passed in 1973, the first line said that the purpose was to restore to the citizens of the district of columbia, restore. those words i think were chosen with great meaning and understanding of history. restore because it was clear that the people who live in this territory had every right of every other american citizen before the city was created, that those from maryland, virginia who gave the land saw to it that that right was preserved, and that only in the political maneuverings of the congress itself was that right at risk and that right has never been at risk except at the mercy of members of congress who did not adhere to

the principles of full democracy for every citizen of the united states. . so the purpose of the home rule act was to restore, not create rights. no one creates rights for people born in this country. the rights are given with their citizenship. now, the district of columbia if one looks at the home rule act, as the trends of all of the legislation preceding the home rule act, was never given partial home rule. never given home rule except when members of congress from other jurisdictions decide they want to make changes.

that is found nowhere in the home rule act. and that flies in the face of every principle of those who created the united states of america and those who died under the slogan of no taxation without representation. and so we created a very diverse democracy and we have held it together through a principle of local deference and local control. so we have people in one part of the country that detest some of the laws and policies in another part of the country, but the first thing they will do is honor local control and the right of local citizens to elect people who are accountable to them and when those who are not accountable to them want to get something done, they must go to

those who are indeed accountable to them. congress thought about what enacting home rule would mean. and it said, well, there are some specific exceptions. congress did not leave it to the discretion of members of this body to decide what those exceptions would be. congress, in fact, did something very specific with respect to those exemptions -- exceptions because it understood that once home rule is granted, there would be differses -- differences between those local legislature and the congress of the united states. so it said, look, this is what we mean and this is what we do not mean.

these limitations on the district and its council need to be rehearsed and need to be understood by anybody who believes in democracy as a principle here in the united states as much as we believed in it when all of us stood up for democracy in egypt and elsewhere in the middle east and around the world. we've got to make sure that we are not seen as hipocrites because we are the first to rise when there is democracy that is ignored elsewhere, and appear to deny it in our own country. that is something the world will never understand. so, the congress recognizing the differences spells out what the exceptions would be.

and you can imagine why the exceptions were there. they have almost nothing to do with anything than a local legislature would want to enact. occasionally they do, and the district simply cannot do it because it's in the home rule act and the district does not do it because it's in the home rule act. for example, the district of columbia cannot impose any tax on the property of the united states or any of the several states. that's important. because the property that is most valuable, the property that would yield the most revenue, is located in the center of monumental core of the united states and the district of columbia would have not a thing to worry about if it could tax that property. cannot be done. the district of columbia cannot

lend the public credit, the credit of the local jurisdiction for support of any private undertaking. the district cannot impose any tax, partial or whole, on the personal income of individuals not residents of the state. of the district of columbia. now, i emphasize that one because that's one that the local citizens most resent. it's called a commuter tax. what it means is if you come into the district of columbia as hundreds of thousands do from the surrounding region, use the

resources, the roads, partake of the very public amenities that residents do, nevertheless said the home rule act, nevertheless the district of columbia may not impose any commuter tax. the district of course resents that because there are commuter taxes all over the united states. but the district isn't asking to overturn the home rule act. it's simply asking that congress abide by the home rule act. maybe at some point congress would want to reconsider this matter. i think my good friends of both parties from maryland and virginia would not want this matter reconsidered, but at the moment i haven't heard anyone cry out that this is the reason

that you find people in the district of columbia engaging in civil disobedience. when congress intervenes into local affairs in the district of columbia. yes, this is a local matter, but it involves other americans. and so the home rule act would say, look, we want you to have -- i'm trying to beaire. -- be fair. those who wrote it would say, look, we want you to have as much jurisdiction, as much authority over your own business as you can. but once you go to taxing those from another region, we are going to draw the line. the district resents it, but there is at least a theory for why that was done. there is no theory for trying to overturn a law of the district of columbia simply because you

disagree with it. pure and simple. no theory that can be mustered and certainly not from the framers who were clear that every citizen of the united states, including those who lived in the nation's capital, would have the full democracy they fought for in the revolutionary war. the district of columbia has an act, though many in the city would like to build high, the home rule act recognizes that the monumental core has its own federal meaning. because that's where the monument and the capitol and the rest of them they did not want those buildings which are

central to our identity, as a nation, overpowered by the kind of tall buildings, even skyscrapers we see in other big cities. and there frankly has not been a great deal of concern about that. indeed, d.c. has its own height limit. the height limit helps the city when it comes to tourism. we, too, want everyone to see the monumental core, you will find a healthy number of citizens here who would like to build as they build in other cities. we are not trying to overturn the home rule act. we are trying to get observe advance of the -- observance of the home rule act and when you pass a law that, for example, says no funds may be used on something because it offends my personal predilection, you then are violating the most basic

principle of any democracy, and that is why i have come to the floor and would be coming to the floor throughout the year. the district of columbia may not enact any regulation or law having to do with any federal court. that's true of any jurisdiction. and there are a number of others . we -- the district cannot enact any law having to do with the national zoo. that's a federal zoo. i'm not sure why someone was concerned about that, but that's in the home rule act and you're not going to find the district mayor or city council or residents going to the streets over the zoo. they went to the streets because they passed a law, that law had

members of this house who sought to overturn it. and with respect to at least one of them, have succeeded, and that is a shame on democracy. because if you were to ask the citizens of the united states or any place in the world whether or not any member of this body should be able to overturn a law passed by the local council of the district of columbia in a democratic fashion, you would find almost nobody in this country who would say yes and you would find almost nobody in the world that would say anything but you cannot be serious. you who preach democracy all over the world. if these are your principles, the place and the time to apply them is right here, right now at

home. it is interesting to note that there was a lot of controversy until finally the home rule act was passed and it is no accident that the home rule act was passed during the period of the 1960's and 1970's when the great civil rights laws were passed. the country came to understand that you can hardly have civil rights laws and then have people inure own -- in your own country who have no mayor, no city council, no right to vote for local government, no vote in this body and still call yourself a democracy. all of that came together in the 1960's and 1970's. so i'd like to refer to two presidents from that era.

the so-called home rule era. you will find that every president of the era, in the era of postwarrer-ea agreed with the notion that the district of columbia should have unlimited right to self-government except for the express and specific exceptions in the home rule act. it is richard nixon who signed the home rule act. lyndon johnson, president johnson, in his message on home rule made these comments. our federal, state, and local government rests on the principle of democratic representation. the people elect those who govern them. we cherish the creed declared by our forefathers, no taxation

without representation. we know full well that men and women give the most of themselves when they are permitted to attack problems which directly affect them. yet the citizens of the district of columbia at the very seat of government, created by our constitution, had no vote in the government of their city. they are taxed without representation. they are asked to assume the responsibilities of citizenship while denied one of its basic rights. . no major capital in the free world is in a comparable condition of

disenfranchisement. lay it straight out. how could this have happened? well, the congress got a conscience from time to time and there were periods when the district had its full home rule. this is one of those periods. the congress does not intervene into the life of this city except when individual matters disagree with a provision here or there. let me read from richard nixon who signed the home rule act. the district's citizens should not be expected to pay taxes for a government which they have no part in choosing or to bear the full burdens of citizenship without the full rights of citizenship. i share the chagrin that most americans feel at the fact that congress continues to deny self-government to the nation's

capital. i would remind the congress that the founding fathers did nothing of the sort. home rule was taken from the district only after more than 70 years of self-government, and this was done on grounds that were either factually shaky or morally doubtful. it is morally doubtful for any member of this body to assume he or she has the right to tell any citizen of the district of columbia how to govern himself unless you are a member of the body that governs the district of columbia. ifes that a principle which applies to your district, it must apply to mine.

so we greatly resent the fact that we are allowed to govern ourselves except when some member decides some matter was controversial in his district so, therefore, he wants to deny this district the right to carry out that matter after that matter has become a matter of local law. every framer would turn over in his grave to recognize that we could come to the 21st century in such a condition. yet, it took action in the 110th and 111th congress to remove prohibitions on the district's use of local funds for medical marijuana, for needle exchange, for abortions

for low-income women. in the 112th congress, republicans imposed the ban on the use of local funds for abortions. who do they think they are? they are accountable to no one in the district of columbia. they are in straight sure violation of every principle of the founding document. i believe that in good faith many members, especially newer members, are simply not aware of this history and not aware that it is grounded in the framers' documents themselves. that's why instead of assuming that any member of this body would intentionally deny democracy to any american i think the way to proceed is for this american, this member,

representative of the people of the district of columbia to come forward on occasion with information and material that i hope members will take under advisement. i thank the speaker and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it is a privilege to be recognized by you to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives. as i listen to the dialogue take place here over the last 30 and the gentlelady from the district of columbia, i'm glad she has a voice here in this congress. i do take an oath to uphold the constitution as does everyone who serves in this body, as does the president of the united states and many of our executive officers and every

military personnel. i believe every state legislator takes an oath as i did when i was in the state senate in iowa to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and the state of iowa. but as that oath takes place, i would just remind you, mr. speaker, that we have to have an understanding of the constitution in order to take an oath to the united states. and when we place our hand on the bible and raise our right hand and take the oath to the constitution of the united states, it's not an oath to a constitution as it might be reinterpreted by activists, judges at a later date. it's not even an oath to a constitution that has been interpreted by the activist judges that came after the constitution was ratified. the oath that i take to uphold this constitution is the oath

to uphold the constitution as it was written, as the clear text of the constitution defines and as the amendments, the clear text of the amendments defined and as it was understood to mean at the time of the ratification, whether it be the full body of the constitution or later on, the bill of rights, or whether it would be the subsequent amendments to the constitution. and no public official, no person who takes an oath to a constitution can be taking an oath something that is amorphis, something that can fluctuate, something that can change. the constitution has to be in place. it is no guarantee that it is amorphis. it has to be fixed in place, fixed in time. i understand our language changes over time, and i understand that we have people that have looked at this constitution with disrespect

and they would like to disregard the american constitution. if we look back through history, we will see that there was an effort that began in the late 19th century, especially when some of the liberal thinking people emerged here in the -- and in the intellectual world in the united states, many of those people came here from germany and established themselves. in fact, they established themselves on the west coast and our friend, whom we expressed our deep -- our deep regrets at the loss of and our deep sympathy to the family of andrew brietbart, grew up around some of those people that were the foundation of the progressive movement in america. the people that grew from the socialism, the ideology of utopianism, karl maxx put it down and graham, she also advanced it. and it's gone on today that

liberalism got a bad reputation so they decided to define themselves as progressives. it's all rooted in a maxxist, socialist, utopian ideology. and it looks at the american, the united states constitution, the constitution of the united states of america with be a horns. they reject -- abhorans. they reject our constitution. they are afraid to stand up and say so. the constitution, they concluded late in the 19th century and coming into the early part of the 20th century that they would like to abolish our constitution. they would a lot to have a new constitutional convention or no constitution and change the shape of america at their will. not an america that come with individual rights that came from god, and i'd like to agree that the gentlelady from the district of columbia and i would agree on, it would have

no locked down guarantees or values. in other words, they looked at an effort to undo and repeal america's constitution and concluded that they could not do so because the culture of america has so embraced the constitution of the united states that just our defense of the constitution would be enough for them to if they tried, if they assaulted the constitution, americans would rise up and reject anybody who would seek to do that. so that alternative of trying to repeal and undo the constitution and amend it out of existence or there's another alternative. and that alternative is the one they chose more than 100 years ago. that was the effort to redefine the constitution, to underline the meaning of the constitution and turn it into this -- remember the language, mr. speaker? a living, breathing document. a living, breathing document is the language in the constitution, a constitution with no guarantees, a

constitution that only takes reaction to the majority at the time that can be found in the house of representatives, in the united states senate or a majority in the united states supreme court or the activist judges by the hundreds have been appointed since that period of time over the last more than 100 years. and the law schools in america that have been populated by leftists who have been undermining the constitution even while they teach the constitution. that's what we've seen here in america, mr. speaker, and if the soured conservative american people understood the history and how the constitution has been willfully undermined by active and by now self-labeled progressives, they would stand up against them everywhere they appear. when you think of a contract, the constitution is a contract. it is a guarantee. it is the supreme law of the land. it's defined as the supreme law of the land in the constitution itself.

we have a supreme law. a law has to be black and white. it has to be clear and it must be also enforced. and to take an oath to something that is living and breathing, something that's now being taught under constitution law in universities across the land, this constitution doesn't mean what it says. it's what some of the judges say. that's what some of the law school professors say. in fact, that's what a majority of the law schools in america teach. not the foundation of american liberty. the clear text of this constitution. but they teach something that's been redefined by the courts. by the way, we have course after course across the country -- and i could go back to my big ring notebook when we did the research on this that teaches constitution law in law school without using the basis of the constitution. you can take the course on law and never be required to read the constitution and the test questions aren't on the constitution. it's called case law.

sometimes refer to case law, it's usually a slip of the tongue when i say it. case law being what they say is the constitution. i can think of a lawyer who says, i don't have to amend the constitution. you give me a favorable judge and jury, i'll amend the constitution in the courtroom. think of what that means, mr. speaker. the attack on the constitution that's been taking place by activist lawyer after activist lawyer with favorable judge after favorable judge in front of a favorable jury that a lot of times just doesn't know the movement of the currents in this country and the competition that's going on between two philosophies and ideologies. one of them says, one of them mirrors the words of our founding fathers, the beliefs of our founding fathers. our rights come from god. no place in history did we see that aside from the new testament.

no country was born on the foundation of religious belief and we have rights that comes from god. inalienable, that is a typo in the jefferson monument down here. we are endowed by our creator by certain inalienable rights and one of them is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they are written on our hearts as americans and we should remember that our founding fathers inspired and i believe guided by god, articulated the vision of the unique liberty that's endowed within each of us who were created in his image, they articulated it, they understood it, they made the argument, they laid it out in the declaration, they fought a war for it and they enshrined it within the constitution itself this rule of law. now, how hard was that compared to our charge today, mr. speaker? how hard was it in comparison? founding fathers identifying

liberty, articulating liberty, using the language they created to write on our hearts, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and as an aside, mr. speaker, it wasn't an accident that they delivered to us three distinct rights, not exclusive to those three, when they said life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, jefferson didn't pull those things out of a hat and said, life came out first. what's the next one? well, it's like a chinese fortune cookie, liberty. and the other one he pulled out was pursuit of happiness. they are carefully placed in the declaration because they are prioritized rights. . the those important right is life. the next most important right is libertyy. and the last of the three is pursuit of happiness. let me start with pursuit of happiness, mr. speaker.

our founding fathers, especially thomas jefferson, studied and understood greek, and they look back in the history of greece and they understood what this term i will pronounce udomonia, a greek term that is the pursuit of happiness. spelled eudomonia, what it means is to be intellectually and spiritually whole. to pursue knowledge. to pursue an understanding of this unique being that we are with a soul, with a spirit, with an intellect and expand that to the maximum limit that god has give us. pursuit to happiness wasn't a tailgate party at a ballgame. pursuit of happiness was the greek understanding of happiness which was developing your whole being to the maximum amount. so thomas jefferson placed that pursuit of happiness

understanding what it meant in the greek understanding, he understood what it meant to the americans at the time. that's been redefined since that time to now people think somehow pursuit of happiness is the tailgate party or go to the ballgame or go out on the deck and light the grill or go down to the corner pub and have a drink with the guys, whatever it is that people do, go fishing, go skiing in the mountains, that's pursuit of happiness? none of that was in the mind of the founding fathers, what was in their minds was the ability to have the freedom that god gave us to develop ourselves as human beings spiritually and intellectually. that was eudomonia. it was the third right, mr. speaker. the second one was liberty. and liberty we understand i think liberty better here in america than in the rest of the world. liberty is a component of our history that often gets conflated with the term freedom. freedom and liberty are two different terms, mr. speaker.

they have two different meanings even though they are associated with each other. you might think of freedom as i look across outside snowy landscape where i live and sometimes i'll see a coyote run across the field, and ill athink, he has freedom. -- and i'll think, he has freedom. he's out there in the wild. no fence keeps him in. he's free to chase down rabbits and anything else he wants to go after. he has freedom, but there's a difference between freedom and liberty. freedom is the distinction of this, liberty is freedom bridled by morality. bridled by an understanding that you have a moral obligation, a faithful obligation not to go outside those bounds that have been laid out for us. if that's the case, you have liberty, you have liberty -- you have freedom and the bridle that goes on freedom is the moral underpinnings that we must

adhere to as americans. and that's why this constitution works for us. so within liberty are those rights that are defined in the first 10 amendments in the bill of rights. liberty for freedom of speech, from religion, and freedom to assembly and peaceably assemble for regressive grievances. freedom to keep and bare arms. the freedom from double jeopardy. the freedom to be -- have a trial by the jury of our pire -- peers, the freedom for the powers that are not defined within the constitution for the federal government to devolve down to the states or the people respectively. that's all liberty. everything i have defined in there is liberty provided that it's been the moral boundaries. but i take us up the ladder of the priorities of life, liberty, pursuit of happyness, eudomonia. pursuit of happiness is

subordinated to liberty. you can develop yourself, mr. speaker, intellectually and spiritually, in the philosophy of our founding fathers provided that you don't trample on someone else's liberty. if i want to develop my knowledge base, my spiritual base, i can exercise my freedom of religion, my freedom of speech, my freedom of assembly in any way that i so choose under the rights that we have that are libert -- that our liberty is provided that, i don't trample on the liberty of someone else. i can't take a position that says you will be censored because i'm going to exercise my freedom of speech, or you can't assemble because i don't like what you say. i'm exercising my freedom of assembly, you must not. i can exercise my pursuit of happiness, my development, my own liberties provided you don't trample someone else's. founding fathers understood that priority. in the exercise of our liberties, the freedom of

speech, religion, assembly, keep and bare -- bear arms, in no case can we take someone -- can we take someone else's life in the expansion of our liberties. if i say that there's someone that encroaches upon my liberties, therefore i'm going to take their life, i have violated the principles of the declaration, the principles of this country, let alone the laws the united states of america. so we need to understand that the founding fathers laid out prioritized rights in the declaration, life, libertyy, the pursuit ever happiness, and pursuit of happiness cannot trample on liberty or life. and the exercise of our liberties cannot trample on life. they understood that and that life is the most sacred. if we understand also that life begins at the instant of conception, we need to protect that life both in law and in fact, and provide for those who cannot scream for their own mercy, cannot speak for

themselves, that protection for life. all of that is wrapped up in this constitution in the rights of the gentlelady referred to, the gentlelady from the district of columbia referred to. i go back to law schools in this land teaching constitutional law as if this constitution is a living, breathing document. and some combination of case law created by activist lawyers, activist judges, and sometimes i'll say client juries because they seldom see the -- compliant juries because they seldom see the big picture. they have respect for judges sitting behind the bench. i do, too. but i will take this position, mr. speaker, and that is, any judge that believes they can amend the constitution by their policy decision on case law should not be seated on that bench. anyone who takes an oath to a constitution and they believe it

was whatever it will be defined to mean by somebody that comes along later, they should stop and take stock of what they are about to do. that may be a violation of conscience, not just thought through. and i would say that as i look at some of the decisions on some of the judges, we had a major case in iowa a couple years ago called varnum v. brant. seven state supreme court justices, universally declared they could find rights in the constitution that were up to this point unimagined. they wept unanimously that they had discovered unimagined rights in the constitution itself. can you imagine the guarantee can unimagined rights, mr. speaker? the founding fathers could not have imagined allowing judges to sit on a bench who believe that they could write any decision

they chose to right, that they could manufacture unimagined rights in order to get the public policy in place. that's exactly what happened in iowa in that case. now three of those judges were up for retention, iowans voted off the bench. now there are three new supreme court justices there e hopefully there is a reconsideration among the other four. and so the unimagined rights that were inserted into the supreme court decision imposed same-sex marriage on the state of iowa. and that brought about some people like my good friend, congressman louie gohmert, came here to help with that cause. i went on the bus and helped

with that cause. we made the constitutional argument consistently and continually. it's an example, mr. speaker, but we have a number of other examples of activist courts and i'm concerned about what has happened historically. and i'll make this point that if i look through the continuum of supreme court cases that take us to where we are today, and we have a conscience protection piece of legislation before this congress, one of them may have had a vote in the senate this afternoon, and that would be senator blunt's language, senator blunt from missouri, in this congress it's jeff authoritien berry from nebraska, who understood the protection and introduced the legislation that protects the health care providers and -- all of us, from the full -- from our -- for our religious liberty. and this congress may get to vote on it and it may actually

fail in the senate this afternoon is what i'm advised was about to happen. i haven't confirmed that and it can be happening after i finish speaking, mr. speaker, but i see this happening as the constitution protects our religious liberty, our religious rights. and still this government steps in to usurp them. this executive branch steps in to usurp our religious rights. to this extent, and i'll take you, mr. speaker, through this continuum that is appalling to me and it would be appalling to the founding fathers had they lived through these decisions. 1965 -- excuse me, i'll go back to 1963, mr. speaker. there was a case called murray v. kurlet. i don't know that's well urine varsally recognized, that was a case that took player out of the public schools. there was an argument made before the activist court in 1963 that there was a separation of church and state. and that that separation of church and state was firm enough

and solid enough that we could not pray in our public schools because that advocated for a religion. so i'll read to you the language that surely had to be reviewed by the supreme court justices. it says congress shall make -- the first amendment, mr. speaker, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of there. and it goes on -- thereof. it goes on freedom of the speech, press, and others. it says congress shall make no law. there was no law that came from congress that established a religion. the law that congress made just didn't exist with religious freedom because congress understood that the first amendment means what it says. but the original understanding said congress shall not establish a religion. we are not going to be like sweden establishing lutheranism

as the state religion. we should have freedom of religion but not establish religion. congress shall make no law establishing reg or prohibit the free exercise thereof. if you believe in judge made law, the supreme court by that decision in 1963, murray vs. current, outlawed prayer in the public schools by a court decision, i think it's indirect violation of the first amendment of the constitution. if we are going to respect judge made law and stop praying if our public schools, that was the beginning of the judicial activism that's begun to break down this civilization and this culture. i think those decisions needed to be made at the local school level not the supreme court level. and i remember sitting as a freshman in high school and this news came to me in the -- sitting in a general science class, and said now there will be no more prayer in our school. i remember thinking, what does that actually stop? how will they stop us from praying if the teachers decide not to?

does that mean i can't? can we not as students? can i not pray before a test? i needed help, i will tell you. that thought process went through my mind. the only way that the federal government could prohibit prayer in the public schools would be to clear out the public schools. if we insisted on following through, they have to empty the schools otherwise there was going to be prayer in the public schools as well as our parochial schools. they would have to come in and march us all out of school, chain the doors shut, and post a guard to prevent prayer in the public schools. what did we do? we again flected to the supreme court, accept the murray decision in 1963, stopped activity of public prayer in public schools, and we have had subsequent decisions along the way about whether students could pray, whether athletes could pray, whether coaches could pray with athletes, whether coaches could be there when athletes prayed with themselves. all these things decided by a supreme court who believes that there was a decision made in

1963 and that they are somehow bound by that decision rather than looking back at the plain text of this constitution and concluding that as long as congress doesn't make any law establishing a state religion or interfere with the practice of religion, then it isn't the federal government's business to be engaged in religious activity that takes place in the public or private schools. . we went through at break neck speed over here at the supreme court, out those doorways and off that way, break neck speed. this was grisswaled v. connecticut. at that time connecticut and massachusetts and multiple other states had outlawed contraseptemberives in their states. that -- contraceptives in their states. that means you couldn't buy contraceptive in their drugstore. the case of griswald. brought the case against the state of connecticut, your state law that bans

contraceptives is unconstitutional. they went before the supreme court and argued. and what are you going to base that on? how does a state not have a power that's not -- all not enumerated powers are reserved for the states or the people respectively, so the constitution, i say, defines that the states have that power. but yet the supreme court in their imagination in 1965 created this right to privacy. and right to privacy fabricated out, doesn't exist in the constitution, doesn't exist today in the constitution, but is on the lips of every law professor teaching in law, they say it was in this constitution somehow that had never been discovered until the supreme court discovered it in griswald v. connecticut. so it was in law to even allow for even sell contraceptives.

so the supreme court created a right to privacy and outlawed the ban on contraceptives in connecticut. i say if you lived in connecticut in 1965 and you wanted contraceptives, you could drive across the state line or move to another state. states' rights 10th amendment. they imposed that on in 1965, the right to privacy became, oh, bay the way, 197 -- by the way, 1972 there was a case, it was just married people in griswald in 1965. in 1972, if there was a law for married people, surely there exists for nonmarried people. the federal government took another reach. now we have the foundation for roe vs. wade which turned into the right to privacy came the foundational argument for roe vs. wade.

they found a right to abortion. only the right to abortion of a non-- a nonviable fetus, i might add, but the case was dold vs. bolton. there will be exceptions to the viable fetus if the health of the mother is considered. and health of the mother is desired to be matter, physical and so it was an open door right to any kind of an abortion. this all rooted in judicial activism, i might add. and today seeing what has happened in griswald, and them setting aside a state law, now to the point where the president of the united states, mr. speaker, stepped before a press conference a week, two weeks ago a friday at noon and he said, well, ok, i might gotten in a little hot water to take away the rights of conscience or catholic institutions to tell them through kathleen sebelius, not

providing contraceptives, it was contraceptives, sterilization, pills giving abortion requiring pro-life organizations, especially the catholic church to provide that if they're going to provide any kind of health care for their employees or their patients. a direct clear imposition of the deny to the rights to conscience. and father jonathan moore said publicly that you cannot force someone to violate their conscience. you keep your convictions of your conscience even unto death. i applaud the position he has taken. i endorse that position he has taken. but now a few days after this announcement came out and the heat came on the president, his noon press conference on that friday, he stepped up and instead let's say legislating within the confines of the constitution itself, the supreme law of the land, or

amending the constitution if you disagree with what it says or even legislating from the bench, as griswald, eisenstat, roe and others have done, we have the president with the highest audacity we've ever seen, and he uses that term, he is legislating by press conference. he said, i am not going to impose it upon you, catholic churches and others, i'll impose it on health insurance. contraceptives, abortions and abortion causing pills without cause. the audacity to issue such a thing and we should not comply with such an unconstitutional order from the president of the united states. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate your indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time should there be any. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour de >> earlier today in the house, members approved a measure directing the historian of the house to collect histories from members concerning the marches in selma. the house is back at noon eastern on monday with legislative work beginning at 2:00 p.m. and votes expected at 6:30 and living coverage here on c-span when they return. on the other side of the capitol, senators voted to block legislation that would allowed employer response-health coverage. and it was a transportation bill under consideration and employers don't have to cover

any medical procedures they oppose on religious grounds. the senate voted 51-48 to table that amendment. >> if you had said in 2006 that the world would be begging for the united states to use force again in the middle east within 3 1/2 years, everybody would have said you were crazy. >> robert kagan is not only an adviser to the romney campaign but on secretary clinton's advisory board. >> what i have been writing for years is there is a lot of continuity in american foreign policy, a lot of broad consensus and what you are seeing here is the kind of consensus that exists in the foreign policy community and there is a lot of overlap between the two parties. >> more on foreign policy and his latest "the world america made" sunday night at 8:00. prior to the senate's procedural

vote on the blunt amendment, house minority leader nancy pelosi said republican efforts to repeal president obama's mandate is a sweeping overreach into women's health at her weekly legislative briefing said congress should focus on jobs instead. >> good morning, my heart goes out to the families in the midwest and extend our support. and i want to mention it has affected families in illinois and missouri and tennessee. thoughts and prayers are with those families. we are in budget season. hearings will be beginning soon

and here we are, republican ideas that have already been rejected by the american people and increased costs for seniors, medicare actuary said the republican proposal which shift costs to seniors. another version of the medicare should go on the vine. according to latest poll from kaiser family foundation, 70% of americans including 53% of americans see the republican plan for what it is, a shift of cost to seniors. budget season and also driving season, spring and summer come upon us. we must work to lower gas prices. american products and businesses to be competitive globally for our make it in america, to succeed and thrive and prevail, we must lower the cost of energy

in making our products and we advocate american energy, american jobs. what's happening about the price at the pump is very interesting. supply is going up, demand is going down and the price is going up. it is very contradick tower and how do you explain that? you explain it by recognizing that republicans are protecting wall street speculators responsible for driving up the pain at the pump. republicans blame inadequate u.s. production and hear them say if only we could drill more in the u.s. the facts are these since president obama became president of the united states, oil rigs have increased four times, quadrupled since he became president, domestic oil

drilling. in addition to that, if you take all of our rigs, gas and oil, they are more than all of the rest of the world combined. did you know that? four times, quadrupled since the president became president, gas and oil, more than the rest of the world combined. so we are exploiting domestic supply. and inferences to be drawn from what the republicans are saying that more oil drilling, it's simply not true. supply is up, demand is down, you would think the price would come down. enter speculation. not the healthy speculation that is normal to the marketplace but a speculation that can add 20%

to a barrel of oil. the american people have to know this because this has happened before, but what has made matters worse at this time is as the speculators are wreaking havoc on the price of oil and gasoline at the pump in our country, the republicans are standing in the way of enforcement of the dodd-frank provisions in the bill which address speculation. even taking the initiative to address speculation to court as we sit here. so it is -- it's part of their republican response, protect big oil subsidies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, triple the commodity commission for policing wall street price

manipulation. according to commissioners, speculation, not the lack of production, raises the price at the pump by 22%. i want to commend to the american people to the success of reducing demand by their conservation efforts. for the first time since 1949, the u.s. has -- is a net exporter of oil products. for the first time since 1949. so, production is up, exporting oil products is up, american people are conserving, speculation has intervened and therefore we do not see the commensurate lowering of price at the pump and we must fight that, whether it's by shining a bright light on what is happening with speculators. that's been a problem. we have talked about it before. as i said, added to that is the

republican obstruction to the cftc doing its job. ok. this is all part of their reining the american dream. we are building ladders for people who want to play by the rules, work hard, take responsibility to succeed. we want to do this through promotion of small business and entrepreneurship in our country. we have plenty of work to do. but for us to make it in america, we have to, again, lower the cost of energy in our country and that is exactly what the president is striving to do. we talked about the budget season. we talked about the driving season. and now it's women's history month in march and republicans are kicking off women's history month by bringing the blunt amendment to the floor in the

united states senate. instead of talking about jobs, which is what the american people expect and deserve us to be doing, what they sent us here to do, we have moved onto the blunt amendment, a blunt sweeping overreach into women's health, part of the republicans' agenda of disrespecting women's health issues and allowing employers to cut basic health services for women like contraception, prenatal and cervical cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women just in that prevention services piece. they are focused on thethey're e and manning, rather than vigorous job creation. and it includes not even being able to bring a transportation bill to the floor, which is one of the biggest job graders that

we have. here we are at the beginning of march, and the continued their assault on medicare, women's health, and continue their assault on the consumer price at the pump by fighting with speculators rather than consumers. i will take questions. >> since you are talking about marge been women's history month and talking about this assault on women, we talked to a number of catholic women who see this differently. you are a catholic woman. what is the divide in the catholic church? had you view this in your faith compared to the way they are interpreting this? >> first of all, this is a women's health issue. the anecdote is not data. i do not know who you spoke to. the records show that 90% of catholic women have used birth

control. so this is a women's health issue. a matter of conscience for each woman, her husband, her family, and her god to make their own decision. as a catholic, i support the right of a woman to make that decision. but this is about women's health. we talked about mammograms, circle, and ovarian cancer screenings, those kinds of things. the need for birth control and contraception is not just about reproduction. it is on the larger sense about the forward picture of women's health. >> the jobs act, the package of small business changes yesterday, expressing that the president seems supportive, at least to most of it. what do you think about the jobs that?

you think democrats will support it? >> i think four of those bills have passed. this is the path of least resistance one of them is a democratic bill which they have renamed the republican bill. but that is ok, just as long as the american people are well- served by it. but that is not a substitute. that is just a preliminary to what we have to do with the big jobs bill about transportation. we are in a public-private partnership to rebuild america, to promote commerce, to move people, it to increase broadband -- all of the things that you would do in the infrastructure bill. this little package is, i think, viewed positively. it is not a substitute for the jobs bill that we need. >> do you see any areas of

common ground with republicans on energy policy or something to bring them gas prices? >> we can address the issue of speculation. >> that is not the issue. i am saying something of common ground. >> they should be able to find common ground with the american people want that. they're getting completely zapped in that regard. one thing that is interesting is that the republicans keep saying if only we could drill more. we are drilling more, four times more than when the president took office. more it risks of oil and gas combined then the rest of the world combined -- more rigs of oil and gas combine than the rest of the world combined. we have to stipulate through fax what it is -- through facts what can be done.

some refer to cutting edge technologies for energy, as well as addressing the renewable issue. some of that is longer term, in the short term -- in the short term, to send a clear message to the speculator is. my personal favorite is for two reasons. first of all, you do not put the oil in these pro, and if you replace it when oil is at a lower cost, you can do the right thing by the cost of the taxpayer. also, every time oil has been diverted are taken from it, one or the other or both, priced at the palm has gone down. even if you do not subscribe to that, if it least it's a question to the speculator is that you might do this.

that is something that i think should be prominently on the table that we would be willing to use so that the price can come down and speculator can be put off. >> [unintelligible] >> ok, ok. you know how i am about the people who are always here all the time. >> you get back to the lunch yesterday, republicans came out of that with the carriage of nodes to the speaker boehner said he was encouraged. what is your take away? >> i agree with that characterization that you described. i do not know about the rest of the characterizations. the president came with a spirit of bipartisanship. there are priorities that need to be addressed in this congress. the conversation was marked by a

french ship, and friendship is always marked by candor. that is not to say that there is total agreement on every issue. i do not like to talk about what goes on there, but the speaker put out a statement of things you brought up relating to energy in our country. i made the point that, as i did now, and i will not do it in the third time, about what is happening with deductions in our country. the president's commitment that he made in the state of the union address of all of the above to transition to something more firmly -- friendly is what we all subscribe to. i think it is positive. favorable to the jobs package. this has bipartisan support across the board and the path of least resistance. i think we only have time for

one more question. >> what you think about republican in-fighting and passing a budget and the idea of passing a budget along the lines of july's budget? >> well, let me say that i do not know much about their in- fighting. you will have to ask the speaker about that next. but it is budget, not a statement about national values, not about what the priorities are for the american people. president obama's budget is. we will have our democratic house budget as we go forward. our distinguished ranking member will be listening to members here, hearing their views and what our priorities should be in the budget. but i will tell you what it will not do. it will not end the medicare guarantee your have initiatives in it that can cause medicare to wither on the vine. if you want to have want defining contract between ours

and theirs, and there will be many, but the most important one is they are insistent, in one shaper form or another, to end the medicare guaranteed, shift cost to seniors, and cause the withering of medicare. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> just after nancy pelosi's briefing today, house speaker john boehner spoke with reporters. he talked about his meeting yesterday with president obama, talked about gas prices and congressional efforts to allow employers health insurance plans to deny birth control coverage.

>> good morning, everyone. american families and small businesses continue to struggle, and they are especially feeling the impact of rising gas prices which have doubled under president obama. that is why it is critical that both parties find common ground to help our struggling economy. we have seen some positive economic news lately. but it is being overshadowed for many families by soaring energy costs that are increasing the costs of living. we must work together to find both energy and economic solutions. i was encouraged during the state of the union when the president came out and said he was 4 and all of the above energy strategy. an approach that republicans have championed for years.

utilizing america's that -- vast energy resources can help increase supply and have a positive effect on energy costs and create millions of good paying jobs at the same time. it is a win-win for everyone. i will repeat that we had a very positive wanted the white house yesterday. we discussed a number of areas where i believe there is common ground between our two parties, particularly on jobs and on energy. i would like to think it is a sign that some of the bipartisan bills will be passed here in the house and maybe take it up soon by the democrats over in the senate. the president's job council said as a nation we need to take advantage of all of our national resources to spur economic growth, create jobs, and reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. that is exactly the approach that we have taken here in the house. for example, the president's job

council said that we should allow for more access to oil, natural gas, and coal opportunities on federal lands. the house has passed legislation to require the interior secretary to issue leases in new offshore areas containing the most oil and natural gas reserves and conduct lease sales that were delayed or canceled by the administration. the house also passed legislation to require the interior secretary, in most cases, to decide whether to issue a permit within 30 days after receiving an application for the permit, ending a permitting delay that has been put in place by this administration. the president's job council said where sources of been uncovered, federal, state, and a local authorities should encourage the safe and responsible extraction of shale natural gas. the house has passed legislation that would set clear rules for the development of u.s. oil

shale resources and promoted shell technology research and development. the president's job council said we should make more areas available for removed -- renewable energy development and streamline the permitting process. the house has passed legislation removing government barriers to the development of clean renewable energy projects on federal lands by streamlining and simplifying government regulations and ensuring that we still have environmental reviews. the president's job council said policies facilitate the safe, thoughtful, and timely development of pipeline transmission and distribution projects are necessary, to facilitate the delivery of america's fuel. you all know the house has passed legislation to require the approval of the keystone xl pipeline, a project that even former president clinton has said that we should embrace right now.

at our lunch yesterday, we offer to work with the president on these measures, and we had a productive discussion about it. he agreed to take a look at some of the. the all of the above approach is not just good for energy prices. it can also create new, high- paying american jobs. i think the american people support our approach, and i am hold that we can see real progress in the coming weeks and months. lastly, i was also encouraged by the president and his embrace of the jobs act, which has been spearheaded by leader kantor, which was introduced earlier this week. it will make it easier for small businesses to grow and hire more workers. i am looking forward to strong bipartisan vote in the house next week on this bill. >> on the blunt amendment, do you worry creating similar legislation in the house would create a backlash against republicans by women voters? >> i think the american people

are concerned about the government's infringement on religious liberty. the senate will have its vote later today, and the house will decide how we will proceed. >> can you give us an update on the transportation bill? in your view, what went wrong, and what will bring it up, and what will it look like? what's the first thing you need to know about the transportation bill is that for the first time in the 21 years that i have been here, we have a transportation bill with no earmarks. the last highway bill we had had 6371 earmarks in it. secondly, when you look at the fact that we're trying to fund 116 federal government programs of the highway trust fund, you can understand why we have not had sufficient resources to actually repair our roads and bridges. because we're finding all kinds of beautification projects. ballparks in the past, parking

garages. there's a long list of nonsense that was there. when you begin to reform this process, take away the earmarks, consolidate the number of programs, and try to focus it, you can imagine you are breaking an awful lot of china. it has been difficult. we are continuing to work with the chairmen and the committee and our members to buy the pathway forward. >> on gas prices, there has been a coordinated effort in messaging this week, especially among some of your republican colleagues, saying that the president's policies are designed and intended to drive up energy prices, to drive up gas prices did you believe that? >> secretary has said that his goal is to have higher energy prices. that is what a lot of our members are queuing off of. i am not sure that the president believes that higher energy prices are what he wants. after my discussion with him yesterday, adding he would prefer to see lower gas prices.

at least through election day. >> nancy pelosi just mentioned that using the strategic petroleum reserve would be a way to lower gas prices. a huge supporter of that idea? >> it did not appear to me yesterday, but the president believes that that is true. just releasing it without coordination with our allies around the world, all it does is shift were the supply is coming from. it did not appear to me that the president believed that using that would have any meaningful attack on gas prices. >> you said the senate bill was inadequate because it was -- the highway bill, now you're writing -- >> there is no writing up a bill. >> 18 months is not in the cards? >> apparently, our members do not think too highly of it. i would only look at it as a

fallback measure. we need to do this the right way. you know, we have had five years, six year reauthorization of the highway bill. it it is important for the state and for those who want to invest in this area to have a broad horizon so they know where we're going. and a five-year bill is the best way to get there. whether we can achieve that given the differences, we will see. >> back on the counter shop -- contraception issue. you said you want to see what happens in the senate before forging ahead in the house. is there debate in your conference as to what is appropriate? we have talked to a number of members in your conference to say this is the wrong thing to do and we want this changed. is there not even amend -- unanimity on how to approach contraception? >> i think it's important for us to win this issue. our government, for 220 years,

has respected their religious views of the american people. and for all of this time, there has been an exception for those churches and other groups to protect the religious beliefs that they believe in. and that is being violated here. i have been trying to take this out of the political realm and get it into a position where we can continue to protect the american people's right to their own religious views. and there are a lot of ways to do that. there is one over in the senate. we have a couple ideas in the house. it is a matter of how we proceed. >> what do you mean? >> it is important that we continue to protect their religious beliefs of the american people from their government. and their government encroaching

in this arena has not happened in 220 years, and ocean not happen in this case. >> -- it should not happen in this case. >> you think the house should present legislation that would exempt all businesses from the contraception requirement? >> the issue is protecting the conscience clause and other religious beliefs of the american people from encroachment from their government. >> [inaudible] how do you feel about that group arguing that he is not conservative? >> well, i do not know much about what the club for growth is doing. but chairman upton has done a marvelous job and led the effort to repeal obamacare, led the effort to expose solyndra. he has his conservative voting record. frankly, i think he's done a marvelous job on behalf of

republicans in the house. >> first you say that government should be in the contraception issue, but the second, it is that you're working on ways in the house and the senate to get government out of the conversation. how can government get out at the conversation if there is conversation in government about the contraception issue? >> it is about protecting americans' religious beliefs. we have done it for 220 years. it is part of our constitution. and the government is moving in a direction that would force some americans to violate their religious beliefs. this is wrong, and we want to stop it. >> you said you want to take the issue out of the political arena, and you said you want to work on areas to find common ground. how do you work with democrats and a prison on an issue that is a devout -- so decisive? believe in standing up for

the constitution and standing up for people to practice their .aith as they livke yes returned to broadway to get a bipartisan agreement is all this problem. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and on the issue of contraception coverage, by 51-48 vote today, the senate voted to block legislation that would have allowed employer-sponsored health plans to deny birth control coverage. senate republicans saids the minister is necessary to keep religious constitutions from having to pay for health services they opposed a senate democrats spoke to reporters, saying the measure is bad for women's health.

>> today is really an important historic day. it is march 1, the beginning of women's history month. today on the floor of the senate, we defeated an amendment that would have historically taken away something that women in this country have counted on for decades, and that is the ability to make their own health care choices in the privacy of their homes. i want to thank the many, many women and men across the country who stood up and held us to fight back this attack on women's health care choices. this is a time in our country when we should be focused on the economy, on creating jobs, on making sure that we get our families back on their feet. everywhere in this country today, families got up and they talked about how they were going to pay their mortgage or send their kids to school or be able to be self-sufficient in the

coming months. they were shocked to hear what we were focused on because of a republican amendment, and that is the right of women in this country and families to be able to make their own personal health care choices without the interference of an employer. this was an important step today, an important message to the women and men in this country that we in the democratic caucus will stand up to fight for their rights, as we always have. we know that this is just an intense in a series of the thames that we saw starting a year ago when we were doing the budget agreement in the middle of the night. we heard from senator blunt today that they're going to continue to move forward, to go after taking away the ability of women to make their own health care choices, particularly when it comes to contraceptives. we're going to stand up, fight back, and we at the democratic caucus are going to continue to focus on what families want us to focus on, which is making sure that they have jobs and

their families are stable. i want to thank our leadership and everyone who worked hard to defeat this amendment today. we're not done. we will be here every time. >> i want to personally thank senator murray and senator boxer and so many other colleagues who stepped up and let this defeat of the blunt amendment. their speeches on the floor clearly spelled out the choice of the senate had today. president obama struck the right balance, a balance which said that religious institutions, universities, hospitals, charities could decide on their own not to offer certain provisions of preventive care which are otherwise required under the law. but he added this important provision -- individual women, and men for that matter, have the right under their own conscience, under their own initiatives, to seek those productions that are guaranteed by law. that strikes the right balance between respecting religious

institution and belief but also respecting the rights of men and women and their own personal conscience. the vote today by senator blond, bringing this amendment to the floor, was an attempt to bring the culture wars of this republican presidential primary to the floor of the u.s. senate. i can tell you that the vote today should be a clear message to those who are following that if we take extreme positions from that social agenda that we hear so often in these republican primaries and bring them to a vote on a common sense and the majority feeling in america will prevail. today, on behalf of not only women, but men and families all across america, we have had a great victory. >> well, thank you. first, let me thank senator murray for her great leadership on this issue. we have been working on this for several weeks now. and under her leadership, the

country learned how bad this amendment was. and i think that helped lead to our victory. the closeness of this vote shows how high the stakes are for women this year. a republican-led senate might pass this bill. a republican president, like mitt romney, we definitely sign it. if republicans keep this up, they're going to drive away independent voters, women and men, just as they are driving moderates out of their caucus. senator blunt said on the floor earlier today that this issue was not going away. he may be more correct than he realizes. we will make sure that women across the country are aware of what the republicans in the senate proposed to do. they want to force women to surrender their health decisions to their bosses and even let those employers to deny women access to contraception. some of the wiser republicans

seem already to regret forcing this issue to the floor. they voted for it with clenched teeth. but they were unwilling to stand up to the far right wing of their party that cares more about an extreme social agenda than focus on jobs, which is where americans want us to be focused. i do not envy the rank-and-file republicans to walk the plank on this vote. i think it is going to be awfully hard to defend it back home, especially in places like new england. >> senator durbin, a half to comment on it this. it is not protocol to have your own it cheering section that these evens, but you have got one here. i think that is a little too much, but -- we talk about numbers, and that

is important we do that. but understand, these are human beings we are talking about. and the state -- in the state of nevada, we have almost 200,000 women who, if this passed, would lose access to contraception coverage and other health services that are so essential to their health. so we're talking about real people, millions of people. i appreciate very much of the support that patty and barbara boxer and others who have worked so hard on this issue have received from this caucus. it is extremely important that we let the american people know where we stand. but also everyone here accept this as a truth, we are trying

to pass a bill that will save about 1.8 million jobs and produce about 700,000 more jobs. that is what this is about. we move to this bill on february 7 went out of nowhere, on this bipartisan bill, bipartisan bill, barbara boxer, one of the more conservative members of the senate, and jim, one of the more conservative members of the senate, came to me saying that we should do a highway bill. keeping in mind the reason this started was because of president eisenhower. this legislation that is trying to be sabotaged here with this amendment is important for the american people. in the state of nevada, we do not want a highway construction to come to an end.

we have programs now that are waiting to start, and some that are already in full force that will be wiped out if we do not get this bill passed. i cannot imagine why they would be willing to do this. you would think after getting rid of this controversial method -- amendment, we could move on with this bill. oh, i wish that were true. but they have filed over 100 amendments, and they are still coming in, folks. 90% of these amendments have nothing to do with the highway bill. they want to we litigate keystone. they want to be litigate -- litigate -- relitigate the foreign-policy bill.

we have an issue dealing with the middle east. that has nothing to do with this bill. nothing to do with the jobs we need so much in this country. i am wondering, do the republicans wish for failure? do they want the economy now to continue to do as well as it is? because not passing this bill is not going to help the economy. i will continue to work and be as patient as i can to come up with a way forward on this bill. but right now, i do not see it. >> [inaudible] your comments and senator durbin's comments, it seems like a path fraught with peril. [inaudible] >> and not because we are going to bring it back. but because they're not going to let this go.

all three of my senators here have said that it appeals to a social agenda that appeals to a very small, vocal part of the republican party. i would suggest, as i have said before, about this republican congress that we have here -- members of the republican house and senate -- mainstream republicans do not agree with this. they do not agree with this. but this t-party driven -- te a-party-driven house and senate are trying to go to places that do not exist. yes? >> [inaudible] >> i do not know what you are talking about, the house republican jobs act. i will not talk about what went on with the president yesterday. that was a private meeting.

if the president wants to do something, i'm sure he will let us know. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know what you are talking about. i do not know what the republicans jobs bill is. i hope it is good. if it is, i will take a look at it. yes? >> [inaudible] >> let's try to do the math here a little bit, ok? let's say, 53, and we lost three. 47, and they lost -- they lost 46. i have the greatest respect for what the senator ben nelson did, what bob casey did, and what joe manchin did. that is their privilege. we do not demand that ever one vote the same way. we did what the american people

wanted us to do by an overwhelming margin of democrats. we turned down this piece of ill-fated legislation that was only standing in the way of jobs for americans. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and rick santorum delivered a full defense of religion in public life on sunday, appealing to the social conservatives who revived is presidential campaign. mr. santorum responded to comments made by president john f. kennedy. >> i believe in an america with -- where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no catholic leader should

tell the president, should he be catholic, how to act, and no protestant leader would tell his parishioners how to vote. where no church or public school will have political preference. and where no man is denied office merely because of his religion may be different from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him. >> you can watch president kennedy's speech on our website. go to c-span.org and you can find that on our our part -- in our archives there. >> tonight, president obama holds the 100th fund-raiser for his campaign. together, they are expected to raise about $5 million. one of those events, the campaign fund-raiser, we will have live coverage here on c- span. earlier today, the president toward an auto facility in new hampshire. he spoke about the economy and called on congress to appeal --

repeal $4 billion in subsidies to oil companies. this is about half an hour. >> it is good to be back in new hampshire. thank you, mike for that wonderful introduction, and your service to our country. i want to thank the president, lucille jordan. give lucille a big round of applause for hosting us today. we have paul wonder like. where is paul? he's got a beard. you can see him.

and i want to thank your mayor for joining us here today. [applause] right over there. right in there. >> [unintelligible] >> i love you back. >> [unintelligible] >> ok, we will be all right. they were probably standing a little too long. just give them a little space. where are the ems folks? they will be ok. give them a little space. this happens sometimes. you guys have been here a while. you have to eat ahead of time. keep your blood sugar up. do we have someone over there?

jordan? right in the middle. there we go. here is our guy. make a little room, everybody. let's make sure everybody is okay. all right? all good? ok, i think he is going to be all right. [applause] remember, i eat before you come to a presidential event. [laughter] -- remember, eat before you come

to presidential event. [laughter] i am from chicago. and you know a little snow was not going to keep me away. [cheers] which is why i can relate to new hampshireites. this was just like a dusting. it is no big deal. the when i landed at the airport, there were like 50 people waiting to shake my hand. they had icicles on their eyebrows. [laughter] there were like, hey, great weather. i want to thank you for making the trek out here. i really appreciate it. i just had the chance to look at some of the cutting edge work that is being done here at the auto shop. and earlier this week, i gave a speech to american autoworkers. i said that one reason this country has an auto industry

today is because we are not just building cars again, we are building better cars. [applause] we are building cars that use less oil, cars that go further on a gallon of gas, and in part, that is because of what is happening in places like this community college. it is because of so many of you. i do not need to tell you why fuel efficiency is so important, especially right now. most of you have filled a pure gas tanks in the last week or two. am i right? it has not been a happy experience. you have seen the prices go up almost every single day, and you have already felt the pinch, whether you own a car or maybe you own a small business i uses energy. some of you have no choice but to drive a long way to work. and higher gas prices are like a tax straight out of your

paycheck. and in the winter, the rising price of oil is also making it more expensive to heat your homes. i know this is hard to believe, but some politicians are seeing higher gas prices as a political opportunity. you are shocked. i know. [laughter] but it is true, right in the middle of an election year. who would have thought it? one news story says -- and i am quoting here -- gasoline prices are on the rise and republicans are licking their chops. licking their chops. only in politics do people respond to bad news with such enthusiasm. that does not happen anywhere else. as a consequence, you can anticipate we are going to be hearing a lot about how people

have these magic 3-point plans to make sure you are only paying $2 per gallon gas. just like we heard about it in the last election and for the last 30 years. and you know what the essence of the plan is going to be, which is, step one, drill, step two, drill, step three, keep on drilling. and by the way, will drill in your backyard. where britta is, we will just put up more rigs. if there is one thing i know about new hampshire, the political detector is pretty keen. [laughter] -- the political bull detector is pretty keen. [laughter] you know that there are no quick fixes or silver bullet. if someone tells you that, you know it is not true. if we're going to take control of our energy future, which we have to do, if we're going to

avoid high gas prices every single year with a lot of politicians talking every single year and nothing happening, we have to have an all-of-the-above strategy. not just oil and gas, but also wind and solar and biofuels. [applause] we have got to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks, less oil in our buildings and factories. that is the strategy that would have been pursuing for the last three years. -- we have been pursuing for the last three years. and it is the only real solution for this challenge. here's the good news, we are making progress. and you can see it in this chart. we're using visual aids today. [laughter] the bar on the left shows that

six years ago, 60% of the oil we use was imported. since i took office, america's dependence on fora -- foreign oil has gone down every year, every single year. [applause] in fact, in 2010, it was under 50% for the third -- first time in 13 years. for the first time. [applause] we gave one of these handy chart to everybody who came today, so you can impress your family and friends with your knowledge. [laughter] it makes a great conversation piece at parties. [laughter] one of the reasons our dependence on foreign oil is down is because of policies put

in place by our administration, but also the predecessors administration, and whoever succeeds me is going to have to keep it out. this will not be solved by one party. it will not be solved by one administration. it will not be solved by slogans. it will not be solved by phony rhetoric. it will be resolved by a sustained, all of the above at energy strategy. no matter where you hear in this election, a key part of the strategy has been to increase safe, responsible oil production here at home, while also pursuing clean energy for the future. but we do not have to choose between one or the other. we have got to do both. [applause] when it comes to oil production, under my administration, america is producing more oil today than at

any time in the last eight years. that is a fact. [applause] under my administration, we have a near record number of oil rigs operating right now, moral -- more working oil and gas rigs than anywhere in the world combined. that is a fact. new oil and gas exploration where it is safe and appropriate. and we have approved where we are able to put in place new safety standards at to make sure we do not have the same kind of spill that we had in the gulf a couple of years ago [applause] -- a couple of years ago. [applause] and we have approved dozens of pipelines to move oil to around, including from canada. just this week we announced we will do whatever we can to help speed the construction of a

pipeline in oklahoma that will relieve a bottleneck for oil to get to the gulf. that will help create jobs and encourage production. we are focused on american oil production. we are doing all that we can in a safe, responsible way, to make sure that american oil production and gas production is high. but here is the thing, the amount of oil that we drill at home does not set the gas price on its own. and the reason is because oil is bought and sold on the world energy market. and just like last year, the biggest thing that is causing the price of oil to rise right now is the instability in the middle east. this time, it is iran. but a lot of folks are nervous about what might happen there, so they are anticipating there might be a disruption in terms of flow. and when uncertainty increases, speculation on wall street can

drive up prices even more. those are the short-term factors at work. when you start hearing a bunch of folks saying that there is some simple solution, you can turn a nozzle and suddenly we are going to get a lot more oil, that is just not how it works. over the long term, the biggest reason oil prices will rise is because of growing demand in countries like china and india and brazil. in five years, the number of cars on the road in china more than tripled over the past five years. nearly 10 million cars were added in china alone in 2010. 10 million cars in one country. in one year. that is using up a lot of oil. and those numbers are only going to get bigger over time as places like china and india get wealthier. they're going to want to buy cars like we do, and they will

want to fill them up like we do, and that will drive demand. what does this mean for america? it means that anybody who tells you that we can't drill our way out of this problem does not -- that we can just drill our way out of this problem does not know what they are talking about or they are not telling the truth. [applause] one or the other. here is another way to think about it. the united states consumes more than 20% of the world's oil, but we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves. 20% we use, but we only produce 2%. and no matter what we do, it will not get much above 3%. we will still have a huge shortfall. that is why if we really want energy security and independence, we have got to start looking at how we use oil and other energy sources that we can renew and control. [applause] so we are not subject to the

winds of what is happening in other countries. [applause] we have to keep developing new technology that helps us to use less energy. we have got to keep relying on american know-how and ingenuity that comes from places like this one. nashua community college, that is our future. [applause] that is exactly the path that we have been taking the last three years. because of investments we have made, the use of renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled, and thousands of americans have jobs because of it. we are taking every possible action to develop a near 100- year supply of natural gas, which releases fewer cartons. that is something that experts believe will support some 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. our cooperation with the private

sector is positioning this country to be the leader in the world's production of high-tech batteries, that that will power these cars. [applause] and after three decades of doing nothing, we put in place fuel economy standards that will make sure our cars averaged nearly 50 -- 55 miles per gallon by the next decade. that is nearly double what we have today. [applause] and by the way, that applies not just to cars, but to light trucks, and also to heavy trucks now as well. that means every time you fill up, you can think to yourself, i will not have to fill up again for two weeks instead of one week. that is worth applauding. [applause] because what that means is, that will save the typical family

more than $8,000 at the pump. and it means that this country will reduce our oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day, which means that we can continue to see a decline in how much imported oil we need. that is good for our national security. it is good for our economy. and it is good for our environment. [applause] that is the strategy we've got to pursue. but we've got to do more. we've got to do more even faster. we have got to keep investing and developing every available type of american energy. and this means that we have to set some priorities. we have got to make some choices. first, while there are no short- term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, i have

directed my administration to look for every area where we can have an impact and help consumers, from helping to relieve bottlenecks in places like we've got in oklahoma, to making sure that speculators are not taking advantage of what is going on in the oil markets. we will continue announcing steps in the coming weeks. every time we can find something that provides a little bit of relief right now, we are going to do it. [applause] but over the long term, an all- of-the-above the strategy requires some sense. here is an example. right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. [boos] $4 billion. these companies are making

record profits right now. tens of billions of dollars a year. every time you fill up your gas tank, they are making money. every time. does anyone really think that congress should give them another $4 billion this year? ["no!"] of course not. it is outrageous. i'm asking them to eliminate this subsidy right away. i'm asking them to vote on this in the next few weeks. [applause] let's put every single member of congress on record. you can stand with the oil companies or you can stand up with the american people. you can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that has been getting keker -- taxpayer dollars for century, or you can

invest in a clean energy future. i'm asking everybody today, everybody watching from home, your member of congress know that you are watching. it will you do that? [applause] i know where i stand, new hampshire. i know where i stand on this. we want to have a successful oil companies who are able to get the oil we have in our country, but we also understand that our future requires us to make investments in clean renewable energy. that has to start now. we cannot wait until gas has skyrocketed more and people are desperate. we need to start making those investments now. and most of you guys agree. [applause] that is why you are putting your time -- that is why folks here at this community college are learning about building cars and repairing cars that use less oil, cars that are powered with

alternative fuels like natural gas. that is why the city of nashua is purchasing a new fleet of trash trucks that run on natural gas. they will go cleaner. it will last longer. they will be cheaper to fill up. [applause] i saw one of them. it was a good looking truck. and it put a smile on the mayor's face because she knows she is saving taxpayer money. good job, mayor. [applause] that is part of what the $4 billion that is going to oil companies right now, that is where it could be going, to help cities like this one convert their fleet to fuel- efficient cars and trucks, to help private-sector companies -- big companies like ups or federal express convert their fleet. that could save us money.

since we announced the national clean fleet initiative last year, the companies that have transitioned their fleets have tripled. that is part of why this chart is going down. i am proud to say that the federal government is leading by example. that is one thing the federal government has a lot of its cars. i do not know if you are aware of this, but we have a lot of cars. [laughter] i have directed every department, every agency, every single one to make sure that by 2015, 100% of the vehicles the federal government buys are fuel-efficient cars and trucks. let's save money. [applause] this is our future. this is the ultimate solution to our energy challenge. it is not going to be a smooth, easy ride. some of the clean energy

technologies that are discovered, they will not pan out. some companies will fail. there are going to be experiments and research that take time. but as long as i am president, i will not walk away from the promise of clean energy, because our future depends on it. [applause] i will not see the wind or the solar or the battery industry that china or -- go to china or germany because some politicians in washington refused to make the same commitment here in the united states of america. [cheers and applause] with or without this congress, i am going to continue to do whatever i can to develop every source of american energy to make sure that three years from now, our dependence on oil is even lower, to make sure our future is not controlled by

events on the other side of the world. we may not have a silver bullet to bring down gas prices tomorrow or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight, but what we do have in this country parliament the sources of energy, and a down less supply of -- in this country are a limitless source of energy, and a boundless supply of resources that we can. we have got you. we have got you. [applause] the easiest thing in the world is to make phony election-year promises. about lowering gas prices. we have to make a sustained commitment to tackle a problem we have been talking about for 30 years and have not solved. it is not going to be solved in one year or one term. maybe not one decade.

but that is the kind of commitment we need. that is what this moment requires. when i see all the young people here today -- or the young at heart -- [laughter] we need you guys to keep at it. this is your future at stake. we need you to summon the same spirit of the unbridled optimism, that old willingness to solve problems that led previous generations to meet the challenges of their time. the power to touch the moon. to transform the world with our own science and imagination. that is what america is capable of doing. it teaches us that all of our challenges, all of them are within our power, within our grasp to assault. this one is no different. -- within our grasp to solve. this one is no different.

this one is no different. it is going to require all of us. democratic, republican. everyone has to do their part. that is what this moment requires. and i know we can do it. and when we do, we will remind the world once again why it is that the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. thank you, everybody. god bless the united states of america. thank you. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[cheering]

♪

[inaudible]

>> up from new hampshire, the president can still -- hence to a new city for a fund-raiser for his campaign. one of his events begins at 1:00 -- 8:20 eastern. you can see that. >> justice, freedom, and peace on earth. recalls that that day -- --

at the campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who were contenders. we look at men who had a lasting impact on american politics. it could have devastating consequences for -- will some house seriously resolve itself. -- even with this conference at an important moment in the international community -- they face a predicament, they face a predicament that there

are a number of people who are racists. these are the realities of race, even now. >> sunday, racism, politics and the obama administration. he is the author of five books. we will take tweets, live for 3 hours. >> according to the united nations. the u.s. ambassador to syria testified before the senate foreign relations committee today. he says he expects the regime of president bashar al-assad will fall. the hearing is 90 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order. thank you. i apologize for being late.

i was a little delayed their. senator casey will chair this morning. which, i will have to do that. we appreciate everyone's coming here to discuss the ongoing situation in syria. as we all know, serious it's in the heart of the middle east, straddling its ethnic and sectarian a fault lines, and all of the region's important powers have a direct interest in what is happening in syria, as to non-state actors like hezzbollah and hamas and others. the taliban appears to be trying to take a advantage of the chaos. as many as 9000 civilians have

died with tens of thousands more displaced from our homes. in the syrian city of homs, there has been indiscriminate shelling for three weeks now. hundreds have died. the city is running critically low on food and medical supplies. given the indiscriminate killing of its own citizens, and given its back of the hand to the global community as well as the regional powers that have tried to intervene, it seems the assad regime is ultimately going to fall. the longer the endgame, the messier the aftermath, and obviously, the more complicated the in between. the prospect of a full-fledged sectarian civil war is a stark reminder of a terrible situation that could become still much worse with potentially

devastating consequences for neighbors. israel, lebanon, jordan, and adverse duplications for the middle east. the question for congress as well as elsewhere in america and the world is where do we go from here? america at at may have little direct leverage on -- america may have little direct leverage on syria, it is important to galvanize at the international community. none of us should underestimate the ability of the global community to have an impact on any renegade regime anywhere in the world when the full intention and focus of the global community is properly convened. the last year has shown that when the world acts with one voice, motivated by the cause of freedom, a tyrant's script on power does not seem so fierce. that is why the russian and

chinese veto at the united nations security council was so disappointing. because it actually extended to assad a political lifeline. he continued to use violence against his own people. we need to encourage the russians and the chinese and let them know that while we would like their positive involvement in putting a halt to the conflict, we are able to do and prepared to do much more if they continue to block of progress with the security council. the arab league and gcc have ramped up their economic and political pressure. in turkey, interestingly, a year ago, a close friend and supporter of syria, had broken and done the same. the u.n. and the general assembly in recent weeks voted to condemn the crackdown.

two months ago, the senate endorsed unanimously condemnation of the regime and expressing its commendation to the syrian people. there are still serious questions about various oppositional organizations, including especially the syrian national council and the free syrian army. they share the goal of getting rid of assad. they have not yet unified in the way that the libyan transitional national council did. i believe it is time for us to redouble our efforts to engage with the opposition to shape their thinking, to understand it more fully, to identify more fully their leadership, too strongly encourage them to coalesce into a coherent political force. the friends of syria group is

now a multilateral mechanism to support the syrian national council and other groups with technical assistance. is true that many syrians themselves remain on defense, especially members of the minority groups. they are horrified by the regime's atrocities, but they are also part but by the potential for a broad scale sectarian strife. thus, it is vital that the sec to everything to unify politically, to put national emotions before political ambitions and to ensure all religious and ethnic minorities that they will enjoy full freedoms in a tolerant post- assad society. the international community's political support will a tamale be contingent on their ability to speak with one voice that

represents the full diversity of syrian society and embraces the values that will bring the committee to its side. @ debate has started in congress and the region about whether -- a debate has started in congress and the region about whether and how it will start with the syrian army. there are serious questions to be answered about the free syrian army. we can think about how the international community can encourage its restraint. finally, we are all deeply concerned about the disposition of syria's biological and chemical weapons and its lethal conventional weapons systems. i know the administration has formally engaged with respect

to this particular challenge, and are working diligently to ensure there are contingencies to make sure these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. i would urge my colleagues to be fully supportive of these efforts. to help us sort through the complexities of this situation, i want to emphasize, this is not libya. this is not egypt. this is not tunis. this is of far more difficult and complicated situation. to help us work through these today, we're joined by two of the most accomplished members of the american diplomatic corps. i am pleased to welcome robert ford and jeffrey feltman. f r jerryeldman knows -- secretary feldman knows the

region well and i think he understands the consequences this crisis could have. ambassador, we all want to commend you on your courageous, importance efforts that you made to distinguish between the clientitus that can affect issues of broad. i think we were all impressed by that. robert ford left the country after threats to its own safety, but he returned. so, we thank you both in advance for providing your insides and look forward to your testimony. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming the secretary feldman and

ambassador ford to this committee. ambassador ford was on the ground in syria and deserves special commendation. the hearing today takes place amid the deadly violence and gross human-rights violations, the degradations of the assad regime continues to inflict on the syrian people. since our last hearing on syria in november, the death toll in this 11-month conflict has risen dramatically. we're confronted with horrific images. assad it is targeting civilians, journalists, doctors, women and, and children. i went to a meeting last week of the friends of the syrian people

that brings together six nations and international organizations. continue to focus on humanitarian needs in syria. the efforts -- the absence of russia and china at the meeting was the neglect of their duties as permanent members of the united nations security council. the outcome and syria will have deep implications for the internal politics of neighboring countries, ethnic conflicts in the middle east, and broader issues. terrorist groups will take advantage of instability and sectarian violence could spill over syrian borders. in the midst of this up people, we know syria has substantial

stockpiles of chemical and conventional weapons that could directly threaten peace and stability throughout the region. our governance is focusing on intelligence and counter- proliferation assets to contain this threat. the development of definable opposition would improve chances. the damage to the syrian people could be contained. some constructive opposition voices are attempting to emerge. at present, the syrian opposition lacks cohesion, and a specifically defined political agenda. it also lacks the physical space and technical means to mature, to overcome its internal differences and develop a plan for democratic transition. these sectarian divisions from iran and elsewhere and the lack of a democratic political

culture weigh heavily against the short-term emergence of unified opposition on which to base the tolerant democracy. this presents the united states with very limited options. syria must support international humanitarian efforts. it should also work with willing states against the spillover affect generated by violence in syria. we should not underestimate our ability to shape events in the country this morning. further attempts by the united states or the west to closely manage the opposition could backfire in an environment where the government blames outside influences for syria's troubles. while not taking any options of the table, we should be extremely sceptical about efforts to commit the united states to a military intervention in syria.

under the constitution, taking up an armed conflict in syria rest with the congress. going forward with our international partners, and encourage you to work closely with congress as plans evolve, particularly as the situation becomes more complex. i look forward to your testimony very much and we are honored that you were with us today at. >> thank you, senator lugar. secretary feldman, if you would lead off? and then ambassador for. >> thank you but, mr. chairman, senator -- thank you, mr. chairman, senator lugar. thank you for having this meeting. i met here to discuss the crisis

in syria. since that time, our european allies have enjoyed it to impede the financial backing of the crackdown. the arab league has suspended syria's membership, with many members downgrading diplomatic relations and freezing syrian bank accounts. the arab league put forward a transition plan for syria. over 137 countries supported the u.n. general assembly resolution condemning the syrian regime and supporting the arab league transition plan. the friends of the syrian people have been urged to endorsed the transition plan. the syrian opposition in tunis has articulated a clear

transition plan and address minority fears convincingly. we now have $10 million in immediate humanitarian assistance with millions more from other countries. the u.n. and the arab league have joined and sent the high- profileenvoy kofi annan. and just this morning, the human-rights council in geneva overwhelmingly passed a resolution describing the situation in syria as a man made humanitarian disaster. and we all know the identity of the man responsible for that disaster. these are just some of the examples of regional and international resolve, but nevertheless, as both of you have described, we have seen the assad regime has intensified its attacks against the syrian people. this situation is, frankly,

terrific. including indiscriminate artillery fire against neighborhoods. isd today's report from homs terrifying. large numbers of syrians are living under siege. the basic necessities of life including food, clean water, and women and children are wounded and dying for lack of treatment. innocent people are detained and tortured and their families are left to fear the worst. yet, despite the regime's brutality, the people of syria demonstrates enormous courage. the their determination to continue protests for their rights -- mostly peaceful protest -- is a tribute to the human spirit. as a secretary watching the events unravel in the arab world, i have to say we do not

know when for sure the breaking point will come in syria, but it will come. the demise of the assad regime is inevitable. it is important that the tipping point for the regime to be reached quickly, because the lumber the regime of salk's the syrian people, -- the longer the regime assaults the syrian people, the greater the chances. as are referred at the start, to the friends of the syrian people group, we are translating international consensus into action. we are galvanizing international partners to activate more effective sanctions and deepen the regime's isolation. we have called for the immediate transition in syria. we are moving ahead with humanitarian assistance for the syrian people, demanding access

be granted and that attacks cease. a proud and democratic syria that upholds the rights and responsibilities of all citizens, regardless of their religion, gender, or ethnicity. together, we are working to persuade frightened communities inside syria that their interests are best served by helping build a better syria, not by casting their lot with a losing regime, a corrupt and abusive regime, which has been a malignant blight in the middle east for far too long. the goal of the opposition, and the syrian people alike, is as followed. as syrian-led political transition to democratic government based on the rule of law and the will to people with protection of minority rights. i would like to close by echoing

this fellow witness and friend ambassador robert ford. his actions on the ground in syria this past month have been a great credit to him, the foreign service, and the united states. he repeatedly put himself in harm's way to make it clear that the united states stands with the people of syria, and i want to think this committee for its leadership in supporting his confirmation. >> thank you very much. we appreciate that. ambassador ford? maybe you should not say anything. just stopped. [laughter] >> senator, mr. chairman, ranking member lugar -- thank you for this invitation to come and speak before the committee today. i do not want to do a long opening statement because i am

hoping we can open discussion about syria, but i do want to say how much i appreciate this committee support -- this committee's support during my time in damascus. we got messages from members of the committee staff asking how we were doing, how my team was doing. i would say that my team really appreciated those messages, especially during some of the tenser moments. it meant a great deal. i had a terrific team in damascus. i really would like to think this committee for your support for our efforts. beyond that, i think the statement that ambassador fedlmanthank you. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. we certainly appreciate your dialogue. let me begin by asking both of you if you would share with us your perceptions of the state of

assad regime right now. there have been executions of various military figures. that is due to any plots or defection. what is your view of the current fragility, if it is indeed that all? an alloy family enterprise that has a lot to lose, obviously. >> a couple of things i would say on that, senator -- first, the assad regime is under greater stress than it was even too much for three months ago. this is in part because -- even two months or three months ago.

this is in part because of restrictions. the military has retained its cohesion. but they are under significantly more stress now. in the first quarter of 2012 than there were even mucas recey as two months or three months ago. within the ruling circle, if i can call it that, there is greater concern. they are well aware that the business community, for example, is very unhappy. they have changed several times on a dime some of their economic policies to try to placate an increasingly unhappy business community which is suffering because of the sanctions that we have imposed, europe and now arab countries have imposed. in general, they understand this is the biggest challenge during

the 40 years of the assad makhlouf family control of the area. >> to refer back to that tympan point, the breaking point that i talked about in my -- that tipping point, the breaking point that i talked about in my opening comments, the calculation is to appeal to those people who have not yet made up their minds for change, but do not like the way that -- they do not like the direction that assad is taking them. uc meetings in tunis as a way to appeal to the broader population, to try to move them toward change. this is a very important part to getting that second point,

getting more people on the side of change. >> i cannot remember if it was the post or the times, but there was a photograph of the kuwaiti parliament having a vigorous debate and ultimately deciding to condemn violence. there seems to be a somewhat surprising and unique movement in the gcc and a number arab countries to really take unprecedented steps here. could you speak to that end with the potential is that is in the arab world itself, what the reactions may be and what the potential there is for that to have an impact on the outcome? >> i think the arab leadership fund, the issue of syria has been remarkable. we are backing the arab league's

own transition plan. syria sees itself as a major country in the arab league. the syrians call themselves the beating heart of the arab world. suddenly, the arab league has potentially suspended serious membership. this is not in north african country like libya that is out of the arab mainstream. it is significant with the arabs are doing. why is this happening. in part, this is happening because of the air spring if you look at opinion poll after opinion poll, musharraf is at the bottom of the list of popularity among leaders. he has no credibility across the arab world. i think the arab leaders want to show their own population that they get it, that they understand, that they need to be in tune with their popular opinion. without question, part of this has to do with competition with iran. people know that musharraf has made serious a proxy for iran as a subservient partner for iran

but would not underestimate the impact of the arab spring, even on those arab countries that are not going through a transition. i believe that arab leaders recognize that they cannot be on the complete opposite side of their public opinion. the kuwaitis, for example, there was a scene in the kuwaiti parliament yesterday. >> based on your experience in lebanon and the region, share with us your possession -- your impressions of the rest and the sectarian violence that could flow if there is a total explosion or inclusion. >> without question, the minorities in serial look at lebanon or recently iraq with fear. i defer to embassador ford to

talk about the cut delayed since -- to talk about the calculations inside syria. the syrian opposition is to disprove the musharraf theory. it is his theory that says look at lebanon and look at iraq. this is where we're headed if you do not back me. there is irresponsibility on the part of the syrian national counter and broader opposition groups to show that that is not where they need to go. >> what are the dynamics between syrian national council and the internal local groups? >> a couple of things i would say on that -- the two organizations are separate. there is not a hierarchy between the syrian national council. it has its own executive party and a broader general assembly. the free syrian army, as best we

understand, has its own leadership hierarchy. they are not organically linked. however, they certainly do talk to each other. on the ground in syria, local revolution councils are being set up now. if you want, for example, aljazeera television, you often see a spokesperson for the revolution council in homs talking about the atrocities that are going on there. it is a very young man, a very brave man, who will literally go through the streets. it was he that broke the news about mary holden's death, for example. people like him talk to the free syrian army, but he is not free syrian army. you mentioned in your statement about the divisions between the syrian opposition. there are different organizations that makes it a little more complex. so they talk to each other.

sometimes the coordinate, but they not organically linked. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to pick up the point you made, secretary feldman, about the oil exports and the success apparently been bottling up a high percentage of the government. likewise, other sanctions against the country have caused what seemed to be normal terms and economic depression by normal standards. this is likely to go further. what is not clear to me and i would like some thoughts that you have about what food supplies are available to the people of the country. how much is produced in syria now? i've understand that a drought has occurred this year.

it was a critical factor in egypt, even while things were going on in tahrir square. food subsidies had ceased and that was the cause of considerable unrest. even if there were these problems in the business community or money for the assad regime, it would appear that the allow we group, as opposed to the 65% of the grouption nor sunnis, the that has an existential problems. the minimal be in favor of assad, but there is general -- there may not -- they may not be , but there issidassad

a general fear. protection of minority rights, this may be down the trail a few years in the future. your prediction is more of an accelerated turnover of the regime than most are predicting. most press accounts i have seen indicate that the assad regime may continue for years, not months. and the lack of cohesion of the opposition could even grow greater rather than smaller as various other forces enter the syrian picture and put off segments that may be helpful to their situations. can you comment generally on the critical problems present -- the economic depression, may be food shortages that are dire on the one hand that lead to general unrest and come on the other,

can we reasonably anticipate of the next three years to five years, say, that there could conceivably be a transition to something even with the vestiges of democracy, human rights, respect for minorities? the original prediction that i see is that assad might go, but the chaos that would ensue would be horrible including killing of people and a general melee. it is not a question of who decides, but the pending disaster from a lack of authority. >> the dangers you point out are real. the opposition leadership recognizes those dangers. it is one of the reasons i said our policy is to excel ricky arrival of -- of that tipping point.

i do not know what that to pinpoint is. we do not have any magic bullets to make it come tomorrow. the longer this goes on, the deeper the sectarian divisions and hire the risks of long term sectarian conflict. the higher the risk of extremism. we want to see this happen earlier. but the risks you point out are recognized by the opposition. sespite all of the division' between the opposition, the leadership of these groups to have a common goal. they do seem to have a common understanding of the importance of the fabric of syrian society, the importance of preserving that fabric. i was in tunis with secretary clinton and listen to an inspiring speech where he appealed directly to christians. but to the syrians, he said

something like many of you have left over the years. you have felt the need to leap over the years. and when you leave, part of syria dies. and we want a syria where you can all come home. i want to convey the sentiment of that. i think there's something to work with in the opposition leadership, this understanding that what is special about syria is that rich mosaic of communities, religion, ethnicity. and people want to preserve that. the aloites are scared, that is true. on the economic side of things, the syrian business community, as i am understand it, there are levantine traders who have worked for decades, if not centuries, in commerce in the middle east and beyond. this is one of those communities who need to understand, in our view, that

its future is better insured under a different type the system than is there now. one of the things that came out of the tunis meeting was a discussion, a commitment by the friends of syria, to set up a working group to talk about reconstruction of syria after words in ways that the business community could see. we're talking about trade relations, investment relations, financial communications. right now, the sanctions imposed on syria are by turkey, the arab world, by europe, and the united states. it has cut off humanitarian aid, including food. however, food prices are rising without question. with 30% of the syrian population before the party line before this began, there's more under the poverty

line before this began, there's more hardship for more people. on figure 24th, it was announced that we make sure that we have the money to pay for partners who are used to dealing in conflict situations and provide resources. >> you have a comment. >> if i might, let me address three issues really quick. first, the economic situation that you asked about, and then i would like to make two points on the political side. first, with respect to the economy, it is in a sharp downward spiral. the exchange rate, for example, has depreciated almost 50% in less than a year. it is really in the space of about seven months. it has driven prices on the local markets, for example, in damascus, where we monitor prices, food prices went up

something like 30% between december and the beginning of february. that is a very sharp rise. what it is doing in syria is really -- consumers are contracting their purchases. that is aggravating the spiral that is going down. it is one of the reasons the business community is so upset. the sanctions that we have imposed had a real impact. we have tried as best we can, senator, to target our sanctions so that they do not hurt the syrian people. we have targeted government revenues, for example, in order to make it harder for the government to pay for its repression, to pay for its military forces. but we have never tried to block supplies of, for example, heating oil or cooking gas that would go into syria. but there are terrible shortages

of these. when i went back after being in the united states, i went back in december, the stories i heard from people, the biggest problem they complain about in damascus, aside from the fear of oppression and being arrested, the next thing out of their mouths was that there is no cooking gas. there is no heating oil. and damascus is surprisingly cold in the winter. it snows. the economy is hurting. food supplies are available, but people are reducing their consumption in general because of the prices. with respect to the political side of this, two points must be made. first, the assad regime, in its darkest moments, will try to paint this as a fight against sunni arab islamic extremists. they're trying to frighten minority communities,

especially when these minority communities look at what happened in lebanon and iraq. i think it is important for americans to understand that this is not about alois vs a sunni majority. they have suffered just as much brutality as their neighbors down the road. it is important, for example, that one of the leading activists on the ground in syria -- and she is in hiding and moves around from place to place and will pop up in demonstrations -- she is a young woman aloi movie actress. she is very brave. the government has tried to arrest her many times. she is an anoli and people know this. this is about a family that happens to be aloi.

we have constantly urged in our discussions with the syrian opposition in the country and outside the country to underline to the communities in syria, whether they be christians or business people or druids -- it is a very complex social make it -- that all people in syria would be treated basicy, that all people's human rights would be respected. and it would be a syria where all different communities would be able to live in harmony. we underline that message every time we see the opposition. the opposition is divided, as you have noted. i think -- i do not think it will unify into any single organization anytime soon.

can the united around one vision? i described our vision and our suggestions. can the unite around a vision and can they unite around a transition plan? they do not have to unite into one single party. but they do need to share a vision and they do need to share a vision on the way forward. that is also what we are counseling. we're not writing their transition plan. that is not our role. syria needs to do it. but they do need to get behind a plan. >> thank you. hopefully, we can stay so we have a lot of senators and have a lot of people who have questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, can you talk to us about what measures are being taken to encourage the russians or the chinese to remove their objection to action in the security council? in that regard, as you answer

that, are you consulting with treasury on the possibility of designating and imposing sanctions under executive order 13572 on russian and chinese entities selling weapons to assad? there are a lot of media reports stating that russian state arms dealers are continuing to supply the assad regime with arms. at least for cargo ships have left a russian port for a syrian port since december this past year. they were carrying ammunition, rifles, and a host of other armaments. can you give us a sense both of what is happening at the security council to move of them in terms of security council action and are we considering

actions under the executive order considering this arms flow? >> you put your finger on a key element of any way forward in syria. i have to permit from the outset that i am not a russia expert. i would have to defer to my boss and my colleagues in the european bureau. but i want to assure you that the contact with russia at all levels of continuing -- russia has had an interest -- an interesting influence in syria for a long time. russia will not divert those interests that russia deemed to be important if it basically rides the assad moahmoud titanic all the way to the bottom of the ocean. i went out with a colleague to

moscow a couple of weeks ago to have a discussion with the russians about how we see the way forward in syria, how we see the inevitable demise of assad. i felt that there was a lot of discomfort in russia about where they are. their analysis is not all that different from ours about how unsustainable the situation is for musharraf inside syria. so far, we have been disappointed, to use stronger language, about russia's actions. even today, when the human rights council passed a resolution condemning what is happening in syria, the vote was 39-3. who were those three? china, russia, and cuba. they refused on civil rights grounds. it is time for the security

council to act. this is the type of situation in syria that deserves security council action. we are still in conversation with the security council in an attempt to persuade them that they can be part of a solution. they can use their influence inside syria and be part of the solution rather than continue to block. the question of arms that you raised is a deeply disturbing one. why are the russians to condemn foreign interference in syria being the ones, along with the iranians, to exit continue to be shipping arms from russia. they should probably have a discussion with colleagues from other agencies. >> i am happy to have that. i just want the administration to be thinking about whether we can get our russian and chinese counterparts to understand. they seem to be doubling down. at least russia seems to be doubling down.

there flow of armament almost seems to be doubling down as well as their transactions in the security council. in order for all this to have mean, it needs to be enforced. i certainly hope that, at a minimum, they would do that. because stopping the flow of armaments to assad is incredibly important. let me ask you one other question. what is the possibility of the situation devolving into a civil war? if so, what concerns you have with the political and economic implications of a syrian war on serious neighbors, specifically lebanon and jordan where they might receive thousands of syrian refugees? >> as serious flee the violence go to neighboring budget as syrians -- as syrians flee the

violence to go to neighboring countries, they are already doing that. there's already a spillover effect. it is deplorable. we salute those families in those countries who are hosting syria outside their borders as part of -- outside their borders. we try to provide assistance to those families and governments. musharraf said his people want to believe that there will not be a civil war. the propaganda machine wants to frighten people into believing that they have no option ththano

fight with him. all of us recognize that it is a risk. but it is not a question right now of aloites vs. sunnis. but it is the local mafia that has hijacked the status syria for four decades to enrich itself and protect itself against the syrian people. that is what is happening right now. >> thank you. senator rich? >> ambassador ford, first of all, thank you for your service. i applaud your statement that what our policy is and you conveyed that to the opposition and what they need to do and how they think about this. having said that, in looking at

what is happening on the ground out there, your statement about being a complex society is an understatement. i understand. you have the druids and the kurds and the sunnis and about a dozen other smaller groups. the difficulty i have is -- they do not have much of a history. our culture has trouble thinking along those lines because they are so segregated. they are not like we are where we amalgamate into one society. they are very, very segregated. they marry within their groups. they stay within their groups. they socialize and do business within their groups. saying, when assad goes, they

will all get together and do this, i am pretty pessimistic about that. i hear what you're saying. i think it is a good position to take. but from may simply pragmatic point of view, could you analyze your own analysis of it from that standpoint? >> it is a very fair question. the sad truth is that, not only in spirit, but in many region to history of rule of law and respect for human rights. that is the historical reality. what i would say is a couple of things on this. one of the things i have learned from the arab spring, which is unprecedented in my 30 years working in the region, going to when i was a peace corps volunteer,.

there is a new generation coming up, and this generation is plugged into the internet and very plugged into satellite television. they know more about how to up load different kinds of the idea is. i had never watched youtube until i went out as ambassador to syria. now i watch it every day. >> do not want to know what you watch. >> we will not go there. there is no history, but the people that are leading the protest movement, they had a vision, they have a vision, and i heard this very strongly when i went to hama and when i visited suburbs around damascus -- they want a country where people are treated with dignity

-- everybody -- treated with dignity, and that is the key word, senator, "dignity." and they have a vision of a country ruled by law. my own experience, having served in iraq, this is a very hard thing to do. time. we saw the same thing in algeria when i served there. there is change coming in values, and norms are changing because they are plugged into the rest of the planet more than they used to be, and syrians are surprisingly blunt in to the mediterranean. that was one of the things i've learned when i went out there. >> that is an interesting observation, and the question i would have is, does that spilled over to their cultural hardwiring that they have they were raised by parents in a society that protected them from

the other minorities, other sects in the country. is that breaking down at all? are they intermarrying? that would be probably the most telltale sign in that. >> in damascus, there are many mixed marriages, and in other parts of the country as well. in fact, one of the things, if we had syrians city at this table, they would say to you, senator, we have always lived together peacefully and we have never had these problems. we are not like iraq. we are different. one of the things that the political opposition needs to do, and we have told this repeatedly, they need to address the fairness directly, and not simply fall back on the argument that syrians have lived together peacefully between communities, and therefore there is a problem. there is a problem, and they

need to address it. the younger people understand that fear. in the demonstrations, every friday, where they haven't really big ones, they are frequently -- there are frequently banners that say "the syrian people are one," and what they're trying to express is no sectarian divisions, do not let the assad regime played one committee of the other, which is very much what the regime is trying to do. their signs all over damascus that the government put up saying, "belair of sectarian -- beware of sectarian strife." it is the government raising the issue in the first place. >> thank you, ambassador for, and i appreciate your optimism on the subject. i hope you are right.

>> senator cardin. >> thank you very much for your heroic service, and we watch what you were doing, and also the international community, and it was a great moment for united states leadership. we thank you for that. secretary feltman, we all read that there will be a tipping point that the assad risch team will not survive. the challenge is until that happens, the humanitarian disasters will only get worse. how many people are born to lose their lives or their lives will be changed for other -- until that tipping point is reached is a matter of grave interest up to all of us. you point out there is a growing unity in the region in the arab world, which would i think point out that our options may be stronger than we think. we may have more opportunities to try to save lives.

i am very mindful of senator lugar's cautionary notes, and we all share that, but my point is, what can we do? what can the united states do in the leadership to minimize the sufferings that are taking place and will take place until the assad regime is removed? what can we do working with international partners to provide the best opportunity for the safety of these civilian populations in syria during this time? >> senator, thank you. this is a question we're talking about all the time -- what can we do either ourselves as americans, but more importantly what can we do together with our partners in the region and beyond? what we can do together question is the more important one, because our influence in syria

is much less than the influence of some of our neighbors. the economic ties with syria before this started work limited compared to the ties between syria and europe, syria and turkey, syria and the arab world. and there is an international consensus that we need to be doing more on the humanitarian side, working with partners who have a history of working in conflict areas, that can get things in deplorable populations, working with neighbors who are posting people who have fled. there is consensus on that in the region from the world. that is an important short-term goal, getting things in, making sure where houses are stocked, supplies are pre position. there is consensus for increasing pressure forassad. we talk about sanctions already, but there is always a look at war sanctions that can be done, from those countries that have

had stronger economic times in order to deprive the regime of its income. there is a consensus we need to be working with the syrian opposition in its forms, and in tunis there was recognition that the syrian national council is a legitimate representative of the voices of this year in opposition, and we're working with that. your question hints that something beyond that, and for more aggressive action, we would need to have a larger international consensus than currently exists. one thing we are definitely working on is to see what role the security council can play, because we think it is past time for the security council to be playing a role, and that was a consensus that came out of tunis, that people in countries want to see an end to the

blockade by russia and china in the security council from taking action. >> you are right. i agree we need international unity. the security council is where we normally start that. it is not the exclusive area and not the determinative area, but ane in which it would debgive stronger footing. i would hope we would work together exploring options to be more aggressive where we can effectively in unity with the international community. you mentioned another point that i found interesting, and that is the popularity of the regime being at the low point, and i would expect that hamas recognize that when it pulled out of damascus, which represents a challenge for us, a

terrorist organization that we are concerned about their influence in that region. it looks like they are taking further steps to become more popular among the arab population in countries. can either one of you give us an update on hamas and its movement and what -- how we are going to counter their issues in its relationship not only with syria, but also with iran and other countries? >> it says something when you have a terrorist organization that has been cobbled for decades by the assad regime pulling out, saying they cannot even stand what the regime is doing. you are right, it gets to the popularity question. if you look at zogby polls, a couple years ago, there was a question posed to arabs -- who

is the most popular arab leader outside your own country's leader? bashar al assad was the most popular leader out of where their home country is trick if you look at the same polls today, it is in question, send questions -- same questions, same places, he is at the bottom of the list. that is not lost on terrorist organizations like hamas. this does not change our calculus on hamas. our demands on hamas are the quartet the nantes, which is hamas cannot be accepted in a responsible player, needs to accept the quartet conditions, renunciation of violence, acceptance of israel, and acceptance of all the agreements signed between the plo and israel. it is telling that hamas cannot

stand what bashar al assad is doing to its people, but it does not changed our caucus. >> centre rubio? >> thank you for being here, and thank you for your service. it is one here to sit here and talk about these things. it is another thing to be the target of some pretty vicious stuff. a quick question -- this is probably for you, secretary feltman, i read in a bloomberg business this week that head of the venezuelan national oil company said companies are prohibited from shipping oil to syria under current sanctions. i would like to follow up with you to see if that is the case. >> that is technically correct, they are not prohibited. it is morally wrong to provide diesel that can be used in military machines that slaughter innocent syrians. it is morally wrong, but not legally wrong.

it also is not the same as what syria had before november, the ability to export its own oil, earned its own revenues. >> that is a conversation for another day, but one of the things we can talk about is how we can introduce a third-party support. i want to focus on the u.s. national interests, and i want to pause at the story to you and see when you think about it. we looked at something in a country that for many years has been a transit point and haven for terrorists. damascus has been hot of all that. in addition to a state sponsor of terrorism as well. now the people are saying we want to get rid of the guy that runs this place, and there is internal division, and we talk about the complexities of all that. it seems to me as much as anything else this is about regime change, a change of direction for the country.

from our point of view it as a competition for future and for once, who is gone to influence the direction where syria is gone to go in the future. al qaeda sees this chaos and say we get the advantage of the chaos, and create a better place for us to operate in. the widespread sentiment cannot rule of law, they do not want to be a haven for terrorism, they wanted a normal people in a normal country. our involvement is about what influence our of view of the war, which we did is better, could be a play in that country. my guess is, having traveled to libya in the aftermath of what happened -- there are big differences between libya and syria -- one of the things i was

struck by his pro-american graffiti on walls, people walking up to us to thank us, and my point is i think it is going to be really hard five years from now -- not impossible -- for an islamist to go to one of these young guys who thought america was on the side and convince them to join some anti- american she hot -- jihad. they are really angry at the chinese, where people of syria and the the american people, senate, the people of the united states are on the side of their aspirations. we cannot decide who is in charge, we want them to be able to pursue their peaceful aspirations and want them to have a country that prospers. in the national interest of the

united states, it is critical for syrians to say america is on our side. we want no part of the strange movements that would have us join some anti-american sentiment. that is what our national interest is here in the big picture, and i wondered if you agreed with that or criticize it worse your thoughts. >> a couple comments. i cannot believe any of these countries, anybody is looking to trade one type of tyranny for another kind of tyranny. it is clear this quest of dignity means people will guard against from going against one tyrants to another type of tyranny. we have also seen that while al qaeda has tried to exploit unrest across the region, that outcry that ideology does not have any appeal for the sort of young people and protesters

across the region who are looking for dignity and opportunity. in terms of the syrian people, i will defer to my colleague, but i will give one example. when ambassador ford went to hama, the people there tossed flowers on to his limousine. he got back to damascus and the regime staged an attack against our embassy. the people of syria know exactly where robert ford stood in terms of their rights and aspirations, and robert ford represented us very ably in showing that that is what the american people stood for. >> senator, i think it is very telling that in the demonstrations every week in syria, they burned russian flags, chinese flags, they

burned hezbollah flags. that tells you what they think. frankly, from our strategic interests, that is a good thing, in that we want syria in the future to not be the elegant actor that it has been supporting terrorist groups -- not be a militant actor that it has been supporting terrorist groups. there is she a huge potential to st game for us with the changes going on in syria, but that is not why the syrians are doing that. they are doing it because they want dignity. i think it is very important for us as we go forward to keep in mind that the most important thing we can do is keep stressing over and over our support for universal human

rights being respected in syria, like other countries -- freedom of speech, freedom to marched peacefully, the right to form political parties and to have life under a rule of law, a dignified life. that is what i tried to constantly underlined during my time there, just as basic values. syrians can work out their politics, and it is going to be very hard, but if we stay on the track of respect for their human rights, we will ultimately be on the side of history here. >> thanks very much. i am next in line and i will try not to use all my time, but secretary feltman, thank you for being here today and for your ongoing public service. ambassador for, it bears repeating, we are grateful for your service in so many assignments, but especially

under the horrific circumstances you have had to face, and we are grateful you're with us today. some of us -- not being on the ground like you were, have difficulty in imagining or articulating the scale and the gravity of this violence. it is hard to even cover men -- to comprehend. i cannot imagine what it is like, and a number of us have been frankly inpatient with what washington has done or not done. and i will say both the senate and other institutions. so we are impatient. we're also frustrated. this hearing is one way to advance the development of a

body of work that can undergird another resolution. we had another resolution, which i thought was very weak, so i'm glad we're having this hearing to advance the ball. i wrote down two words about the formulation of questions, and these are words makes sense for what we're trying to do, for what i hope we can do. and thesolidarrity," other is a "commitment." we need to figure out not just the outrage, but figure out ways to in fact bring about a policy or strategy that will demonstrate that will prove in our sense the solidarity we have

with the syrian people. that is one priority. the other is commitment to a number of things come a number of priorities, but commitment to humanitarian and medical assistance. if we are going to say -- and it is a consensus position that this should not be a military engagement on this part -- if we say that, we better get the other parts right, and the other parts are humanitarian and medical assistance. my first question is for mr. feltman. i know the friends of syria meeting took place, and that was very positive, and we have a commitment $10 million to the but ies and the idp's, want to get a better sense of what was agreed to at tunis, specifically as it relates to

humanitarian assistance and what the united states can do to address this horror. if you could walk through what is definite in terms of an agreement and what would lead to action. >> senator casey, thanks. in tunis, the discussion on humanitarian issues are fell into two categories. how do we help those countries around syria that are hosting syrians who have fled this country's, and that is an easier topic. the countries themselves have been generous. there are not large-scale refugee camps. but on tuesday with relatives outside of syria, and the question is getting assistance to what camps there are, and that is a relatively straightforward proposition. the second question is a much

harder one, and it comes up internally inside the that it states government, which is access inside syria. how do you reach the normal populations inside syria? that is a much harder issues. right now the problem of humanitarian deliveries in syria is not supplies, it is not related to money, the international committee has sufficient resources, commitments. it is a question of access. yesterday you'd had the u.n. undersecretary for humanitarian coordinator who had been waiting in beirut for days, and she finally left because the syrians did not grant her a visa. bashar al assad is trying to prevent the international community from having a response. unfortunately, and today's

worldcom there are a lot of conflicts are run the war, partners where we have worked with all right so you can work andh groups, others, aid's, the office of foreign disaster assistance has a history of making work with trust the partners, but it is not easy. it goes back to senator menendez question about the russians, because this is one area where the russians have expressed a lot of concern about the humanitarian situation. we would like that to be translated into the type of pressure on the assad regime that helps ease these questions of access. >> ambassador ford? >> i like the two words, and especially now, when people in

cities like homs are under siege. holding this hearing is terrific, and i think the concerns expressed by bodies like the united states senate are especially important. i would never want syrians to think that because we closed the american embassy we are no longer interested in their efforts there to create a new syria that treats people the dignity. with respect to the commitment that jeff was talking about, i want to underline that we need to get access said that we have supplies position. we need to get access into the country, and if the russians would in deed to translate their expressed policy into actions in terms of pressure on the syrian government, we would hope that they would do that now. >> thank you very much.

my time is up now. i would submit a question for the record. >> senator corker? >> thank you, and i hope we will have multiple meetings. it looks like we are moving into a situation where military conflict will be weighed, and i cannot imagine that we are not having a hearing on iran every single week. i would think all of us would benefit from it, but we thank both of you for your testimony and for your service to our country. we had a classified briefing yesterday that could not have been more different than the one we are having today. it is really kind of fascinating, and when we talk about the opposition groups, this part is not classified, you ask, what are these guys fighting for? the word "democracy" never comes

up. you have a minority that has dominion over a sunni population, and what the sunni are fighting for is dominion over the population. this is a conflict between one group of people that has been oppressed by another group of people and their desire to change that equation. when i hear these flower restatements come i do hope especially at a faster fort, since you have been there, i hope you can educate us, because this is a night and day presentation from what we had in our intelligence community yesterday. >> senator, opposition is divided. there's no question about that. it is fractious, and there are competing visions within the

syrian opposition. there is an islamist element as contrasted to a secular elements. that is why i spoke before about the need for the opposition to unify around a vision and the need for the opposition to unify around a tradition -- a transition plan. this would be a way of attracting people who have been sitting on the fence so far to join the larger protest movement itself. i do not know what you heard in the briefing yesterday, but let me just say from direct firsthand experience, i have talk to people who organized the demonstrations, and i have had a team members from my embassy talk to them repeatedly. we got a very clear message from them, the people who organized this, senator, that they had a

vision of a state that abides by roll call and is not targeting the aloite. however, it is a complex society, and a longer the violence goes on and the government is driving this violence, perhaps intentionally with this in mind, the greater the risk that the sectarian conflict that we have seen in homs, but really has not been seen to such a degree in other cities -- homs the worst -- and it would spread and metastasized into other cities in syria. maybe give you some very concrete and zambia's -- concrete examples. the druze community is saying they should stop supporting the assasd regime and began to support the protest movement.

there have been call by leaders for druze to stop serving in the military and joined a protest military. there have been calls for the oite committee -- committee -- community -- >> what you are saying is there is no central division. there are lots of different visions, and we have deaf -- diplomatic relations, is that correct? >> yes, we do. >> and you went over there to put reforms into place, and by the way, there was a controversy over you being there. i supported you doing that. i thought that was an

intelligent thing for us to do, but we had diplomatic relations, we were working on reforms, and they have done some terrible things and are brutal and not the kind of government we want to seek pervasive around the world. the fact is that this is not exactly a democracy movement in syria right now. the people fighting are fighting for power in government. they are not fighting over the banner of democracy as was laid out by mr. feltman, at least by our intelligence community, anyway. >> senator, i have to respectfully disagree. the public statements senior figures in the frites syrian army speak about supporting -- in the free syrian

armies about supporting a democratic state. we do not know what they would do if they were in power. >> would be in power? if assad was gone, who would be leading the country there? supporting,at we're morally, at least? >> we are supporting a transition which the syrian national council has laid out in connection with a road map. -- with a road map by the arab league. i cannot give you a name. this is an important point, senator. the people who are doing the fighting say they are fighting to defend the protest movement.

so there is a link even if you cannot say that the fighters themselves claimed they are fighting for -- >> the you think it is in our national interest -- do you think it is in our national interest to be involved in military operations, farming operations, to join in with al qaeda, hamas, and others, and the folks that are on the ground, the opposition groups, to overthrow the government? >> senator, as i said, we have been supporting a plan developed by the arab states for political transition. the secretary spoke earlier this week at some of the discussions that we have had in house about how complicated this is in terms of thinking about farming people in syria and army the opposition, how complicated is

in terms of knowing who it is we're getting the arms to, and what do they represent? this gets into your question about what are they fighting for? what would they do if they're facing tanks and heavy artillery? these are extremely complex questions, and i think we are not yet at a point where we could discuss it in this kind of forum, at least. >> thank you, and i appreciate you letting out the tremendous complexities and competing forces and a lack of knowledge about what this is about, and hopefully overtime when will understand that more fully, and that.ll play it wa role in >> senator webb? >> i appreciate the opportunity to listen to you. i would like to pick up a little bit on this notion of

afterwards, which you mentioned several times today -- what exactly is the afterwards? what would it potentially be and what would it potentially not be we can look bac and -- and what it potentially would not be. repressive regimes sometimes do survive. the best example of that is the chinese government itself, when it turned its armies and tanks on its own people in cnn square -- in tiananmen square. it is still in power. another reality is in this part of the world, and both of you have an enormous repository of

experience in this part of the world, the outcomes from these types of unrest are rarely quick, clearly clean, and rarely fully predictable. i have an engineering degree, and i have looking at what has been happening over the last year over the eyes of chaos theory. chaos theory is a scientific theory. it is not political -- is a political term, but one degree off, one assumption of, you end up with a compilation of results that is far away from where you thought it might be, and perhaps the best clear example of that is lebanon itself, looking back in the 1980's and beyond. but also i think we have to say openly that we do not know what

is going to come out of the last year. we do not know how the arabs spring is going to play out. it is going to take years for it to clearly manifest itself in some sort of political apparatus in a number of these different countries. there are two questions -- i will ask them both together in the interest of time here -- that i would seek your thoughts on. the first is, there are actors in this region, government actors, that quite frankly may not be saying this openly, but might be hesitant about the complete removal of the present syrian regime, that belief a weakened to a regime might be more palatable in terms of regional instability, even security in some of these countries, then what would result from capitulation, and i

think ambassador fort, your answer to senator corker shows how the legal -- how difficult the building blocks will be to put this together. the sec is we talked a lot about russia, but i would like -- the second is we talked about a lot -- talked a lot about russia, but i would like to know what you think about china. >> you are right, we did not know how these transitions are trying to turn out, and the challenge is that our interests and how they turned out our great, but we have to be modest about how much influence we can play in helping to determine this outcomes. you have put your finger a big issue given the transitions going on in the arab world. it is not in the united states interest to see the bashar al assad regime survive.

we have talked about the moral, human rights, edible questions, but this is a regime that exported terror to iraq. >> i am not advocating that. the question was that there are countries in the region that would be making that point. >> when you talk about what happens after the arab league transition plan, the plant was designed with that -- that plan was designed with that fear of civil war in mind to pick it was designed in a way in which not assad himself, but parts of the current opposition movement together work on a pragmatic, practical transition plan that preserves the state unity, state institutions. one of the things we get repeatedly from syrian neighbors

as well as the opposition -- the army has to be preserved, and people are working on a transition plan with the idea you can preserve the state, but a state and that is no longer a malignant actor in the region to but can be a cost of actor. >> -- but can be a positive actor. >> can you be a quick thought on the situation with china? >> neither one of us are experts on china, adding serve our careers in the middle east. but china tends to follow russia on the security council in many of these cases is what my colleagues in the international organizations. tell me. china also has certain trading interests inside syria. china also has interests

elsewhere in the arab world, and there is where i think the dialogue with china needs to focus on, which is what china has to lose by losing credibility elsewhere in the arab world. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator webb. as he said, we had a vote go off at 11:31, and it is a 15-minute votes, and i have a few questions to be able to finish up here and released you and adjourn the hearing, unless we have other senators come in. there are reports that say saudi arabia and qatar may be planning to arm the rebels in syria or may have already begun to arm the rebels. in addition it has been reported that religious support for army the rebels has increase in saudi arabia. what is the position of the u.s. in regard to the possibility that saudi arabia or other countries are arming to re

bels and are we communicating about what our position is about arming the rebels, and could that lead to the empowerment of hamas and al qaeda as a result? i apologize, i was in the chair presiding over the senate. maybe this is ground you have gone over, but it could answer that, that would be great. >> senator, we have been very hesitant about pouring fuel on to a conflagration that assasd himself has set. we're cautious about this whole area of questioning, and that is what we have worked with the international consensus on political tracts, economic tracks, the kinetic -- diplomatic tracks to get to that to the point we have been talking about earlier. there is self-defense going on answer right now. we cannot criticize the right to self-defense when people are facing incredible brutality. we would like to use the political tools that are at our

disposal, and that includes the security council, in order to advance the to pinpoint, because it is not clear to us that army people right now will either save lives or lead to the demise of the passat regime. there are a lot of complicated questions. a lot of them were gone through earlier. the regime is using tanks and artillery against entire neighborhoods. when you hear as the saudis talking about the farming operations -- about army the opposition, we're not hearing about tanks. question, buts there are a lot of complications that one needs to consider. >> ambassador, if you have any thoughts on that? >> i agree exactly with what ambassador feltman said. we understand that earnest

desire, the need, for people under siege in a place like homs, when their homes are being attacked and people want to take up arms to defend themselves. it is human to protect your family. we cannot criticize that. however, senators kerry and lugar about the need to work with regional states to find a durable solution, and that is our thinking, too, and that is why we have been so strongly in support of the arab league initiative and the transition process that it laid out. if i may just add one other comment, senator, we too noticed the increase in support for

religious figures in some arab countries for taking up war arms against -- more arms against the syrian government. we have seen statements among figures across the arab world. we have cautioned the opposition that if they declare some big jihad, they will frighten many of the very fence sitters still in place like damascus, and it will make ultimately finding a solution to this, a durable solution, more difficult. but did not want to see syria go toward civil war. we want to see the violence stop immediately, and t.c. syria police can -- begin a political transition. >> -- and to see syria began a political transition. >> this whole issue of weapons of mass sharpen and what is --

of mass destruction and what is happening in syria if and when the regime falls. are we making plans about how to account for those weapons, how to ensure they do not fall at the hands of terrorist organizations? is this being discussed among the allies and those on in the region who are concerned? >> this is a topic that is being discussed actively with allies in europe and elsewhere. syria is not even a signatory of the chemical weapons convention. it is a reminder of the stabilizing role that syria has played over the years. we do not have any indication at this point that the stockpiles have fallen out of control of the government. one of the reasons they managed transition is so important

rather than a chaotic transition. we are watching this carefully. some of these are discussions that need to happen in a different setting than today. >> thank you. ambassador, you have any other thoughts on that issue? >> i would underline it is a subject of great concern to us, and we are looking at what needs to be done, but let me assure you, senator, we have a lot of people working on it. >> i know you do, and when i get home to mexico, a lot of people realize there is a lot concern about the brutal massacre of the syrian people by its government, when it started out as a peaceful protest and then evolved into what we're seeing today. all of us on the committee very much appreciate senator kerry holding the hearing. we appreciate both of you being here today, and we're going to

keep the record open until the end of the week. there may be additional submissions, and you may or may not get additional questions as indicated earlier. thank you very much for your service, and with no additional questioners here, we would adjourn the hearing. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tonight president obama holds the 100 fundraiser of this election campaign. he has four new york city events this evening.

we'll have live coverage at 8:20 eastern on c-span. by 51-48 vote today, the senate voted to block legislation that would have allowed employer- sponsored health plans to deny birth control coverage. republicans said that measure was necessary to prevent institutions to pay for cover its they oppose. earlier today, shaun donovan said the federal housing and initiation would be able to meet funding requirements. the fund which had been depleted by that housing crisis would be increased by moneys from the recent settlement with big banks on whole mortgage lending practices. the 2013 budget plan calls for $44.8 billion in spending. this meeting lasts about an

hour. >> the 2013 budget request for the department of housing and urban development. there are encouraging signs that our economy is moving now in the right direction. although we are not moving quickly enough for families that are still struggling, the private sector has been adding jobs for two years, businesses are growing, and confidence is up. we have stepped back from the press bus, which is good news for the housing market, which depends on a strong economy to recover and thrive. despite the positive signs, we see significant challenges . the recent settlement that was announced is an important step. it holds banks accountable and provides relief to homeowners. the settlement also paves the

way for banks to proceed with foreclosures that installed in the pipeline. while it is important to reduce the excess inventory of distressed housing, increased sales of these properties at reduced prices may further depress home values. climbing back from the housing crash will not be easy, and i'm interested in hearing your views on how we can increase the stability of the market. the depressed market has taken its toll on fha. is made clear in the president's budget. for the first time fha may require federal covet -- funding to cover its losses. i've been concerned about the solvencies of the fha fund he. many of the problems facing fha are related to older books of business in short at the height of the housing boom.

it will be important to recover or prevent excessive losses from older ones. i am pleased the recent market sentiment includes money for fha and other sediments will also -- settlements will provide money to cover losses related to improper mortgage originations. these should help avoid the need for taxpayer funding, and i hope he will look for opportunities to recoup losses from fraudulent or poorly underwritten loans. additional changes to fha premiums contained in the budget represent your continued efforts to improve the solvencies of the fund and protect the taxpayer from having to cover its losses straight beyond fha, we will examine other parts of the request, which is to support hud's program straight this represents over a 3% increase.

83 percent of the budget is dedicated to providing housing to the nation's most vulnerable. as we continue to live under the caps of the budget control act, this presents us with difficult choices. last year we worked very hard to protect core rental assistance programs, but that also involved cuts in other programs. cuts are being widely -- today. cities are laying off workers or delaying investments in their communities. this budget faces many of the same challenges we dealt with last year. how do you craft a budget that protect low income residents

and give hide the tools it needs to manage its programs? while the illustration budget trieds -- while the administration budget crisis redress this, i'm concerned about proposals. i have seen this policy before. i'm concerned we will not have the resources when the bill becomes due. in the rental assistance account i am concerned the funding level requested to renew vouchers is flat. despite anticipated inflation, the budget also relies on savings from a number of policy changes which are not without controversy. as we make difficult choices in this budget, i want to make

sure we make decisions with an understanding of their consequences and an eye toward the future. there are bright spots in this budget. the clerk -- the request seeks $75 billion for new vouchers which has helped reduce homelessness in veterans. the administration has worked hard to develop a plan to end homelessness, and i'm glad a request for this program reflects a continued commitment to that plan. oversight of these programs becomes even more important. i look forward to work with the department and my colleagues to find ways to improve hud's programs. i would like to recognize the new inspector general of hud, and i look forward to working with him to help protect taxpayer dollars. fiscal year 2013 budget request

difficult choices to be made. as i work with colleagues to put together this bill i will be mindful of the millions of americans who rely on hud's programs for a place to sleep each night. mr. secretary, i look forward our discussion and working with you to develop a 2013 budget, and i appreciate everyone accommodating us and of the disappearing up her how.- -- up. with that, let me turn it over to my colleague, senator collins. >> take you very much, chairman murray. that we say how much i enjoyed working with you last year as the crafted this important bill. we did so in a truly bipartisan fashion. we share a lot of the same priorities, and it was a great pleasure to work with secretary

sullivan, and i appreciate his being here today -- with secretary donovan, and i appreciate his being here today. to construct the 2013 budget, we are mindful that we are once again operating under very difficult fiscal constraints. that is even more challenging when one considers that more than 80 cents out of every dollar of the budget request is required just to continue serving those who currently rely on hud for housing support. adjusting the challenge of homelessness remains the top priority of mine. sherman murray and i continue to share this commitment -- chairman murray and i continue

to share this commitment, and we worked hard last year to preserve funding for the hud program. unfortunately, the veterans are 50% more likely to fall into homelessness compared to other americans. i am pleased that the budget request that continues funding for the hud program at $75 million. this level of funding should help us serve and an additional 10,000 veterans who otherwise would likely be homeless. veterans' homelessness fell by nearly 12% in the year 2010, demonstrating that these programs work. i also have always supported i also have always supported funding for the