encourage that kind of phenomenon? >> we are not saying that it should not happen, we are saying that we should not rush to do that. we have found that the cftc does not need to rush to make those changes. >> the key for your indulgence. -- thank you for your indulgence. >> i wanted to return to what the chairman was talking about. when we went through the dodd- freight process, we were wanting to make sure the clearing houses were out there to allow things to be clear.

this new york times article was troubling. this was talking about secrets that were theatrical. i am curious how you guys approached this. if there is a problem, they can help solve that with other things, but it seems like there is a possibility that people could set those limits so high that only a handful of people to participate and you create an anticompetitive place. you talked about being open. i do not know what that means. that balance looks like it is a critical one to find. >> i am happy to -- what is

still the microform. i think that specific with credit defaults swaps, as you may know, we stepped forward at a moment in time when the market had collapsed and people were calling to remove the toxic assets of the books of the bank's and built a clearing house that the only solution we could come up with on how to deal with a failed bank is to force the other 13 members to accept a forced allocation of the failed positions that my company would minister. we want to open at the clearing house up. we have to recognize that some of these complicated derivatives have to be in a position to be able to except an allocation of these derivatives and then they have to be able to do something with them in the

marketplace. we intend to open that up. k shows thatodd-fran the u.s. arco was unfair. as the products get more liquid and more transparent, it is much easier for a member to come in and accept the position and liquidate it in a transparent market. as you know, the credit defaults what market is a complicated market -- the credit default swap market is a complicated market. >> it is a different product and is not the liquid -- it is

liquid. we have to have capital requirements that make sense. you need to set marginal requirements. we have to do different types of risk management as it relates to over-the-counter slot -- over-the-counter swaps type things. >> there was wide support for this. what you are hearing from us is that desire to continue to make these more transparent. i think that is the underlying piece of what we were working on.

>> thank you. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for spending this time with the spirit we appreciate it. mr. conway will be calling the next meeting of the subcommittee and whenever that will be. i would like to offer him any closing remarks you like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was speculating on something on something. i was heartened today to have the cftc process is open to you and that you get input into them. if a baseball analogy works, if the umpire is being screamed at by both benches, there must be something ok going on behind the

plate. >> we appreciate you coming. we wanted to shed a little daylight on what was going on. i think it has been a good day. we have learned and gotten the inside from the chairman and commissioners and some of the needs that you have. we want to invite you to continue to be in contact with us and i am sure that you will. with that, i think you again and wish you a great holiday and we look forward to seeing you next year. thank you so much. >> the records will be open for 10 calendar days.

this hearing is adjourned. but. >> every weekend on c-span3, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear eyewitness accounts of events that shape our nation. top history professors and

leaving historians still and to america's past. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend on c- span3. >> coming up tonight, the no labels conference, an event hosted by a bipartisan group of political strategists. they gathered elected officials and activists around the country to discuss political partisanship and ways to restore civility and practical solutions to government. new york city mayor mike, bloomberg, and outgoing mayor charlie crist. >> we only have one member of the house of representatives. we have state redistricting as well. as a congressman from tennessee said, there is redistricting

throughout the not as its of america. my staff has been preparing for this and talk about the 17th district of illinois which i do not know a lot about. there are houses that are excluded. that is the reapportionment a curse across the united states at the state level and that the federal level. -- occurs across thie united states at the state level and the federal level. i was a primary -- at a primary in delaware and i was heavily favored to win the primary and general election and the tea

party spent a great deal of money. it was not an open primary. i have had some appeal to independents and democrats. parties exist for a reason. i can understand the argument that they should be closed primaries, but i can see much more clearly now. [laughter] >> you need to be careful about the things we're talking about, here. open elections and redistricting. a lot of redistricting is there because the u.s. constitution has two houses, one where every state gets to votes no matter how big. a lot of people would argue that that was the right way to do with.

the founding fathers, when they wrote the constitution, it was basically male, white landowners. that is where the history is. in america, ethnicity is a very important thing. the courts will say that if redistricting takes away the number of seats of massive -- of ethnicity, than it is not fair. you cannot have it both ways of saying we're not going to look at anything or that we're going to look at people results. >> to make an interesting point about the white, male landowners treated the founders fell short of that. over the past few hundred years, there has been an ongoing moral progression to expand the basic

premise of equality to all people. what i am saying is, what is the next layer in the progression? is it better fought in the redistricting or in primary reform? you're talking about the constitutional issue. >> when i first came into office, i supported changing your city primaries to open elections. we were resoundingly beaten. the city is overwhelmingly democratic and you would think the republicans would be in favor of it. it was hard to find anybody in favor of it. since then, a lot of good government groups have said that we should have done it. if you want to have a something

that is totally open -- i do not have a problem if you have at our next to your name -- if you have an r next to your name. someone is going to have seven candidates and it would be all democratic. rudy and i notwithstanding. 5% of the people are going to put each of the two candidates in a run of and most of the people will be totally disenfranchised. >> how you avoid that? -- how do you e bork -- how do you avoid that. >> a midterm election with voter

turnout is low or, you still have to go to the right to win a republican primary and he have to go to the left to win a democratic primary. as mayor bloomberg said, we had that in california. we had an open primary in 1998 when he still had to have an r or a.m. d. we asked the voters to give the choice to the canned it to put the r or the d. i think that that is the game changer. think about it. you want to unite the republicans and democrats together, introduce the open primary together.

if they hate it, -- now, if an elected official is running for office, he better have a message for november. if his message is for june, he is going to lose. the one that will win is the one that the independents and republicans. that person is one to be open- minded, and pragmatic. >> from this whole side of the room, if everybody does not -- if the incumbent local power structure doesn't want the redistricting, doesn't want the open primary is, can a line like this on a bipartisan plan to make sure it doesn't happen, should be at the top of the list

of the problems? in other words, they are telling you what is most voluble to them. the heart -- valuable to them. it would surely compromise the power structure and the american people are saying that they are not happy with how the power structure is functioning. if nothing else, it is almost like a scientific experiment. we found a variable that matters. what would it take, in your opinion, to organize, using a platform of no labels, a coalition that could have a very clear, very easy to understand mechanism to advocate for this.

that is exactly what she did in terms of redistricting. over and over and over again, when the market that in an effective way that talks about the amendments that will be on the ballot, it could go straight to the people, not to the parties. they overwhelmingly passed it, not by 50%, but by 63%. we have a higher threshold for amending our constitution in florida. you advocate no labels. you talk about the country before the party. you talk about the people instead of the party bosses. as i travel florida, which is one of the most diverse states in the country, and you talk about what people want for the future, what they talk about is that they want people who are

fiscally risky -- fiscally conservative, but also socially moderate. leave me alone. we are an independent bunch of people. if we provide a good education and we have a good defense on the national level and you just search for common sense, these things can happen. america will be stronger for it. >> you can see this event in its entirety tonight starting at 8:00 on c-span. >> it is hard to get here. it is hard to leave here. all of us do leave and the senate always continues. >> search for farewell speeches. on the c-span video library. more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. it is washington, your way.

>> tonight, with the holiday season in full swing, a discussion of internet sales tax with scott peterson of the streamlined sales tax governing board. that is at 8:00 eastern on c- span2. >> today, the hudson institute in washington d.c. posted -- posted a discussion on u.s. refugee policies. at issue is whether some refugees who have emigrated to the u.s. or want to have faced deportation or delays due to being mistakenly placed on terrorism suspect lists. officials from the southern baptist convention, the hebrew immigrant aid society, and the u.s. conference of catholic bishops speak at this event. it is an hour.

>> our immigration laws that target individuals who have engaged in terrorist attacks serve legitimate goals. to exclude from the united states people who threaten our national security. both of those purposes are consistent with our nation's commitment. the 1951 refugee convention and its protocol explicitly exclude from protection people who have committed serious crimes,

including acts of terrorism. and allows the country to expellee refugee who poses a danger to its security. today, despite some recent improvements in the law, and despite the hard work of many in the obama administration, at many legitimate refugees that pose no threat to the united states have had their applications for asylum more permanent residence denied or delayed due to overly broad provisions of the u.s. immigration law that were intended to protect the united states against terrorism. as human rights first, compared we see the impact of these laws and policies of clothes every day. all refugee protection program provides pro bono representation for those who

seek asylum protection in the united states. our clients come from countries a very diverse. over 80 different countries, including iraq, burma, ethiopia, drc, and china. refugees from each of these countries and many others have been unjustly affected by the terrorism bars. we have issued over the course of the last for five years to reports on the subject. the first was in 2006 and another last year in 2009. that process, we learned of many individual refugees to have been adversely affected by these provisions.

i want to give the idea of the kinds of cases you're talking about. for example, a sri lanka of refugees who pays a ransom to his kidnappers spent 2.5 years an immigration detention upon his arrival in the united states and was then forced to wear a humiliating electronic ankle bracelet for more than two years after his release. he spent over five years in immigration proceedings here in the inland states. a majority of its after he had already been found qualified for asylum as a refugee. he was waiting to receive a waiver for the money that he had paid to his captors to allow him to escape. he has remained separated from his wife and family, even as conditions in some countries deteriorated. another case is an ethiopian father of five you have been living in the united states for

seven years and was granted asylum more than four years ago. he was jailed after the decision to grant him asylum. that decision was reversed. blocks -- you will hear more about in a minute. the immigration judge found that this man whose own political activities for peaceful have suffered torture in ethiopia and he would face a probability of further torture if he were deported there and was eligible for asylum but for the material support to bar. there is no process in place to consider people in his situation. this is a serious problem and it has brought together a serious coalition of groups and individuals to tackle its. the groups that you see in front of you today, the people in the

groups they represent, we all signed a letter in october to president obama urging him to address this issue and to ensure at least that the provisions of the current law are interpreted and implemented in such a way that individuals such as the to the edges described refugees from tree-lined and ethiopia are able to get -- tree-lined back and ethiopia are able to get the protection they deserve. our panel is incredibly diverse. i want to introduce each of them very briefly and then we will hear from comment from each of the panelists and we will open up to questions and discussion.

we have first to my left the director of public affairs and migration policy at the u.s. catholic conference of bishops. next we will hear from galen carey. he represents 41 denominations. barrett duke will be next. the southern baptist church has 16 million members and represents 45,000 churches. next we will hear from michael horowitz, who is our host at the hudson institute greg he served in the reagan administration and played a key role in getting the improvements to the law that i represent -- the reference. after michael, we will hear from

melanie nezer. she is incredibly knowledgeable about the details of block and their impact on real refugees. finally, wendy wright. you've got a very broad perspective and people who are devoting the energies and talents and the power of their organizations to stand up for refugees were unjustly affected by these laws. >> thank you, elisa massimino. i am the director of migration policies and public affairs at the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. when the first explain why the catholic church is concerned about this issue. this is an institutional issue.

we bring in about 18-20,000 refugees into this country each year. we have overseen separations the catholic relief services that see these cases every day. they are often calling us to ask us to see what we can do to get individual refugees admitted. if we have an institutional issue. we look at this as a justice issue. the catholic church strongly supports the government's role and protecting our country and defending our borders, but we think we can balance that goal with the goal of maintaining our leadership as a protector of human-rights. it has been an inspiration to countries and individuals around the globe. i think we can do both. that is why we are here today.

but added that has to do is to give you a quick summary of how we got here. -- what i have been asked to do is to give you a quick summary. we know that this decade has been characterized by the 9/11 attacks. the politics in this country has been geared toward responding to those attacks. this has impacted the refugee area as well. after those attacks, the patriot act was passed. it was an understandable response to the terrorist acts that occurred in our country. sometimes there are unintended consequences. we believe that one of the unintended consequences was the expansion of what a terrorist organization is. they included another category called a tier 3 organization and did poorly expanded the number of groups that could be considered terrorist groups. i will quote with definition is

spread is a group of two or more individuals were the organizes -- engages in terrorist activities. we already have a broad definition of terrorist activity in team -- in the ina. those are pretty broad definitions. they were done with the intent of trying to protect our country. that is all what we want to do. it has had unintended consequences. it does apply to groups are resistant to movements around the world who may be broke democracy resistant groups. we are looking at a situation where there are terrorist groups and have no harm

intended toward the united states. they are fighting repressed governments. because of this broad definition, they qualify as a terrorist organization and. you have the material support provision, which bars anyone who provides material support knowingly to a terrorist organization. as you expand the definition, you expanded the involvement between refugees who are seeking protection and these resistance groups and have excluded a number of refugees from going forward. in fact, it has barred thousands from asylum. it has impacted cases for permanent residency and also for family identification. congress realized that they might have overreached in 2007.

they have been used sparingly. only about 10,000 exemptions have been awarded in over 20,000 refugees are still being impacted by this and 4600 cases are on hold because of some believe that they could of been involved in terrorism. we believe -- from the bishop's position, we believe there needs to be a statutory change to look at some of these provisions and also what conditions in refugee or someone might have done to support a terrorist group. for example, if they have a gun to their head, there is a drastic exception. the letter tries to urge the administration to look at these waivers and use them more aggressively. they have done a lot, but they need to do more to look at these cases. refugees were bonafide refugees, the ones that we should be

protecting, are the ones -- so that we can maintain the balance of protecting our national security but also being a safe haven for people around the world. they can achieve that working with the administration and congress to make some of these changes and try to implement the laws that have been written. thank you. >> thank you, kevin. >> my name as galen carey i am the director of government affairs for the national association of evangelicals. it represents 41 evangelical denominations as well as many christian schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, missions, and other groups. before joining, i spent 26 years working with the world relief, which is our humanitarian affiliate's. working both in countries of refugees, severe human rights

abuses and extreme poverty, as well as an asylum countries and refugee camps. why do we care about this? we care because the people that that -- whose lives are being hurt and damage by these wrong policies are people that we know and care about. while i was working and mozambique's, my wife was working in a refugee camp and what -- and that a boy you have fled the war. he walked all the way to mozambique as a refugee. he eventually became a part of our family and we informally adopted him as our sun. now he lives here in the united states. fortunately, he was able to be excepted as a refugee. but many others have not been

accepted for the reasons we will discuss in the report. many times people think that if you make it to a refugee camp, you are okay. it is a place of safety and refuge as you wait for permanent solutions. too often that is not the case. from my work in refugee camps, i am aware of many cases you are raped and abused and robbed while in the refugee camps. in one case, i visited with a pastor and his wife who were any refugee camp in mozambique. the wife had been receiving threats from some of the other refugees in the camp and asked to leave the camp. they did leave the camp. somehow, they were able to

survive with nothing. no support of any kind. the people in the refugee camp tractor down and murdered her. leaving the pastor and his five children with no work to go. too many times, that is what has happened. refugees are refused -- refused a permanent solution for many reasons. sometimes is matters of the past. these are people who have fled the persecution. they are people seeking freedom. the united states is a country that is a beacon of hope and freedom. too often, the laws do not think too sick -- enhance our security and hurt other people. when the united states is not seen as a beacon of hope and freedom, it hurts our security.

government officials spend all this time on these waivers and very complicated maneuvers, at the half to be done to deal with cases that should be straightforward approvals. that is time that is not available to go after the real terrorists. we strongly urge that the administration take appropriate action to streamline the process these -- processes and the cases of these people can finally be resolved. >> thank you. >> i am barrett duke. as you heard, we have about 16 million members in the united states were shipping in about 45,000 autonomous congregations. hundreds of those congregations are permanently engaged in refugee resettlement. they are currently looking for

the folks that they can assist to get settled into the united states and help them assimilate as well into their communities. some of them are finding it very difficult to do that because these folks cannot get to the permanent legal status that they need to actually be able to really engage in life here and be able to know they will stay. it is becoming frustrating to a number of our congregation. but certainly is to us at the southern baptist convention as well. we support the goals of the act. there are real terrorists who have a real intentions of farming and killing americans and others who support democracy -- of harming and killing americans and others to support democracy and freedom. somehow, those will meeting

goals -- those well-meaning goals have been turned on their heads. when you consider some of the people being caught up in this bureaucratic limbo that is going on, you have children who were abducted and forced to fight against others and rebel groups because they were forced against their will to participate in these activities their being labeled as terrorists and not able to get the protections that this nation is supposed to be offering them. you have doctors who have simply provided a humanitarian service. they were fulfilling their responsibility to assist people who were hurt. they did not even know they were terrorists. you have groups who fought to a repressive government.

they assisted the united states and its goals of democracy promotion and resisting tyrannical regimes being themselves accused as being members of terrorist groups. we just think that this is outrageous. it is obviously the result of a bureaucracy that seems to have lost any idea of what common sense is. it has lost the ability to apply at some level of compassion and concern about the folks were being caught up in this bureaucratic limbo. i have a list of people who have been affected by this. here is a burmese gentlemen who has been in the united states since 2008. he and as wife and son and still

he cannot get to a permanent determination from the united states government on whether he will be deported or allowed to stay here. here is a burmese man who came here from a refugee camp in 2008. still wondering if he is going to be able to stay. here is an ethiopian woman who came in 2000 and she is still trying to find that whether or not she will be able to stay. here is a refugee who came here in 2005, still in the same situation. it is obvious that the administration is taking too long to sort out the details of exactly what kinds of questions need to be asked of these folks in order to help them or give them the opportunity to present their case that they deserve to be rated to be allowed to remain in the united states permanently

some of these folks are subject to deportation even before they get to argue their case. we believe this has gone on too long detonates to be addressed immediately. thank you. >> thank you so much courage he really encapsulated the alice- in-wonderland sense of the situation that we're facing. >> i am wendy wright, president of concerned women for america. we seek to impact public policy with biblical principles. as americans, we humbly believe that america is a great country. one reason why it is the foundational principles expressed in the declaration of independence that all men are created equal. they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. god created each one of us and placed us in families knowing this helps us see the value in each cumin being and gives us a desire to care for those in

need and their families. christians are keenly aware of the inhumane persecution against bonn favored people around the world. we rank relief and a variety of ways to the disadvantaged and persecuted around the world. americans are incredibly generous to the needy. just look of the outpouring of aid whenever and wherever disaster strikes. this generosity extent to provide a place of refuge to rescue people from violent persecution or death. many of us are particularly sensitive to the plight of unmarried women refugees who are especially vulnerable to exploitation before they can make it to our shores. americans recognize that no man is an island. our laws provide for these refugees to share in the refuge.

americans recognize how critical families are for us to be tried as human beings. our policies should not result in breaking up families. the bureaucratic limbo that these refugees experience impacts their families. in some cases, their spouse and underage children are also left in limbo, unable to join them in america while they are restricted from traveling overseas. one other was granted asylum based on her peaceful political activism with the english- speaking minority. the petition to bring her children here was placed on hold based on their determination that the national council should be considered a tier 3 group. by the time they indicated it was reconsidering its assessment of the group, one of four children had died of illness. for some, the weight is so long

that their child's age is past 21 years old and then it is too late to be reunited. for a wife for underage child to be separated from their husband or father places them at great risk. not only is a deprivation, but being attacked by their fathers pop -- prosecutors -- persecutors. it is not only compassionate to finalize a status of these refugees and allow their families to be reunited, it is good for america. men who are married or at all peart and enjoy a more stable employment and receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions. they're less likely to be victims of violent crimes. when you are married are less likely to end up in poverty, and more emotionally healthy.

communities with higher percentages of people living in helping marriages have hired rates of emotionally healthy citizens, that educated citizens, lower crime statistics, and a decreased need for social services. concerned women for america at are thankful for the people extending hope and help -- help for refugees. we need the bureaucracy to come in line with congressional intent. thank you. >> michael? >> let me try to put it into perspective. the issue is not whether we should or should not let people end. these rules have nothing and do not automatically admit anyone. the sole issue is whether we give people the chance to prove that they have a legitimate fear

of persecution of for they are kind to prove under the highest possible standards that they are not terrorists and posed no threat to the united states. that is the issue. the lock, which we changed three years ago, -- the law, which retains three years ago, gave leeway to stop the business of guilt by association. you gave some food to some group which was affiliated with some group that may have had military resistance to a persecuting regime. therefore, you are a terrorist. that defied common sense. we have conservatives and liberals joined together to give labor a 40. to tell the administration, stop the fighting these groups spread

stop creating this blacklist. anybody who touches it is defined as a terrorist. has the administration done? they have sat on their hands and let the size of this so-called tier 3 and group grow and grow and grow. they had done nothing about it. the issue is not only protecting refugees. the issue is the rule of law, following the law, following the intention of congress. it only involves allowing people to prove under the toughest possible standards that they will be persecuted in their home countries and that they pose no threat to the united states. some examples? a gun got stuck to somebody's head and he is then forced to join a military operation or to

wash clothes of her rapist. before we amended the law three years ago, those people were defined as a terrorist. congress came along and said, stop it. act sensibly. this administration has not done its. they have done a little bit in some cases, but in most cases, it has not done so. then you come to the ultimate tier 3 listing, you have for the definition. in a group which is affiliated with some other group which may have used a weapon in some context may be 20 years ago is a group which if you have any ties to, it blacklists you and your family. it does not allow you or your family to prove that you are not a threat to the united states. many people in the united states proved that they were not a threat to the united states. to when this law was passed.

a new interpretation came and said, you will be persecuted if you -- you pose no terrorist threat whatsoever. yes, you have lived here for a long time and you have been perfectly fine, but now you are a terrorist. the administration has got 80 or 90 of things -- of these things. we're not talking about a flood gates. we're not talking about large numbers of people. this letter that was sent on october 8 to the president has got no attention. let me amend that. thank you to c-span. since the administration realized that this panel was here, c-span was broadcasting this. suddenly, calls are being made by the administration to some of the people at this desk.

we will sit down with you. we are on the verge of doing that. i say to everybody in this room, everybody on this panel, keep the heat on. we kept it on the bush administration. let's keep it on the obama administration. this administration needs to get off its duff and understand the importance of family and justice and protecting us against a real terrorist. thank you. >> thank you, michael. >> my name is melanie nezer. my job is to explain to you why we are talking about this now. why are we here to talk about this now? first of all, it is a holiday season. we have spent too many holiday seasons in dealing with this problem. it is time the administration to fix it.

i do see some people here from the administration, from the agencies, from capitol hill, for many organizations to have worked tirelessly to try to resolve these issues. for some reason, we cannot get this over the finish line. families are separated and it is another holiday season. the other thing is, it should not take years to decide that someone who is already in the u.s., who has already been given legal up -- legal status comment who has already determined to be a refugee by the u.s. government, who has already gone through more background checks and security screening than any other type of immigrants in this country, whether that person is a security threat are not. it should not be taken this long. if someone is a security threats, we should be making those decisions quickly. if it is somebody that is one of these groups, who has been admitted as a refugee, the less

than your peacefully working, let's just decide their case, and give them their green card, allow them to bring their families in. it is time to get that done. these are people have already survived the great uncertainty and loss. it is not an understatement to say that this issue has affected communities and the psychology of refugees here. ethiopians, burmese, they know what this label means. what do you think that does to communities and individuals a leopard escaped persecution? -- individuals who had escaped persecution? it has created a culture of uncertainty. when you talk to people here, i do not want to say the trial because they are so grateful to be here, but the confusion about why.

it needs to end. we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the u.s. -- the u.n. refugee convention. it was enacted in 1951. i want to talk about one case. this goes back in history. it illustrates why this is so fundamental to us as a country and why this is so fundamental to us as a people and as a jewish organization present when this problem started surfacing, i contacted our archivist in new york and i said, could you pull up any cases where people we have resettled minded and barred under these laws? he got back to be in 10 minutes. he said, how many cases do you need? one of the cases he came up with. i will read from this book. it is about this family. there was a movie made about

them. some of the members of this family were resettled after the war. in 1906, he was born into a jewish family of farmers. there were struggling to get by and build a family. the russian occupation of poland and the german advancement came to poland. but not his began mass executions of jews in 1941. he fled to the nearby forest with his three brothers. what began as a gathering of family is developed into well- organized units. hundreds of jews joined up and participated in countless acts of resistance and rescue. they staged -- after the war, 1230 people came out of the forest great men, women, children, elderly.

it was all thanks to their leader and the fact that they put up a fight. the all survived. what we're talking about today is really no different. in ethiopia, sudan, burma, this is it we're talking about. people are rising up against the most oppressive regimes. we have gotten caught up in a system where we are labeling them as terrorists. security is not the issue here. the issues to finally resolve this problem and let these people, their lives. >> thank you. i am going to stand up here and call on people for questions. there is a big pillar right on my right. if you are behind it, just beat out and make herself heard. -- peek out and make yourself kurt. we have a lot of complicated immigration challenges in our

country today. there is a lot of discussion about them in public debate. this should not be one of them. this is not complicated. we have a policy that is currently being implemented in a way that participants and the warsaw uprising would have been designated as a terrorist organization. they would have been barred from refugee status. that is not a complicated problem. you need to solve it. we have worked very hard with the concerned people that understand this problem and agree with us. there needs to be leadership from the top on this. it has to be a priority. that is why we wrote to the president in october and we are hoping to hear a declaration of leadership on this from the top three sen. i also want to reiterate that next year's is the 16th anniversary of the refugee convention. the people who are caught up in

this policy are the ones that the refugee convention was motivated to help. it would be a very appropriate moment for the united states to reassert its leadership as it did in helping to draft the refugee convention. feel free to direct the questions to any of the catalyst in particular. its fate -- if you do not do that, they will be picked on to call -- to answer it. >> anybody on the phone? *6 will allow you to talk.

anybody have any questions? late in the back. >> i will do this as package needed question. i effort to describe the problems and it is all very poignant i would like to hear you describe the solution. what specific changes do you want to see made. >> michael? >> first and regulations, you have this tier 3 listing. it makes you a terrorist group and if you've had any association with it, it makes you a terrorist if anybody -- if that organization ever fired a weapon. it does not matter if citizen self-defense. -- if it is in self-defense.

the administration can keep ahead of the curve. the second is, tell these groups when a group is defined as a tier 3 group. i have talked to some of the leaders of the immigration group, they do not know how many tier three groups there are. they do not know. there needs to be a time limit that the head and a station to find a group. it is really defining it as a terrorist group. just because somebody associated with a group pulled the trigger how many years ago. demonstration should, within a 45-day period, make a determination. when there are waivers saw on grounds of dress, a gun to the head, -- dress, a gun to the head, there ought to be a time

period did. these cases need to be processed quickly. the administration has not done that. >> i can add to that. just to underscore -- we cannot catalog the whole list of groups. some of the groups that we know are excluded under this designation are all barack groups that rose up against saddam hussein in the 1990's. all of the afghan groups that fought the soviet invasion in the 1980's with u.s. support. this sedan -- sudan people's liberation unit.

virtually all ethiopian political parties and movements past and present. the list goes on and on. in our report, we have a series of recommendations. a very specific recommendations. in addition to the change in statutory language that is necessary, there is so much that the administration can do on its own without congress. among them are stopped applying the material support provisions to contributions of goods and services that are insignificant or do not bear any relationship to the furthering of terrorist activity. there are people who live been barred as having given material support for terrorism because they provided money in their

pockets and lunch to somebody they may not have even known was a terrorist. looking back, stop applying this designation to the groups that have given up violence. look to what individuals have done. we have many concrete recommendations that the administration could take up right now, today, that will literally save people's lives and bring families together. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> it is hard to say. there are a lot of people in the administration and the agencies

working tirelessly to try to fix this. but there seems to be some sort of bureaucratic logjam. you need to have the justice department and the state department and homeland security department always in on these waivers and these exemptions. the authority to delegate exemptions has to be digital lot of it is the way the statute is written. a lot of it is a failure to come up with a process to do this quickly. it took a long time to come up with a process. it will be a while before we see the results of that. we are saying that it needs to be done more quickly. as to where it is, it is hard to say. from the outside, just figure out a way to get it done. >> let's not support anybody before they even get a chance to defend themselves. that is incredible to me that a

person could actually be deported before the process is in place to be able to indicate and state why he should not be treated as part of a terrorist group. they ought to freeze any effort to deport somebody until that person has had an opportunity to make their case. >> i just want to not let congress off the hook here. they have a responsibility as well to ensure that the law is enforced. they had oversight responsibility on the spread they could be having hearings. they could be having -- they could be writing letters. there is a case to be made to look at some of the material support provisions and see if there should be a statutory fixed for situations where someone is in a situation where their lives are dependent on providing the support to someone. there should be some sort of

exception there. they can put in strong standards of proof. they can tailor its the way they want. clearly, at the previous administration and this administration are not doing enough to exercise that authority. a lot of people are being victimized because of it. congress has an important role to play. >> that is absolutely right. is there anybody on the telephone that wants to ask a question? is there somebody behind a pillar? whoever that is, please ask your question. >> i got here elate. -- i got to a little late. [inaudible] >> did everyone here the question? the flood side of this is that if these people are so

dangerous, how did they get here in the first place? should we be asking that question? >> they got here in the united states when you have to prove that you were under threat of persecution and you had to prove that you were loyal to the united states and not a terrorist threats. then the patriots -- in the patriot act got past and people were told, we do not care how much you prove that you are loyal. you are an easy -- you are in ethiopian mother who brought food to your son when he was in a jail or they were starving the prisoners and because the sun was affiliated, he never had a weapon himself, but he was affiliated with a group that was affiliated with a group that used a weapon against the communist regime, the mother is a terrorist. when the law was passed, that was what was done.

there was resistance in the bureaucracy to passing that law. somebody told me when i talked about the injustice of it, his response was, it is 9/11, baby. that was the kind of response you saw on the part of bureaucracy. to use this as an excuse to shut the doors of the country. it did in an excuse to -- they leaned on the lot just to shut the doors. then congress passed laws ended just wiped out every determination that people were not carry a spread if they were affiliated with a group that was affiliated with a group that might have used weapons 20 years ago, if you brought food to the people were shooting guns against the nazis, the first interpretation was, you are a terrorist.

i think we have a responsibility to keep the heat on the administration. let's have talked tests for people before they come into the united states -- tough tests for people before they come into the united states, but none of those guilt by association nonsense. >> if the government really thought that they were terrorists in this group of 4600 dow better on hold, this issue would have been resolved a lot more quickly. nobody really thinks this is a group of terrorists. it has been taken years for the attention to finally did turned toward the desk and to root -- and to resolve this. >> this affects people who may

never -- who may have never been interviewed for this program. internationally, it is known now that this is a problem. we find situations where refugees may not be even referred for interviews because they assume that this group of refugees is not going to be accepted because of this material support provision. i would like to point to colombians. they are involved in this civil war for years and years. in many cases, guerrilla groups approached them. because of that, they are kept off any list of saying, refer them to the united states for consideration because they are in these situations. it goes beyond those who have been interviewed or zero who are

on hold group or all -- or who are already here. it goes to people who never even had a chance. >> thank you. do we have any other questions? >> do you have any comment on yesterday's article on the failure of the passage of the dream act? it means that 800,000 people could be deported. i presume that these people are not terrorists. what do you have to say about that? >> i do not think this panel is about the dream act. these are not the same group of people that we are addressing here. i am not sure that we ought to be trying to engage more than one topic here.

>> i would say that i am opposed to the dream act. most of the members of this panel disagree with me. there is a lot of legitimate debate that we need to have over immigration policy. we have a lot and it needs to be enforced and a lot is reasonable and moderate and it must be enforced. and that is really what makes this so shameful. that is why you have this letter sent to the net -- to the president in early october after years of trying to get the attention of members of the administration. this is indefensible. it is inexcusable. i do not care about injustice, law, i have some excuse that the administration is giving me. i can sit on my hands and i am

covered. that is the sort of thing that all of us find appalling. it does not -- it stands in the wake of legitimates over what our immigration policy ought to be. >> with the cautionary note that we are going to take on a full discussion of the dream at -- dream act. there will be differences of opinion here. >> they are parallel and the sense that from our perspective, we are very disappointed that it did not pass. those who would have benefited from a did not have the intent to break the law. they came as children to this country. the same with the material support to think. those who were affected by that do not have any intention to harm this country these are to be more vulnerable groups that our country has not found a

political will to protect. i think we need to find the political will to protect these vulnerable groups. they are innocent and a lot of ways. >> and i would just say, kevin, you have a strong argument. the people we are meeting about today are people who are in countries where they can prove that they have a legitimate fear of persecution. these are people we are keeping out and keeping excluded from their families even though they are subject to acute persecution and we're still keeping them out. >> we are in vehement agreement about that. >> these are two cases of which are both examples of how our systems to not work. in the case of the dream fact, our immigration system is broken.

as a result, and some people suffer. in the case of the people we're talking about today, our asylum system is broken and people are being hurt. >> thank you. >> i was not going to say anything, but i want to jump in here. we do support the dream act. but this is a different issue. this is about the u.n. refugee convention and obligation toward refugees. we have an international obligation to protect refugees. we are very sympathetic and supportive about the dream act, this goes back to our international treaty obligations to protect people's whose lives are at risk. >> we have been incredibly -- american leadership has been incredibly important thing about the 60 years of the convention. the united states has been so involved in c