morning our speeches. time set aside for a short speeches. legislative work begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern today. eight bills will be debated today. the house is expected to work on legislation to extend the payroll tax cut as long as unemployment benefits. remaining spending for the rest of the budget year. the senate is also working on nominations for u.s. ambassadors in the czech republic and all salvador. a vote in set for5:30 eastern today. now live to the floor of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room,

washington, d.c., december 12, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff denham to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. let's go to erik wasson, staff

writer for "the hill" to talk about what is happening in congress this week. good morning, erik wasson. thank you for talking with us today. what is the biggest battle that faces members of congress before they leave for the holidays? guest: i think the payroll tax extension is the highest profile. it looks like the spending on the bus, the trillion dollar package, is on a much better course toward resolution. the worst sticking point, about labor, health, interior, environment provisions, lots of these provisions called riders on the bill, that were sticking point. but there is a fail-safe that you could just extends funding

at just the current lover -- levels and those bills under a continuing resolution. i think the chances of a government shutdown are very minimal. on the other hand, the payroll tax extension remains unresolved. looking to get out of town at the end of the week. eric cantor, majority leader, put out a notice saying it could go on further into the weekend or next week. so, i think the payroll tax extension is the big item of the week. host: is the fact that there is some agreement being reached, cr which expires saturday night, the fact that members of congress cannot sing to be headed for a big showdown, is it a sign of compromise or the unwillingness? what does it mean? guest: it seems to be a sign of all this debt dealing holding up and that is a decision leadership made at the time just to stick with it. that a deal set and overall top one spending number of -- with a

little extra for disaster aid. it looks like the bill will come in at $1.05 trillion, a compromise having been reached on disaster aid. a decision to stick to that and not reopen and tried together a lower number, i think smooth passage largely set the tone for appropriators to work out a deal. it is almost on the bus -- om nibus, nine bills and one, it is something the gop does not preferred to do but they will try to get the individual bills next year when the have more time to work on it. this year's appropriation process did not to started until late because the 2011 spending process was still going on until april when a government shutdown was narrowly averted. host: as members of congress consider going home for the

holidays, how the aid -- do they deal with the lower approval rating and do they see an opportunity before they lead to improve it? guest: i think there is an increasing amount of wary about anti-incumbency feeling. it is now at the highest on record. that will hurt everybody. sticking to the debt ceiling delaware to show the people thatd peopleeal, -- deal, to show something is being done, i think there was another crisis done everyone would certainly suffer and the mutually assured destruction crisis is pushing the white house and to them together. at the same thing for the payroll extension, they want to get the deal ultimately so they will probably see something. host: tell us more about what might be still on the table with this payroll tax reduction effort. where is there room to negotiate?

guest: it is interesting, the massive gop bill is going to the rules committee tonight, and likely a vote tomorrow or wednesday. that bill is a big package that includes not only the payroll tax extension, as you mentioned, but an extension of insurance -- and reducing the number of weeks people can take on unemployment insurance benefits, and restricting eligibility, allow states to drug tests. also contains a fixed, a provision in medicare law where doctors would receive a massive cut if it is not packaged in the beginning of the year. and it includes a host of items to pay for these, including things like national flood insurance. one thing i brought into today's edition of "the hill" in

extending the flood insurance program, the expected $4.9 billion of savings. there is a little dispute about the accounting on that. but i do know they are waiting into a big fight within the insurance industry between state farm and other insurers about how fema manages these former state farm insurance policies. by putting a must-pass legislation of their with a lot of provisions -- out there, there are a lot of things on the table. the bill looks set to pass probably by a close margin from the gop caucus, but it is pretty much dead in the senate as harry reid, the senate majority leader, has said, so it will be a negotiation between that bill and that alternative which is a more generous payroll tax break paid for with a surtax on

millionaires, which is anathema to the gop. i would think it is a combination of these bills that will be the final product. >> there are a lot of promises in the way it was constructed from long ago. i am not one is people who think we don't need it. but i think at some point, and five commissioners, from that as part in that party, organized this way, in the internet age that may become increasingly too cumbersome. >> former fcc chairman michael del talks about the issues affecting the telecommunications it industry, tonight on "the communicator's" on c-span2. president obama is meeting with the prime minister of iraq, nouri al-maliki.

they are planning a press briefing and we plan to have that live for you on c-span. in the meantime, and is and has made enormous progress in the past 10 years but there is work to be done, according to the usaid at the assistant for pakistan and afghanistan affairs. he says that education and health-care rates have increased dramatically since 2001. >> consider yourself live and on television when we get your questions. speak to simply add appropriately for television audiences. -- speak it succinctly and appropriately for television audiences. just for 10 minutes or so, we will have a little conversation. i returned from afghanistan as though i am a little more up-to- date than i might otherwise be . gue

alex has been one of the most influential voices in washington about afghanistan. just before he went into government to become the assistant to the administrator at the office for afghanistan and pakistan, he was at usip, one of the group. specialists who organized the visitors and a conversation and kept the right questions are alive. as the obama administration came into office -- i think part of the reason he has been so effective is he has had a long exposure to afghanistan, both professionally and personally. he was in the battles in the 1990's, and really understands how far afghanistan as, in some respects from the nadir in approach in the mid-to-late- 1990's. he has extensive professional and academic duties on the very difficult subject see -- professional and academic

expertise on it very difficult subject he pursues now. he has worked as a director on the project for failed states at stanford's center for democracy. he has a j.d. from stanford and a master's degree from the fletcher school as well. he lives in washington, d.c. is just a great pleasure to have him. please come to the podium, and we will listen to you and then have a conversation. [applause] >> and because c-span does not have a laugh track as far as i know, you should laughed at the appropriate moments. it is an honor to know steve. i am sure everybody here has read "ghost wars," but i was somewhat scared of ever writing a book because i knew anything i would write would never remotely

approached the mastery. after years and years of working on afghanistan, i learned so much from that. , to ben honor, steve here with you for that i want this to be a conversation between steve and i and then all of you. the first thing is that i just came back from conference this week, and for me and i think for all of us, it is a great moment to reflect on not only the last 10 years, but even the period before that and the coming 10 years. nearly 20 years ago i arrived in afghanistan as the civil war was literally dismantling every vestige of a functioning state that had been built up gradually over the five previous decades.

1/3 of the population of afghanistan refugees at that time, and more were leaving or trying to leave. another 1/3 of the afghan population was dependent for their survival on international food aid. half of the population is women, about to go from destitution brought from the previous decade of war into a period of other darkness under the taliban. all the while, i remember having these thoughts and aids in afghanistan in the 1990's, a major international intervention like we were seeing in bosnia was absolutely unimaginable at the time. the world had well and truly abandoned afghanistan. in december 2001, when members met to charter a figure for the destination, an interim government was established, 2.5- year timeline to establish a

constitution and elections, billions of dollars pledged months later to rebuild the country. that was meant to be afghanistan's rebirth into the family of nations and its post- conflict peace building period. i want to talk for a minute about some of the really phenomenal progress that has been made over those 10 years, because while we fret today about where afghanistan is and is going, and those are legitimate concerns and i will talk about it in a minute, one thing i wanted to remind people of this truly how much progress has been made over those last 10 years. in the field of education, more than 8 million children are in school today in afghanistan, some 35% to 40% of them girls. in 2001, you had less than 1 million children in afghanistan and education, and almost none of them were girls. health care is in some ways an even more remarkable story, and

if you did not grab this little fact sheet, i in 322 on the way out. just last week -- i encourage you to on the way out. just last week we launched the afghan mortality survey, and it has really astonishing fighting spirit in the last 10 years, access to health care for afghans has gone from 6% -- basically the health-care system had disappeared -- to over 60%. in particular it was targeting on a low-cost, high-impact intervention, particularly towards women and children. in other words, tackling diseases or minor maladies that ended up killing women and children and childbirth. they were easily and cheaply preventable. these lines are reversed, this should be the red line -- the mortality rate has gone from 256 per 1000, over 25%

of all children dying under the age of 5, to under 100 today. that is another infant mortality line, similarly, although the slope is not quite really demonstrate the magnitude. afghanistan had the worst maternal mortality statistics in the world in 2002, according to research that was done at that time. that has gone down by more than 300%. again, this is because people cannot have access to the most basic treatment. the reason i believe this story is a success is not only >> afghans of thousands of lives that exist today that would not have existed under the taliban regime, but await the health-care system was reestablished was done with afghan leadership, was done with

a lot of on-budget financing, but it's going through the afghan government so that they would honor the leadership and management of the system and in the long term it would be much more sustainable. finally, that is just to misting to prenatal care went up dramatically -- that is just demonstrating the prenatal care went up dramatically. the third piece is in the field of agriculture. 70% of afghans make their daily living from agriculture. afghanistan is one of the most food-insecure nations on earth. after a drought around 2008, we worked on an intensive distribution and implement an credit program that increased wheat yields in a two-year period% to 70%. the reason things like that are possible in afghanistan is the baseline is exceedingly low, but the other point is that by using

simple practices that are, again, relatively low cost and high in fact, you can make a significant development gain in afghanistan. i really emphasize that because i think the narrative overall has become -- conventional wisdom has become somewhat different than that. that said, let me talk about the fragility of those gains. enormous challenges it remained for afghanistan if we are going to be able to achieve sustainable stability there. one of the first an overriding challenges that i think we see reflected in the fact of the ongoing insurgency and unrest there is that the first bond a settlement never led to an enduring political settlement, either with at taliban or it with the entities that fought during the civil war period. as such, there is still a fundamental degree of political unrest in afghanistan. if you combine that, obviously,

with insecurity. what this graph shows you is this is just usaid implementing partners, which include our direct partners, ngo's, as well as government officials we work with directly. this graphic tells a devastating story of the numbers of people killed and wounded, the rise in monthly incidents. again, this is just about assistance programs. what i am talking about today is the challenge of trying to do this work in the environment afghanistan presents. the good news story, however -- the bacblack line, i should say, is not meant to be misleading because the annual figures are not yet in. it is probably half as high as it might be proud figures are only through june. this figure is the monthly average. violence levels are decreasing, but at the same time, one of the most devastating things we have

seen in this period, particularly over the last two or three years, is the rise in targeted assassinations, a so- called soft targets. another critical thing, and this is something that we spent an enormous amount of time talking about, is the fiscal sustainability of afghanistan. we have done an enormous amount, as i have detailed, to build up the education system, which includes both building schools and training teachers. it includes building the road network. all the things require the capacity and funding to be able to maintain and these, to consolidate these gains going forward brad the reality for afghanistan is quite a problematic one. in 2011, and 2010, this does not mean -- this i should note it

says that the slide is not misleading, including security aide, which makes the people of this bar. the point is that the external resource flows into afghanistan are roughly equivalent to the country's gdp, about $15 billion going in from extra resources, again, largely to its security, but about 1/3 of that went into non-security spending. that is roughly equivalent to afghanistan's gross domestic product. needless to say, that is an unsustainable state of affairs. afghanistan will have to be able to sustain its government, it will have to be able to sustain its infrastructure, it will have to be able to pay salaries, it will have to be able to quickly pay salaries at the security forces going forward. we now that over the next number of years, there will be a decline in external resource

flows, and that is a critical problem that is going to have to be managed. let me just say one word about governance as well. governance gains and afghanistan have been significant, from where they were in 2001. that said, a week governance, issues of corruption and capacity, it to still play the afghan government. that is something that week and even president karzai have acknowledged in his speech are critical things that need to be addressed. he called for, for instance, the creation of an apolitical civil service, which i roundly applied. he called for the intensification of anti- corruption efforts. these are things that we in the international community strongly agree with and need to find ways to support. let me say something about the way forward, and then i will stop. again, a little bit of good news on the horizon. this is afghanistan's domestic revenues, revenues that they

collector for themselves. while this figure at the 01 0.5 billion to 2 billion mark, which is where we're heading right now, is considerably lower than what afghanistan requires to pay for all of these things, this curve is pretty remarkable. all signs show that it will continue to rise. the afghan government, particularly the ministry of finance, has done a tremendous job of the both gathering the revenue sources that it has available to it through things like customs, mobile licensing, and they have both captured those resources that are available at are also looking at new ways to do that. obviously, increases in external trade flows and transitway are going to be a critical part of that equation going forward. the next thing is something that is interesting. this is a lot of talk,

particularly in least-developed countries, about a strong correlation between gdp and energy production. afghanistan past experience over the last five years demonstrates that in a remarkable way. afghanistan's gdp has increased 8% to 10% over the last five years. animal energy production -- annual energy production has increased almost the same pace. it is not necessarily always a direct causal effect, but this is a remarkable degree of correlation. the important point here is, first of all, afghanistan is gaining the capacity, gaining the infrastructure, to fuel economic growth. it is fundamentally what is going to live afghanistan and its ability to raise revenues. the second point here is another success story. the afghan utility, which has been established in the last couple of years, has shown remarkable out-of-the-gate progress. they i not only technically capable of maintaining most of

their energy system, but in the last two years, they have gone from $140 million subsidies to of $40 million subsidy. in other words, they are approaching break-even because they are collecting money from customers, and they are looking at interesting and innovative ways to do that, through smart meters and mobile payments, the things that we are only starting to do today in the united states. >> we are leaving this to go to a live press briefing with president obama and the prime minister of iraq, nouri al- maliki, holding a press briefing after a meeting this morning. >> good afternoon, everyone. when i took office nearly 150,000 american troops were deployed in iraq. might pledge to end of this more responsibly. -- i pledged to end this war responsibly.

more troops are coming home every day. this is a season of homecomings. military families across america are being reunited for the holidays. in the coming days, the last american soldiers will cross the border out of iraq with honor and with their heads held high. after nearly one and -- nearly nine years, our war in iraq ends this month. today i am happy to welcome prime minister maliki, the leader of a self-reliant and democratic iraq. we are here to mark the end of this war, to honor the sacrifices of all those who made this day possible, and to turn the page and begin a new chapter in the history between our countries. a normal relationship between sovereign nations. an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

iraq faces a great challenges, but today reflects the oppressor progress that iraqis have made. millions have cast their ballots, some resting or giving their lives to vote in free elections. the prime minister leaves iraq must most inclusive government yet. iraqis are working to build institutions that are transparent. economically, iraq has continued to invest in infrastructure and development, and i think it is worth considering remarkable statistics. in the coming years, it is estimated that iraq must economy will grow even faster than china's or india's. with oil production rising, iraq is on track to once again be one of the region's tweeting oil producers. with respect to security, iraqi forces have been in the lead for the better part of the three years, patrolling the streets,

dismantling militias, connecting counter-terrorism operations. today, despite continued attacks by those who seek to derail iraq's progress, of violence remains at record lows. mr. prime minister, that is a tribute to your leadership and to this bill on the sacrifices of iraqi forces -- to that skill and sacrifices of iraqi forces. iraq is forging new ties of trade and commerce among neighbors and assuming the rightful place among the community of nations. for the first time in two decades, iraq is scheduled to host the next arab league summit. what a powerful message that will send throughout the arab world. people throughout the region will see a new iraq that is determining its own destiny. a country in which people from different religious sects and ethnicities and resolve the differences peacefully through the democratic process. mr. prime minister, as we end this war, as iraq faces its

future, at the iraqi people must know that you will not stand alone. we have a strong and enduring partner in the united states of america. today, the prime minister and i are reaffirming our common vision of a long-term partnership between our nations, keeping with our strategic framework agreement. and it will be like the close relationships we have with other sovereign nations. simply put, we are building a comprehensive partnership. mr. prime minister, you say that iraqis seek democracy, estate of citizens and not sects. we are working to strengthen the institution on which democracy depends. free elections, a strong civil society, professional police and law enforcement at all told the rule of law, an independent judiciary that delivers justice chris farley, a transparent institutions that serve all iraqi -- delivers justice

fairly, and transparent institutions that serve all iraqis. we will work together to delivedevelop mrap's energy secr even as the economy diversifies energy sector even as the iraqi economy diversify spread through efforts like the fulbright program, and we are welcoming more iraqi students and leaders to america anto study and for for a chance that will bind our nations together for generations to come. we will forge more collaborations in areas like science and technology. mr. prime minister, we will discuss how the united states can help train and equip its forces not by stationing american troops there or with u.s. bases in iraq. those days are over. but rather, the kinds of training and assistance we offer

to other countries. given the challenges we face together in a rapidly changing region, we also agreed to establish a new formal channel of communication between our national security advisers. finally, we are partnering for regional security. just as iraq has pledged not to interfere with other nations, other nations must not interfere in iraq's. iraq's sovereignty must be respected. there should be no doubt that the drawdown in iraq has allowed us to refocus our resources and achieve progress in afghanistan, put al qaeda on the path to defeat, to better prepare for the full range of challenges that lie ahead. make no mistake, our strong presence in the middle east in doors, and the united states will never waiver in the defense of our allies, our partners, or our interests. this is a shared vision that prime minister maliki and i

reaffirmed today, a broader relationship that eds is the security, prosperity, and aspirations of both our people. mr. prime minister, you had said it yourself. building a strong and durable relationship between our countries is vital, and i cannot agree more. this is an historic moment. it war is ending, a new day is upon us, and let us never forget those who give us this chance -- the untold number of iraqis who gave their lives. the veterans who have served in iraq. nearly 4500 fallen americans who get the last full measure of devotion. tens of thousands of wounded warriors. and so many aspiring military families. they are the reason we can stand here today. we all it to every single one of them -- we have a moral

obligation to all of them -- to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. mr. prime minister. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> also thank you and appreciate you for your commitment to everything that you have committed yourself to, anyone who observes the polish ship -- the relationships --

[unintelligible] what we signed in 2008, in addition to the withdrawal -- proven success -- very unique success brought nobody imagined we would succeed in defeating terrorism. necessary steps in order to succeed. relationship, the framework, as well as educational and commercial, cultural, judicial, security cooperation. iraq lies completely on its own security apparatus, and the security -- iraq relies

completely on its unsecured aber -- on its security apparatus, and the security, with cooperation with the united states of america, the security issues and informations and combating terrorism and in the area of trading and the area of the gripping, needed by the iraqi army. we have started that. we want to complete the process of equipping of the iraqi army to protect our sovereignty and we do not take any missions that violate the sovereignty of others. today the joint mission is to establish the mechanisms and the commitments that will expedite -- we have reached an agreement and we have held a meeting for the ira joint committee -- higher joint committee under the chairmanship of biden, the vice

president, and myself. we spoke about all the details that would put the framework agreement into implementation. here we have talked about it and its activation, and it will be under discussion at other meetings with a higher committee here in washington in order to put the final touches regarding the necessary mechanisms for cooperation, but sharing the vision that we have followed that was based on our common wills and political independent decisions and desired to respect the sovereignty of each other. we feel we need political cooperation, in addition to the security -- we need political cooperation, particularly with regard to the matters that are common of concern to us as two parties that want to cooperate. version we use as a

point of departure we have confirmed today. i am very happy every time we meet with the american side, i find it determination and a strong will to activate the strategic framework agreement. i would say, frankly, this is necessary and it deserves the interest of iraq, as it is necessary answers the interest of the united states of america. is to see that -- this is to see that we will succeed with the same, common commitment in combating terrorism and accomplishing the mission, the basis of which iraq was indicted. iraq today has a lot of wild and -- iraq was independent. iraq today has a lot of wealth

and needs help exploiting its own off in an ideal way prep -- own wealth in an ideal way. we have established a strategy to increase the iraqi wealth and we hope that the american companies will have the knowledge in increasing our wealth in the area of oil and other aspects as well. iraq wants to rebuild all the sectors that were harmed because of the war and because of the inventors policies used by the former regime. we need a wide range of reform in the area to vegetation. -- area of education. we have signed agreements which puts hundreds of our college graduates to continue the graduate studies, specialized subjects in american universities, i put before

everyone who is watching the relationship between the u.s. and iraq, it has a very high aspirations. i would like to renew my thanks to his excellence, the present, for giving us the opportunity and i wish him more success, god willing. thank you very much. >> we have time for a few questions. i will start with the ap. >> thank you, mr. president, and mr. prime minister. in syria, you call for president assad to step down for the killing of its people, but prime minister maliki has warned that it could lead to a civil war that could destabilize the whole region. i wonder if you think that iraq is succumbing to iran's influence on this matter. speaking of iran, do you think

it will weaken american national's pretty by discovering intelligence from the -- national security by discovering intelligence from tehe drone it has captured? prime minister, why have you not call for assad to step down for the slaughter of his people. >> the prime minister and i have discussed syria, and we should be that when this year in people being killed and are unable to express themselves, that is a problem. there is no disagreement there. i have expressed my outrage in how the syrian regime has been operating. i do believe that president assad missed an opportunity to reform his government, it chose the path of repression, and has continued to engage in repressive tactics. his capacity to regain legitimacy inside syria i think

is deeply eroded. it is not an easy situation. i expressed to prime minister maliki my recognition that, given its syria that is on iraq's borders, iraq is in a tough neighborhood, we will consult closely with them as we move forward. we believe that international pressure, the approach we take in along with partners brought by the world to impose tough sanctions and call on assa to step down -- on assad to step down, a situation increasingly mirrored by the arab league states, is the one to take. even if there are tactical disagreements between iraq and the united states at this point in how to deal with syria, i have absolutely no doubt that these decisions are being made based on what prime minister

maliki believes is best for iraq. not based on considerations of what iran would like to see. prime minister maliki has been explicit in the united states come back at iraq, and his writings and commentary, that his interest is maintaining iraqi sovereignty at preventing meddling by anybody inside of iraq. i believe him. he has shown himself to be willing to make it very tough decisions in the interest of iraqi nationalism, even if they cause problems with his neighbor. we may have some different tactical views in terms of how best to transition to an inclusive, representative government inside syria, but

every decision that i believe that prime minister maliki is making, he is making on the basis of what he believes is best for the iraqi people brought everything we have seen with our interactions with prime minister maliki and his government over the last several years would confirm that. with respect to the drone inside iran, i am not going to comment on intelligence matters that are classified br. aws had already been indicated, we have asked for it back. we will see how the iranians was brespond. >> in syria, perhaps in other states as well -- i know that

people must get their freedom and democracy and citizenship. we have achieved that ourselves. we find that there is a great difference and a democracy, elections, freedoms. we are -- aspirations of the syrian people, but i cannot ask the president to abdicate. we cannot give ourselves that this right. iraq is a country that is bordering on syria, and i'm concerned about -- and i am concerned about the security of the region. i wish that what is required would be achieved without having -- without affecting the

security of iraq. i know that the two countries are related to each other. we must be very prudent in dealing with this matter. we, with the initiative of the arab league -- frankly speaking, because he suffered from the blockade and military interventions, we do not acreage blockades, because it exhausts the people and the government. but we stood with the arab league and we are frank with ourselves with the visit to baghdad, and we believe that perhaps it will be the last tuesday of this mission and -- to save the mission and achieved in syria without a violent operations that could affect the area in general. i believe that the parties realize the dangers of the sectarian war in syria and the

region, because it would be like a snowball that would expand and be difficult to control it. we will try to reach a solution. with president obama and the secretary general of the arab league, there is even agreement around at the syrian opposition who are leading the opposition in syria at to have a solution. if we can reach a solution, we can avoid all the evils and the dangers. if we don't, there must be another way to reach a solution that will cost the situation in -- calm the situation in syria and the area in general. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> -- is that this new relationships to establish the characteristics of any relationship after with -- of a new relationship after the withdrawal of forces and iraq, relying on the strategic framework, have you reached specific mechanisms for implementation of the former agreement? your excellency, president obama, said that there would be no greater relationship with iran. would iraq be an ally to the united states, or just a friend, or would there be a different type relationship? thank you very much. >> definitely, without mechanisms, we will not be able to achieve anything. these mechanisms will control our continuous movement. therefore, the former agreement has a higher committee -- joint

committee from the two countries that meet regularly. as presented terms from all the sectors that we want to develop relationships -- commerce, industry, agriculture, economy, security. the higher committee is the mechanisms in which the idea will be reached. the relationship between the ministries that will implement what is agreed upon, and we believe it through these mechanisms, the mechanisms of the joint committee and the mechanisms between each village and its counterpart, we will achieve the success, and this will expedite achieving our goal. >> as the prime minister to step, i think our goal is to have a comprehensive relationship with iraq. that means that on everything from expanding trade and commerce to scientific exchanges to providing

assistance, as iraq is trying to make sure that the trustee and power generation is a consistent -- trying to make sure that electricity and power generation is consistent for its people, a joint exercises militarily, to a whole range of issues, we want to make sure that there is a constant communication between our governments, that there are deep and rich exchanges between our governments, and between our peoples. what has happened over the last several years has linked the united states and iraq in a way that is potentially powerful and could end up benefiting not only america and iraq but also the entire region and the tire world. it will evolve over time. what may be discovered is that

there are certain issues that prime minister maliki and his government are especially important right now. for example, making sure that oil production is ramp up. we are helping to encourage global investment in that sector. i know that the prime minister has certain concerns right now militarily. or 10 yearsfrom now from now, when the air force or navy is fully developed -- our goal is simply to make sure that iraq succeeds. we think that a successful democratic iraq could be a model for the entire region. we think an iraq that is inclusive and brings together all people, sunni, shia, kurd, together to build our country, to build a nation, can be a model to others who are aspiring to create democracy in the

region. we have enormous investment of blood and treasure in iraq, and we want to make sure that even as we bring to the last troops out, is well understood and mrap and here in the united states that our commitment -- well understood in iraq and here in the knights is that our commitment to iraq's success is going to be entering. sons.ti par >> thank you. you were a little delayed coming out today. i wonder if you can talk about any agreements you may have reached that you've not detailed already. can you talk about the will be left behind -- about who will be left behind, how big the 4 per it will become what their role be? can you express how convinced you are that the maliki government is gov. ready to

govern the country and protect the gains that have been made. i wonder if you still think this was a dumb war. >> i will take the last question first. i think thhistory will judge the of original decision to go into iraq. what is absolutely clear, as a consequence of the enormous sacrifices made troops and civilians, as well as the courage of the iraqi people, what we have now achieved is an iraq that is self-governing, that is inclusive, and that has potential. there is still going to be challenges, and i think the prime minister would be the first to acknowledge those challenges, many of which, by the way, our economic. after many years of war, and

before that, a brutal regime, it is going to take time to further develop society, further to help institutions of trade and commerce and the free-market, so that the extraordinary capacity of the iraqi people is fully realized. but i have no doubt that iraq can succeed. with respect to security issues, look, when i came into office, i said we are going to do this at a deliberate fashion. we are going to make sure that we leave iraq responsibly, and that is exactly what we have and read we did it in -- and that is exactly what we have dined at. we did it in phases, and because of that, we continued to build up iraqi forces to a point

where, when we left the cit ies, violence did not go up. when we further reduce our footprint, the violence didn't go up. i have no doubt that will continue. first question you had had to do with what a footprint is left. we are taking all our troops out of iraq. we will not have any bases inside iraq. we will have a strong diplomatic presence inside iraq. we have an embassy there that is going to be carrying out a lot of the function of the ongoing partnership. and executing on at the strategic framework agreement. we will be working to set an effective military-to-military ties that are no different from the times we have with countries throughout the region and around to world. -- around the world.

the iraqi government has already purchased at-16's from us, and we have trainer pilots to make sure they are up and running and that there is an effective iraqi air force brat we both have interests in making sure that the ceiling -- effective iraqi air force. we have both -- we both have interests in making sure that the ceilings are pop. -- are up. what we are doing here today, and what we'll be executing over the next few months, is a normalization of the relationship. we will have a strong friend and partner in iraq, they will have a strong friend and partner in s, one based on iraqi

sovereignty, equal partnerships, mutual interest and mutual respect. i am absolutely confident we will be able to execute that over the long term. while i am at it, since this may be the last question i received, i want to acknowledge that none of this would and successful, obviously, without our extraordinary men and women in uniform. i am very grateful for the prime minister asking to travel to arlington to recognize those sacrifices. there also some individuals here who have been doing a bang-up job over the last year to bring us to this day. i want to acknowledge general lloyd austin, who was a warrior and it turns out is a pretty good diplomat, as well as ambassador jim jeffries. both of them have an extraordinary work on the ground with their iraqi counterparts. i will give a special shout-out

to my friend and partner joe biden, who, ever since i came in, has held to establish high level links and dialogue between the united states and iraq through difficult times. i think prime minister maliki would agree that the vice president's investment in making this successful has been hugely important. >> it may be the question that was given -- also, at the beginning, the dialogues to confirm the confidence, and to move to the implementation of this framework agreement and to train our soldiers on the weapons we bought from america, and with the need for expertise and other civil figures and the

protection and protection of the movement of iraq. we also talked about the political issues, which is a common interest for us, and we spoke also about the question of arm movement's. the resident says that iraq has bought some weapons and is applying for by other weapons to buying othern.or -- weapons to develop the capability of protecting iraq. these are all titles that we discussed, and it was done in an atmosphere of harmony. mr. prime minister, you stated that there is a corporation in the area -- can you tell us the amount of military co operation with the united states, and have you received promises from president obama in this regard, specifically --

>> document going on inside at -- the argument going on inside iraqi politics right out regarding the size, 15,000, i wonder if he would discuss the decision to reduce. >> we have raised the issue of the need for iraqis to have weapons. we have a lot of american weapons and it requires traders. we received promises for cooperation from his excellency, the president, for some weapons that iraq is asking for especially those related to its protection with air and we hope the congress will approve

another group of f-16 planes because our airplanes were destroyed we also need technical equipment related to the security field and these are issues that are being discussed by the concerned people in both countries between the ministries of different territories and their counterparts with the united states and we received promises and facilitations and we agreed on how to make this relationship continuous in the security field because both of us need each other and need cooperation especially in choosing. we hope to cooperate with others who feel the dangers of the terrorist organizations to cooperate with us as well. >> our goal is a sovereign iraq

that can protect its borders, protected airspace, protect its people. our security cooperation with other countries i think is a model for our security cooperation with iraq. we do not want to create big footprints inside iraq and that is demonstrated by what will happen at the end of this month which is we are getting our troops out. but we will have a very active relationship military to military that will hopefully enhance iraqi capability and will insure that we have a strong partner in the region that will be effective. with respect to the embassy, the actual size of our embassy with respect to our diplomats is going to be comparable to other

countries we think are important around the world. there are still some special security needs inside iraq that meet the overall number of larger. we understand some questions have been raised inside iraq about that. we are only a few years removed from an act of war inside iraq. i think it is fair to say that there are still some groups although they are greatly weakened that might be tempted to target u.s. diplomats or civilians who are working to improve the performance of the power sector inside iraq or are working train agricultural specialists inside iraq. as president of united states, i want to make sure that anybody who is in iraq try to help the

iraqi people is protected. as this transition proceeds, it may turn out that the security needs for our diplomats and their civilians gradually reduces itself partly because iraq continues to make additional progress. i think the iraqi people can understand that as president of united states if i am putting civilians in the field in order to help the iraqi people build their economie and improv their productivity, i want to make sure that they come home. they are not soldiers. that makes the numbers larger than they otherwise would be but the overall mission that they are carrying out is comparable to the missions that are taking place and other countries that are big and important and that our friends of ours. thank you very much, everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama with the prime minister of iraq, and turkey -- nouri al-maliki. u.s. troops are continuing their withdrawal from iraq by the end of the year. as you're the president say, the prime minister paid tribute to u.s. troops earlier this year during a wreath laying at arlington national cemetery. the prime minister and the foreign minister of iraq are also meeting with secretary of state hillary clinton today. the u.s. house is in session later today. members are in recess now until 2:00 p.m. eastern when it will consider eight bills including one to conclude -- to include pipelines' gas safety programs. you concede that live on c-span 2:00 p.m.. the senate is in a 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. at 4:30, senators will take up a couple of ambassador nominations to the czech republic and also the door.

both of those nominations are expected to happen at 5:30 eastern and both of those nominations are moving forward. you can see live coverage of the senate on c-span 2. also -- >> the fcc is an old school situation but i think at some 0.5 commissioners organize in this way, administrative procedures, in the internet age, that may become increasingly too cumbersome than a former sec chairman and current head of the national cable and tele- communications association michael powell talks about what is affecting the cable and television industry tonight at 8:00. on c-span 2. a bipartisan policy center held a discussion last week on redistricting reforms and what impact the reforms will have on

congressional and state elections. speakers include the former agriculture secretary, aaron blake and david wasserman from the "political report. this is about one hour, 10 minutes. >> thank you for joining us. i want to briefly touch on those of you who had not been here before but the bpc was founded by the four former senate majority leaders to develop bipartisan solutions to problems. currently, we are focusing on housing, health care, energy,

and national mall my security, transportation, economic policy and nutrition. i am pleased to be here in my role as co-chair of the project. on fortunately, my fellow code- could not be here. as the election year approaches, there are a host of political issues we hope to export and redistricting is one of them. from the creation of partisan incumbent-protected district to the push for more non-partisan redistricting commissions, this conversation will explore the current state of play with an eye on how it affects the house, the senate, and presidential races next year. joining us this afternoon is the washington post's hour and blake who covers national politics and as one of the brightest young political reporters we have. he writes regularly for the fix which is a must read for anyone in washington david wasserman is

with the said he is housed at district -- editor of the cook political report. he analyzes u.s. house races. he served as an analyst for the nbc news election night decision desk in 2008 and 2010 and has appeared on numerous tv news programs over the last several years. he is one of the foremost experts on redistricting. in april, 2011, he offered the comprehensive report on redistricting. 2006, he was given the university of virginia outstanding pieces prize for a study of congressional redistricting standards. bidding are average this afternoon is the democracy project director here at the bpc john fortier. ly 20mes here after near th years at aei and discusses

politics and is known for his knowledge of the elections and government institutions. as a former house member, i have a passing interest in this subject. we also are fortunate to have another former house member, my colleague charlie stenholme who has more than a passing interest and will be commenting as restart this discussion. >> we are hoping to look at where we are in redistricting. this is a process we do every 10 years. we're not done yet. we are well along the way. a number of states are done and some are not quite have even released their plans and there is a question as to what the

final plans will look like. we want to get a sense of how it will benefit republicans or democrats and where the seats have moved and where there might be competitive seats are not, where there is incumbent protection. we've got a whole set of issues that we want to get the landscape on. we had two of the best people here in washington to do that. we will have some discussion and look for your comments from the audience. >> thanks to the bipartisan policy center for having us here to cover this often under loved a topic which is a nerd-fest every 10 years. when you think about what most americans believe about congress, the polarization tends to be blamed on congress and the way members of congress operate these days.

it tends to be blamed on cable news. more americans might be best served by looking down the street. a couple of things have happened over the course of the last 10- 15 years that are significant to redistricting. the first is that we have seen self-sorting within the american electorate. we undertook a study of virginia precinct data going back to the early 1990's and we found that there was a 15% decline in the number of voters living in precincts that were within 10 points of the statewide average either way. if americans have redistricted with their feet, it is easier than ever of legislatures, consultants who are drawing these maps to quarantine and isolate providers of the opposing party into a small set of districts and make the rest of the district's favorable towards their own party. in 2010, we saw this polarization work between these

two very different size of the electorate. in 2010, out of the 66 districts that democrats lost in the house, 82% contained a cracker barrel. 20% contained a whole foods market. this organic-nostalgic divide that we see is only accelerated in the redistricting process as republicans seek to build their districts around cracker barrel's and democrats seek to build their districts around whole foods. in the long term, the democrats are at a disadvantage in the house partially as a result of redistricting and partially as a result of the nature of their coalition today which is more reliant than ever on minority voters, younger voters, college- educated voters all of content to be clustered in tight geographic areas that are easier

and easier for republicans who picked up a lot of legislators and governorships after 2010 to essentially isolate into a small number of districts across the most states. democrats, if they're going to have any hope of regaining the house in 2012 or the fourth coming decade, they will have to compete on republican-leaning turf. it is possible for democrats to win the total popular vote for the house but simply as the result of how the democratic coalition is made up today and the way brief -- districts are drawn, it is possible death -- democrats could win the popular vote for the house but lose the house by up to two dozen seats. i am eager to eageraaron and john's thoughts and from all of you. >> maybe i will talk more about where we stand in this current cycle. going into this cycle, the big

headline was that republicans -- and david can tell me if i'm right on this -- they had unprecedented control over redrawing a new district. republicans control the legislatures and governors to draw to hundred congressional seats were as democrats controlled only about 50 seats. we go into the cycle thinking that republicans will dominate this and will be able to solidify their majority. let's see what happens. since then, essentially republicans were so maxed out in the states they already had that there were not able to add seats. in some cases that had to add democratic seats. it has been a constant balancing act or they're trying to create opportunities for themselves but also focus on shoring up. specifically in the midwest in places like pennsylvania and ohio and wisconsin, shoring up is the name of the game and they

were not able to add seats for themselves. democrats had been able to create more winnable districts. a lot of that is what has happened in the courts and a limited number of states control redistricting over present hand over control of redistricting to a commission. this has been good for democrats in states like texas where a continuing court battle drew the map for 2012 and in colorado where the court drew the map at the legislature deadlocked and could not come to an agreement, arizona were they have a commission or the republicans are fighting tooth and nail to get their proposal overturned and california where they have a new citizens predicted -- redistricting commission which through the whole matter into disarray and roy blunt and, as

together and has created acsitue a situation. i think democrats will be able to win six, seven, eight congressional seats in the 2012 election and that is 1/3 of the way they need to get in order to retake the majority. the other part of this is that republicans insist they have done a good job of assuring that their members. in states like pennsylvania and ohio, this will be by a couple of points. it will not be a situation where the district is now in a play for democrats but the members become safer. you can ask either side was winning and they have a good argument to say why they are winning. i think david makes a good point in saying that in the end right now the map is already drawn where there are more republican- leaning districts and they will only be able to grow that advantage as a result. >> i will tell a story that a

similar. many of us going into this cycle saw the advantage for republicans. we quickly came to realize that because republicans had already made significant gains in the 2010 election that their gains and controlled state legislature or in places where they had already large delegations. it was not feasible to expand them or there were times when there were a majority/minority district and they could not gain any more seats. there were a number of states throughout the south for republicans really have the advantage but have only done shoring up. until six weeks ago, you would have said it looks like a relatively fair fight between republicans and democrats. the court cases and some of the post-original map moves by parties and other courts are putting things in the favor of

democrats. there were a couple of states where there were big changes. republicans in north carolina looked like they still may make democrats lose anywhere between two-four seats. illinois is a state where democrats are likely to make some republicans lewis, perhaps four-six seats. there are little changes that republicans edit a seat here or eliminated a democrat bear or added padding to some of their members' districts. colorado, texas, arizona, florida we're still waiting and there is some question as to how these newly passed rules passed by the voters on the ballot and whether they will be implemented and that will affect what is a significant republican advantage in a congressional delegation.

ohio is where the plan -- we don't know what will happen with the plan. it is on hold or on hold longer it democrats get enough signatures to put this on the ballot in november. those things point to some advantage toward democrats in the final analysis. there is a continuing realignment. if you look especially at the south or all of the story's over many years of how once solidly democratic south has moved to become republican territory, you would think that might not continue but it is still continuing. you see retirements and a number of places and you see the map in north carolina pushing republicans to have more seats there. there are potential places like georgia where republicans have dogs.lue

you will see an increasing polarization. it would take several things going right for republicans but it is not impossible that you can imagine there will be not a single white blue dog left in the south after this election. that would depend on jim cooper. i think he will probably keep busy but a number of them are retiring or in significant trouble. they may not even have one of those white blue dogs in their membership at the end of this cycle. it is hard to tell how many competitive districts we will have at the end. there are two types of competitive districts. one is where a party is trying to put an incumbent in trouble like a heath schuler where his

district has become more republican. if he were to lose that seat, that becomes difficult for another democrat to takeover because it is a lay heavily republican district real competitive districts in terms of relatively fair fights, relatively fair electoral distribution of the boats is hard to see how many there will be. there'll be fewer of them either way. had 367 ours, we 435 seats not change hands. only 74 seats changed hands at all in the decade. in the 1990's, we have three of 19 seats that did not change and in 2000, we have 327 that did not change hands. the universe is the amount that large in these districts. we've got 10 years to go to know the answer to question the given that many of those changes were due to some realigning factors, seats that were conservative in the south of daschle moved into

republican hands, we might not see as many of those coming out of this set of maps. california, there is good news in competitiveness. they have a commission for the first time. there was contentiousness with the commission. in california, there is a map in the last 10 years which was perhaps the most un competitive map you have ever seen of the 53 districts that were intended to be republican or democratic, only one seat changed hands. four of the month of not according to plan. you see more competition with this plan. you might say anything is better than the past map and that is probably true.

they have created a number of seats and a big jumble of seats were many incumbents are choosing districts and running against each other and figuring out where they will run or whether they will run. there have been very few so- called fair fight district. we often see in divided government not being able to agree on which member of congress to eliminate, which district. the party will sometimes put republicans and democrats in a district and make a relatively fair and we will fight it out. in iowa, it was greeted by a commission -- it was created by a commission.

we are doing a report that will come out at the end of the process in 2012 looking at some of the states that are using non-political drawing of lines as the primary process. a few states you might look at like i was. they had a commission of civil servants draw their maps. there is a little bit of political involvement. there is great and strengthen how they draw the district in terms of keeping communities together and counties together and not crossing lines. they have liked the process and have had relatively little opposition to the process. a couple of states like california and adults -- and arizona there has been

tremendous partisan fighting about the non-partisan commissions. you have arguments as to what lawyers to hire and what mapmakers to hire any more extreme case in arizona, the governor tried to remove the nonpartisan member of the commission and the court reinstating her. we will see the outcome. a number of people are not completely unhappy in california. democrats are happier than republicans there but in arizona, they process of non- restructuring -- there are lots of ways to do these things and have these types of non- political process is. >> could we have charlie stenholme comment as a white blue dog democrat?

he is wearing blue today. how you observe this process? >> i agree with the overview that has been given here about follow the nuances and we will see. i believe very strongly that to those in this town who are interested in policy, you better get redistricting factor you'll never get the kind of agreement on policy. the books "on the wing nuts" 10% of the americans are very liberal and 10% are conservative. they control processing. the only way a democrat can be beaten in some of these areas is in a primary. same thing with the republicans you have the polarization that comes naturally with it.

i committed the sin taxes of representing a rather republican district for 26 years. mr rove and mr selay and mr. barry decided this was not to be done. -- miss perry decided this is not to be done. they paired with a republican. it was not necessarily a fair fight. the results were predictable. now texas had their district for now by the courts. texas is a majority-minority states. texas legislature chose to make it a little bit more anglo and that did not work with the courts, predictably. we'll see how that comes out.

i have a very strong feeling on this. i am often asked -- you complain about the system and everybody complains about the system. our political system is broken. everybody complains. if there is one thing you would change, only one thing that you could change, what would it be? i said that's easy, redistricting. diskette to more competitive districts. i used to have a winning district. you are exactly right and not sure the country will be much better off with the polarization. that is what the people decide. alternately, you have to let the people in a bipartisan, would do more to help beals of our

political system. >> maybe you can take one aspect of that point. are there any places where we might see another mid-decade redistricting like texas to open the door or redistricting less significantly, where do see possibilities for that. ? >> you are living proof that when you pair encumbered with bank,, it is not always a fair fight district. i think texas is one of the places where we did see a mid- decade redistricting because the interim that that was imposed by a federal "-- court in san antonio will probably lead to democrats and minorities getting three out of the four new districts in texas. the don't necessarily provide opportunities for democrats elsewhere in this state outside of a select few.

we will see what the supreme court decides to do. i have a question about what reforms actually work from the standpoint of how you create competitive districts and get incumbent's away from the shackles of primaries? in california, there is something else beside the nonpartisan or bipartisan commission redistricting of fairly removed from politics. that is the new primary system in california. instead of candidates running for their own party's nomination in june, it is an all party primary were the top two finishers regardless of party advanced to the general election.

theoretically, because we have not seen the results yet of this system of primary yet, it ought to three incumbents from thinking about june before they think about moving to the middle in november. we will see if we get a more bipartisan cooperation system out of california where there is an incentive to campaign toward the middle. >> how many districts in california would you say in a generic year are fair by district? >> in california, polarization within the electorate means that even if you have created a jet -- a geographically? sound new district, all the 10- 15 of them are that competitive.

in 1990, that number might have been greater than it is now. it is still might even 1/3 of the 55 deep that might be in play between the parties. even that would be a dramatic improvement over the fact that only one seat changed hands in the last decade. >> a want to talk about mid- decade redistricting which has happened very rarely. we talked about texas and georgia did it, what year was that? ", 2003-2005, and like that. these circumstances don't usually apply. the processes either split controller under one-party control. one party would have to take over the state senate and then

they say they want to make a power play and they want to draw a new congressional state legislative map that will allow us to consolidate the power we have. a lot of things have to happen in order for that to occur. republicans right now in both of the states where they easily could have the trifecta, they have already got it. if we were to see it happen, it would probably be on the democratic side after they have had a couple of good elections and got some power braque -- power back. "we saw that in texas for what that happened with the supreme court's growing out part of the map. >> pennsylvania is a nominal the blue states under republican control.

minnesota is split right now. if republicans draw an aggressive map in pennsylvania we have already seen the map in wisconsin. we could see the democrats make a move to roll back again as they do every holiday. >> i had a district that was a less conservative but it was a mixed district politically. redistricting in kansas is not like texas. the districts are relatively homogeneous. i recall that i never worried about the base of my party. that was not a preoccupation with me. i remember the ratings, cq and

the national review had ratings. if i was not mere 50% on everything, i did myself as a failure. one reason was i was middle of the road anyway but i knew it that i went too far to one side, i would get killed in my district because of the nature of the republican/democratic mex. that meant as a matter of policy that i was liberated and freer and i could make ideas of the republicans and more across the aisle. i was not too afraid to use -- losing my race. i would also work my own basses. to echo what you are saying, the nature of the redistricting process paralyzed people to be unable to make those kinds of coalitions and across the board decisions. those are near to the benefit of

the country as a whole. it is ending we can do in this process whether it is redistricting or elsewhere to encourage a freer spirit to to be able to work on the substance of policies for our country that don't paralyze us, as a positive benefit. if redistricting is moving more and more in this direction, what are some and totes to this? should we have open primaries? is that an antidote to this? i ask the question but i don't know. >> you can comment on some of the states that have moved to bipartisan-solutions. >> do we just accept this? >> california, the benham will receive or the couple of years, could be held up by some form as a model. unlike other states with

redistricting commissions that have partisans' appointed by legislatures o. this was one of the 1st redistricting commissions that operate without regard to incumbents and to partisan data and the process. that is one element of it certainly. congress can also regulate. for a long time, congressman john tanner advocated a bill that would restrict legislature's ability to split counties and localities excessively in the ridges -- in the redistricting process. by looking at some indecipherable districts on maps, the abuse in spotting

counties and cities and precincts places a great burden on election administrators to carry out elections with their county divided 10 different ways. that is something that congress could dress of there with the willpower to do so. >> the wake california looks and his next couple that is will be interesting. a lot of the states, would want the men together. -- we want to mix them together. in every state except for california maybe one or two others that are insignificant, there are politics and the process. they may be bipartisan or both reap -- or republican employees but you can look at a state like new jersey where the people who are part of this commission are being appointed by the powerful

people in each party. those people go to the process and look for support -- certain people plus political process. republicans of the independent chairwoman as being as -- as favoring democrats and their move her briefly. if this california thing turns out and research in turnover and more competitive races, you may still see other states line of that bipartisan predict justing criticism line. it became law by referendum and the states have their own process for a referendum. vdot had that process, and you did that to your state legislators to pass a bill, i

think your chances are probably going to be pretty slim. we have seen a great demographic change in our country over the last 10 years. ." aboutt can you tell us the growth of minority districts? where we sit in the growth at out much is it? >> in 2010, the democratic caucus that was elected in the house had a record low percentage of white males. it was down to 53% of the democratic caucus. it is virtually certain that in 2013 when congress was sworn in, for the first time ever, minorities and women will be the majority of one party's caucus in the house. democrats would celebrate that diversity certainly an would celebrate the fact that they

have a very good complexion with in their caucus brit there's a tray up there in that democrats have a very lopsided advantage is in those districts where they are from at the expense of minority voters having a say in other districts. i would also argue that this great in question for the future and a career potential of minority members of congress from those groups, only certain segments of the population in the state been packed with as many minority voters as possible, the question arises if they can truly advest the statewide office -- and can they compete on a statewide basis. that is a question for

democrats especially and for minority candidates in the future. >> the point about the clock is a sport -- and eventually being women and minorities, they probably would be celebrating that the celebration would be tempered because they would still be in the northeast. if they are to regain the majority, that would be less likely to happen because they would be winning more of these wider and more conservative districts. when we talk about minority districts in this cycle, one interesting thing is the evolution of the majority black districts. we have seen cases where the black population has left her areas and so these districts have had to be stretched out into the suburbs. in illinois, it is drawn out to essentially a rural county. i talked to the son of jesse

jackson and he talked about how he went out and was hanging out with corn farmers recently. he never but he would be doing that. in detroit where there has been a lot of black population, migration and loss, john conyers and hansen clarke are the two black incumbents from detroit. we have also seen them expand in new orleans. the district a distress always been armorers. the voting next rights requires the redistricting is to maintain black districts. part of it is that republicans are drawing the line in some cases and combining the black voters to as few districts as possible and that is politically beneficial to them. we have seen a proliferation of

these very oddly drawn majority black districts. it has helped republicans solidify their broad majority of districts nationwide. these majority black districts and majority hispanic districts have generally assisted in that process. >> maybe you could say a little something about -- there has been, for the last several cycles, sometimes alliances between republicans and african- american democrats to create districts and create more republican districts in the remaining territory. we have seen that someplace? there is a theory that if african-americans are elected or minorities are elected to majority/minority district, they might become sick enough that they could have some conflict

between the individual members. other stores across the country and you could enlighten us on? >> i thought of ohio or you mentioned republicans have dresses -- drafted a map. perhaps dormitories in the state legislature by the hurricane -- they are unwilling to put up of the map they drew. democrats are now threatening to put the republican-drawn districting map on the red -- on the resolution. in order to prevent that from happening, the public needs to get 2/3 of the majority in the state legislature when it passes its map and it is not able to be

put as a referendum. they have been working with black members of the state legislature to get them on board with their redistricting proposal. that may be the best example we are seeing this year of republicans working with african americans. >> i have one more question and we will open it up to the audience. you have looked as some of these maps and they're not all done yet. where is the changes in the district. ? the term gerrymandering comes from a district looks like a salamander. >> we started a contest in july called "name that district"where we take a new district that has been drawn and put a picture of it on our blog and we tell our

readers to tell us what this looks like to you. the response has been unbelievable. the illinois second district or seventh maybe, somebody surmise that if you turn it sideways, it character athe mtv beavis from beavis and butthead. we did the maryland's third district. they drew a district that outlines the bay and kind of reaches in and pulls in may but bunch of different things. the picture we put some of blog happens to be green. they said it looks like a praying mantis. in of a praying mantis has

little branches shooting out every which way and little antenna and gangly arms. the contest as a been very enlightening. >> i know they were not happy with this. >> if i could have a stab at this -- in east texas under one per bop -- republican proposal, there is a district as a dead ringer for your hair cut democrats drew the 17th district last time in western illinois which looked like a rabbit on a skateboard. it is probably one of the grossest gerrymanders where republicans in the ohio ninth district were barely hugging lake erie. it is been named big mistake by the leg. i was wondering for a long time who had a better chance of winning outside ohio, lebron

james or dennis kucinich. we filing of the answer to that question. dennis kucinich said he will run in that mess. >> i will open it up -- >> one quick comment -- the california experiment is going to be fascinating to watch. louisiana has had for a long time. watch that and it could offer some of the answers to your questions. redistricting, my colleague from dallas got two rural counties. he had been accustomed to representing the inner city. he got two raw cabbage and within 48 hours, he called me and said he will need my help. i said i would sure to help.

it is not because we are good friends. it is not because we are fellow democrats. it is because you will be a better congressman next year the new record -- and you were last year and he will admit that. the fact that you have to do more than give lip service to a different perspective makes you a better congressperson. talking about the voting rights act, will the day ever come in which it is no longer applicable and if not, why not? >> if the voting rights act is no longer applicable it will be because the supreme court decides is no longer applicable. if you look at the likelihood of congress take many of fans to the voting rights act, i don't think it should end there.

democrats would not under -- not stand for and republicans would not have the specter of actually dismantling section 5 of the role of the voting rights act. over the long term, democrats will realize that if they spend a lot of time in the house minority, that the voting rights legislature is working to their detriment. in virtually every state republicans have control, they are speaking to isolate democratic voters in heavily democratic district. in many states in the south, they have used the voting rights act for justification for packing those districts with minorities. even in florida, a state where you have some reform measures on the ballot that have succeeded and is requiring districts to be

geographically compact and blind to partisan data, there is still a justification of being used by african american members of the southern california congress and members of the state legislature to redistrict which is robin other districts of democratic minority voters who democrats would need in order to pick up my morrissey. >> the coalition for overturning this does not exist in congress and will not exist. they want this to be around for as long as possible. it will not be what the cbc wants to do this.

>> if you talk to election lawyers, there is a bit of a delicate dance between the possibility of the democratic obama justice department weighing in on some of these plans. and there might be a court which brings them back again. many activists are cheering on the justice department to be more circumspect about some plans the republicans have put forth and republicans are often ignoring or bypassing the justice department and going to their court and not always winning. there is some sense that perhaps a democratic justice department is going too far. justice roberts had a famous statement that says in the back of people's minds, not all us but the narrowing of it and

certain sections might be the result of a court challenge. >> let's open it up. >> i write to the mitchell reports. i want to lay out another thesis on the table that i know david is familiar with but it goes to congress about whether you if you want to fix pulsing get a congress that works again, you have to fix redistricting. we have had this discussion before a and forum. a few years ago, bill bishop wrote a group -- ready book and grab -- wrote a book and are made not to articulate what the process is, it is fair to say

that the offer is another point of view which is backed -- which is that the redistricting that has been going on in the country recently can also be traced to our own patterns of migration and how we have come over the last 30 years in particular, moved into communities of st. saneness. he moved from lexi kentucky, to austin, texas. the book is replete with debt that supports that point of view. it ranges from less than 1/4 of the voting population by the time you get to 2000, it is roughly 50%. i wonder if david or aaron could talk about the big the sisson

whether you see it as holding its logic today and whether you see it as a sort of partner to congress stenholms notion about redistricting or is a competitive by saying that some of the damage that is being done is being done by the redistricting folks. a lot of is being done by our own patterns of migration. >> i thank you hit on a vicious cycle in terms of migration patterns and redistricting that leads toward polarization. i have done some recent research on this cracker barrel/wholefoods a theory tying into bill bishop. we have a couple of countervailing trends. the suburbs have been active but

racial diversity is not the same as religious subversive did. for the more ethnic diverse suburbs, they are more heavily democratic. in suburbs that are not diversified, those suburbs a more republican than ever. as america becomes more solidly democratic and more parts of america finds president obama to be counter to every value or less experienced that they've known, we will be shocked in 2012 by the extent to which republicans are running up the score in rural america and the extent to which democrats are running up the score in urban america. i think a lot of corporate marketers and political pollsters are thinking alike these days.

corporations are choosing to locate their stores in areas where they think it will work. those kind of values that certain companies bring act as magnets for certain types of lifestyle and certain types of voters. one thing that bill bishop remarked upon to made a thought was especially powerful politics these days as a countdown to policy. it comes from life cycle. does something we will see very starkly in the 2012 election. >> i think he said it perfectly so i will just leave it there. >> many political scientists would doubt >> house is about gav toel in. house members will recessed

shortly perry you confine this program anytime on line at the cspan legislative work week resumes today at 4 cupp 30 p.m. eastern time and it will debate eight bills, including a federal oil and gas pipeline safety bill. later this week, the house will work legislation to extend the payroll tax cut, as well as unemployment benefits, and remaining federal spending for the rest of the budget year and defense department programs and policies. they are trying to complete work by the end of the week so we weekend session as possible. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your blessing as we approach the end of the first session of this 112th congress. you know well the contentiousness of this session. look into the hearts of all the members of this people's house to discern the good will within. may the good will you find be rewarded with your grace. may any contrary spirit be banished. in the days that come, help each member to understand well and interpret positively as they are able the positions of those with whom they disagree. grant to each the wisdom of solomon and to us all the faith and confidence to know that no

matter how difficult things appear to be, you continue to walk with our nation as you have done for over two centuries. may all that is done today in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. clyburn: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postpone. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. mr. clyburn: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the

senate on december 9, 2011, at 10:02 a.m., that the senate concur in the house of representatives' amendment to the joint resolution, senate joint resolution 22, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 2061, that the senate passed senate 1974, that the senate agreed to without amendment house concurrent resolution 86. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the superior court of the district of columbia for testimony in a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, grant

shirling, principal engineer, office of the chief administrative officer. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of t >> the house is going to be returning at 4:30 eastern time, debating eight bills, including a federal oil and gas pipeline safety bill. later this week, the payroll tax cut extension as well as unemployment benefits, remaining federal spending for the rest of the budget year and defense department programs and policies. next, a look at the week ahead in congress from this morning's "washington journal." host: let's go to a staff writer for "the hill close " to talk about what is happening in congress this week. thank you for talking with us today.

what is the biggest battle that faces members of congress before they leave for the holidays? guest: i think the payroll tax extension is the highest profile. i think the church -- spending omnibus is on a much better course toward resolution. there were sticking points about labor, health, interior, environment provisions, a lot of the provisions called writer's -- riders which is sticking points, but there is a fail-safe that you could extend funding at the current levels in those bills under a continuing resolution. so, i think the chances of a government shutdown are very minimal. the payroll tax extension remains unresolved. although they are looking to get out of town at the end of the week, eric cantor, a majority of leader, sent out a notice saying worker could go into next week.

so the payroll tax extension is the big item of the week. host: is the fact that there is some agreement being reached on the cr, the fact that members of congress cannot seem to be headed to a big showdown, is that a sign of compromise or willingness? guest: it seems to be a sign that the august debt ceiling deal is holding up, and that is the decision leadership made at the time to stick with it. you know, that a deal set an overall top line spending number of $1.04 trillion, with a little extra for disaster aid. or disaster aid. it looks like the it looks like it will come in at $1.05 trillion. try to get a lower number. smooth passage, setting the tone for appropriators to work out

some deals. this is almost omnibus, nine bills, something the gop certainly does not prefer to do and tries to avoid. but with time running out there will probably have to go to that to perhaps try to get 12 individual bills next year when they have more time to work on it. this year's appropriation process did not get started until late because the 2011 spending process was still going on until april when the government shutdown was narrowly averted. >> members of congress thinking about going on for the holidays, how do they feel about a low deal with the lower do they see an opportunity before they leave to improve it? guest: there is increasing worry about anti-incumbent feeling, now at the highest -- it will hurt everybody. sticking with it, sort of the decision to show the people, i

think, that something can get done. there was another shutdown crisis now, i think everyone would suffer. and that kind of mutually assured destruction is pushing the white house and the republicans and democrats toward a solution. i think that would also be the same calculus for the payroll tax extension, that they want to get a deal ultimately. so we will probably see something. host: finally, tell us more wightman -- what might still be on the table with this payroll tax reduction effort. where is there room to negotiate question of guest: it is interesting, the massive gop bill going to the rules committee tonight, emergency meeting, and then likely a vote tomorrow or wednesday. that bill is a big package that includes not only the payroll tax extension, that you mentioned, but an extension of unemployment insurance with significant reforms conservatives have saw for years, which is reducing the number of weeks people can take

for unemployment insurance benefits and restricting eligibility, such as allowing states to drug test. it also contains what is known as a doc fix, a provision in medicare law, doctors would receive a massive cuts in their payments in this is not cash -- past, certainly by beginning of the year. and it includes a host of items to pay for these, including things like national flood insurance. one thing i put into today's addition of "the hill," by extending the flood insurance program, hoping to get $4.9 billion in savings. there is a little dispute about the accounting on that. but by doing that, they are wading into a big fight within the insurance industry, between state farm and other insurance about how he manages these former state farm insurance policies. so, putting must-pass

legislation out there with a lot of provisions, a lot of lobbying and other fights are going to be involved. so, there are a lot of things on the table with this bill. it looks set to pass probably by a close margin from the gop caucus, but then it is pretty much dead in the senate as harry reid, the senate majority leader, has said. so, it is going to be in negotiations between that bill and the senate alternative, which is a more generous payroll tax break, paid for by a surtax on millionaires, which is anathema to the gop. i imagine it would be some combination of these bills would be the final product. host: erik wasson, thank you so much. guest: thanks allot. host: here is a look at some of today's live coverage on the c- span networks. the house meets today again and 4:30 eastern to consider eight bills, one including the

consideration of the oil and pipeline safety programs. you can watch live coverage here on c-span. the senate will take up nominations of u.s. ambassadors to the czech republic and else out. votes to move the nominations forward scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern time. that is going on now on c-span2. c-span 3 will be live at 5:30 p.m. as the house rules committee considers what amendments will be allowed in the republican plan extending the payroll tax cut, long-term unemployment benefits and medicare payment rates to doctors. we are going to be light shortly here at the state department for secretary of state hillary clinton, who will be holding a press conference with the british foreign secretary william hague who she has been meeting this morning. before the bill alive, we will look at some of of your calls and question -- before they do a lot -- arrive, we will look at some of the viewer calls and questions.

actually, it looks like people are arriving at the state department. again, secretary of state hillary clinton holding a press conference with british foreign secretary, william hague.

>> good afternoon. let me, again, welcome the foreign secretary here to washington and to the state department. it is a special pleasure to see him at the end of the year in which we cooperated so closely and constructively together. we have had a very robust shared calendar as we have tackled these global challenges every

single day of this entire year, it seems. and we met on many previous occasions, both bilaterally and also through a multitude of multilateral engagements. so, it is good to review it and i look forward at this time of year. we will be meeting again. we already concluded, numerous times, next year. obviously we have a lot to talk about whenever we do need. our meeting today reflected a wide array of shared concerns and challenges, including the economic crisis in europe, the embassy attack on the u.k. embassy in iran, the transition in afghanistan, the situation in pakistan, the devolving situation in burma, north africa, the middle east, the balkans, and so much more. we lost track of all of the matter is that we went over

today. we naturally discussed the decisions regarding europe's debt crisis, and as we said many times, we have a great stake in a speedy resolution. we support efforts to enact pro-growth reforms and we will continue to work closely with our european partners. we discussed the ongoing efforts to press the iranian government to meet all of its international obligations. the attack on the british embassy was an affront not only on the british people but to the international community. governments owe a duty to protect if the -- the -- diplomatic lives and property and we expect the government of iran to do just that, both inside and outside iran. that is why we strongly supported the u.n. general assembly that a resolution deploring the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington. and we are working together on additional sanctions, and the

great work that the foreign minister and the government of the u.k. has done with us at the iaea to express nearly unanimous concern about iran's nuclear program. afghanistan was a big part of the discussion today, following up on our meetings in bonn and the ice after -- i sas -- isaf in brussels and data. the men and women of our armed forces have stood side-by-side and have reversed the taliban momentum on the battlefield. and our diplomats and development experts have likewise stood shoulder to shoulder to try to help the people of afghanistan realize a better future. as we talk about transitioning security, we look very clearly at the goal that was set at the lisbon summit. this transition is a new phase

of support for afghanistan, not the end of our commitment. and we will stay very closely connected as we move through this period as well. i welcome the news that the foreign secretary will be going to burma. i think we have a real opportunity through sustained diplomacy to test the new government and to work toward the resolution of the outstanding problems that prevent that country from achieving its rightful place in the community of nations for the 21st century. and there is a very clear path forward if they wish to follow what. we, of course, discussed the middle east, and in a particular, syria. we worked closely together to increase of the pressure on may assad regime. we welcome the recent action by

the arab league. i met with representatives of the syrian opposition last week and i encourage other arab leaders to meet with them as well and continue our support for peaceful protests and reform inside syria. and we compared notes on the parliamentary elections in egypt. the egyptian people are justifiably proud to begin the process of choosing their new leaders. we urge the egyptian authorities to ensure that free and fair voting continues through the next election rounds and that there will be a steady transition toward a new civilian government. and that the same time, we call on the continued protection of peaceful protesters and holding those accountable for previous incidents of violence. this is just a snot swat -- snapshot of our lengthy and substantive conversation.

again, foreign secretary, welcome back to washington. >> thank you very much, indeed. ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to -- always to be here with the secretary. the united states of america is our closest ally. we had a good meeting of minds, as we have a broad range of challenges we face. as everyone knows, we had in 2011 a momentous year in world affairs. and i think we have risen to these challenges with confidence. our joint efforts in libya, for instance, to save lives, benefit from the seamless cooperation in diplomacy and defense, which is one of the distinctive hallmarks in the nine dealers to ship between the united kingdom and the united states of america. 2012 presents challenges in foreign policy that can be more demanding and complex still, and we must be ready for those. britain is determined to play a

full part alongside the united states, standing shoulder to shoulder and building on our shared values, a sense of common purpose. as you have heard from secretary clinton, our discussion today has ranged over a very wide range of subjects. we discussed the economic situation in europe, and and the titular, the eurozone. and in the united kingdom, as our prime minister has said in parliament today, we want to see the eurozone is stabilized. that involves far more than simply greater and medium-term fiscal integrates and -- integration, as important as it is. the market wanted be sure it that -- that the fire wall is big enough and the banks are adequately capitalized, and countries like greece are adequately dealing with their problems. we cannot sign a european treaty that does not give adequate

protection to the single market in europe, but we are not changing our relationship with the european union. we will work with our european partners over the coming months on the need for the eu to remove barriers to grade, to conclude a free-trade agreements around the world. these remain the most and ports and wait for europe to compete and address economic problems and generate potential growth. as you have heard, we share a growing concern with the united states about the situation in syria and the deplorable violence orchestrated by the regime. we welcome the continued efforts of the arab league and call on the international community to unite in its condemnation of events in syria. our talks and reaffirmed our country's close understanding of the threats posed by iran's nuclear program, and i particularly thank secretary: 4 robust support over the recent

attack of our embassy in tehran and we shared our latest thinking about the expansion of sanctions against iran. this includes european union consideration of measures against the iranian energy sector as part of the pressure on iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear ambitions. we discussed the middle east peace process and a need to return to negotiations that cannot safely be delayed. i briefed secretary clinton on operations for the london conference on somalia in february. we need a stronger international approach to the crisis there and to see the opportunity now to address the root causes of terrorism, instability, piracy. we will spend a lot of time and attention on this in the early months of 2012 and see this as a key priority for next year when i look forward to continuing to work with secretary clinton on this. we've reviewed progress on afghanistan and the life of the

-- conference we attended last week. 10 years after, great strides have been made. our goal now is to consolidate them so the afghan people can take control of their own security from 2014. and britain will continue to work closely with the u.s. and our other partners with afghanistan as we work towards a very important chicago summit to be held in may. we discussed the protests we have seen in recent days in moscow. it is clearly important that the russian government investigate the allegations of alleged abuses. and we welcome the commitment of president medvedev to do so. and we also agreed to the international community should show strategic patients in the western balkans, that president clinton described as an unfinished business. we strongly support that reason -- region's integration and the resolution of outstanding

issues. we share a common commitment to the territorial integrity of bosnia-texaco and as a single, state, and we discussed ways we can identify our efforts -- bosnia-herzegovina, to help that country turned a new page in 2012. we discussed the asia-pacific region and the united states announcement about that region in recent weeks. in that regard, i particularly welcome secretary clanton's recent visit to burma. our common objective to see political freedom in burma and constructive engagement to help further that goal. it is very important. i will visit burma in early january and we will remain in close contact with the u.s. on this issue, as in all the other issues mentioned in the coming months. in all of these areas, britain does not have a more important ally and the united states, and i look forward to all of our

work together in the coming year. that is as effective and the rubble and consequencive it has been in this year as in the years before it. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. a two questions for you. a first, secretary haig, i know you just said the u.k. is not changing its religious with the eu, but the you believe the british government that a decision on the eurozone diminishes britain possy influence in europe and perhaps the world? and a question for both of you -- you also just said you welcome a negotiation in to evaluate -- allegations of fraud in russia. do you both the trust that the results will be what will be required and to allay the concerns of the protesters. what should authorities do beyond the investigation to address those concerns.

>> taking the second question first, it will depend on the investigation and what it produces and how it is conducted. it is important such investigations take place. i think it is right, as i said, to welcome the willingness of the russian government to do that. clearly, as nations that believe in democracy, freedom of speech, in political freedom, we want to see such investigations take place as transparency -- transparently and fully as possible. but i think it is impossible to judge them in advance. on the question of -- i cannot agree with the thrust of your question. on all of the issues that we have just been describing, the foreign policy issues, and dealing with iran, pressure on syria, how could take four or the middle east peace process, the european union is a very important player in the world,

and determining the european union attitude on all of the issues, the united kingdom plays an absolute essential and leading role. we also -- pushing forward tsk the single market, chair brings free trade agreements, like the one signed with south korea earlier this year. that does not change because we choose not to participate in one set of arrangements which are not adequate for us. that is not a new thing to do. the united kingdom did not join the euro. and we are pleased with it not joining bureau. we are not part of the schengen border arrangements and we are quite satisfied. europe can develop in a way in which there are overlapping circles of decision making and not every nation has to participate in it everything. a central role in driving forward european policy on a whole range of topics i just

described. >> i would just add to what william already said about russia. we were pleased the protests yesterday was peaceful. we think it was a good sign. there were dozens of them across the country. and the the fact that the government has announced that it is willing to investigate allegations of fraud and manipulation associated with the december 4 duma elections is a good sign and a reassuring position for the russian people. but the proof is in the pudding. we will wait to see how they conduct such a negotiation, what the consequences are. they have a good road map coming from the osce, which set forth a number of brokers -- recommendations. so, we are supportive of the announcement of the investigations and now we hope that it will be followed through on.

>> last week, an american general in baghdad said he was not sure what would happen in iraq after the last american troops have left. after december 31, your own department, madam secretary, will become as it were, in charge of american interests in baghdad and in iraq. how confident are you that iraq will turn into the sort of country perhaps you had in mind when this all began? >> well, we had been having very intensive discussions with prime minister al-maliki and various ministers of this government starting last night, going through into the morning. in the oval office with the present. and we certainly are looking forward to a normally --

relationship between two sovereign countries. the outline of our actions was set prior to this administration coming into office in 2008. when the bush administration agreed wind our military presence would end in the end of next year, that is going to happen. we hope, in fact, that our troops will be out in time for question -- christmas. and then we will be taking on a case by case basis requests for additional assistance, of which in there are many coming from the iraqis. certainly, in the security and military training arena, there is quite a long list of requests. and we are looking forward to about awaiting those and filling them whenever possible. we are going to be working on police training which is getting under way.

we have a number of agreements that have been worked on in it -- under a strategic framework adopted back in 2008. so, we are on the path to meet our commitment to withdrawal of u.s. military personnel, even as we maintain a robust civilian presence under state department leadership that will include diplomats, business and development experts, security assistance experts, law enforcement officers, and others from civilian agencies across the united states government. they will be working out of our embassy in baghdad, out of our consulates general, our diplomatic presence in kirkuk, and it will be protected, as our civilians are in many places in the world, i contracted security personnel.

-- by contractor security personnel. again, last night and today, our iraqi partners made clear that they want a relationship that is deeper and broader than a military relationship. and we are working to achieve that. >> thank you. madam secretary, if i could follow up on iraq. was there any resolution in your meetings about the fates of the last detainee? i will repeat it. was any resolution in your meetings about the last detainee? and if i could ask you about iran -- with the drone crash, the attack on the embassy, the various assassinations, the explosion at a missile factory recently, with the iaea finding -- is there a risk now that our countries are lurching toward some kind of confrontation with

iran? and specifically, madam secretary, the senate has voted to expand sanctions including the iranian central bank. >> stephen, first, with respect to actions regarding iran, we are very clearly making known our concern. we submitted a formal of west dundee request for concern of our lost commit ge equipment, which would be with any government around the world. given iran's behavior today, we did not expect them to comply. but we are dealing with all of these provocations and concerning actions taken by iran in close concert with our closest allies and partners, starting with the uk.

we obviously believe strongly in a diplomatic approach. we want to see the iranian engage. as you know, we have attempted to bring about that engagement over the course of the last three-plus years. it has not proven effective, but we are not giving up on it. with respect to any actions on further sanctions, we have been very tough, and not only have we work hard to get international sanctions through the united nations, but we along with close partners like the uk, do you, and others, the eu, and others, have applied additional sanctions and we will continue to do so. i will not telegraph when, where, and how, but our view is that the path iran seems to be going down is a dangerous one for themselves and for the

region and the danger is compounded on top of their provocation, a deliberate support for terrorism in many places by their continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapon. so, it is something that the world has to respond to and i think we have been quite effective in doing so. with respect to your first question, that is still a matter of discussion between us and the iraqis. then on and iran, as hillary says, we are not giving up -- >> on iran, as hillary says, we are not giving up on engagement but iran has behaved in a way in recent months that has intensified confrontation with the rest of the world. we have seen with the plots to assassinate the saudi ambassador here, the invasion of the british embassy compound in tehran. we have seen an increasing predilection for dangerous adventure, on at least parts of

the iranian regime. it might not be the work of a united iranian regime but at least part of the iranian regime, such actions have been sanctioned. we will increase the peaceful legitimate pressure on iran. we see it not as confrontation but a necessary response, particular to the nuclear program we adopted in the european union 10 days ago, sanctions on an additional 180 individuals and entities. and we will expand those sanctions further, or we intend to do so at the end of january. tough sanctions on the at and agee sector -- banking sector, the european union as a will. so, we will continue to intensify that pressure while iran's nuclear program continues with no adequate explanation of a peaceful purpose.

>> madam secretary, can i just ask you -- does britain's new position in europe concern you, especially given the historic bridge to the u.k. has offered between europe and the u.s.? >> i have to say, it does not. i think our role of the u.k. has played in europe will continue. and we, of course, welcome that. and our concern has not been over the position that the u.k. has taken. it is whether the decisions made by other members of the eurozone countries within the you -- you will work. and we want to encourage that. we are very helpful and supportive that this latest set of actions will send the right signals and have the results that are being saw. so, i separate out in the economic issues which, as

williams said, the u.k. has never been a party to the euro, so that is not something that is particularly going to change -- from the political work that we do almost every day with the u.k. and with do you. so, i don't see any spillover, in my view. thank you. >> and look at some of the other live programs today covered on the c-span networks. the house will be meeting today at 4:30 eastern to consider eight bills, including the one to consider the gas and oil pipelines a program. you can see live coverage here

on c-span. the senate is also in, and it would take nominations for u.s. ambassadors to the czech republic and all salvador. votes to move the nominations forward are scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern and you can watch it live on c-span2. on c-span 3, live coverage at 5:30 p.m. of the house rules committee considering what amendments will be allowed to the republican plan expending the payroll tax cut and long term on and on the benefits, as well as medicare payment rates to doctors. >> the fcc is a new deal era agency. a lot in the way it was constructed was about an era long ago. i cannot one of those people would think we do not need it, but at think at some point, five commissioners, this many from this party, this money from that party, organized that way -- in internet age, it may be increasingly to cumbersome. >> former fcc chairman and

current head of the national cable and telecommunications association michael powell talks about the issues affecting the industry. tonight at 8:00 on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> parliamentary elections in russia this weekend gave former president blog putin's united russia party in narrower then expectantly. observers called the election fraudulent, citing ballot stuffing and secretary clinton called for an investigation. in washington, the heritage foundation reviewed the out, and what it could mean for russia and its relations with the u.s.. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you for joining us at the heritage foundation. we welcome those joining on our website on this occasion. we would ask if you could be so kind to make sure cell phones have been turned off as we

prepare to begin. it will be most appreciated. we will close the program within 24 hours on our website for future reference as well. our internet viewers are also welcome to send questions and comments, assembly in mailing us heritage.org. hosting our discussion is dr. ariel cohen, senior research fellow at the institute for international studies. he earned his ph.d. at the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts university and he works in the area of economic development and geopolitical challenges, from russia and the former soviet republic, to the global war on terror, the continuing conflict in the middle east, and kennedy security. he is a member on the council on foreign relations, institute for strategic studies in london, an association for the study of nationalities. i will turn the program over to you. thank you.

>> ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for coming and thank you to everyone watching on the internet. first, when we were planning this event as a part of our series of events in russia, we did not know what would happen will -- after the elections. to study the trees, i was in russia for the meeting, and i met with leaders of the political party is. -- political parties, and we were asked to make a prognosis. and i predicted incorrectly that united russia is going to get 60% -- 55% or 60% of the votes and just run show would be wiped out, not by the voter, but because of the electorial

commission would not allow them in the duma. all of that proved to be wrong. we had a terrific panel today here who will be able to shed light on what happens, what the background is, and what the implications are. not just for russia but for u.s.-russia relations. it is important to examine what the relationship between our country -- two countries is and where it is going. we have, as i said, outstanding experts, and i will present them in the order they will appear, and then i will have a few concluding remarks. vladimir is a member of the federal council of the solidarity, russia's democratic opposition movement. he served as a campaign chairman for president candidate

pokovsky, the famous dissident and an advisor to the oppression opposition leader, but he was an alert -- arrested today along with other leaders. vladimir is the author of " reform or revolution -- request for responsible government in the first russian state duma." and "russian liberalism -- ideas and people." he is the bureau chief of rtvi and writes extensively for u.s. and russian media and holds an m.a. history from cambridge university. to his left, dr. katrina -- and i am honored that your mother is here, too. she established a foundation for human rights and justice in 2008.

she serves as president and chief executive officer and teaches human rights and american foreign policy at tufts and katrina also taught at the university of southern denmark, director of public policy at new england college. an extensive academic background and also has a stance -- distinguished career in new hampshire politics as an advisor, commentator, strategist. katrina and her husband, during his tenure, representing new hampshire in u.s. congress, and later served as united states ambassador in denmark, worked on human rights issues and was also a key adviser to her father, someone whose expertise we will all sorely miss, especially on such issues as human rights and issues as russia. when i testified with katrina,

there was more than one voice in congress saying, when are we going to have you in congress. last but not least, my good friend david satter, former moscow correspondent and a prolific writer. born on chicago, greg twitter university of chicago in at oxford where he was a rhodes scholar, work for the chicago tribune, "london financial times" "wall street journal," and has written a number of books, the latest one i am reviewing right now, and it is very, very depressing reading. it is called -- it was a long time ago and never happened and in may -- anyway. it was about the memories of stalin's repressions and we hope to have your book reviewed and an event for your book very soon. with that, let's go to vladimir

first and then katrina and and david and then a few words after that. we can speak here, i think. maybe take a 10-12 minutes. >> the microphones are working? thank you very much, and thank you for coming, and thank you to a heritage for hosting this important event at this very important time. before i speak a little bit about the elections from a quick update. as ariel mentioned, several opposition leaders were arrested in russia yesterday, an hour- and-a-half ago. the chairman of the only progress the marcin -- pro- democracy ballot -- and left- wing nationalist "other russia" group and journalists and activists. two prominent opposition activists, sentenced to two weeks and 15 days in jail. it this -- this all began last

night when some 10,000 people gathered in central moscow to protest against some of the rig to election results. and the arrests began last night, some 300 people arrested last night and some 200 people arrested today. the interior ministry announced this morning they are bringing in the elite division to "keep order" in the russian capital and we are witnessing how they are keeping order right now. that's to be the original topic, the election. apart from silencing his opponents, the one thing vladimir putin was really good at was fixing elections. in fact, he had a perfect track record of this. from march of 2000. but his track record was broken last sunday. it to be absolutely clear, this election was not democratic, it was not free, it was not fair. to begin with, several

opposition parties or not allowed on the ballot and the first place. there were numerous violations in the vote count. i will talk about that and a few minutes. but even in all of these conflict -- conditions and in their official data, the parting, which just weeks ago openly boasted of preserving their two-thirds supermajority in the duma, could not even muster 50% of the vote. the latest official result was 49.3, actually 100% officially tallied. what happened on sunday was happening today and what happened yesterday. these last few days, a turning point for the putin regime, in my view. not because a new duma will rebel against the kremlin. it will likely be just as obedient as the previous one was. not because the "opposition" puppet parties, the three parties that got into the duma,

apart from united russia, will pose a challenge. today will likely vote as they are told by the zhao -- kremlin. especially on important matters. but it is a turning point because this myth of invincibility public, political and an ability that vladimir putin enjoyed the last tender 12 years has been shattered december 4. even according to their own rigged result, back to admit the majority voted against them. no question. most people but not vote for these officially sanctioned puppet alternative parties. they voted against vladimir putin. that is the message from sunday. what this will mean very practically, the people who were intimidated and pressured and threatens, they will be more -- it will be more difficult to intimidate them. and the careerists who backed the regime for personal of vance and will begin with either a engines because it seems like

the russian political pendulum which had stayed frozen the past 12 years is beginning to move in a new direction. the action itself, the vote itself, did not represent any kind of unproven. i think the most apt description was fighting osce observer mission -- "these elections will like a game in which only some players were allowed on the pitch and the field is tilted in favor of one of the players." nine opposition parties, ranging from the center-right popular freedom party to left wing labor front, and everything in between, were banned from taking part by the minister of justice refusal to register them. the television message was firmly and fully controlled by the regime. there was ample administrative interference during the campaign. we saw state officials openly coercing voters, especially public sector employees, state employees. passat officials openly linking

future budget allocations to territories -- what they would a normal election day. and we saw mass manipulation and violations on voting day itself. osce assess the vote count and 30% of cases, 30% of places, were back -- >> or very bad. ballot stuffing, multiple voting, so-called carousels when people go around several polling stations and approach to the member of the electoral position, who is in the deal with them, and vote numerous times. there were many cases of unlawful evictions of observers and journalists and even candidates from the polling places. and rigging of official protocols once the vote held and was completed. in terms of monitors, there were in the last few days and last week before the elections, the only election monitoring group came under sustained attack from

the authorities. it was investigated, fine, the investigator was upheld at the airport, laptop confiscated, and monitors were not allowed access for various pretexts. on voting day itself, some of the most popular independent media websites in russia, including a radio station, they were reporting violations and cat -- fraud, they were down by cyber attacks for the entire day of voting. and of course, the north becasus republic's, prove to faithful -- united russia register 91% -- and 99.9% -- 99.5% in chechnya. a good deal to believe the actual resold in a united russia

was a good deal less. the institute of social studies, moscow-based institute, these of the figures they did. a 38% for a united russia, 24% for a communist, 15 percent for just russia -- 5% for the only progress democracy party that protested the election but in this figure is significant because if they crossed the 5% threshold, it would not only be a voice in parliament but unbeaten access to all regional elections around the country and the presidential elections. the parties represented in that duma in of one person does not have to collect signatures. this would have been significant if they crossed the 5% threshold. it was pretty of this was stolen, especially in moscow, when the vote tally reduced from 18% to 20%, according to independent observers, to 8.5%

in official protocol in moscow. so, the main message from sunday was that even according to the figures, the doctor the official figures, the majority of russians voted against vladimir putin. you see more and more that people are prepared to express their discontent and frustration, not just the tainted polls but increasing in the streets. over the course of 2010, seeing a wave of anti-government protests, and what we are witnessing in front of our eyes rested and today in moscow as further proof of that. and the regime, in my view, will face in the near future a very serious dilemma. and the face of this discontent and rising anger. they will either have to take steps to reform and liberalize the political system, which means almost certainly they will be voted out at some point, or they will try to hang on to their power by means of further

repression, and -- and they will likely be the fate of hosni mubarak. i the way, it seems that this past two or three days is the beginning of the end for putin pricing regime. just in conclusion, i would like to say a couple of words about the u.s.-russia ankle. we have seen the u.s. state department expressed concern over the fraud and unfairness, including by the secretary of state yesterday in a -- but this is an opportunity for the u.s. government to demonstrate its commitment to the values of roadblocks and human rights and democracy, not just in words but practice. to that end, there is a very important bill currently pending before the united states senate. well as law accountability act, a truly bipartisan, 26 code- sponsors from conservative republicans to liberal democrats -- this bill proposes a brilliant, simple, and it

effective idea. that human rights violators have names, specific and concrete names. the bill proposes to introduce targeted personal these sanctions, that is to say, a ban on entry into the united states and a freeze on financial assets, for those who violate internationally protected and recognized rights and freedoms of russian citizens, including specifically the right to democratic elections. this is aimed at people, officials, and people close to the regime, who want to rule like in burma or zimbabwe, but want to take skiing vacations in austria and shopping trips in new york city. they want to keep their money and their children in the west. it is time for some personal responsibility. and this is not just my view -- there was an open letter by several leading opposition and cultural leaders to the u.s. center address the majority leader harry reid and john kerry

urging to pass the bill as soon as possible. it is time for person responsible of the of the violators, people like the chief political handler, people like the one who certified the far to the results. this is the only thing that willin fact, there is already a precedent for this in the u.s., the belarus act, signed into law seven years ago, which provides for an entry ban into the u.s. for byelorussian human rights violators, including those engaged in election fraud. in the case of belarus, it is largely symbolic because the light of the time the regime has been an international isolation. the belarus regime official to not have as much personal interest in the west. the officials of the for russian regime certainly do. in that case, it would have some practical consequences. stating the obvious, is up to the russian opposition to bring

democracy back to russia, and is doing all it can right now, but if the once was to show it is serious about applying the rule of values and human rights and democracy, now is a very good time to show it. >> thank you. this was very pointed. let's approach it from a different perspective. dr. lantos? >> i am honored to be here on this panel, surrounded by colleagues who all have a greater personal experience with the issues that are unfolding in russia than i do, a significant memorex 30s. a somewhat suspect my invitation here is a product of the fact that i may be the only democrat here -- >> we are not holding it against you. >> i am a russian democrat. that counts. >> that gives me a sense of solidarity.

for some new has been involved politically in washington for many years, this is the first time i have had the pleasure to be here at the heritage foundation. i feel a little bit like forbidden for being here, but it is a great honor, my pleasure to be here. sometimes, it is too small incidences', small moments, that important truths are revealed. much was made a few weeks ago of the famous booing incident that took place after a martial arts match when putin went on stage, and in a moment that shocked everyone, jeers and boos could be heard. some thought, maybe we are making too much of this. the reaction of potentially inebriated and certain excited fans at a martial arts match does that maria that much. but in aftermath of sunday's elections, we now know that was one of those revelatory small

moments that on masks had a big truth. whatever happens in the elections on sunday, one thing is clear. vladimir putin has lost, to a large degree, his legitimacy, and perhaps, his in inevitability. considering everything that preceded these elections, the results are truly remarkable. vladimir and i -- ariel, you said that you got and wrong. we were beginning to talk in the elevator up your house a price we were. any of us who were thinking of being here with you today, beginning to prepare our thoughts, were somewhat stunned when the actual results came in. despite overwhelming state control of the media, its deployment now over a long couteau of time -- period of time, and of course, the increasingly narrow and dangerous scope for any sort of genuine free press in russia.

despite the targeted persecution prosecution, and even alleged murder of those who had been seen as opponents of or credible critics of the kremlin. of course, more than 150 slain journalists come to mind. despite enormous electoral fraud, and not just talking about the stuffing of ballot boxes or the carrousel boating than vladimir referred to, but the whole setting of the stage that tilted playing field, and again, the deployment of the overwhelming bulk of the media outlet as part of the election campaign on behalf of united russia, harassment and intimidation of electoral watchdog organizations, and now, of course, the well-documented out boxed stuffing.

despite the careful cultivation, certainly from the western perspective, the narcissistic personality that has been built up around the new macho, bare- chested czar, and because of this, when the russian people themselves had a chance to get party,erdict on putin's their answer was unmistakable. the verdict is all the more remarkable because, in many ways, the russian economy right now is one of the healthier ones in that region of the world. certainly, there are challenges, big issues of stagnation, many things we could talk about there, but fuel biden considerable natural resources in the economy, the russian economy has been quite strong,

and the russian government has spent freely in recent years on raising pensions, and building infrastructure, schools, roads, hospitals. so we find ourselves asking the question, how do we explain this humiliating public rebuke of united russia and its exemplar, vladimir putin? there are probably a lot of explanations. we could talk about economic unease about the future, which plays a role in any country. it is playing a role in the presidential elections unfolding here in the u.s. we can talk about the growing discussed and opened discussed with the rapid corruption that characterizes virtually every aspect of the russian government, and bradley, russian society. some have referred to this as a vertical corruption. this is now a widely held view.

it was interesting, actually, to read some of the articles where a man or woman on the street, interviewing ordinary russians, and they said this was a those words, i found that fascinating. i think there is growing dismay and deepening concern among regular russians about what medvedev called his legally even in russia, some of the poster child of that, the profound lack of rule of law and transparency is, without a doubt, a component of this. but i believe there may be an even deeper meaning and message being sent by these elections. perhaps they represent a rejection of the historic slander against the russian people. namely, that they do not really embrace or desire democracy. that when all is said and done, at some level, they prefer to

have a strong czar to rule and protect them. the russian people, with this election result, in the face of all the obstacles, corruption and intimidation, may be saying to the world that this is false. if that is what they are telling us, then i think we would do well to heed it. i come at this issue as someone involved in human rights and justice and democracy, and i want to say a word about the act which was referred to previously. we do not have to look too far back in our own legislative history, as americans, to realize that often, when those who are fighting for greater democracy and greater human rights in russia and other parts of the world, tried to advance a legal vehicle, legislative vehicle, to take our stand, to

put our mark down, we always hear the push back, we can do it through other means. with this act, we had the current administration -- which i have great praise for in some regards, and some criticism. we are going to do this administratively, through other means. we do not need to ruffle the feathers of our russian partners by formally, as a matter of legislative enactment, pass a law that is really a red flag to them. but i hope and encourage our leaders in congress not to listen to that siren song. i am reminded of two relatively recent examples where we had administration making just an argument. one, of course, is the jackson- emetic amendment, still technically on the books. one of the messages i have and will be taking to leaders in congress in urging their support for the pact is, we should and

must not formally reveal -- repeal without. there should be a deal there. jackson-vanak may not have the real world birdman say, but the new one does. the other example and i remember is the south african sanctions bill. i remember the reagan administration at that time say this will harm the very people we're trying to help. there are other ways to go about this. publicly sanctioning another country is never a good idea diplomatically. in fact, ronald reagan vetoed that legislation, and that veto was overridden. we saw the results of that. i am so grateful you brought that piece of legislation up. it is a concrete deliverable. something that america can do

now, that the congress can do to say, we do not accept the status quo, and we do not accept the notion that we have to soft pedal our concerns about human rights and justice and democracy, rule of law in russia, in order to pursue other areas of shared interests. the critical issue was laid before us very succinctly and well by my colleague to the right, and that is whether putin, with their russian now. this is a turning point. there are always two roads open. one road is more or less traveled, depending on which one you choose. i think have the lessons of the arab spring, for good and ill, are very instructive here. response,at russia's for example, to what has been going on in syria, and a steadfast refusal to condemn the

shocking and appalling and discussed the brutality of the syrian regime in cracking down on pro-democracy protesters there, i do not see a hopeful outlook for the likely response of the kremlin and putin. i hope i'm wrong. i want to be wrong. this is an instance where we all want to be wrong. i know we will have more opportunity to discuss this further as the dialogue begins. thank you. >> thank you very much. now, david satter. >> when i got the news about the election results, particularly, about the demonstrations in moscow over the corrupt electoral process, i was reminded of two incidents.

one in real life and one in literature. the one from real life, of course, was the moment where nikolai to just go, addressing a huge crowd, was booed. the boeing it escalated. he was taken completely backed. newsreels of that incident, which took place in the 1980's, showed him completely discomfited by the fact that his previously-passive subjects were not doing him. of course, it was not an insignificant event. it was followed by a full-scale revolt of the population, and eventually, his execution. it reminded me also of the incident in "war and peace" described by tolstoy. the moment when it became clear that the russians, having long

retreated before the french army, were going to resist. something in the atmosphere had changed, and it was palpable, and it was perceived by everyone. i think that what we have now is when we could call one of those moments in russia. russia was a moment in which -- country in which there was very few demonstrations of protest for a very long time. those demonstrations, which did take place, often times, organized around the berry ballot or secondary issue of freedom of assembly, attracted few people. now we have mass demonstrations in moscow concerning the pivotal issue of the electoral fraud. and the question of who, in the final analysis, is going to hold power?

i have been following russia for many years, and this gave me the opportunity to follow also the career of vladimir putin. when i first saw him, after he was announced as yeltsin possible successor -- yeltsin's successor, i was a prize that such a seemingly could aspireividual critics b to the position of head of state, particularly when you look at his ascendancy in the security services, that he had no platform, made no public appearance, refused to take part in any debates, that his sole qualification for power was that he was appointed to a high position, and then, under mysterious circumstances, was

able to pursue the war of revenge in chechnya. and the only time, up until that moment where he appeared with yeltsin, that i had been aware of him was during the scandal which surrounded the russian prosecutor general. yeltsin, having narrowly avoided impeachment, was obliged to except as a prime minister the man who had opposition tendencies. he was also anti-american. in any case, after years of economic carnage under yeltsin, he enjoys support among the population for his opposition to some of the excesses of the

correction of the yeltsin years. he gave the prosecutor general the freedom to conduct meaningful investigations of the people who were closest to yeltsin. one of them was a favorite of yeltsin's daughter. another was the head of the property commission, which controlled the real estate, the buildings owned by the kremlin. he made serious progress in those investigations with the cooperation of the swiss, until the moment when, and an operation organized by putin, he was filmed receiving a sex act from a prostitute in the company of another prostitute. and that, in and of itself, would not have been unusual. but what happened next was unusual for any country, even

russia. a video of this encounter was shown on prime-time television with a brief warning that it might not be suitable for children. this operation ultimately led to the removal of the attorney general, the end of the threat of prosecution against his cronies, and the prosecution of putin. i had never taken him seriously before that. i was barely aware of him, even though in those years, i was following russian affairs as closely as i could. once he was nominated as prime minister, once a designated the prime minister of russia, more strange things happened. bonds went off -- bombs went off in russian apartment buildings. these bombings, in which 300 innocent people were killed, were blamed on chechen rebels. but there was never any proof that the chechens were involved.

putin spoke about a chechen trail, not chechen culprits, evidence, not even suspects. it was this act which seemed to be directed against the very heart of russia, against ordinary people sleeping in their beds in the middle of the night. women, children, old people, all of them who were blown to bits. these acts, which terrified the whole country, were used to justify a new invasion of chechnya. as a result of the initial successes, putin, whose popularity ratings have been enthralled to yeltsin's, as a result of the first poll of registered at 2% -- and bear in mind, pollsters say that 6% of

any responders do not understand the question. in this sense, he was an absolutely negligible political figure with no chance to assume power after yeltsin completed his term. as the director and executors of a victorious war, waged, in part, in revenge for a heinous act of terrorism, he became instantly popular. all of that anger in russia that had been built up over an entire decade of tillage -- pillage, depredation of a small group, connected members of his family, was redirected towards the chechens. putin was no longer seen as

yeltsin's logical -- and was no longer seen as a participant in the yeltsin-era corruption. instead, he was seen as the savior of the nation, defending it against an attack by terrorists. this brought him to power. in december 1999, parliamentary elections, the opposition, which had been dominated by communists, was wiped out, and a pro-putin parliament was created, and has existed up to this time mike. so in the years that followed, what we saw is -- was the

development of an autocracy in russia, fuelled by the good luck that putin had in being placed in power at the very moment when world commodity prices began to boom, and russia became the foremost world beneficiary by the spoon in commodity prices. the market mechanisms put in place by yeltsin, similarly, made it possible for russia to prosper. the gross national product of russia increased six times. under these circumstances, the uneasiness that people felt over putin was submerged in their satisfaction that, finally, after so many years of poverty and deprivation, russia was, at last, experiencing

something like a decent standard of living. that accounted for putin's popularity, but nothing lasts forever. and in so far as putin constructed an autocratic system in which he controlled all reverse of power, and those who have personal connections to him monopolize not only power but property, and any possibility of an independent judiciary system was eliminated, a situation was created in which people began to feel the weight of the autocracy that was created in their daily lives. impossible to find justice, impossible to rely on the law. impossible to express oneself through the ballot box. impossible to change anything. impossible to talk. and impossible to make a career without compromising yourself.

slowly, that discontent began to reach a critical mass. i think what happened in the election that had just taken place, even those people crawled in the polling places in their factories and coerced into voting for united russia, putin's controlled party, were no longer willing to put up with it. they showed their anger in a relatively modest way, but in the only way available to them, by voting for just russia, by voting for the only parties on the ballot that were allowed by the putin regime. but the change was unmistakable.

and the fact that, even under these circumstances, people were still willing to go out and demonstrate in number that they have never shown before on a critical issue showed that the cracks are appearing in the autocratic system that had been created. some may say these election results do not mean anything because the pro-kremlin parties that received more votes are in critical situations, are nonetheless going to vote the way clinton wants -- putin wants. and there but may well be changes by people for the first time that there is political potential in the ruling autocracy, nonetheless, they have demonstrated their sentiments. they have demonstrated their dislike of the people that rule

them and give them no voice in the running of the country. it is not going to be the same again. it will take more events, more confrontations between civil society and the leadership, but the cracks in the regime, which were papered over, as long as russia was enjoying unprecedented economic growth, are going to grow more and more serious. a regime which is as corrupt as this one, and which allows us a little political opposition as this one, and as little real political self organization, and as little rule of law, can only become more corrupt more, -- more corrupt, more repressive, and more unyielding, generating the actions it wants to avoid. so i think and when you look

back in a couple of years and where russia has gone, we will treat these election results as extremely serious, and an extremely important for it in the road. we can only hope that subsequent events -- and this will depend on the russian people themselves -- will make it possible for the russian people to realize the opening toward democracy that they lost so tragically after the fall of the soviet union. and to build a new society in which the individual and the rights of individual be respected. >> thank you, david. to try to wrap it up, i would like to focus on details, issues that i picked up after spending hours either talking to russian politicians, experts on the

phone, through facebook, through the internet, and then try to draw some conclusions. first of all, when you are talking about the divisions, in 2011, moved to the center of moscow to quell the unrest, we should ask ourselves, who is named after? is it named after the founder of the secret service that is responsible for the execution of hundreds of thousands of people and after, the same system under which stalinist is accused of executing 20 million, 30 million people, facilitating the worst man-made famine in russian and soviet history.

it is all in david's book. buy david's book. seriously, this is the equivalent of angela merkel dealing with unrest in berlin, moving a division of the german army, but the division is named heinrich himmler. it is unconceivable. it should be the same that troops that are supposed to shoot, harm the people, would be named after the founder of the secret service. the wealth of the people who filed secret reports, blogs, messages in facebook, that not only did they witness the election fraud, but in some

cases, the police was called. in some cases, th >> granted as many times you see on television unconfirmed reports, i don't think the events are moving so fast that people went out and found these people necessarily every time and confirmed it. but a huge body of evidence. i talked to my former intern -- actually, somebody i knew, he was not my intern but somebody else's intern -- and he was an activist for an torsion who tried to observe the elections, was witnessing tons of election violations. another point, at the party

congress mr. putin called activists who received support from the west in monitoring elections or he anticipated the of election fraud and he said these people are jude d-- judists, very heavy language, very charged language. this was such a wording that it really brought chills down my spine and i'm sure people who were involved in the monitoring. anyone who took the grants for their n.g.o. would be under threats and immediately three members wrote an open letter to the prosecutor's office initiating where is the

prosecut prosecutor's office and where is the tax office and he was fined for $1,000. hopefully they were not bankrupted by that. it looked like the courts did what the higher-ups wanted but didn't shut golas down. so people are hedging bets. are hedging bets because of mr. putin and mr. medvedev himself. i was glad to find out from mr. putin's spokesman and mr. medvedev's spokesperson who expressed that neither putin nor medvedev are members of the united russia party. they are just leaders of the party list but they are not the members of the party, so the party has to take the hit, take the blame, then it will be the party, not the nonmembers of the

party, mr. putin an independent politician. talking about taking a hit and taking responsibility, mr. medvedev said before the elections that only if the party performs well in the elections he will be the prime minister. the party didn't perform well in the elections. does that mean somebody is going to offer him as a sacrificial lamb to the electorate so mr mr. putin can walk into the presidency in march? question mark. i don't know yet. beyond that, let's try and gener generalize what we learned already. i agree with the statement that this is really a fork in the road. john phbg kaeumccain sent a let putin saying prepare for the

ara arabat spinning. it is a winter there, but not spring. but it means masses of hungry and upset russians, hundreds of thousands, is that the russian equivalent of the muslim brother raod? no. what we saw yesterday at this point in time -- and i don't know what will happen tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, et cetera. i have been wrong, i admitted it. one thing we saw is the whole rein was full of people chant ing "putin out." it was not very big, maybe 7,000 to 10,000 people. people who are living close in the heart of moscow. this was the elite. intelligentsia.

looking a second ago, a woman with a polish name but some kind of glamour circuit correspondent was there arrested. the leaders of the political party -- let's name them again. stphfp[ [stating names] >> the question is what happens beyond that. the gentleman i talked to said people are really upset. they are not getting trains and buses to go to moscow to topple the regime but they are upset. so the choice between united front and putin is are we cracking down or liberalizing. if you remember the trajectory of the czarist rule in the 19th

century, the russian history is a fluctuation between liberalization and crackdown interrupted by a revolution. so, are we facing a real revolution? i'm not so sure yet. because people are doing well economically. they are upset and offended. one thing is people felt offended, they felt spat at. so, this is something maybe like 1904 or 1905 revolution, or the

february revolution of 1917 maybe not. that was much broad are and better organized and represented than the duma. today we don't have that. so, the choice that the rulers of russia are going to make will define where russia is going from here. but what is important, i agree with all the speakers here, this is not the same. in my blog in national interests today was the end of an era, question mark. this is not going to be longer. this minimal violence, memb memberali memberalist -- minimalistic tailor made. they just had the elections or you have to crack down.

60-40 to 70-30 there will be as they say in russia tightening of the rules. we saw an anti-american vitriole not just from mr. putin but from others just before the elections threatening to interrupt our supply line to afghanistan via russia and eurasia if we don't do x.y.z. missile defense. we heard the press by putin against the people that monitor elections and work on democracy issues. so the anti-american and an antiwestern vitriole was on the rise. and, unlike the soviet times, i don't think as many people take it as seriously. there is still a lot of

anti-americanism, and we published here papers examining the evidence of anti-americanism in the russian media, et cetera. but on this particular issue, on the election fraud, this is not working. that is also interesting. the final word is a word of caution. when you look at the election results, when you look at the increase of the vote that went to the communists, let's say these independent studies and exit polls suggest that the communists may have gotten as much as 25%. one got 10% if not more. this is the institute of social studies.

ld ldpr, nationalists and -- 40% -- and probably a good chunk of united russia, you probably have 40% to 50% of people who voted who have nothing to do with what we consider liberal values and a vision for liberal russia. that is a bad sign. if the existing machine that falls apart and disappears tomorrow, i do have a running argument with my liberal friends in moscow remembering the example not of february 17 but of november 17, who is there to pick up the power if the power is lying in the street. if you look at cairo, who is there to pick up the power, the political power in cairo to or tunis or tripoli? and the answer is the people who

are willing to use force, who don't care about the democratic niceties and here i totally agree with david. it will be up to the russian people. the russian people missed an opportunity -- a weak constitutional monarchy -- between 1904 and 1917 to turn is constitutional mow mow -- monarchy and that failed and it including 30 million deaths. in 1991 david says there was a failure of experiment. i would say partially failure of experiment because this regime is not as horrendous as the soviet regime. everything is relative. but this is now moving into a scenario in which there is a real struggle for power.

it will be up to the russian people whether to come up with a democratic model, a sustainable model or, god forbid, go to chaos. let's open it for discussion. we are a little bit over time, but i think we need audience participation. wait for the mic and introduce yourselves. >> i have one comment and one question. my comment concerning the results of the vote totals, the special operation called the election. i don't think that we need to mention too often the so-called official results of the election because they have been totally falsified. and the question is we know a little bit about how really the

russian people did vote because there were a lot of observers who collected quite interesting nformation in those poll iing stations that the level of falsification was very low or no falsification at all. and based on the stories of several hundred of those polling stations, we can say that the united russia has received between 24% and 25%. it seems most of the polling stations are located in moscow and st. petersburg. the most sophisticated mathematical analysis performed based on the results shows that united russia received at most 34% or 35% of the real vote. so, i think those results are much more relevant and probably

we can use the results only with the word falsified and use others as some estimate of what has happened. my question would involve that i understood it differently. it seems like it was fork not voluming these kind of people of thousands of millions of people but fork in the behavior of the regime and the behavior of the regime between liberalization and some kind of force increasing pressure. based on your information, could you provide us with any evidence portion?irst

any symptoms? any signals? any signs? any evidence of liberalization? is there any evidence you can find that would support these particular options? > they could rename the divisi division. >> your former boss. >> a part of the suggestion do we have anything else that would support this particular version? >> the short answer is no. i think they are clearly showing it the last two days. so it will take thousands of people in the moscow streets to change it. i don't believe for a minute it themselves.

>> sorry, just to continue this, because i think it is important. i don't think that we need to waste any time discussing the first option. i think what is really important is discuss the second option and what is going to happen if -- not if since we know this option -- i think he offered one option and that is to pass the rule of law accountability act that looks at human rights violations and specifically violations of democratic procedures and electio elections. because, if we are going to go to something there is a wide spread sense in the congress that we need tools to address

these outstanding issues that are staring at us today in moscow, in the media, and in the streets. there are several more questions. the gentleman in the back with the glasses. please introduce yourself. >> i have a comment regarding the comment on economic sanctions i wanted to note that in my humble opinion economic sanctions are less judged on their efficacy than on their political convenience. for example, president carter did everything to get rid of economic sanctions against cuba but imposed economic sanctions against chile, rhodesia and south africa. regarding the south african case here as in the west in certain circles nelson mandela is recorded as a model statesman it is important to remember that he

and his african national congress were financed by the soviet union, by fidel castro and gaddafi and nelson mandela considered two of them to be his good friends and comrades in arms. >> i think that you are right, the economic sanctions are at the end of a day the political statement. sometimes they work in a given target country and other times they are like a sieve and not terribly effective. but they are a way to make a political statement about their view of the nature of a regime. and i do think that if, as vladimir said and the gentlemen from cato said the odds are the response of putin and those in the congressmen lip will be toward -- kremlin will be toward greater repression in raises the stakes for the united states to figure out what our policy is vis-a-vis russia going forward.

we have had a reset policy, we have had a range of things to move forward on with russia. but when the underlying political reality, when the underlying structure as it relates to democracy and elections and human rights and rule of law and corruption become so blatant ly antitheticl to what we stand for, you have to revisit around rethink a policy. policies are not set in place and then left to run on automatic. we live in a dynamic world. be a k this will challenge. i think it is one that, with the presidential election almosting, this administration is not going to go eager to move front and center because there are other areas where they would rather focus their attention. i think it is the task of those of us concerned about russia and bigger russia not to let this slip off the agenda. i agree that sanctions are a

political tool as much as an economic tool. >> nobody has talked about economic sanctions against russia. they have abolished jackson vanek because it is unfair to publish an entire country for the action of a few active leaders. fault. not the country's >> the gentleman in the yellow tie here. >> i'm counsel to the u.s. russia foundation for economic development and rule of law. you may not have heard of it. it was founded from the reflows of the sales of investment of a private equity firm established in part with the u.s. government a few years ago. in light of yesterday's more pments and today a's,

of a request than a question, would you look at our website, us usr usrf.ru. at what we are doing. we are having another board meeting in a couple of weeks. look at our website, think of what we could be doing. we sold our countrimpanies in r at a profit. we have a pretty hefty endowment. we hope to take more of the sales from the investments to have more of an endowment. we have typically been focused on issues in the rule of law field. or example, we were helpful in getting the judicial system to put cases on a wheel rather than having somebody assign them arbitrarily on his buddy on the bench. one our hrufrs in moscow -- huffs were sergei's law firm. firestone, duncan and those folks. but look at our website.

see what we have been doing. let us know what you think we could be doing if you can get things to ariel, he and i can communicate and he will get them me and i will take them to the board of directors when we week in a couple of weeks and maybe you will come up with ideas that we can put into action. >> thank you, rob. appreciate it. i will take three last questions because we are overtime. i will take them all three at once and then if you can just keep track of the question and we will answer all of them. the gentleman in the red tie. >> dan lieberman. if i interpreted the election results correctly, both the communist party and the nationalist front party may gain at the expense of the united russia party. would that indicate that the people actually want even more government interference in the economy and more national iism

than united russia was ready to offer? >> if you can keep the questions -- we are going to -- two more. >> i represent georgian television station. i want to give more details of the mass arrest that took place in moscow yesterday and today. i understand that our moscow bureau cameraman was arrested while he was film being. do you have an act number of how many were arrested in moscow? thank you. >> and we have a place for one more question. if no question, that is good. ok, two questions. what do the russian voters really want? the second one is, how many were arrested and what is going on? why don't you start. >> the short answer is no.

it does not mean people want more interference, more nationalism. as david satter already indicated, the only choices they saw were those approved by the putin regime. oriol others were not allowed on the ballot for the freedom party that stands for freedom for democracy and it segregation of europe. we don't know how many they got because it was not there. the movement was anything but united russia and they were calling on people to choose any -- almost literally some were saying flip a coin or something. it was not a koconscious choice. it was not a vote for the communists. it was a vote against vladimir putin. there were no genuine opposition voices there. the only one i mentioned.

>> they did not make the 7%. >> no, they made the 5% though. that would have been important. not was mentioned about just the -- it was the actual results. in moscow they had 20%. and to david's question, the figures we know is 300 arrests yesterday, 200 arrests today. that is 500. out of 10,000, 300 arrests. some were arrested before they could get to the square. one was arrested as he was getting out of his car. he didn't make it to the protest. he was taken before. they did.at >> to protect his safety. >> absolutely. to keep order.

these are the figures and we know they are taking everybody they are arresting, journalists, they don't care if you show press credentials. they are arresting parliamentary candidates. one spent three hours and i just saw this. he is still a registered parliamentary candidate. the official election is being tabulated this saturday, the 10th. so until the official results are announced they are parliamentary candidates and can't be touched by law and they are being arrested and thrown into jail. so it is complete havoc and chaos and total disregard for anything approaching law. >> you covered pretty much the waterfront. anything to add? >> well, i agree with everything vladimir said. this wasn't anybody but putin's vote. if you read some of the, again,

man and wolf -- woman vote in the street it was i never thought i would cast a vote for communism but i had to to vote against putin. but this sort of relates to had brilliant book david just wrote and i would encourage everybody to read. it is a dark book in many ways. that is that russia has never confront and come to terms with the magnitude of the horror that was inflicted during the height of the darkest days of communism under stalin. and david can explain it so much better than i can. but that process of confront being the tragedy and the evil in their history is really very essential to being able to build

a future vibrant society and democracy that is grounded in this motion of the fundamental nature of individual rights, and that that has not happened yet in russia. so, in that sense i think there are not only challenges going forward but there remain the challenges looking back. there remain the great, great challenge of not papering over what happened in the past. because it is very hard when you fail to confront those sorts of dark demons from the past to bid something strong for the future. >> russia was called during the soviet times a country with an unpredictable past. but more specifically for these locations not just the fundamentals -- you know, my kids went to school and they studied from the early age about the constitution, founding fathers. this is inculcated very early on. in russia it doesn't happen.

they learn many other very important things. they learn how russians fought napoleon napoleon but the rule of law is not what is inculcated in school. but, specifically to the elections, we would not even what the real results are if we had the real results pa e people didn't have adequate access to television and television in russia is still the number one medium of political communication. and i think what we are seeing now with this vote is also the rise of social networks. i'm a skeptic of social networks. i always say social networks, it is a technical thing, it is content neutral, you have in the blogosphere nationalist he is and fascists and communists. but there was a bypass to

television especially of the younger people, people who are more educated in large cities had the access to social and they ran around television and what you see is a reaction, people are saying -- people in the government are saying we need censorship on the >> ec it again and again. this chaos and anarchy should not be allowed. the -- of moscow state university came and spoke. we were on the same subject of social networks. he hammered it that you have people come in to be centers on social networks, you have very anti-liberal messages coming. they roll their eyes and say this is old-style russian

propaganda. we are not taking this seriously. but this is what the reaction today is. it is something they don't control and they don't like it. >> just to conclude he our discussion, and water to observations. -- one or two observations. the democratic party, which is misnamed, these are often protest votes. they don't necessarily mean that the people are pro communist or pro-fascist. it is a protest against the massive corruption that people see around them with liberal -- limited ability to express themselves. there is a real danger given the provisions of russia that if the situation starts to unravel,

forces may emerge that are extremely dangerous to the world and to russia itself. that is why i think when the discussion comes, and what should the west do? we often make a mistake if we think exclusively in policy terms. of course i support the act, and such measures are important and can play a role. but the most important influence that the west can wield his moral influence. it is for that reason that -- and the clear annunciation of values, something very difficult for us because we are confused about ultimate values including the value of the individual in the situation like the one that existed in russia where everyone is hell bent on transforming the economy from communism to capitalism.

under these circumstances, it is very destructive to have a policy in which we confuse ourselves and confuse the russians about what the real issues are. if we establish a commission on civil society like my friend and those who had a propaganda -- a show there is really no role for civil society. just as during the communist time, it is important to use such moral authority as the west does have to make it very clear that based on law that should set the conditions for the society, and not the society that is lawless that should define the frame of reference for the society that is based on

law. if we keep that in mind, i think we can have, in addition to necessary but limited measures, we can have a positive influence on the future evolution of russia which is terribly important for all of us. >> you were a terrific audience, it was well worth it, i think. thank you, very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> and the nation's highest court has agreed to rule on arizonas lot dealing with illegal immigrants. the supreme court justice say

that they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several provisions. one that requires the police questioned a person's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally. the obama administration said that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. similar laws in other states are facing lawsuits. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is the question. tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you, and why. include a more than one point of view and c-span programming. there are $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000.

>> the house is expected to return at 4:15 eastern. members will debate a bill to including the federal hotline safety bill. and members will take up the payroll tax cut extension as well as unemployment benefits had remaining federal spending for this budget year as well as defense department programs. they're trying to complete work by the end of the week but we could see a weekend session. live coverage continues when members gavel back in and about 10 minutes. until then, phone calls from this morning's "washington journal." minister's visit to the united states.

also on the prime minister's agenda this week, he will be going to the chamber of commerce. this is tomorrow. he will be in washington, d.c., addressing that group. here is a press release from them. he will help launch a new chapter in bilateral relations of the two countries. and he will highlight the growing commercial ties between the united states -- and calls on the u.s. business communities to seize investment and trade of trinity's available to them in iraq. looking at some of the political implications of what is happening, there are stories in

the news about that, covering what it means for president obama and also what it means for the economy of the u.s. this is a story from "bloomberg business week." this story came from when the super committee was still at work but it is still relevant because it asks the question about what happened with the money. cheryl, new jersey. robert on the republican minority caller: good morning. i just have two quick comments. it seems to me that with the war in iraq or even extending a little bit to afghanistan, that there are situations in place where the president and others have said by a certain time,

2014 or 2012, we will pull out. and then there is supposedly all of this paid a non-military personnel that will stay. we will take out 100,000 people but leave another 100,000 contractors, which might cost more money. that is my concern. i think if we pull lot of these places, we should really pull out. if i could just make one other quick comment with regard to something that has been said quite a bit on c-span lately? there was a big talk from republicans about the redistribution of wealth. there should not be a redistribution of wealth. interesting, coming from me, a democrat. but when you think about these europeans, if i might be honest, who went in and stole everything, the jewels from africa, that was redistribution of wealth. when the ripped off the incas and the mine and and stole all of the gold and ripped off of

the native peoples and bought a manhattan with a candy bar and trinkets, that is a redistribution. i think it is dishonest finally to have all the wealth hidden with yourself and now be against the redistribution when the europeans ripped off the world from england to africa and now all of the sudden people are concerned are redistribution of wealth. i think the whole story is dishonest. host: here is a comment on twitter that echoes what roberts said -- let's hear from caller: i would like to say that i think iraq should be a full- blown nation and not throttling. not groveling -- and i on? and should not be groveling to

the united states but we will have a well entrenched listening post for the rest of the middle east so i guess they will have to deal with us as much as our money goes there. our footprint is forever there, but it would be nice to have a presence in the middle east, but one of equal adulthood rather than a junior nation and a senior nation type of situation. colonial power laying on a smaller country. that is my comment. host: you can go to c-span.org to find more about the prime minister al-maliki's visit to the united states. the president and vice president will -- will meet with him in an expanded bilateral meeting and then the present need some at the oval office closed to the press. and then a joint press conference. and the presidents, vice

president, and prime nestor nouri al-maliki will go to a wreath laying ceremony at arlington national ceremony. you can find out more on our website, c-span.org. john, a republican from nashville, tennessee. what should the relationship be? caller: i believe the iraqi and the u.s. relationship should be more informative to the american public so they know the history as far as how the united states supported iran obverses -- iraq versus iran when they were fighting against one another, as well as the concentered -- continued process to rebuild infrastructure, schools, roads, and create education, jobs, so the iraqi people can sustain an economy and a way of life that is productive for everybody. host: charles from north carolina. joe on our democrats' line.

caller: i want to comment on iraq. president obama had cleaned up the mess and that george bush and cheney and rumsfeld had started over there, and now it is time to get out. but one other point, iran. we sanctioned them too much and they have not paid attention. it is time america and the nato forces go over there and do something about it. they have gotten one of our airplanes now. and we need to do something. they are going to bomb the jewish people if we don't be careful. those are my comments. host: looking at "the wall street journal" the headline is --

here is some history -- >> of course, he is scheduled to meet with president obama today. in the independent line, hi there. >> how are you? i would like to wish everybody happy holidays. c-span does a wonderful job. i would like to make a comment about how we went to war with iraq and the oil that they have there.

the oil companies in the world have a lot of power. i really don't think that they should have that much power. i think the oil companies are dumping more oil out to the gulf of mexico. i think it is a real shame. they should have -- all the 40,000 miles of the gulf of mexico can do the math. it is a lot of oil. i wanted to wish you guys have the holidays. >> you can watch the rest of this on line as we take you to the floor. questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that managers oen the part of the house have until midnight tonight, december 12, to file a conference report to akmpny house report -- to accompany h.r. 1540. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 384. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 384, an act to amend title 39, united states code to extend the authority of the united states postal service to issue a

semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. isen and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay each will control 20 minutes. >> icen: i ask that all members have five day -- mr. isen -- -- mr. issa: i ask that all members have five lebling slative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: s. 384 would amend title 39 of the united states code to extend the awe ten -- the authority of the united states postal service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. 64 senators have co-sponsored it, my committee voted it out

unanimously. senate bill 384 is very simple yet important that we pass and pass before the end of the year. senate bill 384 will allow the united states postal service to continue to sell special postage stamps that generate funds used for breast cancer research. in 1997, president clinton signed public law 105-41, known as the stamp out breast cancer act. the law authorizes the postal service to sell, for the first time, a special stamp for first class mail. thunder elaw, the united states postal service sell this is stamp at a price that is above the standard first class mailing rate. buyers willingly buy this knowing that this is heavening stamp out breast cancer. after accounting for administrative costs, the postal service transfers surplus funds to the national institutes of health and department of defense for breast cancer research. today, the sale of each 55-cent

stamp generates 11 cents to go toward breast cancer reserm. since being offered into public law in 1998, nearly 925 -- nearly $925 million, that's right, a billion dollars, very sold. over $74 million of proceeds have been transferred to the n.i.h. and the department of defense for breast cancer research. i'd like to thank my colleague, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings, and my colleague here today, mr. clay, for championing this bill and its re-authorization. i'd also like to thank senator feinstein for her work in moving this bill in the other chamber in a timely fashion. the authorization for this stamp expires on december 31, and, mr. speaker, it is important that we act and act today if we are in fact going to continue to help the more than 2.5 million women currently liveling with breast cancer nationwide and over

200,000 women diagnosed with this disease each year in our country. the funds generated from this stamp are greatly needed. each dollar raised for research increases the likelihood that more people will become cancer survivors, rather than cancer statistics. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for the bill and i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm please to -- pleased to rise in support of s. 384, along with my chairman, mr. issa of california, of the oversight and government reform committee. i want to thank him for bringing this legislation to the floor and this bill s. 384 will extend the authority of the u.s. postal service to issue the popular semipostal stamp that helps to raise funds

for breast cancer research. the measure before us, s. 384, sponsored by our senate colleague, senator diane feinstein and here in the house, representative joba ka, also from california, who introduced the companion version of this legislation. mr. speaker, cancer is one of the scourges of our society and mr. speaker, this is a truly bipartisan bill. that makes a huge difference in a cost efficient manner. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill without reservation. this bill allow the american people to continue contributing to the fight against breast cancer and cancer in general for another four years. i urge the passage of this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california

is recognized. mr. issa: i yield pack the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and again, i urge my colleagues to join the oversight committee in supporting the fight against breast cancer by voting for passage of s. 384 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 384? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rule -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. i object to the votes on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed option the question will be postponed. mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. issa: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 3220. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up h.r. 3220. mr. issa: that's correct. i call up h.r. 3220. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3220, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 170 evergreen square southwest in pine city, minnesota, as the master sergeant daniel l. feder post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. sy issa, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. mr. issa: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: thank you, mr.

speaker. i recognize myself for such time as i mason um -- consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, house resolution 3220, introduced by the gentleman from minnesota who will shortly speak, mr. cravaack, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 170 evergreen square southwest in pine city, minnesota, for master sergeant daniel l. fedder. the bill is co-sponsored by the entire minnesota state delegation and has been favorably reported from committee. additionally, the master sernlt died tragically in august of last year while he was based out of camp pendleton, within my district, and was serving honorably in our theater of operation. mr. speaker, the postal naming

is something that our committee takes seriously. we require that all post offices have unanimous support in order to be named and under this year's rules, we require that it be for individuals befitting of the honor of having a post office named after them and virtually every postal naming this year has been after one of our fallen heroes. with that, i would like to recognize the gentleman from minnesota, for the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cravaack: thank youing mr. speaker. i thank chairman issa for the introduce. -- introduction. i rise to honor the life and service of master sergeant daniel fedder by renaming the post office in his hometown as the master sergeant daniel l. feder post office. he died on august 27, 2010, while supporting operations in

afghanistan as part of operation enduring freedom. while working as an ordnance disposal technician, he was killed by the blast of an explosive device. he was a 16-year veteran -- of the united states marine corps with completed deployments in iraq, 2004, 2006, an overseas deployment with the 11th expeditionary unit in 2007. he was on his first combat tour in afghanistan but was a very decorate mad rein with several military awards, including the purple heart, two navy marine corps commendation medals an an achievement medal. he was assigned to the seventh engineering support battalion, first marine expeditionary force-out of camp pendleton, california he grew up in pine city, minnesota. he's survived by his parents, robert and jackie mckeller who still reside in the area.

he is further survived by his wife, diana, and former spouse, susan fedder and their two children, daughter, danielle and son strom. a scholarship has been created in his name giving support to graduating seniors from pine city high school, where he attended he spent his career in service for his country and ended up making the ultimate sacrifice while working to protect his fellow americans in afghanistan and at home. daniel fedder is a true american hero and i am privileged and humbled by the opportunity to honor his life, sacrifice and legacy by designating the local post office of his hometown in his name. it is my hope that this post office will stand as a reminer to tanl's family, friends, and the citizens of pine city, minnesota, of my appreciation, the appreciation of his constituents in minnesota's eighth congressional district and america's appreciation ff

master sergeant fedder and others like him who have been killed in combat operations while serving our country. thank you and i yield back. mr. issa: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: i am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of this bill. h.r. 3220 designates the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 170 evergreen square southwest in pine city, minnesota, as the master sergeant daniel l. fedder post office he measure before us was first introduced by my colleague, representative chip cravaack, of minnesota, on october 14, 2011. before serving in afghanistan, master sergeant fedder had

receive head the purple heart a navy marine corps commendation medal and joint service achievement medal, among many others. mr. speaker, i ask that we recognize and honor the heroic actions and the life of service of master sergeant daniel l. fedder and pass the underlying bill without reservation. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, in grief , no individual -- in brief no individual is to be honored more than one who knowingly walks up to a piece of explosive that can kill them, surrounded by hostiles who can kill them, when others stand back, our e.o.d. technicians go forward. and no organization has paid more of a price than marine

e.o.d. and army e.o.d. during this conflict. so as we honor the master sernlt, hopefully we'll recognize that he didn't come home, many other e.d.o. -- e.o.d. technicians didn't come home and many who came home came home injured because you can't expect the i.e.d.'s not to be set off as you walk up to hem. only a week ago, i was at the kennedy center where they honored countless number of individuals who had been wounded warriors. disproportionately i saw the badge of the e.o.d. technician on many of these individuals. they were operating from wheelchairs, operating with terrible, terrible scars, the master sergeant did not come home and that is tragic, but let's understand, this post office naming is being named after those men and women who serve day in and day out in iraq, afghanistan and here at

home to disarmics plosives that most people would simply run away from. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i want to close by urging adoption of this bill, h.r. 3220 renames the post office in pine city, minnesota, after master sergeant fedder who gave his life in the name of freedom and service to our country. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: in closing i join my colleague in this bipartisan effort to name the post office after master sergeant daniel l. fedder. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3220. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3246. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3246, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 15455 manchester road in ballwin, missouri, as the specialist peter j. navarro post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative

days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the member -- the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. i now would like to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this bill, representative todd akin of missouri, who has authored this bill and carried it throughout the process including here today . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of house resolution 3246, a bill i introduced to honor the life of peter j. navarro. by designating the post office in ballwin, missouri, as the specialist peter j. navarro post office building. a resident of wildwood, missouri, specialist peter j. navarro was part of company a, second battalion, 70th armored

reg meant, third brigade combat team and the first armored division. on december 13, 2005, specialist navarro was one of four soldiers killed when a roadside bomb detonated near their humvee during combat operations in taji, iraq. a graduate of lafayette high school, peter declined his acceptance at truman state university so that could he join the army right after his graduation. when peter returned home for his younger brother's funeral, he was faced with the undeniable risks of serving his country. however he returned to iraq, telling friends and family that without him they would be a man short. they need me there. peter was a desstate -- dedicated soldier, willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to protect his country and the men

and women who reside there. as peter's father, retired chief petty officer jose navarro said, he cared for the soldiers he worked with. he would do anything for his friends and he told me he believed in what the mission was. as a father of three marines, i have watched my boys deploy to iraq and afghanistan. as such it's a privilege to stand here today to honor one of our fallen soldiers. peter's commitment and dedication to his country is a shining example of how our military men and women are the finest our nation has to offer. he and his family's sacrifice would serve as a reminder to all of us that freedom we enjoy as americans is not free, but it's the result of tremendous bravery . and selfless service of men and women willing to put themselves in harm's way for freedom's

cause. our nation will be forever indebted to specialist peter navarro. mr. speaker, i ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring peter. vote yes on house resolution 3246. i yield back. mr. clay: we reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, on behalf of the democratic members of the house committee on oversight and government reform, i stand in support of the consideration of h.r. 3246. this bill designates the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 15455 manchester road in ballwin, missouri, as the specialist peter j. navarro post office building. the measure before us was first introduced by my friend and colleague, representative todd

ache ever of missouri, on october -- akin of missouri, on october 24, 2011. in accordance with committee requirements, the entire missouri delegation serves as co-sponsors to the bill. a resident, peter j. navarro, a resident of wildwood, missouri, a graduate of lafayette high school and an in honor of his service, specialist navarro has been awarded the good conduct medal, the purple heart and the bronze star. he was a dedicated soldier willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to protect his country. mr. speaker, i ask that we recognize specialist navarro's life and pass the underlying bill without reservation. passage of h.r. 3246 is but a small token of appreciation for the faithful service of an outstanding american soldier and i urge its immediate adoption and reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i join with my colleagues from missouri on the left and the right, that we are united by the naming of this post office on behalf of our fallen hero. few unites us in congress like a recognition that men and women today are still paying the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. knowing the risk, serving a long time, peter navarro knew what he was doing when he went back to iraq and he did so knowing the risk that he took. many youth in america take risks and they know not what they do and they lose their life. but the men and women of the armed forces know the risk and particularly when they've already been in combat, returned home and go again. sadly more and more are going again for their second, third and fourth time and peter was no exception. so today as we name this post

office on behalf of one fallen hero from missouri, hopefully we'll take time to reflect about the many from missouri who will not have something named after them but should never be forgotten for their sacrifice and their contribution to the freedoms we enjoy. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i thank the chairman for his comments and i have no further speakers. let us join together and support the passage of h.r. 3246, in honor of specialist peter j. navarro. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i move the question and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3246. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i object

to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2158. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2158, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 14901 adelfa drive in la mirada, california, as the wane grisham post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i thank the speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize myself for such time

as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, h.r. 2158 , introduced by my colleague and friend, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, would designate the facility of the united states post office located at 14901 adelfa drive in la mired aa, california, as the wane grisham post office. this bill enjoys bipartisan support. in fact, every member of the california delegation supports it. all 53. mr. speaker, it is fitting and proper that wane grisham, man who dedicated his life to public service, be recognized. born in 1923, mr. grisham served as a fighter pilot in world war ii and was shot down over germany, earning a purple heart. after his successful career in real estate, mr. grisham was elected to the la mirada city consult where he served for eight years. in 1978 he was elected to serve

as a member of this body, representing california's 33rd congressional district. he served for two terms. in 1983 he was appointed by then president reagan to serve as a director of the peace corps in kenya. after his service in kenya, mr. grisham was elected to the california state assembly. in 1984 where he served until 1998. sadly, mr. speaker, on january of this year mr. grisham died at the age of 88. he is survived by his wife of 66 years, his son, daughter and five grandchildren. after his death he was described by the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, mr. dreier, who mr. grisham lost to in a 1982 re-election bid, as being the model of civility and a true gentleman.

mr. speaker, we don't hear that very much in this body. i'll repeat it. as the model of civility and a true gentleman. i urge members to join with me in supporting this legislation in honoring a true public servant and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i join with my colleague from the other side of the aisle and rise in support of h.r. 2158 which would rename the u.s. post alpha silt at 14901 adelfa drive in la mirada, california, as the wane grisham post office -- wayne grisham post office. this bill was first introduced by my colleague and friend, representative linda sanchez, of california. the bill is widely supported by the members of the california delegation and has been properly vetted and approved by the oversight and government reform committee.

and at this time i would like to yield as much time to my good friend and colleague, ms. sanchez, as she might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2158, a bill which would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 14901 adelfa drive in la mirada, as the wayne grisham post office. we could not be honoring a more deserving member of the southern california community. wayne grisham dedicate the his life to his -- dedicated his life to our country and southern california. he valiantly served as a fighter pilot during world war ii and was held as a prisoner of war. mr. grisham was awarded the purple heart and air medal for his courageous service. after the war, wayne returned home to wittier college where he earned a bachelor's degree in economics and went on to teach elementary school in long beach.

eventually an entrepreneurial spirit led mr. grisham to open a realty business. a self-described conservative do-gooder, his dedication to our local community was truly remarkable. mr. grisham proudly served the city of la mirada for over two decades beginning in 1970 when he was elected to the city council. he later went on to be the mayor of that city. wayne once said, quote, i think of myself as an average guy and i think it was the average guy who elected me. it was that connection with the community that guided wayne throughout his career. mr. grisham continued his service to the community with his election to congress in 1978 and the california state assembly in 1984. he also lent his talents to the peace corps, serving as director in kenya. more important than his dedication to his local community was his dedication to his life as a husband, father

and grandfather he married his high school sweetheart in 1944 and had three beautiful children, kathy, randy and kelly. he was blessed with seven grandchildren. his daughter kelly recently remembered her father this way. he was always smiling and always had a kind word he loved -- loved when he could help people he took great pride in the work he did for the city of la mirada, the state of california and his community he believed in treating everyone with respect. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the service and memory of this dedicated civic leader. with that, i yield back to my colleague. mr. clay: i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: it's my honor to yield such time heas may consume to a friend and colleague who would like to speak on his behalf, the

gentleman from california, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. -- mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleagues recognizing the service of our dear friend, wayne grisham. in my early days in congress, we spent a great deal of time with wayne and milly, we traveled together and talked often of other trips to take tripsing to. our favorite place in the west was catalina island. we planned to spend at least one weekend there together. it's with great regret that i rise today in recognition of his passing in january. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. issa: i have no further speakers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: having no additional speakers, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2158 which renames the post office after

mr. wayne grisham. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 2158. those in favor say aye. posefose -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. issa: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until downed. a sufficient number having risen this eyeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2767. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2767 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 8 west silver street in westfield, massachusetts, as the william t. trant post

office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: h.r. 2767 introduced by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. olver, would dez ig tate the facility of the united states post office located at 8 west silver street in westfield, massachusetts, as the william t. trant post office building. this bill is co-sponsored by the entire massachusetts delegation and is favorably reported unanimously from our committee in november. mr. speaker, william trant was

a man truly dedicated to serving both his country and his community. in 1943, he enlisted in the army and saw combat in europe, suffering wounds at both normandy and ryanland. for his service, he was awarded the purple heart as well as numerous other service medals. after returning from war, mr. trant began his career working for the united states post office, there in westfield. following a short stint with the new york giants -- giants' minor league baseball team, mr. trant returned to his career at the postal service. as we know in government, it's always good to have a backup job if you're going to pitch. where he would continue to serve for 32 years. mr. trant rose to the rank of post mast eff -- postmaster of the post office he served in.

he also did many community works including serving on the westfield city council for nearly 20 years and in 1962,al served as acting mayor. it is fitting that we name the westfield post office after its postmaster. in 1967, he served as procurement officer in spring field post office as well as a procurement director of services in northeast postal district in hartford, connecticut. sadly, mr. speaker, in 2002, mr. trant passed away. he is remembered by many in westfield as both an exemplary citizen and a person of character. i urge all my members to join many support of this legislation to honor the true public servant and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: i am pleased to rise in support of h.r. 2767. this bill would designate the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 8 west silver street in westfield, massachusetts, as the william t. trant post office building. the measure was first introduced by my colleague, representative john olver, of massachusetts, on august 1, 2011, the entire massachusetts delegation supports the bill, having met all of the oversight and government reform committee's requirements, h.r. 3004 ruzz re-- was reported fave are -- favorably by the committee on november 3, 2011. mr. speaker, at this time, i would yield as much time as my friend from massachusetts may consume, mr. olver. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: i thank the gentleman from missouri for yielding me time.

mr. speaker, i rise today to support h.r. 2767, a bill that would ezzd -- designate the united states post office at 8 west silver street in westfield, massachusetts, as the william t. trant post office building. william trant was an exemplary citizen, a soldier, a father, a public service and pillar of his community. born and raised in westfield, he enlisted in the u.s. army in 1943 and participated in five of the great campaigns of world war ii. including the invasion of normandy. he was decorated with several military honors, including the european-african-middle eastern campaign medal with five bronze star the good conduct medal thnd me purple heart with oak leaf cluster for wounds sustained at normandy and rhineland. after being discharged at the end they have war, mr. trant

returned home to work for the post office in west field, leaving briefly to pitch on a baseball team afill kuwaited with the new york giants. he served as acting mayor in westfield in 1962 following the death of westfield's incumbent mayor. through his service he became friends with many massachusetts political figures from both parties, including president john kennedy -- kennedy, senator ed kennedy, congressman conte and house speaker tip o'neill. 2341967, mr. trant was appointed postmaster at the westfield post office. a title which he proudly held while serving as -- for many years. mr. trant was actively involved in sports programs for the young people of westfield, including the westfield little league, westfield babe ruth and westfield american legion

baseball he and his wife mary were devoted parents to nine children, he pass aid way in 2002, having lived a life that is an example and inspiration for all who knew him. mr. speaker, i urge the pass abbling of h.r. 2767 and ask my colleagues to join me in honoring william trant's service to his country and community. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. clay: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i have no further speakers and would ask the gentleman from missouri if he has further speakers? mr. clay: we have no further speakers. mr. issa: i reserve my right to close but have no further speakers. mr. clay: i ask that we recognize the long life and heroic service of william t. trant and pass the underlying bill withoutres.er nation --

reservation. having no further speakers, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i join with my colleague and move that we support unanimously the william trant post office naming and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is is, will the house suspend the rules an pass h.r. 2767? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the gentleman from california moves to suspend the rules and pass h.r.

2667. the speaker pro tempore: frurm does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2668. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 98, h.r. 2668 a bill to designate the station of the united states border patrol located at 2136 south naco highway in bisbee, arizona, as the brian a. terry border patrol station. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. denham, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h r. 2668. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, ordered. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: h r. 2668 would designate the station of the united states border patrol located at 2136 south naco highway in bisbeee arizona, as the brian a. terry border patrol. i want to thank the gentleman from california, mr. issa, for introducing this bipartisan legislation. the -- this would honor border patrol agent brian a. terry by naming the united states border patrol station in arizona as the brian a. terry border patrol station. born in flat rock, michigan, he served his country with the united states marine corps and continued his various in michigan prior to becoming a member of the border patrol he became a member of the 699th session of the border patrol academy, assigned to the facility in the tucson,