reported is inaccurate. he suggests there has only been 70,000 jobs -- there have been over 83 sap -- 83,000 jobs in just pennsylvania alone. the world economic forum said that 9% of all the jobs created in the u.s. during this time were all oil and natural gas jobs. if you look at the facts, the data, we are responsible for over 9.2 million american jobs. that is how many we support in our industry. economic analysis shows we can create another million jobs in just the oil and natural gas industry in the next seven years if we were given the opportunity to produce our own domestic energy for all americans. while i appreciate his views of the world, frankly, they are wrong. i am a little surprised at the simplistic analysis of that has nothing to do with reality or what the facts are. host: next call with jack

gerard. bill, you are on. caller: good morning. i am enjoying the conversation so far. my friends in the oil industry tell me that they are drilling everywhere they want to. the reason they do not any more is because the cost is up so high. also, when you talk about the environmental factors, you come down here in texas and you see where they build a -- build their oil pits in the filmeld and then sand runs down the creeks. there is a lot of environmental damage. and the other thing i wanted to say was this pipeline from oklahoma to the gulf coast, there is no guarantee that is going to stay in the u.s. the same with the keystone pipeline. you talk to people in the industry and they want to be able to recover the difference between wti and brent crude.

if they can make an extra $10 a barrel by shedding the step out of there, that is where it will go. -- shipping this stuff out of there, that is where it will go. host: when people talk about the oklahoma pipeline, it is the southern pipeline of the keystone? guest: that was going to be one portion of the keystone xl pipeline. coming from canada down to the heartland of the country, to oklahoma, where we have great storage facilities and we move that to down houston removed -- we move that down to a houston. the house -- pipeline was supposed to be keystone. let me mention the idea is interesting that the president -- let me mention it is interesting that the president has little if nothing to do with that piece of the pipeline. the real presidential decision before him surrounding the keystone xl pipeline was to

determine that is in the public's best interest to allow us to cross the canadian border and bring that crude oil into the u.s. unfortunately, the keystone xl pipeline was studied environmental analysis for over 3.5 years and the president's on state department determined by tea would have been limited environmental impact and therefore i too should have been in the public interest. -- it should have been in the public interest. we are in the shape we're in today, having lost 20,000 jobs that could have been created just on the construction of that pipeline. we think it is very unfortunate we keep encouraging the administration to allow us to build that pipeline to benefit all americans. host: he also mentioned the sand in the oil production and the environmental impact. guest: i do not know what he is talking about there.

the environmental regulation in the oil and gas is very high. secretary salazar has mentioned a couple of times that we are a highly regulated industry. provisions relating to the clean water and clean air act book on state and federal levels that are applicable to the oil and natural gas industry puts significant regulations around us to make sure we do not hurt the environment and we protect our people. i would have to look at the specific circumstance he is talking about. that is not the general practice. host: next call for jack gerard is from columbus, ohio. you are on. caller: thank you. i have a question for jack. is there is oil found on an indian reservation, what is your opinion or what is the government's policy on that? fort knox and oil came from indian land. what is the policy on keeping that because it does not make it

viirs? -- theirs? guest: relationship between the indian lands and the federal law. currently, we are working with a number of the tribes. we work with them to allow for production of their oil and gas and then there is a responsibility between the government and those indian lands or lands held in trust for them. i am not an expert in an area of the law, but i will tell you there are vast resources in those areas. the lands across the country -- just as there is the private and state, but we focus on the federal land area. that is what has -- the president put 87% of the shelf off limit. leases are being sold on federal lands onshore in the rocky

mountain states and many of our western states, those are down over 44% since the president took office. clearly, the president's policies are impacting the amount of supply we can bring into the marketplace. once again, going back to the conversation about the price of gasoline, that is what most impact price, bringing that oil to the marketplace. host: e-mail -- please ask your guest if you were given carte blanche to do everything to our lead with no regard to pollution, how soon would we get our $2.50 a guess? guest: we would never ask for carte blanche. we are highly regulated. we have a responsibility to the public to produce this safely while protecting the people. if you look at the history, when president obama took office, price of gasoline was about $1.89. today, it is pushing for dollars

and around the country, he is well over $4. -- it is well over $4. the more we bring to the marketplace -- the marketplace, the better we will be. some studies say that we can bring more oil on line, but we have to have a thoughtful policy. we have to decide, looking down that road, we are tired of high prices at the pump. we want to bring that down, put a policy together that allows us to develop our own resources. there is one key fact we should not overlook. in the middle of july, last time prices cut to about $4, president bush made public announcement and he said, i am going to lift the moratorium on the other continental shelf. over the course of two days, the price of crude oil dropped over $16 a barrel. a very significant decline. that was it merely because the president stood up and said, we will get serious about our

energy policy. he sent a signal to the marketplace, help is on the way. it had an impact. we think the president today ought to do the same thing. he ought to send a signal to the marketplace. we can produce our own resources, we have to get serious about it so we do not rely on other sources and the middle east. host: jack gerard came to washington in 1981. he has a law degree from washington university. he spent a decade on capitol hill including time with senator jim kaur, who was the chairman of the senate energy and national research committee. search ral resou committee. we have 10 more minutes left. e-mail -- it would seem something is peculiar when oil companies are making record

profits quarter after quarter. >> let me answer that. -- guest: let me answer that. per dollar of sales, the oil companies make less than what the average return is for all their standard import and up churl companies. -- import industrial companies. profits are much because the companies are large. the reason they are large as when you look at the operations on a global basis, we by and large compete with national oil companies or other governments around the world. the government in the middle east, russia , venezuela, places like that. the other aspect we should not forget is who owns the oil and natural gas industry. 98% of all shares of the oil and natural gas industry are owned by pension plans, for a 1 k plans, individual investments. we are talking about moms and pops, school teachers, firefighters and they get

impacted if you take earnings from the oil and gas industry that go through to them as part of their pension plans for their 401ks. we should not forget about who owns the earnings because it is a misconception to believe they ought are owned by management, which owns less than 2%. it is the people in investors who own the industry. when we are looking at a profit question, i know is in favor of politicians to blame the industry for what goes on in society but that is not true. when you look through that, you see the real impact. the last thing we want to do is impact those individuals that are playing for their future, try to put their children through school and plan for their retirement. that is the impact of good earnings in the oil and gas industry. it benefits of those people who own the industry. host: ohio, hello. caller: i have been looking at

my own personal use, which i think we should all do, look look at our own uses and then our reliance on foreign countries. you agreed with the previous e- mailer that profits are up and production is up even though obama has restricted drilling on federal lands but there's been an increase on state lands because of the governors. production is up as a consequence of that. if production is up, where prices up? a couple of weeks ago on the msnbc program they had two experts on and they said that speculators are banking on iran being shut down. they're protected will be shut down or affected, which drives

prices up. senator brown of ohio has talked recently about hammering hard on speculators. could you address that? guest: absolutely. great question. markets are driven by expectations. the markets today are being impacted by what we see going on in the middle east and particularly in iran, the threats in the strait of hormuz. as well as the growing demand of a global basis in places like china and india. those who are investing in oil and buying natural gas are looking at those factors to say what will the future price be? that is why many of those variables that influence the price of crude oil on a world basis, we have little control over. we cannot control what a meningitis when to do in the middle east on any given day. -- we are not going to be able to control what anyone will do in the middle east on any given day. we are frustrated with the

president to attack policy because those areas of federal land that the president has direct control over has restricted access. our production of oil and natural gas in those areas is down. but for what is going on on the private lands in our state lands, our production and would be down over all. it is up on private lands and state lands where the president has no involvement. he has no control. that is why i say it is misleading when the president says our production in the u.s. today is up over the past eight years. it is, mr. president, but only because governors and private individuals have invested and allow the development of their resources to push that production up. when you look at the expectation of what was to go on in the gulf of mexico, which is controlled by the president, we are off 30% from what was expected to be when the president first took office. that is hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. my simple point to your broader

question -- the one variable we can influence is what supply we bring to the marketplace. we call on the president to take matters into our own hands, to quit worrying about the other variables around the world, though they are important and will have an influence on that price. to say, what can we do now? there may not be a silver bullet that addresses it today, right here right now, but we do have a lot of silver bullets that we can bring to bear to improve the strength of our own arsenal. we are standing on it in the u.s. if the president would take action and allow the production to come to market place, it would put downward pressure on prices. host: last call is from denver. your honor. caller: -- host: tony? as we close out, one other issue

i wanted to talk about was the budget debate -- sequestration and the pressure for more revenue. tax breaks for oil companies have been one of those highly debated in washington. guest: this particular case, it is another misleading factor that is thrown out by the president. what he has proposed is an increase in taxation on the oil and gas industry by close to $86 billion over 10 years. why would you want to increase the cost of energy production at the very time we need to produce more energy, not less? more importantly, the oil and natural gas industry receives no subsidies from the federal government. none. nothing at all. even though the president would like to suggest we do. the president is talking about in changes to the tax code are standard business deductions that are received by many other industries. he suggested we discriminate against the oil and natural gas industry and we deny them the

basic costs of doing business, the cost of recovery for investments, capital projects, and others. all the other industries enjoy those. we think that is bad tax policy. it is bad public policy. the congressional research service, which advises the congress, said if the president were successful in achieving the reduction -- the increase of $86 billion in taxes on the oil and gas industry, it would put upward pressures on the price of gasoline. any time we're trying to bring the price of gasoline down, the worst thing we could do right now is increase the cost of energy production. this would be just because the president would like to penalize the industry. this is unfair. it should not happen. once again, it and >> all of those individuals -- it impacts all of those industries who owned the oil and gas industry. host: you have made the case

for solutions. with regard to home prices, what can americans expect? guest: gas prices? we do not predict those. the broader economic situation and the impact it will have on prices at -- some experts suggest the price will continue to rise for a while until early spring or middle of the summer and then began to tailor off. we call on the president to believe the best thing we can do right now is send a signal to the marketplace that help is on the way. the we are going to listing -- we are going to lift the impositions, put our people back to work, generate billions of dollars because of the economic activity, and make us more energy to your -- secure. host: jack gerard, thank you. our final topic -- there is a farm bill in the day. there is also a lot of discussion about agriculture

subsidies in the sequestration process. a recession is when to look at the state of american farming. how many farms to we have? what is the trend? how much do they produce? we will be right back. >> if there is anything that concerns the american family today, it is this retake our government has not caught up with american family life. families have changed, so why

cannot washington? moms are working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working, part-time, full-time, all the time. keeping the family together. making ends meet. making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care. too often they cannot get that. barbara mikulski will become the -- >> barbara mikulski will become the longest serving female member in history. she will surpass beckham current -- surpass the current record. watch her speeches from the senate floor and other c-span appearances all archived in searchable online at the c-span video library. >> our system is fundamentally undemocratic. one of the ways is closed

primaries. when half the states in the country, 40% cannot produce a bit in the primaries. they have no say in who gets nominated. and as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> saturday night at 10:00, the swing votes are independent voters and they decide every election since world war two. -- world war ii al. also, a talk about fox news. on sunday night, the thoughts about the current state of politics in ameritopia. "book tv every weekend on c- span2. >> i was radical as a young person.

i thought we should over come, that was not an effective way of gaining civil-rights. i thought that more confrontation was needed. >> walter williams on being a radical. >> i believe that a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. i always been a person who believes that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing without a -- so long as i did not violate the rights of other people. >> more sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span "'s q&a." -- said -- c-span2's "q&a." >> we are looking at the state of american farming.

let me introduce you to our two guest. hubert hamer is at the u.s. department of agriculture where he is theat or do? guest: we look at the numbers. 500 different agricultural reports per year. we look at accuracy and have a national review to make sure those numbers that come out are accurate and ready for public use. host: who guest: uses: producers, -- who uses them? guest: farmers, ranchers, everyone involved in agriculture. host: our other guest is jerry hagstrom -- he has been covering american farming. he is a columnist on this subject and also has his own newsletter on this. he is the founder and the executive editor. thank you for being here. would you tell people about the state of debate on agriculture policy? guest: the senate agriculture

committee just yesterday held its last hearing on the farm bill. they will go into negotiations and hope to have a markup session within a few weeks. they want to put a bill before the senate. and what they have to do is work out a new policy, spending less money, and getting rid of the direct payments that the crop producers have been giving for the last 15 years. then, we will see if it goes to the senate floor. then there will be another set in the house. host: to understand the reason they are getting rid of the subsidy payments for commodities is because of the budget debate in sequestration process? guest: 30 the factors driving it. these direct payments that were put in -- there are two factors driving it. these direct payments were put in at a time when the government was going to get out of

agriculture. of course, agriculture always goes up and downs of the government has not gotten out of agriculture. those payments have continued. now that prices are very high, they are very unpopular with the public. the decision has been made to get rid of those payments. that is about $5 billion per year. at the same time, there is pressure on every committee in congress to cut spending. in agriculture, that is also true. there is pretty much in agreement that agriculture will be cut by at least $23 billion over 10 years. host: the total number they are working with is? guest: it is hard to tell. host: moving target? [laughter] guest: it depends on what you include. between $100.-1863462912 dollars. -- between $100,000,000,000.- 1866514670 dollars. $100 billion and

$200 billion. host: the numbers are on the screen. you can e-mail us or send us a tweet. let us start with a look at what has happened to the number of farms in the u.s. over the past 10 years. looks like overall, after a dip in the mid part of last year, it is fairly safe. guest: we started trending down from 2000 to 2006 and then moving into 2007 from a year that we conducted a census of agriculture, we saw a bump in farm numbers. that was a cause we have included horse farms of -- that is because we have included horse farms. there is a change that included

short rotation cops and maple syrup. those forms for mcginn. those operations were moved into an agriculture. host: the accounting change, not the overall number of forms? guest: a little bit. we made an effort for the 2007 census of agriculture to work with community-based organizations to make sure that all of the smaller minority producers were included. we wanted to make sure we had a very inclusive census of agriculture that reflects all segments. host: this is a long-term picture. this is very different than the stability all over the past 10 years. i dealers said the number of farms and the u.s. from 1960 when the numbers were 4 million to 2011, 2.1 million. significant guest: changes happened during that decade. we had a strong migration to urban areas. a number of the farms were merged. we had a lot of highway construction during that time.

we had some very hectic things happening in agriculture. we also saw a significant increase in the size of farms during that 10-year span. host: what has, jerry hagstrom, been driving this structure of american arms? guest: one of the big drivers would be technological efficiency. farm equipment gets bigger and it is easier to produce more with a bigger tractors, the bigger harvesting equipment. people operate on bigger acreage is. also, the margins for farming are always low. as people retire, the number of farmers decrease. the number of acres does not vary that much. it goes down some because of the conversion of land for other uses, but that is a big factor.

host: is there a connection between subsidies and a number of guest: farms that is a subject of the -- the number of forms? guest: that is a subject of debate. the number in the 1930's was much larger and there are critics of farm policy to say that the bigger farmers to get more subsidies use that money to build bigger operations, either buying more land or being able to buy bigger equipment. host: the next slide looks at the size and scale of farms. what are we looking at? host: if you put a -- guest: their teeth of stories you want to look at. you have a lot of small operations -- derick two stories you want to look at. you have a lot of small operations. 84% of the farms only produce 7% of the sales. the operations from 100,000 to

500,000 and above, you have 16% of the arms that produce 93% of the value of sales. quite a story. host: that helps highlight what you were saying about the trends. there's been a barbell effect. are more and more small farmers rising up? is that a fair observation? guest: yes. there are a lot of people who live too far. farming is something people love to do. -- there are a lot of people who love to form. farming is something people love to do. people do it after they retire. they contribute to part of the production. if you look at those numbers in the middle, you have had the declines in what we used to think of as the middle-sized farms because it is harder to make a living that way.

also, part of the reason that you have more of these big producers is the value of the crops are elevated. host: this blue line right here, these are farmers who produce $10,000 of -- 10,000 or less annually? only 0.8% of the sales. guest: i see is more of a lifestyle choice. people will retire -- it is more of lifestyle to his. people will retire in they have capital. -- and they have capital. this is part of a lifestyle they have chosen. host: you cannot live on $10,000 or less. that is supplementing other income. let us take some callers into the conversation. we begin with barbara in washington. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm calling to mix the last

speaker. my family has an 80-acre farm in nebraska. we are only about 50 miles away from the proposed xlv pipeline. that is worrying us sick. i was wondering if your organization is taking a stand on that or if they do ruin the out refer, -- aquifer, where will we purchase our water? will it be more expensive than oil? host: is the department of agriculture advising on the impact of the keystone xl pipeline debate? guest: our role is to provide the basic statistical informations about agriculture. for the policy makers to have this information to make informed decisions. host: no?

you have been covering it, i am sure. guest: i have been coming to a degree. the administration has taken a position that they have to do another assessment of this pipeline. as in agriculture reporter, i would say that i am very surprised at the increasing conflict in rural america over energy and agriculture. in the past, people have then in favor of both kinds of development, but i am seeing more and more situations where there is conflict over whether the energy development is good or bad. host: next call is from minneapolis. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of comments -- i farm large, and but with no help. my sons help a little bit.

we never asked for these programs, like a crop insurance? that was for the insurance companies. we do not need that. we have contracts and all of this stuff that is just nonsense. if you want to get the gas price down, come out and -- the president can say that we need to put ethanol into the gasoline. host: what do you farm? caller: corn and beans. 1,200 acres each. we have been here 170 years. i spend thousands on conservation practices. host: can you give us a sense of what your gross revenues are? caller: expenses are $500,000. the last few years, we have been doing good because we have contracted.

we are doing great. host: thank you so much. appreciate your call. we will look at corn production over all. he talks about ethanol as one way to improve profit. guest: yes, i would say ethanol has improved profits for farmers. but in terms of his statement that the farmers never asked for crop insurance or these other subsidy programs, i would have to say that i and do not find that to be the case. if you have been at the senate agriculture committee, you have heard it went to former saying that crop insurance is the most important tool. -- he would have -- you would ever heard a lot of farmers in the crop insurance is the most important to a. host: this is only -- this is a

charge. it is the total land in the u.s. and for protection. look at how those numbers are going down. what is happening? guest: we have seen a fairly steady decline until you move down to 2007 and beyond where we have seen a stabilization of those numbers. content to 970 million acres for this past year. -- down to 500 million acres for the past year. that is a very large percentage of the acreage of the u.s., 40% of the total acres involved in the u.s. we have seen the larger producers of $500,000 of sales or more, those operations have continued to grow larger. but, there is a strong competition out there for agricultural land right now. we have seen a stabilization of those numbers right now. host: since then economic crisis

and the recapturing of farm land for housing development -- guest: when you see the amount of land that is staying in farming, i would say the crisis in 2008 and continuing problems in the housing market are the reason for that. those of us who are watching agriculture are wondering now what is going to happen as the economy improves -- will more land taken out of production? there is a movement around the country to keep land in farming, to lose -- use the powers of government to try to keep land in protection as opposed to have it converted to residential or industrial use. host: next is michigan. john on the farm line. caller: good morning. our family here in detroit and texas, we own a small farm.

it is west of minneapolis. it is in minnesota. it is 160 acres. the operator has been there for 25 years. he has been operating that way and in raising soybean and corn. soybean andfreezing soybearaisg corn. as a seller, i have talked to the senator's office and i have talked to an attorney and to an appraiser and other people in that note and i have heard the word bubble. in terms of the value of farmland. i know that warren buffett last year on cnbc said he would all rather own all of the farm land than gold.

made clearwas wa that way it is valuable. at the line of people waiting to purchase it is going to decrease. do you have comments about that? host: before you answer, i have a question on statistics. we look at the amount of farmland. does the department of agriculture keep the trend line of average valuation of farmland so we can see what is happening? guest: we have an annual report on the value of cropland and all other land in agriculture. we estimate a steady increase in the prices. host: even since 2008? guest: yes. guest: speaking of 2008, one of the incredible things about agriculture has been that while the rest of the economy has been in terrible trouble, agriculture has been doing well. that is because of the continued demand from china and india and indonesia and other asian countries for food.

compared with times in the past, it looks left side there is a bubble this time. the land, as far as the experts can tell, is valued at this point. host: the next call is from new york. good morning. caller: i am what you call a boutique farm. there is no help with the texas or implements and seed and stuff for the small boutique farmer. they say you do not making up for producing up. we cannot even sell our product -- making up for producing enough. we cannot even sell our product on the roadside because they can but it cheaper because it was raised overseas or by a big farm. but we can i get the right off for tractors -- we cannot get

the right off for tractors. host: what is your product? guest: everything. potatoes, corn are my biggest crop. host: why do you stay in this business? guest: i love it. i have done it for over 30 years. host: thank you for your call. guest: the obama administration has something called the know your former know your food initiative. they have been helping farmers during courage farmers markets. he is right. in terms of the taxes and things like that, i am afraid those are just the cost of doing business. host: we have had some farmers from new york and minnesota. this is a u.s. map and a dark reddish areas tell us what? guest: the areas where you have

significant agricultural production. the upper-midwest, the heartland areas of the u.s. are the very heavy livestock and grain producing areas that really show important in agriculture. if you look out west in california, fruit and vegetable production are very important. if you look down in florida, we have the citrus production. those areas really show where the dollars are in agriculture. the median size for each producer in the u.s. is only $29,117. these are the areas that really show agriculture. host: this goes all the way back to 2007. has it changed a lot? guest: this is from the census of agriculture and those data are still pretty accurate today if you lay a map on top of it. host: if we have looked 50 years

ago? guest: if you look 50 years ago, you'd see major corn production in the midwest, livestock production for hogs. fruit and vegetable production in california, largest state to produce agriculture. host: our next call is from connecticut. hello frank. caller: part of the problem is that most of this has gotten way too large. that is why we have all of the salmonella outbreaks and all this other baloney that is happening with our food and now we hear about the pig slime that someone allowed to be processed and sold. i have a friend that owns a slaughterhouse. a small family operation that has been in business for over 50 years. every time you turn around, and

for a while they were fda inspected, but they are no longer. these people did not want to work to begin with and secondly, one time, they had a hog and to be slaughtered and this guy who was supposedly a meat inspector says, you have to put that in the isolation tank because you cannot kill it. it has an abscess on its rear end. that was a bore. he didn't even know what they were slaughtering. if you go to tyson, they have won our two people watching 10,000 people work. not fair. host: thank you. guest: i do not believe the number of meat inspectors have declined. really, meat inspection is very well done in the country. there are lots of problems -- these problems have to do with the non-meat products because the food and drug administration

never has the resources it needs to inspect seafood and fruits and vegetables on his regular a basis as it should. host: here is a chart that looks at the top crops in the u.s. their cattle, corn, poultry, soybeans, milk. what else should we know about guest:: this is 20 -- what else should we know about this? guest: this is 2010 data. one thing you might mention or notice, though less graphic talked about the most important states. california sticks out with great sand. . texas with cattle. iowa with cord. -- corn. this shows the diversity of agriculture and a wide spectrum that is available for producers out there to be involved. host: if we were to look at

federal process programs, with a matched the largest areas of production? guest: no. most of the subsidies go to crop farmers. that is corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, etc. the other kinds of products get different times of help. -- types of help. with the cattle and the meat, the government pays for meat inspection. with a freeze and vegetables, they are getting more help than in the past. there is a lot of research being done that promotes these products. we have more programs to purchase them for children in the public schools. host: we have a special line set up for farmers. our other lines are divided east/west. we're talking about american agriculture. it is on our table every morning. it is an important product in the u.s. and an import and

export for our economy. we would like to hear your questions and comments, particularly those from farmers. but we have about 15 minutes left. next is from texas. you are on the air. caller: yes, thank you. right now live in a place where poultry farms -- these companies are going to contract farms. we have seven company farms left. we have about a contract farms that are up for sale that nobody wants to buy. it -- we have to update if we buy it. everything is too expensive for one person to do on their own. what are they going to do to help to try to help contract farmers out to be able to make

host: : how long has your family in farming? caller: i work for a company. i have been their two years. right now, we are on the verge of other -- of selling them all off. companies do not want to bother with them because they say it is too expensive. host: thank you. guest: the poultry business has been troubled in the last couple of years, partly by increased competition from brazil and increase feed costs. the -- russia wants to develop its own industry. there is a problem at the top level. the issue of contract farming and poultry is one of the most difficult in american agriculture. there are constant complaints that the contractors are not treated properly. the obama administration has attempted to rewrite the rules surrounding the regulation and the antitrust issues with this business.

they did some work, but there was also a lot of push back from the meat industry on this rule. host: next is alabama. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. i have wondered two questions. a woman called in earlier about the pipeline going across nebraska and was worried about the water. my question is, how much water does it take to make ethanol? how much energy is used to make ethanol? there is a man earlier who said he would like to see ethanol go to 20%. are we wasting more money making the ethanol then what the ethanol is worth in our cars? guest: what the debate. [laughter] i quote the two sides.

i cannot come to the conclusion about this. the critics of ethanol, who often include the people who would rather usethe corn for feed or rather there be more pure gasoline, they say the use of water is too high. other people defend it. i cannot reach any conclusion on that this morning. host: here is a tweet -- are you able to capture this for people who grow their own food? guest: they have to sell $1,000 worth of agriculture products. home consumption is not part of this. host: do you know if there is a

trend? guest: there is. part of its has been modified -- motivated by a michelle obama's white house kitchen garden. the sales of garden seeds have gone up in this era. when misses obama plant a garden, she was already sitting in with a trend that had started. she is definitely right. one of the strange things now is that we are also seeing more and more people who want to raise animals in the backyard. i have not figured out how these people are going to slaughter these animals or how these barnyards smells will go over in the urban areas, but is the latest trend. host: this is a caller named joe. hi. you are on. caller: i wanted to comment on a question about warren buffett saying he would rather have land of them gold. concerning that smell out there

where they cut the water off to the farmers to run them off their lands, that would the prime solar panel plans -- land. would there be any correction in the epa? -- corruption in the epa? guest: i do not know anything about that. i would say that i do not think the solar industry is profitable enough for there to be a lot of kick back. host: we have a chart here that looks at the u.s. cattle inventory. this is over 1952 to current times. guest: what is: that is an interesting -- what is happening? guest: we are at a 50-year low. 91 million heads of cattle. these peaks and valleys on the

charts demonstrate the cattle cycle. generally, looking across 1950 and above, we had tenure cattle cycles where it took about 10 years for the cattle to peak. if you move over to the right side of the raft and go down to cattle cycles that peak at about five years and then it takes three years to get to the bottom of that cycle, we have had a lot of reasons and factors that really have encouraged some producers to sell their cattle. the peaks are lower now but the cattle prices are very strong. some of the operations have decided to liquidate their herds. host: these numbers carry into current time and we have seen those terrific -- horrific droughts in texas. are those numbers reflected in guest: this yes. -- are those numbers reflected

in days? guest: corn prices are very high. more input cost for the cattle producers so that is really spurring this trend. host: people are eating less beef? guest: i do not know how much debt is affected by this, but people are eating less beef. they are becoming more diet conscious. host: is that an international or domestic trent? guest: i would bet that consumption is growing. i would say would be a trend in the developed countries. host: why do i need to know about this slide? march 30, prospective planting report. farmers are waiting for this. guest: this is an important report that is coming out on march 30. first i would like to think the farmers and ranchers corporate dissipating in this survey. we are going to contact over 85,000 producers.

this is the first look at crop prospects for the next year. the industry will have a chance to look at what the grain supplies are for the coming year, implications on price and the like. this information is very important. we will collect information on crops like corn, soybeans, wheat. we will also have grain stocks at this report. it is a very significant report and a first look at the coming year's profits. host: facebook -- someone said farmers have their own version of march madness. i t was a great play on the march madness in the rest of the country. guest: that is true. i would like to make gay point that other than the food inspections, i think that this

collection of data, which includes the u.s. as well as from other countries, is probably the most important work that usda does. the statistics are the gold standard worldwide for what is going on with agriculture supply and demand. host: i would like to go through these commodities, if we could. this is prospective plantings and final corn a critz from the last decade. corn is up. soybeans dipped in 2006, but now they up. what is happening to week -- wheat? guest: the shows the difference between forecasting and what is actually planted. last year, we had floods in the midwest. producers in north dakota and those areas were not able to get theirwheat in, -- wheat in.

weather and price of the determining factors. the weather was the big story last year. host: what is the cost -- cause and effect for consumers when wheat goes down? guest: if it goes up, the price of flour goes up. the price of bread, one of the most basic of foods, those up, as well. host: bushels per acre, crop yields. 1936 year present time for the three commodities. corn is the blue one. lookit that catastrophic -- huge rise. soybeans and wheat rising, but more consistently. is this another subsidy? guest: no. with the corn yield going up, that is the result of agriculture research.

basic research on corn improvements and also the biotechnology. born -- corn has skyrocketed in terms of the number of bushels per acre. host: this is an efficiency graph here. we're looking at how much an acre of land produces. guest: that is right. we have had an increase in the plant population and genetic engineering. that is the technology and research behind car production. host: are there not efforts going on for soybeans and wheat? guest: there are, but you have seen more than incremental increase in yields. you have seen yields in all of the commodities increase, but corn and is the leader. host: that is a good number, rather than the word catastrophic, which is what i said before. let us go to illinois. steve is a farmer. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span.

i appreciate you. host: thank you for watching. caller: i am enjoying the show. thank goodness for small family farms. that is what built this country. and gave us a platform to all of the industrial revolution. we need to step paving over the family farms and turning them into subdivisions. i hate to think if we cannot produce our own crops and export them, i hate to think what happened. her family farmers do not want -- family farms do not want governments to intervene. this came under a democratic president despite all the critics on the other side. host: thank you. we are going to take a call from another farmer in missouri.

you are on. good morning. caller: good morning. unforced c-span. -- thank you for c-span. the federal government picks winners and losers. we raun cattle. we are involved in a family farm in iowa. when you have a government that, that these guys get subsidies and these people do not, then you are picking winners and losers similar to solyndra. why? guest: well, first of all, if you are going to compare the meat industry and the corn and soybean producers, it would be true that corn and soybean producers have gotten subsidies while the meat industry has not. although, for many years, there were laws that kept a lot of imports out of the u.s. that is not true today. with the subsidies, the meat producers have benefited because

they have had a stable and fair cheap cost of feeding. host: the next charge looks -- the next charts look at who is forming. the number of women is up? guest: yes. there is a dramatic increase from 1978 through the 2007 census of agriculture where we are picking women farmers at that's about 14% of the total. host: the age of farmers? is farmers? guest: it has declined, peaking at 57 years of age during the 2007 census of agriculture. between 2002 and 2007, the producers that are 70 years or older increased by 20%. host: young people not staying in the business?

guest: i'm not sure. it's true that the age of the principal operator going up, but it does not count sons or daughters that might be working on the farm. host: what is happening with ethnicity and gender in farming? guest: we have reached out to work with community organizations to make sure we include more ethnic groups. all of these categories increased especially led by women producers, 40 percent of. the toll of host: that will be our last number. thanks so much. the senate is currently working on the farm bill and lots of big policy questions. thank you gentlemen for being

with us this morning. have a great friday and a good weekend. thanks for being with us. now to live coverage of the house of representatives. call i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received a message from the secretary of the senate at 5:06 p.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 473. that the senate passed with an amendment h.r. 886. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas of. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house will adjourn to meet at 2:00

p.m. is monday, march 19, >> the house will return for legislative business on monday at 4:00 p.m. with votes after 6:30. we will have live coverage when members return on c-span. we're going live to the center for american progress this morning where vice-president joe biden's national-security policy adviser antony blinken will discuss america opposing relations with iraq post war. we expect this to get under way shortly. -- america's relations with iraq.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the center for american progress. police silence all cell phone,

blackberrys, and anything that might make noise. there will be a brief question and answer session afterwards. we ask that you use the microphone and state your name and affiliation. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> just a moment away from the start of this event with the national security policy advisor to vice president joe biden. we are at the event this morning

and we expect this to start in a moment. some of the other programming elements that are coming up today on the c-span networks, c- span3 this morning we will bring you an event -- [no audio] >> on c-span3 this morning starting at 10:15 e concern will go live to georgetown university for discussion on religion and world affairs and extremism. first panel will address the relationship between a religious freedom and religious extremism. is will last all day long. that will start at 10:15 eastern on c-span3. also, president obama is on the

road today, making campaign events in chicago and atlanta later today. we will have his event in chicago starting at 1:20 eastern on this network on c-span.

>> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. i m rudy deleon, the senior vice president for national security. on back of my colleagues at the center and with the national security program, i want to

welcome you. for the first time in nine years, the united states does not have troops fighting in iraq. president barack obama fulfilled his promise to end the war in iraq as part of an overall strategy to re-balance america's national security priorities. today we will discuss this and have this presentation on the end of the iraq war and america 's ongoing engagement in iraq with antony blinken, deputy assistant to president obama and national security adviser to vice president joe biden. our colleague brian has done a brief paper on the back table for all of you who want to make sure you grab a copy. in it he is looking at how the end of the iraq war has strengthened overall u.s. national security, by dedicating more resources to the fight against al qaeda, to restore u.s. military ideals, " expand options to face other middle

east and threats, and to reduce the financial burden on defense spending and three-balance u.s. national security and overall. again, that paper is on the back table and it is also on line for those watching on c-span or the video feed. it was last december speaking at fort bragg, north carolina that president obama if stood before u.s. troops. and this was his comment. " it is harder to end a war than to begin one." everything that american troops have done have led to this moment of success. iraq is not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead, but we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self- reliance iraq if with a representative government that was elected by its people. we are building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home.

this is an extraordinary achievement nearly nine years in the making. today the american people remember everything that the men and women of the armed forces of the united states did to make that moment possible." i think we will have a very interesting program here. and after tony makes his comments, we will take questions from the audience. it is my great pleasure to welcome to the center for american progress antony blinken. [applause] >> thank you all very much. good morning. it is great to be here at the center for american progress. it is particularly good to be here with you, rudy, a colleague of many years, and with john podesta, a great leader at the white house during the clinton administration and a remarkable leader and founder of this institution. i appreciate the hospitality

very much. like many in the administration including i suspect dozens of past alumni currently serving, we look to 4 sound ideas on policy and analysis. this morning sharing with you some of our ideas about iraq. will mark nine years since the start of the iraq war and three months since the last american troops crossed the border into kuwait, ending one of our nation's longest and most divisive conflicts. the wisdom of going to war in iraq is something that will be debated for years. i will leave that debate to this story ends. but what is beyond debate and what news coverage of iraq in my judgment often deals to a knowledge is that iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous.

and the u.s. is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history. those of us that have been working on iraq a long time, including brian and larry, let done remarkable work on it for years, they know and we know that this progress, while far from complete, is also far from inevitable. it was the result of the extraordinary success and sacrifice of our troops, the resolve and resilience of the iraqi government and its people, and intense engagement of our diplomats and civilians, which continues today. i appreciate the opportunity to take stock of how far we have, and how far iraq has come. the profound challenges that remain and where we have yet to go in building a new and more normal relationship between iraq and the united states. rudy quoted president obama a moment ago. when the president and vice

president came to office they came with a commitment to end the war in iraq responsibly. both parts of that sentence are critical. it meant two things. it meant bringing our troops home after nearly a decade of war. and as important, it meant helping the iraqis build a sovereign, stable self-reliant country with a representative government that could become a partner in the region and not as safe haven for terrorists. when the u.s. still had 140,000 troops in iraq, president determined to withdraw u.s. forces from iraqi cities by the summer of 2009, to end a combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops in september 2010 and to fulfill president bush' security agreement by withdraw all forces

by september 2011. under the president's leadership and vice-president by iden, we followed that path to the letter. at every step along the way, many predicted that violence would return and iraq would slide back into sectarian chaos. at least so far those predictions have proved wrong. over the past three years of violence in iraq has declined and remained at historic lows even after we completed the withdrawal of u.s. forces late last year. weekly security incidents, which is the measure be abused consistently over the years, fell from an average of 1600 in 2007 and 2008 to less than 100 today. and has been a consistent trend over the last couple years. that is a credit to our troops first and foremost to succeeded at great cost in restoring a measure of stability and pull

trains an iraqi army and security forces that now in defiance of many doubters and is demonstrating the ability to provide basic security for its citizens. this did another thing. it created the time and space for what vice-president joe biden has called the most important developments in iraq in recent years. that is the emergence of politics as opposed to violence as the basic means for selling disputes and advancing interests. we all know and have seen and read about it, a series of crises over the election laws, the election itself, the government formation, that have plagued iraq in recent years. but at an earlier time in their history would have erupted into all-out violence. the fact is it did not. each and every time iraqi leaders resolved their differences and at the negotiating table, with the steady support of our embassy, led by one of our most effective diplomats, and jim jeffries. in december passed after more

than eight years president obama kept his promise to end the iraq war responsibly. let me briefly describe a scenario that recently played out in iraq. i think it will sound familiar to many of you. a leading suny arrow political figure is charged with terrorism related offenses by a shia government. a group of lawmakers walked out of parliament grinding the political process to a halt and striking fears of a return to a sectarian war. i know it sounds familiar and it should, but it happens in the summer of 2007 when the culture minister, not to be confused with the current vice president, was accused of ordering the assassination of a fellow politician. similar events took place recently in the wake of our troop withdrawal. the current vice president and members of that the security detail were charged with terrorism-related offenses.

the iraqi government was in televised assassination of some of the guards. we heard dire predictions once again of eminent civil war. baseless accusations that u.s. troops leaving was to blame. the standoff caused no increase in violence. the political process continued with the parliament maintaining a quorum. iraqi leaders continued to negotiate across partisan and sectarian divide its. an independent judicial panel was formed to review the evidence against the accused. meanwhile, our embassy worked relentlessly with all sides to prevent escalation. senior washington officials, vice president, and others made nearly daily phone calls to

iraqi leader surging calm for law, and the local process. gradually tensions defused. the main difference in the end between these two incidents, the one in 2007 through 2008 and the one today is that in 2007 the boycott lasted more than eight months when we had 150,000 troops in iraq. less than it lasted more t two months when we had no troops in iraq. this comparison offers context that is largely been lacking from public discourse on iraq since the war ended. if you read the newspapers, listen to the media, it would suggest that as our troops departed iraq, so did american influence and our administration allegedly shifted its focus away from iraq. for example, it has been reported that our ambassador cannot get in to see the prime

minister and that our diplomats cannot leave the embassy compound. here are the facts. our engagement has increased and not decreased since the withdrawal. so far this year, ambassador jeffries has been to see the prime minister nine times. he has seen his top aides dozens of times. that is far more access than virtually all of our ambassadors in other countries get to the senior leadership. our embassy team is engaged with other senior groups, that's virtually every day. our engagement from washington has kept pace. the vice president has made multiple trips, dozens of phone calls. president obama's request, he is also hosted a monthly cabinet

level meeting on iraq. an extraordinary and unprecedented level of engagement by the second most senior u.s. official. to support these efforts, i and other senior washington officials including the deputy national security advisor and the deputy secretary of state and the deputy energy secretary, and others have made multiple trips to iraq during this time. in virtually all of the meetings that we have, including one the prime minister was here in december to meet with president, we have made clear to our iraqi counterparts that continued u.s. support if it requires that a compromise across sectarian lines, respect roadblock, and uphold the constitution. we know from these efforts and from this engagement that despite the troop drawdown, the demand for our engagement from iraqi leaders of all political stripes remains undiminished. i witnessed this firsthand during the lengthy government formation process. the embassy team, senior officials from washington and

shuffled among the parties for months. the president and vice president or deeply engaged. when the deal was sealed, one photograph captured that engagement. there were four people in the room when the deal was sealed. prime minister maliki, another leader, the kurdish region president, and the u.s. ambassador to iraq. during the most recent political standoff, the u.s. remained the indispensable, honest broker pan and the only one trusted by and in regular communication with all the leading block in iraq. much of this engagement takes place quiet late, not advertised. just because you don't see it, just because we don't say it, does not mean we are not doing it. we have also seen, i think, in recent weeks significant progress on a number of issues. every day we are cooperating with iraqis on the security threats that it still faces, on

boosting and protecting the vital energy sector, and supporting its emergence as a member of the international community in good standing, and a responsible regional actor prepares progress on all these fronts. for example, oil production is now about 2.7 million barrels per day. that is up from 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005. over 3 million barrels by the end of this year. oil exports have provided much- needed revenue that enable lawmakers to pass a $100 million budget in february. we have also seen unprecedented steps toward 3 integrating iraq. the appointment of a non- resident saudi ambassador to iraq for the first time since 1990. visits by iraqi national security advisor, ministers of defense, interior, and justice to riad and to baghdad from turkish officials.

an agreement to settle iraqi debts owed to egyptian workers who fled iraq during the first gulf war. and plans to host the arab league summit later in baghdad on march 29. while iran and iraq will inevitably be more inclined than we and many of iraq's neighbors would like, one thing we have learned over more than eight years in iraq is this. the vast majority of its leaders, including the prime minister, are iraqi nationalists and resistance to outside influence from any quarter, including iran. baghdad repeatedly has acted contrary to iran those interests, including with its support for a resolution on syria, pressure on iranian- backed militia to reduce the tax, and the patients it has shown despite repeated pressure from iran during efforts to relocate a camp. all this progress is real, but so is the peril.

iraq faces profound challenges about fundamental issues. we see them with very clear eyes. finding ways to share power and holding all sides to the agreements they make. stamping out the violent extremists to continue launching our raiders attacks on innocent civilians and foreign diplomats just try to do their jobs, and security forces. ensuring the necessary legal and financial framework in place to allow the energy sector to further flourish. the level of violence, while diminished, also remains unacceptable to the iraqi people. enhancing and maintaining iraq pose a commitment to democratic principles of will require hard work and constant vigilance. its regional relationships remain tenuous despite the recent progress and fraught with mistrust and the specter of airtran looms large over iraqi affairs. these and other problems will not simply. be solved simply but i think a

little perspective is in order. given the country posted dramatic and very recent past, more than 30 years of dictatorship, international conflict, economic isolation, sectarian violence, just a few short years ago that nearly tore the country apart, discounting its progress towards a more normal political existence means turning a blind eye to the facts. what about going forward? i would argue that we have the people in place and structures in place to deepen our engagement with iraq. our embassy and strategically located consulates will lead the effort to develop our strategic russia with iraq under the 2008 strategic framework agreement, which continues. in december vice-president joe biden and the prime minister tareq the first reading of the high coordinating committee since 2000 under that oversees a series of smaller committees that our lead from senior

officials on both sides in iraq and in the u.s. on a broad variety of important issues on defense and security, energy, trade and investment, education and culture, politics and diplomacy, law enforcement and judiciary, services, technology, environment, transportation. this work is well under way. let me give you a few examples. to our office of security cooperation, we are helping the iraqis acquire major weapons systems like helicopters, heavy artillery, f-16's. our goal is to have iraq protect itself from external threats. the judicial institute has provided continuing legal education for more than 1700 judges and judicial employees since 2010. the anti-corruption strategy is a work in progress and we provide training to anti- corruption bodies like the commission on integrity. we also help build the iraqi

museum, preserve the historic site of babylon, and we continue to support the iraqi institute for the preservation of antiquities. we expect to bring iraqi students to the u.s. to study. for the first time this year since 1988 we have participated in the baghdad international trade fair. u.s. civilians features 85 companies with combined annual revenues of over $1 trillion, the largest single country. presence in country if that sounds less light war footing and more like the type of programs we have in countries around the world, countries with only have normal relationships, that is the point. our goal is a close strategic partnership with iraq. but we also seek a more normal relationship between two nations bound together by shared sacrifice, by common interests, and by a commitment to a better future. while our war in iraq is over, i'll work in iraq and with iraq,

a country that remains of the center of so many vital american interests, continues. with that, let me stop talking and start listening and take your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for your remarks, tony. i think we have some questions that will get right into that. let me ask a few and then we will open it up to our audience. i think you are right, getting the regional politics squared away after almost a decade of attention and then the 30-year reign of sadaam hussein, the 1991 war, the run-iraq war, all these things. so give us your sense of what the strategy going forward is to hard-sure that this card fr

fought security is protected? >> we have begun to seem iraq's integration into its region in recent months. the fact of the matter is after a period where iraq was frozen out, we are seeing important signs of thaw. we have had now the saudis finally appointing an ambassador to iraq for the first time in years. travel to saudi arabia by the most senior iraqi officials, the progress with kuwait on resolving many longstanding issues. prime minister maliki in kuwait this week. a dispute over airliners that was complicated by sadaam hussein finally resolved. a commission going forward to work on the remaining outstanding issues.

the jordanians and united arab emirates starting all to engage more with iraq. that is critical. grounding iraq in the region as a responsible actor is one of the key ways to stability and security. a lot of this goes to resolving iraq's own conflicts. this is something we continue to work on day in and day out. the united nations working on this as well. and finally, the vice president likes to say oil can be what holds iraq together, but we have a lot of work to do to resolve fundamental problems in the way they decide the allocation of resources and production -- urceso productioni allocation of resources. regional integration, our experts to help build capacity, oil, all that will continue to

stableize iraq -- to stabilize iraq. >> i think we are all watching that carefully. but let's stick in the regional neighborhood for a little while and give us your perspective on al qaeda and iran. >> in recent months in terms of violence in iraq we have seen the violence from an iranian- backed shiite muslim groups has dropped dramatically. that's a function of iraqis have made clear to the iranians that violence from these groups is unacceptable and prime minister maliki told the iranians that it considered an attack on americans to be an attack on iraqi interests. the fact that our troops are gone, they say is a rationale for some of these attacks. we have also seen continued attacks from outside in iraq.

the iraqis also have a real capacity the bullet over the years to deal with these problems. a counter-terrorism capacity that is effective answer is significant and security forces that are getting better and better. despite the repeated attacks by al qaeda in iraq and the violence they perpetrate, we have not seen pericycle of sectarian violence spiralled up again. we have not seen sunni sara bareilles to the cause. as bad as some of these attacks are, when you look at the larger factors in that should be something that can be managed and hopefully eventually dealt with. and then, in terms of the shiite militia, some of whom are backed by iran, we have seen a significant lessening of their

activities. it would be good if any groups that are actually reconcilable can be brought into the political system to actually do that, some are beyond that. in recent months that violence has diminished. >> thank you, but let's stick in this neighborhood, because this is a tough neighborhood -- syria. how does the iraqi stance on syria evolved? the arab league summit is scheduled for baghdad. that will certainly be one measure of how closely aligned iraq is with the regional politics and regional diplomacy and u.s. interests in the region. give us your sense on the current view from baghdad as far as syria goes? >> let me for start with something you said. i mentioned the arab league summit is scheduled to take place in baghdad.

that is the remarkable development, march 29. it is a summit that baghdad was up next in the rotation and it had been put off a couple years. it is a profound symbol as well as practical manifestation of iraq pose the increasing integration into the region. syria is incredibly complicated for iraq. they have fears they could see sectarian spillover, that this could agitate the sunni population and create sectarian tensions in iraq. they are very concerned about it. as we have said on numerous occasions to iraqi leaders, the cause of instability in syria and what creates the greatest potential for the spillover is bashar al-assad. once the violence stops and he is gone, there is a much greater

potential to avoiding what iraq hopes to avoid. iraq has supported the arab league consensus on syria. they voted for a saudi-backed u.n. general assembly and they stood at up to some iranian pressure on syria, so they are in a difficult position. thus far they have been with the arab league. i think you'll see at the summit in baghdad the consensus further consolidating on the need to end the violence in syria and for assad to go. >> thank you. i have a few more, but let me start to engage our audience. i will ask you to wait until the microphone is there and then please identify yourself. and so, let's start right here in the front row. >> thank you. i'm with cnn, elise. i was hoping we could pick up on

some of the threats, mainly the sectarian issue and how syria already seems to be affecting the government's position. while it has supported the arab league consensus, it seems to have done so reluctantly. that does seem to have gotten the sunni population in some areas upset and fearful, because they clearly are supporting opposition. do you anticipate iraq making a very sharp break with president assad? and on the sectarian ankle, but there does seem to be still a lot of sectarian tensions in the country as evidenced by the incident with the vice-president over there. even though it did not break into violence, i think there are still lot of fears that sectarianism in the country and there are still lot of calls for federalism. at one time the vice-president supported. do you see various sects moving

farther apart or do you think that al-maliki can bring them closer together? >> the fact of the matter is that iraq is a country that has been divided by sect and by ethnicity in the past. tensions remain significant. figuring out how to share power across political blocs and also across sectarian and ethnic groups is an ongoing challenge. there's no doubt about it. there's also no doubt that it is conceivable that sectarian tension turned into violence and ethnic tension turns into violence. what is so important. is it important. the most profound development in iraq over the last three years is the emergence of politics as the basic means of transacting business and protecting interests. if you go back and look at each

of the crises i mentioned over the election laws, over the the ratification process -- the debathification process, people thought the sky was falling and iraq was about to descend back into a sectarian violence -- each and every time. the iraqis stuck with the political process with some help from us. they used it to resolve their differences and keep moving forward. based on that track record, not of just a couple months but for the last few years, i think that we can take some hope that this will continue and despite the tensions that you are right to allude to, they can be managed as long as the iraqis did with the political system. this is fraught with difficulty because of the concern of potential spillover and of who

might follow bashar al-assad. despite those concerns, iraq has valley to the arab league consensus. the arab league summit is meeting in baghdad in just a couple weeks. and i think you'll see that consensus hold. >> trudy rubin from the philadelphia inquirer. the iraqis who work for our military and our civilians were promised 25,000 visas by congress in 2008. you also know that there's been a terrific bureaucratic blockage over new security requirements. there are thousands of these people, many of them under death threats, and the numbers are not moving. although u.s. officials have told me for the past eight

months that the numbers would increase, they are basically frozen. can you tell me whether there is ever going to be in a serious move to unlock that blockage, which certainly, don't you think would give future allies the reason not to want to work closely with us and to distrust us? and many of these iraqis have had security checks and have worked for our military. i have received e-mails about the terrible conditions they are living in waiting for visas that don't come. >> trudy, we obese people. we have a debt to these people, an obligation to these people. they put their lives on a line for the united states. and we are cognizant of that. we are working on that and acting on that.

as you said, it makes sense, because if we don't deal with the problem, it will have a chilling affect on the willingness of people around world to cooperate and to work with our missions. if you go to any embassy, by the way, around the world, a critical component of our ability to work effectively of the foreign service members. it's more than that. it is the fact that they put their lives on the line. this is not something unmoved as fast as we would like. since 2007 issued 70,000 visas overall for iraqis. of those, seventh thousand were the special immigrant visas for iraqis who worked in some capacity for the united states. that is far fewer than we would have liked. one of the things that happened is security concerns began to emerge about the potential for extremist groups using the refugee program or the special

immigrant visa program to get extremists into the united states. so we went back and look very carefully at the program if to make sure we were making good on our obligation and our debt especially to those who worked for us and that we were providing for the security of the united states. last two or three months my colleagues and i led by dennis and john brenan have johnhours in the situation along with all the agencies working through this problem. what i can tell you today is i think we have a way forward now that will show demonstrable progress in bringing more people to the united states while making sure that our security is upheld. in the first part of the most recent fiscal year we actually issued more visas than all the previous fiscal years. so there's been movement. what we have done recently will

demonstrate in the months ahead real progress with more people getting visas and that will become clear as we go forward. >> 114 visas were granted in february. there are thousands on the waiting list. the 7000 also includes family members. there are far fewer in primary visas. so there are only perhaps a low 4000 member for primary visas even though 25,000 were promised. can you give more detail about what is going to be done now that is going to make the situation there and from the past eight months since officials have been allegedly working very hard on this all this time and yet the numbers still don't budge? >> all i can tell you at this point, trudy, is what weapons. my firm prediction is that you will see a significant step forward in the issuance of visas and people coming to the u.s.

under the program in the months ahead, but in a way that also preserves our security. all i can say is to watch this in a few months. if i'm wrong, i'm sure you will let me know. >> let me take a second and impose a question. we spoke briefly about iraqi oil production coming up. that could have a significant impact on global oil markets as the sanctions program against iran continues to have real teeth. give us your sense of how close --you mentioned encouraging numbers coming from iraq. give us your assessment? >> the potential is tremendous as well as the problems. we have seen real progress over the last five or six years in terms of. iraqi of up to about 2.7 million barrels a day. the trend, if it continues, and the projections are it will top

3 million barrels a day by the end of this year. we have done a very careful assessment. we have sent out a very senior officials including the deputy secretary of energy and others and we have a very good team in place at the embassy. they look at this carefully and worked closely with the iraqis. the good news is the potential over the next couple years is probably for iraq to get up to maybe as much as 4 million barrels a day. that is the good news. the bad news is, absent significant investment in infrastructure and financing, it is going to be hard to move beyond that. and so, the iraqis need to do a number of things. first, they need to finally resolve the question of their oil law.. that is who decides on contracts, how the proceeds are distributed. a lot of this is happening as a

practical matter on a day in and day out basis. but the lack a law continues -- but the lack of a law continues to cause tension with the kurds. there's been some suggestion of movement, but we have seen that in the past. second, if the financing system for the energy sector needs to change. the profit potential needs to be made more attractive for the companies that would invest. many of them are investing on the basis of service contracts that don't give them the kind of returns they would get in other places. and openness to financing systems that are used around the world that are not in place in iraq also needs to happen. the good news is we have already seen progress that is significant. and has helped iraq tremendously. a $100 million budget this past year in export revenues.

it has helped world oil markets and creates a greater sense of stability in those markets. they will make further progress in the months ahead, but you hit a ceiling at some point. . they are able to get beyond that ceiling -- and the jury is out on that -- then as profound strategic implications for the region, including iraqi production surpassing iranian production. there are not there yet. >> thank you. let's continue with questions from the audience. sir. >> arms from the capital trust group. antony, if we bring into the account the future for conflict in iran, what are the consequences to the iraqi oil industry if there is a military attack on iran?

can that make oil prices go up? >> i will not speculate on the potential of conflict, but the president has been clear. we believe there is time for the diplomatic effort backed by increasing pressure on iran to succeed in dealing with the international community not pose the concerns about iran posing nuclear program and we are very focused on maks. he has also made clear that we are determined to keep iran from acquiring nuclear arms and have no intention of getting into a containment policy with iran. right now the focus is on increasing pressure. we are seeing sanctions on iran taking an enormous bit -- more than $60 billion in projects have ended. dozens of leading companies in the world have stopped doing business with iran. significant impact on the iranian economy. all this is going to get even

worse for the iranians in among said as sanctions that have recently been decided, particularly in europe in the oil sector and on the central bank, will begin to take effect. i don't want to speculate right now on what might happen. all i can say is focus on dealing with the problem through a diplomatic process and in the time it takes to do that. >> we have time for one last question. >> thank you. i have a question. we know that iraq -- [unintelligible] how do you assess the drawdown process in afghanistan? and president karzai blast of americans today. what is your reaction? >> i will leave afghanistan to

my colleagues of the white house. i'm sure that will be discussed later today. let me say this. when president obama took office we faced three significant all- consuming challenges. two wars in iraq and of an extended and going on for a decade. a resurgence in al qaeda -- of al qaeda. and alliances that had been afraid to the breaking point around the world. we put enormous efforts led by the president and the vice president into ending these wars responsible. we have ended one of them in iraq and another in afghanistan. we have taken on all, and have dealt with bin laden. al qaeda is on its heels. our alliances are in better shape with old partners and new partners than they have been at any time in recent memory. that has created

tremendous space for us to deal with russia, china, india, brazil, including dealing with energy, the environment, and many other things. if you step back and look at the big picture of the challenges we face when we took office and what we have been able to do to reorient our foreign policy and to give us opportunities to make america stronger going forward, i think we are in a good position. and let me end with this, because it goes to what i was talking about earlier, it is understandable that we all get caught up in the day to day of who did what and said what today and what violent incident there was, whether it is in iraq or afghanistan. that is understandable, but it is also necessary to step beck and look at the long-term picture, look at the trends, where's this moving, what do we see. in iraq the big trends, despite

the problems, the big trend is the emergence of politics as a way of doing business for all of the iraqi blocks and factions. that is a very significant development, because it has tremendous promise for iraq working through their problems. in afghanistan we have seen a trend line of handing over responsibility to the afghans for their own security over the next couple years. thank you. >> let me thank our guest antony blinken for this presentation here today. first let us thank tony for his exceptional public service, which is now in its third decade. that is three decades of more than 12-hour days. but also lets a balance that this is a time where the number of of the front burner issues on the national security agenda are at an all-time high. each of these are significant

and challenging and we understand that there are many issues remaining in the u.s. relationship with iraq. but there's a continuing agenda that is going to be worked. we also want to simply note that a major turning a was achieved late last year as u.s. troops came home -- a major turning point. we want to of knowledge that. we hope that today opposing presentation and the exchange with our audience has helped with that debate. -- today's presentation. we thank tony very much for being with us today. we know that he's going back to the desk with lots of troubling issues in the in box, but we thank you for your time today. >> thanks very much.

clucks related national-security news, the associated press is reporting afghan president karzai says that he confirmed to president obama in a phone conversation today that he wants international troops removed from bases in rural areas. the soldier accused in the killings of 16 afghan civilians was stationed at one of those bases. at a meeting today with family members of those killed, president karzai denounced what he said was a lack of u.s. cooperation into the investigation of the shootings. the taliban announced yesterday they were breaking off talks with the u.s. president karzai tried to speed up the transfer of security to afghan forces and said that international forces should pull out of rural areas. we would like to know what you think on our facebook page. you're asking for your thoughts

on president,'s manned for immediate pullout of u.s. troops from were hilarious? log on to our facebook page. >> earlier this week, buck mckeon criticized president obama's plan. the budget request for 2013 relies on a 1% decrease in discretionary spending. >> reagan and his people really know how to do things right. the setting, the beauty of this whole structure is phenomenal, and you cannot help to think about president reagan what you are here, and it is timing the one of the most famous campaign ads in history was the bear in

the woods at. the reagan campaign was having trouble explaining their foreign policy to the american people the electorate preferred walter mondale's simple, deferential approach to the soviet union, so the campaign team did when reagan was the stepped. they simplify the the message. in the enad there was an ominous reference to the soviet union in the advertisement and as the narrator gravely warned that there is a bear in the woods. the point was that unpredictability was a dangerous -- of a dangerous enemy was a threat that must be taken seriously. today's world is ripe with the unpredictability and america's 21st century strategic outlook is a tangled mess. a senior military leader recently told me, in my 37 years of service, i have never

seen a time as dangerous as today. we live in a globalized economy where commerce and communication are networked to an conflict in a remote region of the world can ripple across and burger -- borders, fakes, and economies. i am concerned about a world where the flop of a butterfly's wings can create a tornado. that means we must make preparedness a top national security priority. the price of liberty, thomas jefferson once wrote, is eternal vigilance. dwight eisenhower echoed that sentiment. everyone knows his remark about the military-industrial complex. let me tell you another thing he was famous for -- he was the soldier that hated war. i quote what he set about peace --

"the vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. our arms must be ready, must be mighty, prepared for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk its own destruction." two russians once protected with ronald reagan called the shining city on the hill -- two oceans once protected what ronald reagan called the shining city on the hill. the middle east is undergoing an historic shift. the iranian quest for nuclear weapons is perhaps the gravest threat to the global order we have seen since the collapse of communism. as populism realigns the muslim world, the lines between sects of islam are sharpening. sunii's and shias have fought for centuries and iran, the most political exporter of

terrorism, wants to probe nuclear weapons into that mix. people often ask, would iran dare to use nuclear weapons? i ask you -- can we afford to believe they will not? can we afford to believe that china, which just this month announced a 12% increase in military spending, will allow our pacific allies to live in peace? ronald reagan master the art of keeping this nation out of hostilities. today, we tend to forget that we are a nation at war. though the mission is in a far off land and in an unfamiliar culture, we also forget the sacrifices of a generation, our new greatest generation, that have kept us say since the

september 11 attacks. californians have led the way and our defense both at home and in the field. duncan hunter, the son of former chairman of the house armed services committee, joined the marines right after 9/11, leaving his wife and children at home, he served three tours in iraq and afghanistan and then took his seat, his father's seat, in congress and now sits on the house armed services committee would meet. men like california assemblyman jeff gorell, a navy officer who just returned safely from the afghanistan, we are lucky that californians and as americans to have these men and women who have taken the time in defending our freedom and representing our values. their story has been repeated

over and over. citizen soldiers who have given up time with their families and their careers to deploy into harm's way. it is tragic that their story can be subdued when a lone individual commits horrible acts. this past weekend it appears we lost a soldier to his demons and it caused many afghan civilians their lives. people that we have tried desperately to help recover from three decades of conflict. when you look at the war through that terrible violent acts, it seems hopeless and lost. i know the american people are heartsick over what has become -- of what has become of the afghan mission. i share their fear that we may be a draft -- we may be adrift and i'm sure we're suffering from a lack of commitment at the highest levels. the reason we liberated afghanistan in 2001 was right

then and it is the same reason we fight today to keep it liberated. we overlooked the fact that for every one chaotic event that loops and his plea in the media, there are infinite tales of heroism and courage, selflessness and integrity that are never reported. president bush gave over 40 speeches about the war on terrorism and the importance of victory updating the american people. president obama has given three. we must do a better job of communicating the importance of this fight. we must do a better job highlighting the stories of courage and daring of our military and what they have etched into the stone of history. our troops have earned that honor. our troops deserve the honor. our principles have not changed.

we reject those who would kill women and children to serve political ends. we reject those who use violence to intimidate free people in the submission and compliance. and we reject those who would convert afghanistan back to a launching pad for terror. we rejected them and when it is necessary and in our national interest we must meet them with force. there are risks and results take time. but asking if afghanistan is a winnable fight is the wrong question. what we should be asking is if we still believe that the greatest force on earth is american resolve. we should ask if we believe in imposing limitations on ourselves. an insurgent as the cutoff is come upon a democracy can fight. routing them that takes

patience. over the past 18 months, we have not the taliban on its backside. we demonstrated that life in iraq, the right strategy and ample force levels can bleed the toughest insurgency drive. we must be extremely [inaudible] when the talk about pulling forces out before we have achieved our goals. we can still leaving afghanistan with our heads held high and the taliban defeated but it will take resolve and patience. as president reagan demonstrated, americans excel at both. it is worth mentioning that aside from conducting oversight of the war, one of my chief responsibilities as chairman of the house armed services committee is building the defense budget. for fiscal year 2013, the budget

we received from the president was really concerned. the budget cuts, $43 billion from a wartime military. it cut 23 ships from the navy's fleet. many senior flag officers have testified that the fleet is already too small to fulfil its operational requirements. it cuts 150 planes from the air force despite the tragic need, urgent need, for tactical airlift in places like afghanistan. it cuts a whopping 80,000 soldiers from the army, 20,000 marines. instead of coming home to ticker tapes, these brave men and women will come home to pinks lips. instead of marching in victory parades, they will stand in unemployment lines. that is shameful. these cuts are real and we will

all start feeling them soon. they will affect every american base, insulation, and military unit in the world in some way, shape, or form. they will not just heard our national security. these cuts are deeply damaging to our defense and they will hurt everyone associated with the military. the families from camp pendleton that have endured extended deployments for the last decade, the teachers who educate children of deployed heroes, the civilian workers who do maintenance at edwards air force base, the taylors of base who tailored uniforms, and the assembly line worker who turns branches on airplanes in palmdale. our national defense, the most sacred and regis responsibility of the federal government, is larger than just those who wear the uniform. when we cut the services and

support that keeps our military potent, we hurt ourselves in ways beyond national security. let's not forget that when we must take up the fight against freedom's enemies, it is the job of congress to make sure it is not a fair fight. the cuts take us right to the limits of acceptable risk. because the congressional super committee failed to reach an agreement on mandatory spending, a sequestration mechanism will kick in next january 1. sequestration takes all day cuts that i outlined and doubles them. it pushes us far past the limits of acceptable risk and would put this great country in great danger. the joint chiefs had months to prepare for the tough reductions in the budget control

act but sequestration does not afford that luxury. the cuts are blind. that means that the defense department will have to go line by line through everything in the budgets and take of eight or 12% depending on what they do about personnel from each line item. as one admiral testified our committee, how you cut 12% of bay ship? if sequestration passes, we will begin today process cut approximately $100 billion per year from the military for the next decade. the cuts will force another 100,000 troops out of the army and marines and will shrink our navy to its smallest size since world war one, and the air force will be the smallest in history. will not modernize our nuclear deterrence which has not seen

replacement systems in decades and is the smallest since the early 1950's. active-duty military, reservists, federal civilians, and contractors will be laid off. some assembly lines in shipyards will close. we estimate that around 1.5 million people will lose their jobs as a result of the defense cuts and sequestration. we will go to your not one but two rounds of base closures. southern and central california will be particularly hard hit. economic areas around military bases, the ones that survive, will experience a decrease in business. we should all be alert and aware of what could happen to the military, our parents and grandparents built, and the armed forces that ronald reagan refined. president eisenhower said that

the way people that values its privileges over principles is doomed to lose both. we should ask ourselves -- will this be the moment right now when america abandoned its special role in the world and transformed itsself from a superpower to a regional power? is this the point where america puts their privileges and entitlements ahead of their principles? in the latest budget, the administration in spending in every department while the military absorbs massive cuts. they do this knowing that our debt is sinking this nation and

sinking it fast. they think that if they tossed the military over board, they might be able to stay afloat. that is a bunch of baloney. if you cut the entire defense department, we would still be running huge deficits. that is how much our entitlement programs cost and that is how expensive these programs have become. they now threaten our first and most sacred entitlement -- the right to safety, life, and liberty. despite this gloomy strategic outlook, i am not so pessimistic. i believe we can first protects and then restore our armed forces. i will not be a partner to the management of this great nations decline. i will not be complicity in the dismantling of the reagan military. my priorities as chairman for the coming budget are straightforward -- i have a three pillared philosophy toward revitalizing our military forces.

there first, results sequestration. second, reverse these massive defense cuts and finally, restore and rebuild america's military. the first step in staving off the dire sequestration scenario is buying us sometime to move past the election where we can look at this in a reasonable way. i have introduced a bill that would pay down the first year of sequestration by naturally shrinking the federal workforce. that work force has grown exponentially since 2009. while the president proposes laying off more than 120,000 troops, he has hired 120,000 new federal bureaucrats. this bill does not fire federal workers by decreases of the ranks naturally -- nationally. if one person quits or retires, two others must quit or retire before an agency can hire

another worker. this was actually a bipartisan solution that can from the president's own debt commission. it pays for the most damaging year of sequestration, next year. and moves the budget debate into calmer waters. this is a sample, acceptable solution to a problem, i am open to any compromise or any plan that pays down sequestration in a responsible manner without crippling americans with tax hikes during this fragile recovery. from there, it is my concern and hope, my sincere hope, that congress can work on a bipartisan manner on a year by year basis, thus winning in spending without sacrificing our national defense. the second pillar is reversing the first tree does of defense cuts that we enacted as part of

the budget control act last summer. i voted for the bca. i did so because we were facing a government default that would have, among other things, cut off salary payments to our troops. as chairman, i could not let our military go without pay. i held my nose and voted for bca with the votes that we could fix the serious problems which the bill shortly thereafter. that is why one of my top priorities is getting that half a trillion dollars back. taxpayers recommended that everything should be on the table for deficit reduction. i agree. if we cannot find half a trillion dollars, shame on us. explain to me why defense is less than 20% of the federal budget but has accounted for half of the spending cuts to

date. taxpayers said to cut the fat out of defense and we did that. we're past cutting the fat and past the muscle and now we are cutting into the bone. the consequences are being felt. look no further than the historic strategic shift we were forced to adopt this year as the president gave a speech. the administration's forced reductions means we can no longer sustain the strategy that has kept america safe for decades. we will no longer have the forces to stay strong in critical -- and. the administration announced a new focus on the pacific rim. i am also working hard to ensure that the pivot to asia is not an empty one. the administration calls it a strategic pivot. i call it a head fake.

a pair of it implies that you have some body weight behind a movement. -- the pivot implies that you have some body weight behind the movement. we will do our utmost to ensure the strategic shift is a viable and does not place our troops at unnecessary risk. there is no disagreement that it is a vital region. we should be worried about china when the just announced another double-digit increase in their defense spending. we spend about half of our base defense budget on personnel, investing in their health care, education, living allowances for our troops. china buys things that shoot and they can buy far more for their dollar that we can. we must do our utmost to reverse the defense cuts enshrine in the budget control

act. to help in surepivot to asia is not hollow. that means reinvesting in modernization for our air force, navy. we will see to modernize its air lifts in c-130's and c-5's that predate the reagan administration and will try to hold back cuts to the navy crews force, finding the money to the proper upgrades. we will hold the administration accountable on the promise they made to modernize our aging nuclear deterrence in exchange for ratification of the start treaty. we must also allocate resources for contingencies like iran. we will be looking to place emphasis on vital weapons should the irony is determined

that a peaceful nuclear-free existence is not in their best interests. our defense bill this year will reflect the appropriate resources for things like bunker-busters, munitions, countermeasures for mines and appropriate sensor and intelligence platforms. we will continue to focus heavily on countering systems like iran and china would use to deny free transit to the international community. my obligation as chairman is to insure that the president uses the military option against iran and that option is a credible one. what happens to the world economies if we cannot ship strategic resources out of the persian gulf? what happens if we cannot stop iran from closing the strait of hormuz?

there are too many trouble spots in to many regions for us to abandon the two conflict strategy. the first round of cuts forced us to abandon the defense, on doing the military defense in the budget control act and that will allow us to return to that proven strategy. the third and final pillar is to restore a military chewed up from 10 years of fighting. this is the longest war we have had in our history. when the increase defense spending during the bush years, we spend money on things like body armor u,av's and armored vehicles. we did not upgrade replacement systems that were canceled during the clinton years. today's military is by and large a smaller version of the reagan military. most of the planes, ships, and tanks were built during his

administration. we must end this on official procurement holiday and get our forces the tools they need to win the current war and to deter future wars. that means repairing and replacing equipment that was lost and damaged in places like iraq and afghanistan. it means upgrading and restoring our nuclear deterrent which is falling apart after two decades of neglect. most importantly, it means we take care of our people. in last year's defense bill, we acknowledged that modest increases in certain areas of military health care worker. . -- health care were appropriate.

those fees were both reasonable and small. recent proposals to pomp of the military health-care by up to 300% is absolutely unacceptable. when our troops made the decision to volunteer for service, they entered a separate agreement with this government. part of that agreement was that their medical needs would be met. we made a solemn covenant with them. we cannot, we must not, break it. to maintain a strong america, we need our all-volunteer military. are we ready as a nation and a people to embrace the concept of helplessness on the world stage? are we prepared to accept the possibility that someone other than on us can shape our destiny? we will do what we can on the committee and with this defense bill but it is not going to be easy. to put it plainly, we need your help. we need your help in restoring the concept of the reagan military. just the name and votes the concept of strength and certitude.

i need you to be advocates for the principles of president reagan. i need you to stand with our troops. i need you to reject intervention, government intrusion in our lives and refocus this great republic back to constitutional obligation for the common defense. these cuts can be stopped, perverted, held off but it -- averted, held off, but it requires each of you to be involved and the vocal and the strong. how could we call ourselves reagan republicans if we sit quietly during the most systematic and catastrophic cuts to an institution that reagan helped to build it? remember the tribes of the reagan military -- the cold war, the great threat of air time, ended without a single shot being fired.

the gulf war is where we decimated the world's fourth largest army in less than one month. remember reagan + three legged stool, the compass that keeps us focused on our conservative principles. when we are strong and when we stick to those principles, america does wonderful thing. we cannot walk blindly through this defining. in our nation's history. we cannot ignore the lessons of the past. i believe in optimism. i believe in confidence and i believe with your support, we can stage a resurrection of this great country. we have taken our lelicks and this past decade has been tough but we have an aborted take in emdured a in towa

revolution, a civil war, a great depression, two world wars, and nicole. warps every -- and a cold war. every time we get dropped we climbed m ofat. our job as californians and as americans is to stiffen that result. the ability to control our on destiny is what makes us american. the power to guide our destiny is what makes as great and our determination to protect the destiny is what makes usfree. -- us free. together, let's determined to be masters, not victims, of our fate. . god -- thank-you. god bless our armed forces and god bless the great state of california and god bless america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the house held a brief pro forma session this morning. members have no life in their home districts this week. they will be back monday at 4:00 p.m. for legislative work. one of the items we will be watching for is paul ryan's budget plan. he released a short the deal this week previewing the proposal. see the house live on c-span when members return monday. the senate meets monday for general speeches and will consider a bill loosening regulations on small and medium- sized companies. tuesday, they will debate the bill and amendments. you can see live coverage on c- span2.

a democratic congressman of new york announced he will not seek a 16th term. the congressman who represents queens and suburban nasa county, was first elected in 1933. -- 1983. he voted to authorize the iraq war, which by 2005 he said he regretted. coming up at 1:20 p.m., we go live to remarks from president obama who is at a campaign fund- raiser in chicago. the group lawyers for obama is hosting the event. this is the first of four fund- raisers the president is attending today. he has three more scheduled later in atlanta.

>> our system is fundamentally not democratic, and one of the ways is closed primaries. in half of the states, 40% of all voters can not participate in the primary. they have no say in who gets nominated. as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> saturday night, linda killian rights the most powerful voters are swing votes. also, david brock on how the fox news president turn the network into an extension of the republican party. sunday night, a syndicated talk radio host and his thoughts on the current state of politics. booktv, every weekend on c-

span2. >> i was quite a radical as a young person, and i was one that thought singing "we shall overcome" was not an effective way of gaining civil rights. i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute host for rush limbaugh, walter williams, on being a radical. >> i believe are radical is anyone that believes in freedom and limited government. i have always believed that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing as long as i do not violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams sunday night on c-span point of "q&a." the senator committee held a

hearing on trade with russia, considering retailing a measure passed in 1985. this is about one hour and 40 minutes. >> catherine the great one said there is nothing to which from -- to escape from which it is agreeable. we must all embrace rather than high-speed this opportunity. russia is the largest economy outside of the wto. it is the sixth largest in the world. to allow american businesses,

workers, farmers, and ranchers to seize the opportunity russia joining the wto represents, congress must act to test prominent trade relations to insure exporters' access to russian markets. if the united states passes this, u.s. exports to russia are projected to double within five years. if they do not, russia will join the wto anyway, and u.s. exporters will lose out to chinese and european competitors. these competitors will expand their exports at our expense. russia pntr is a one sided agreement, where nothing is given up in return. we will not make changes to our

trade laws. it is a 1-way street. russia will lower taxes, and open markets. service providers will gain access to telecommunications, banking, and other key markets. meat producers will secure greater access to the market. the united states will have new tools to hold russia accountable for obligations. these include binding legal enforcement and transparency measures. in order for workers to benefit, congress must pass pntr. they must rebuild the nine normal trade relations to former communist countries. congress originally passed a law

in response to soviet union's emigration restrictions, the to live with respect to jewish. it served its purpose. it is not a relic of the past. every president, regardless of political party has waived requirements for russia for the past 20 years. i've traveled to russia last month and met with business leaders and activists, working to improve democracy, human rights and cooperation in the company -- country. -- corruption in the country. the message was clear. the united states should repeal and pest but russia pntr. leading democracy in human- rights activists wrote two

letters. i wrote -- i am entering both as a part of the statement. one letter states that today the amendment only hinders the interaction of the economy's and worsens the human rights. it weakens the ability -- they explained that it is a useful anti-american propaganda tool, depicting the medicis as hostile to russia, undermining international competitiveness. repealing this will take away the tools, and open rushed up to ideas and transparency.

these activists have raise serious questions about russia's human rights and democracy record. i share these questions. like the activists, and believe there pntr should not be in question. we owe it to american businesses, ranchers, and farmers looking to increase exports. we owe it to u.s. workers whose jobs depend on those exports. we owe it to the russian activists who are asking for our help in their fight for democracy. let us to embrace this opportunity for our economy, and for american jobs. in this bid to of catherine the great, let us move forward with that with which we can all agree, let's work together to pass rusher pntr -- russia pntr. >> i think i understand the message this hearing is intended to convey -- american businesses one access to russian

markets, we should repeal jacksonvanik. it is not a slam dunk. let's stipulate that american businesses, farmers, and ranchers should be able to sell products to russia and the free trade is important and beneficial to the united states. we still need to determine whether america is getting a good deal or whether more should be done to protect our interests. for example, russia has never ratified the bilateral investment treaty that the senate ratified years ago. that would prevent russia from expropriating businesses, and mattingly -- and admittedly big problem in russia. this is a basic right that is not protected. one of our witnesses will discuss royalties, which is not directly covered by wto agreements. i submit the administration is missing a point on the repeal of jacksonvanik.

while immigration may no longer be an issue, the blatant disregard for human rights and human lot is as bit as relevant today as it was decades ago. human rights cannot be divorced from the discussion of the economic relationship with russia, particularly since some of the most egregious cases of abuse involves citizens exercising economic and commercial rights. consider the case of the young lawyer who was imprisoned, tortured, and died in prison because he sought to expose economic corruption at the highest levels of russian government. set -- several of us have joined senator ben cardin to sign legislation that sends a clear message that those who committed this violence will not have access to the financial network of the united states. mr. chairman, i would like to submit one letter to "the new

york times, called and and op-ed in "the wall street journal" on this issue. >> no objections. >> when the u.s. ambassador says there is no association between it liberties and its business environment he is denying reality. when two parties enter a contract, it is essential both parties operate in good faith. we cannot have evidence that the russian state is operating in good faith. there are fraudulent elections, human rights abuses, and government-sanctioned anti- americanism. contrary to the administration's assertion, russia is moving further away from international norms and values. in recent months, moscow has no longer -- not only blocked restrictions on sirte, but assault -- sold arms to --

syria, but has sold arms to president assad from a regime. looking only in the the buteo context, russia has not even live up to -- wto context russia has not lived up to commitments. they remain on the watch list for violations. what makes us think they will live up to its commitments after they are allowed to join the wto? yes, we should have access to the dispute settlement program if we grant russia pntr, but what does that do in our trade relationship with china? jacksonvanik was repealed and pntr was approved for china, and how did that work out? the most recent reported 127- --

127 pages long. one case has remained open since 2007. even in the rare cases that we get justice, it is not speedy justice. despite all the structures of the wto, china cheats and continues to get away from it. if this is what we get from china, which ranks 75th amongst all countries of the corruption index, what can we expect from russia, which ranks 143 on the same list? china was not granted pntr without condition and without delay. it takes only a couple of pages of legislative text to repeal jacksonvanik. given the current problems with our current relationship with china, it probably was not enough. it is unreasonable to believe

pntr can be extended to russia without a more thorough examination of the issues. yes, we should have free trade, the question is whether the proposed agreement and the repeal of jacksonvanik get us there. i hope this is not our last hearing on the subject. >> thank you, senator. i will turn to our witnesses. first we have mr. samuel allen, the chairman and ceo of deere and company. mr. allen, as you know, i was in russia not long ago and i visited one of your plants on the south side of moscow and i was impressed with the people. also the products you are selling, and every ship that opportunity. next, we have mr. ronald pollett. good to see you again.

mr. pollock is president and ceo of ge russia. next, mr. watty taylor. he is one of our guys, from mantegna -- montana, and president of the montana stockgrowers association. thank you for joining us. next, mr. paul williams, president and chairman of the board of the american society of composers, authors and publishers. he wanted me to tell you how much your pc is working with you. >> i appreciate it. he has been very kind. >> finally, mr. alan larson, chairman of the board of transparency international usa.

i enjoyed meeting with the director of transparency international in russia. she was a very interesting lady, and a compelling story to tell about why she is in russia. thank you for coming today. the usual process is for you to submit your statement to the record, and speak for five minutes. we urge you to be very direct and as forthcoming as you can't tell it like it is. mr. allen, you are first. >> thank you, chairman max baucus. on behalf option john deere and the business roundtable, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the importance of establishing permanent normal trade relations with russia to john deere and the business community.

granting a pntr is crucial for u.s. manufacturers and agricultural producers to receive the full benefits. it is essential to enable us to compete on a level playing field for russian customers. the reasons are clear. first, pntr will ensure equal treatment for u.s. companies doing business in russia. here is a concrete example. russia has committed to significantly reduce taxes on imported agricultural equipment from 15%, to 5%, however it is likely they would not be extended until they're granted pntr. u.s. companies like john deere thus would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign competitors, and would have no recourse to the wto should disputes arise. this would negatively effect u.s. operations because many products we sell in russia utilize components closely

related to jobs in our facilities in the american midwest. second, pntr will strengthen commercial ties between the two countries. it also will promote transparency, and certainty through wto rules, ranging from service regulations, to a cultural standards, too intellectual property rights. third, pntr will benefit manufacturers and service providers helping to maintain good jobs in the united states. russia's large growing economy coupled with pntr presents opportunities for u.s. companies to serve customers. russia is already one of the world's largest markets with a nearly two dollars trillion economy and a rapidly growing middle class. john deere has had a presence in russia for over 200 years.

we have expanded into our newest facility just outside of moscow. these facilities use components produced in iowa, illinois, north dakota, and other states to produce agricultural and equipment for the russian market. these are supported by almost 2800 suppliers located in 45 states. we recently announced a $70 million investment in our iowa planned. -- plant. we are also exporting business values and standards. our russian operations provide the same high standards for safety, product quality, and environmental stewardship than -- that we have in the united states. our interests reflect an

enormous potential for the russian economy in segments that are special for our business. they can meet the demand for food as the global population expands and becomes more of the wind. let me close with a few words about john deere's business experience in russia. our experience overall has been positive. yes, with frustrations from time to time, but little different than with any other emerging market. we understand the challenges, but we recommend -- recognize the opportunities. in his in trade relations in strengthening business connections will improve the overall business climate to the benefit of both american and russian people. pntr is simply put a benefit to the united states rather than an accommodation to russia. there is a strong business base for congressional approval. i urge congress to act quickly to ensure that u.s. companies,

workers, and shareholders, receive the benefit from the outset of the long-awaited wto membership for russia. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, mr. allen. mr. pollack, you're next. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of critical importance. the opportunity to grow the u.s. economy by establishing permanent trade relations. i'm a u.s. citizen born and raised in new york. i joining ge in 1991. for the last 13 years i have been living and working in russia. for the past six years i have also served as a member of the chamber of commerce in russia. so, i have been in a unique position to witness firsthand the dramatic changes russia has undergone in a short time, into

believe russia is poised to become a more active than significant player on the global economy. i have also been in a position to observe how u.s. businesses are under-represented. i believe pntr will change this. russia extends opportunities. we're able to have a level playing field, which is essential for u.s. companies to take advantage of these opportunities. russia is the fastest-growing economy, but the u.s. has only 4% of u.s. imports. by contrast, east asia and the european union accounted for 29% and 43% respectively. when i arrived in russia, ge had once written million dollars in sales. last year, we had more than $1.6 billion in sales. these orders support more than

3000 jobs for ge and its suppliers in the united states, and we believe that our sales with a pntr could triple by 2020. for u.s. companies to take full of vintage of russia's growing market, covers must repeal the jacksonvanik and established the pntr. let me offer what it will mean 4g. russia is the fourth largest electricity market in the world. ge energy will seek average tarriffs fall on turbines. russia is looking to double spending on health care with more than 22,000 u.s. employees principally in wisconsin, kansas, and new jersey, texas will fall. russia had the world's second largest railway system.

10,000 locomotives will need upgrades. this is an enormous opportunity for the g transportation business base in pennsylvania which employs over 8300 u.s. workers. in ge is also the largest per from other of aircraft -- provider of aircraft to russia. ge aviation stands to benefit as russia reduces taxes from 20%- to-5%. these products are made in ohio, vermont, and north carolina, not to mention suppliers. didn't the wto commitments implement a high standard of protection, to improve transparency is critical for u.s. companies. without pntr, the u.s. will have no recourse should disputes arise. if the u.s. does not grant pntr

to russia, american companies and their workers will be at a significant disadvantage relative to global competitors, and equally concerning is the signal sent to russia, as at a time when the it is important, we would be rejecting an opportunity what competitors take advantage. russia will join wto whether or not the u.s. grants pntr. it is about the ability for u.s. companies to compete on a level playing field with foreign companies all eager to do business in a fast-growing economy. i urge this committee and the congress to allow american workers to reap the benefits of these opportunities. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ronald pollett. mr. taylor? >> good morning. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on

behalf of the montana stockgrowers association regarding our view on the ascension to the wto the organization for russia. my name is watty taylor. i serve as the president of the montana stock growers, the oldest and most significant cattle operations established in 1884. we operate on 30,000 acres in southeastern montana. ranching has been a vital part of my family heritage for many years. then 6% of the world's population lives outside the borders -- 96% of the world's population lives outside u.s. borders. we must have to tantalize and demand outside of the u.s. if we hope to remain -- capitalize on demand outside of the u.s. if we hope to remain competitive. we can now see an increase in

exports thanks to the provisions of the wto agreement, which include a large country- specific beef quota, and lower tariffs for high-quality beef. i am confident we can provide a significant amount of high- quality beef, as defined by the agreement. montana is leading the way. we have a reputation for raising superior cattled genetics that performed in many different harsh environments. our certified tel will meet the demand for high quality. it is also exciting that montana is currently exporting tattled to russia to help establish a more vibrant, domestic beef industry. the possibilities are endless. montana ranchers are currently

living and working in russia. while russia is a tremendous opportunity for peace, we need to insure we do not run the risk of facing on scientific restrictions. montana ranchers have always appreciated the efforts by chairman max baucus to moves toward trade agreements that are based on international standards. in particular, ensuring russia lives up to its wto commitment and sanitary standards and other technical standards for beef is crucial. without pntr, we will not be able to enforce these commitments. recognizing a standard is important, because it creates less volatility, and it also encourages the safest practices. issues most important to ranchers with regard to russia include recycling. -- tetracycline. we encourage revenue in beef.

we encourage residues in beef better based on scientific risks. assessments conducted according to an internationally-recognized methods. bacterial parameters. we encourage why is russia ... the science- based standards, we encourage them to implement for a sanction policy for u.s. beef they do not comply with the standards. a veteran. equivalent -- veterinarian equivalent. we want to make determinations of the equivalent of u.s. meat inspection systems. usda food safety inspection service her as the authority. this includes recognizing fsis

to approve been suspended u.s. beef establishments for export to russia. in addition, we need to ensure that russia only implements the terrace, have agreed to make on beef. extending permanent relations to russia will give us the means to enforce those concessions and give montana family ranchers the momentum we need to benefit our rural ranching economies at home. exports create jobs. our competitiveness depends on profitability and attracting the next-generation of ranchers back into the business. our ranch families livelihood depends on exports, which our most dynamic in by britta opportunity for long-term sustainability. i appreciate the opportunity that i have been granted to present my testimony today. i look forward to working with you throughout the course of this process. to secure a permanent normal relationship with russia. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. taylor.

mr. williams. >> thank you, chairman bachus. my name is paul williams. i am an american songwriter. it is an honor to appear here. the american society of composers authors and publishers and on behalf of our 427,000 american songwriter composers and music publisher members, i am happy to appear here. we're here to address copyright piracy in russia. i am here to bear witness to the challenges u.s. music creators face in securing fair compensation for public performance of our music through "normal channels in russia peaky with reproduction royalties declining will become a public performance royalties increasingly determine whether the talented musician is forced to take a day just to subsidize the hobby. you do not want us to take day

jobs, senator, because you are label to wind up with dr. oz osborn as your plumber. -- ozzie osbourne as your plumber. we are the owners of small businesses. i always said that i am metaphorically the perfect president for ascap. i am a small businessmen. music creators and owners depend on the efficiencies of performing rights organizations, pro's, to license their public performance rights and collect and distribute royalties. for example, i have made a living writing songs. how my living in california? ascap does this for me. it we rely on a network of suri -- if we rely on a network of foreign pro's. these royalty constitute a

portion of american music creators income. it is over one-third. i am sad to report, however, that we are underpaid for public performances of all works in russia. two comparisons prove my point with the french and italian economies. in france, the royalties to work 11 times greater. in italy, nine times greater. denmark, with only question% of russia today population, denmark collects nearly twice as much for public performances as russia. it is clear that american music creators are not reaping the benefits from russia's passion for american music and movies. why is this? we believe the russian legal system handicaps' the efforts of ascap's russian counterparts.

they're fully qualified to act as a collecting society for you as easy creators. yet, russian courts often do not follow the law. the do not follow law. russian courts demand extraordinary costly documentation of their right to represent ascap members and sometimes they refuse to recognize the standing of -- is getting to do so. it makes no sense. further composers are supposed to receive royalties for the public performance of music and movies. exhibited in russian theater. they have sent us royalties through the years in the past. there is no doubt that such royalties can be an increasingly significant thing, as american movies are widely distributed in russia. ever beloved american movies. in january, three of the top five grossing films and russia were american, including "hugo." however, merrill is legal

challenges now threaten the morale of this source of royalties for u.s. music, which translates to food on the table, gas and the car, and take your kids to school. russian physical authorities require them to collect a value added tax or vat as a statutory rate of 18% from our ruler -- delauro to distribution. we take our royalty distribution. although russia granted an exemption, this is not expected to copyright's. this is plain unfair and it adds insult to injury given the under collection of royalty. we are realists. we know there is a magic wand that our government can leave the to ensure american music creators and copyright owners are fairly compensated in russia. however, regardless of what happens with pntr, we ask that

the government will help us achieve the following goals -- three things. russian judges and lawyers must receive better training and education in the handling of foreign copyrights. russia must stop discriminatory detriment of the u.s. songwriters. they must clarify the music and audio visuals and movies. ackley -- based on china, we are under no assumption that wto will improve our position. if congress grants pntr, government must use all available enforcement tools to protect american songwriters, composers, and publishers. agreement without enforcement may be worse than no agreement at all. it is a great honor to sit down in front of you and share my thoughts with you. it is a privilege to be here. u.s. for that. >> thank you, mr. williams. we're glad you're here.

thank you. >> damn good songwriter. >> i know that. they are pretty good. >> they did even better when i am in his office. [laughter] >> undersecretary of state? and bush administration? to a very much come allan larsson. -- thank you very much, allan larsson. >> thank you for the invitation. my testimony is informed by many experiences. as undersecretary of state for economic during the clinton and george w. bush administration, currently as senior international policy adviser coming to -- policy adviser and as chairman of the board of

directors of transparency international usa, and 2009, transparency international counterpart to my very pleased to have the everton to meet, mr. chairman, and gabbert is updated in a private sector group that prepared and submitted a joint report to president obama. this was entitled russia and u.s. joint working group on investments and institutional integrity. separately, in 2009, i served as co-chair of a private sector and advisory committee that provided the administration with recommendations under new investment treaties. new models. my written statement describes three sets of disciplines. you can think of them as a triangle. they form the foundation for a solid role of law framework for international business activities. first, a trade disciplines, second comment is the disciplines, third, institutional integrity. when only one arty but -- two of

those are in place, the frameworks are not as strong or as stable as it is one of three sides of the rule of law tremble are in place. i believe congress and the administration should be partners in insuring that all three sides of the role of love triangle become firmly established in their economic relationship with russia. in my testimony, in my written testimony, i urged that six actions be taken. one relating to trade. recommendations relating to investment. recommendations relating to institutional integrity. i believe congress should be engaged in and exercise continuing oversight on his actions. this will strengthen the rule of law for business. first, congress should extend a permanent normal trade relations to russia. doing so is in our foreign policy interest and it is in our economic interests.

second, the administration and russia should initiate and vigorously pursue negotiations for a bilateral investment treaty, which both countries' legislatures should ratify. russia fail to ratify an investment treaty negotiated in 1992 and as a result, u.s. investors in russia lack important rule of law protection. third, the administration should advocate for u.s. investors in russia and vigorously espoused the claims of u.s. investors whose investors were expropriated in 2004 through 2007. in the absence of an investment treaty, these investors do not have the opportunity to pursue dispute settlement through investment treaty arbitration mechanisms. fourth, the administration should vigorously work to ensure that all parties do the anti-

bribery convention and. -- carry out their commitment to prevent overseas bribery by their nationals. fifth, russia and the u.s. should intensify work to ensure that russia's customs tax administration and judiciary or more free of corruption. 6, russia and the united states should cooperate to expand the scope for civil society organizations such as transparency international, to monitor investigate, and report on corruption. i believe the exact degree and in the congress can be and should be partners in this. -- did your -- the executive can be and should be partners in this. i would urge the congress to exert active and continuing oversight to ensure that the executive branch present a plan, implement it vigorously, and makes a proper -- makes progress

for business in putting into place all three sides of the rule of law triangle. the trade, investment, and institutional integrity side. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. larson. some business and tell me they do not want to do business in russia. do not even try. i teach is not worth it. in fact, i think i saw steady somewhere where an international organization ranked countries according to political contruction and russia was weighed down near the bottom. i would like to ask any of you who wish to respond, what should be done about that from your perspective? this granting pntr help or hurt

in that effort? >> from our perspective, we have been doing business before a long time and have had a significant presence. corruption is an issue. there is no doubt that it exists. but, there is corruption in a number of countries. and, i kias the company and its business conduct -- it is the company and its business conduct that is important. when you go to countries like russia and establish strong guidelines and assure that our operations run themselves that way, that ends up being a promoter of improved conduct in the entire business community. i can tell you that when you establish a reputation there that way, you can be affected. the plans that you visited were built in nine months. nine months. that is hard to do anywhere in the world. people say you cannot do it in

russia because of all of the corruption. i t was unethically, all above, -- it was done ethically and was done in nine months. it is something we have to deal with. we take it very seriously. we enforce it very seriously with our people. no doubt about i thet that forming normal relations will only solve the -- will only improve the climate. he will not solve it overnight. >> what do you say about this? >> mr. chairman, i would like to echo many of the comments made by mr. allen. we have had similar experiences around the world. when you work outside the u.s., you need to be prepared to be working in different environments, including addressing direction. ge works according to the rules every country where we are. it makes it more challenging, probably more expensive. you have to have a lot more

lawyers in russia. >> would you tell the midsize companies? >> it is more challenging. we have a large profile in the country and a large profile at the government, as well. they know who we are. it is easy for us to push back. i have been there for 13 years and i have seen a very dramatic improvement from what it was like back in the late 1990's. >> how much will granting pntr help or hinder mid- says american companies from doing business in russia? >> it would help because it brings us together into the wto system. i think it is very important that will help all american companies. >> will it encourage russia to join -- >> yes. they want to start doing some of the right things. they need foreign investment in companies to come in and be getting -- improving their

operating environment. they need to work on that. >> let me ask you, mr. larson, image and bilateral investment treaty that needs to be negotiated. -- you mentioned a bilateral investment treaties that need to be negotiated. will we get that with pntr? >> thank you. first of all, i would like to say that i do think that two corporate leaders who just spoke have organizations that have shown themselves to be understanding of overseas corrections. we are privileged to be able to work with them on some of these issues. second, senator kyl mentioned that russia ranks very, very low on some of these corruption perceptions index. that reflects the fact that there is a widespread view amongst international business leaders and others that this is a serious problem in russia.

third, i think it is a very good thing that russia has decided to become a member of the oecd anti-bribery convention and has passed a law. they will not necessarily implement that instantly. a lot of western european countries did not, but it is a very good start that they are trying to discipline their own companies in respect of overseas briberies. many, many observers say there is a very serious problem in russia, especially in the customs tax administration and the judiciary. i think that the administration needs to continue to work with russia on that. i noticed that vladimir putin said in an oped that there is a problem of systemic corruption and he wants to tackle it. well, we ought to take him up on

that. the administration ought to propose to congress a plan for how they can follow up and work with the russian government to tackle this problem to the benefit of our u.s. businesses. i do think that civil society organizations like transparency international have a role to play. i think there should be scope for them to report on suspected instances of corruption. be able to do that. finally pntr, german, finally and its impact on this -- finally, chairman, you asked about pntr. i think that he opposes a degree of discipline in trade relations that is a positive step. it is necessary. it is not all we need to do, but it is very important. >> thank you. kyl.tor ca

>> when is the best time to negotiate over the other two legs of the stool? after pntr? we have a stronger hand to play if we explain that on the bit's, we want duma to ratify the treaty that the u.s. has ratified. expropriation is not something that in this day and age ought to be permitted amongst rula abiding commercial nations. we will talk about you companies in just a minute. rather than urging the administration to implement after pntr, should we not try to do that before pntr? >> senator cayo, i think you

raise an important point. r kyl, i think you raise an important point. we should not like perfect the enemy of good. we should seize the opportunity that is created by pntr. extend pntr and have rush of the end of wto. if we stop there, then we have only done part of the job. as i said in my or zero remarks, i said that this is something that -- oral remarks, i said this is something congress and the administration should work together to accomplish. it non- -- >> this is not a partisan issue. the administration and congress need to work together. when we are most likely to get cooperation, which has been very difficult, that is my question. >> one have sentenced to finish. >> thank you, sir.

i think it is important that congress seizes the opportunity to ask the administration to come forward with a plan for how they are born to implement these other sides of the triangle. >> we will withhold action until the plan is forthcoming. we can negotiate with the russians. none of us here object to the proposition that russia can exceed wto with u.s. approval. our good folks doing business abroad will do even more and that will help us here in the u.s. how do you negotiate the very best situation with a country that has dragged its feet over and over on -- i hope to be able to get to the other situation in a minute. mr. williams talked to that of barry -- talked about a very practical problem of the russian court system. i want to ask you, given the track record that you identified, do you have concerns that granting russia and pntr

before the russian duma take steps to implement the intellectual property reforms wto and the reforms accession commitments, reduces the leverage that we might otherwise have? >> absolutely. i am also 71-year-old. and i have reached the point in my life when i lack the expertise to say one is better than the other. i am the wrong person to tell you that we need to make these adjustments before after pntr. we are in the rare position ascap where whether it is granted or not, our music will continue to grow and movies will continue to grow in the country. my specific concerns as an organization, we do not have a specific dance on pntr -- stance on pntr. i can imagine watching the

prospects of china stepping in if we cannot do business. for my organization, i have to represent them and i would say that what we need is no matter what happens with pntr, we need aggressive action from the government dealing with the russian government and the judges, the value added tax that is totally unfair and hopefully, we will not wind up with it is which unlike china where -- a situation like china where -- i get more money from honduras. >> we try to anticipate all of the things that we could hold china to. we had a very thick document with china. he saw the report that i held up. it is very difficult after you have granted the status to then get them to make -- to really fulfil the commitments they have made. that is the concern we have about granting the status to russia prior to the negotiation of these other two legs of the

stool. i am not suggesting we can have protection at any time when you are dealing with an emerging country like russia. at least you ought to try to understand when you have the best negotiating position to demand those things that are simply a matter several a plot that other commercialize nations recognize -- ago. -- recognized long ago. >> the value added tax could become a precedent for other countries and that would be -- the damage to american music creators and songwriters, composers is beyond what i could stay here. it would be huge. >> i think all of the witnesses -- i think all of the witnesses. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i want to spend my time actually covering a subject that may or may not call for response from the witnesses, but i will invite that at the end. on february the fifth, russia and china blocked the u.n.

security council resolution that would have endorsed an arab league plan for assad in syria to step down. i too would have supported a demand that syrian troops withdraw from towns and start transition to democracy cb to democracy. this is the latest incident in which russia has, for its own reasons, intervened in a way that the stabilizes the world and helps iran, which is the main beneficiary of the continued regime of president us side. to stay in power. i want to highlight this issue. this has to do with how assad is getting arms to kill syrian citizens, some 8000 of them according to reports from the u.n.

it is not only a question of russians exporthey mouse to syria to kill innocent civilians, he is also the fact of the department of defense has a contract with that same russian arms exporter. i do not -- i sent a letter to secretary of defense panetta along with 16 colleagues a bipartisan -- 16 khalif, a bipartisan letter raising this issue. i would like to have that may part of the issue -- record. >> we have a very -- we have a contract that is to tell a set of helicopters, mi-17

helicopters for the afghan military. this is a no-bid contract awarded by the army last summer. several months after this year an uprising began. it is worth $375 million. that is $375 million that belonged to the taxpayers, going to russian arms merchants are earning president assad with which he is killing syrians. i should also noted that syria has a history of not actually paying for those weapons. according to press reports during a 2005 state visit by assad, putin wrote off nearly 75% of siri's $13.5 billion debt

to russia for past arms sales. i think it is unconscionable that u.s. taxpayers would be put in this position where their hard-earned tax dollars would and directly to subsidize mass murder. the department of defense refuses to cancel the contract and even in the face of mounting evidence that the export is a key enablers of the assad's campaign of murder. let me conclude by asking a rhetorical question. any comments are welcome. we want to create jobs him -- here in america. we went to trade internationally and grow the economy both here and in other countries. at what point, whether it is our

main thugs like assad in syria, do we say, the cost is too high? in terms of sacrificing our basic values and protecting human rights? mr. al season? >> well, that's quite a setup. >> well, i didn't intend it as a setup. i saw it as a question. >> those are all other issues out there. what i'm not able to correlate is how the status in preventing it will in any way change those issues? those issues still need to be solved. i would argue giving russia status and giving the pntr

status -- for all of us, what we are looking at right now, this is not just about growing jobs. they are going into the t.o. our businesses will go down via competitors. and i have real-life examples i could give you. >> you're next. who is ready? do you want to wait, senator? >> yes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to pick up on what some of my colleagues have spoken on, here. i appreciate that russia presents a tremendous market for american companies, and that the rules will hopefully

level the playing field for american companies to do business in russia. but at the same time, lifting this is -- for russia and i'm sure you all understand leverage in negotiations. i think you do a that all the time in your businesses. it seems to me this is a moment in which there is leverage at the end of the day. and this is a huge benefit to russia politically and economically, and a lot of us don't feel like this is a good time to be rewarding russia for anything. their recent elections are considered a mockery and the safety of contracts and protection of intellectual property happens in a democracy more than not. the human rights are not improving and in the case in which my colleague has been the

champion of, is not an exception, unfortunately, by any means, and when we ask for help from russia, the u.n. security council to stop iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to help prevent a killing of innocent civilians in syria, we get nothing in return. let me make the case about how that affects us here. look at the gas prices because of the instability in iran gas prices not only for consumers and drivers but for the creation of products. all of you use fuels necessary for the creation of a product or in transportation and delivery of your products to the marketplace. so i look at this. and i can make real connections not only on the principle of human rights but domestically, as well. so what i hope we could see from the business community,

which seems to lack, is a dual approach on the finding a way to repeal this and find a way on trying to improve russia's human rights records. we need a message stornte russia that we are serious about human rights and that we will deny visas and block human rights vy laters. so i would like to ask the members of the business community here, do you not see the correlation between the consequences of a russia that does these things and the domestic concerns we have that actually affect your businesses in addition to the value that you obviously see as it relates to this? and can you got join in the voices that say yes, let's remove this so we can get russia's full parms and pursue

the other things that have an effect not only in terms of our legitimate interests in human rights and democracy, but also in real economic consequences here back at home. finally, i'd like to ask all the business leaders, mr. larsen. i'd like to ask, do you per steve ability of russia to eliminate the pervasive delauppings seems to affect all aspects of russian life, many companies have seen contracts broken and agreements altered by heavy-handed bureaucracy. will this solve all those problems? i'd like to get to those, quickly if we can, because i have about a minute left. >> my quick part, i would say at first, most people realize that or recognize india as a large democracy. we deal with every bit of corruption in india as in

russia. so i think we certainly want to see that corruption changed. but the culture and continued movement forward is going to be a long process. it won't be an event-driven process. and on the -- >> and on the first part of my question, do you not see the nexus on the actions russia takes, the effect on your company? >> yes. i do see those actions. there is a timing issue that's also -- the part that i keep trying to reinforce is they are going to move into the wto, and we are going to lose any additional leverage as a result of that. and they will be doing trade with other partners, and we will be at a disadvantage, and we will have less opportunity to influence them going forward as a result of that. >> mr. chairman. if i could get mr. larsen to answer the latter question.

>> thank you, senator menendez. what i have recommended is that on the occasion of congressional consideration of pntr that the administration should present a plan for tackling some of these corruption issues, one, making sure russia adheres to its anti-bribery conditions it just joined. two, that there be a serious cooperative effort to tackle the issue of corruption in customs and tax administration and the judiciary. and three, that there be scope for civil society organizations to report on instances of suspected corruption. i think all of that is part of creating a strong rule of law frame work for business. i also believe that the extension of pntr and repeal

jackson -- will also assist. but i think we should do both. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your statement. you hit the nail on the head. as chairman of the foreign relations committee, i think we are all are on our committee have a complexity with the russian relations and we held a conversation on the democracy of russia and the rights and so forth and suspect we will continue that. we are sort of stalking past each other here, and i think missing the point. russia's going into the w.t.o. this is not a negotiation like panama or one of the other trade treaties we had where we were opening up and lowering tariffs and doing things. we are not. we don't do anything. we're in the w.t.o., and if we

don't lift jackson, we do nothing for our workers. there was a statement that there's strong view that the continued application of jackson to russia is quote not helpful for the promotion of human rights and democracy in russia and efforts to punish russia by retaining jackson darken the future and hamper the economic development and frustrate its democratic as operations. so i think we ought to listen to the folks on the ground fighting for this and look fact actually. russia is going to join the w.t.o. whether or not we gant the p.n.t.r. and granting the pntr is the only way american workers are going to see benefits from the

w.t.o. so if we want to sit here and cut off our nose to spite our face, we can just complain. so let me ask you, mr. polk,, who produces in our state. we're proud of what g.e. did. would it put your workers at a disadvantage trying to sell into the market without it? >> absolutely. >> and you would never >> correct senator. >> so what are the benefits of losing market snare >>, too, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and probably several jobs in thea yation industry. >> and i understand that the bilateral treaty we have on the most favored nation status only applies to exports and goods. >> correct. >> so even with our bilateral

agreement and deny pntr, that -- the only way we open it up so lift jackson van i can? >> correct. >> because jackson vanic. we ought to do the things we say we're going to do. jackson is about immigration. every president signed off since it went into effect in 1974 that they are dealing with immigration. that's happened and happening. so ewith send the terrible message as we try to negotiate with people when we kind of pull things out and misapply them and counterapply them. we don't have any protection under the bilateral agreement, do we? on intellectual property rights? i think mr. williams spoke to that. and the dispute process at w.t.o. at least gives us that

kind of protection, doesn't it, mr. williams? >> well, in china, w.t.o. didn't exactly solve all our problems. to give the specific example in 2001 china was admitted to w.t.o. and in 2009 they established a rate for music and televippings and accidentally it was a tiny rate and they paid us for that year and that year only. so as i listen to you talk about the human rights issues and all these elements. i reaccident, you make amazing sense. and i understand that, but for my organization, we're looking at a situation where w.t.o. is simply, without really aggressive action from our government. >> well, we need aggressive action. a lot of folks argue we need to get tougher, and we can do more within the context with china, and i think we're pushing to do that. i don't want to cut you off, but i want to ask mr. larsen

one question here. does the existence of jackson vanik today further the cause of human rights in russia and democracy in any way we can measure? >> i have testified that i think that removal of jackson -vanik and extension of pntr is on the part of the establishing a rule of law basis for our relationship. there's a lot of things i urge we do and go forward. >> our ambassador in russia asked for money to be supportive of civil rights in russia. given their record do you think we should give that money? >> i think that would be a good step. we have toe strengthen civil society in russia. one of the things i advocate is we work with the russians to establish more space and freedom for transparency

international to call out instances of suspected corruption and deal with them. i think strengthening non-governmental organizations such as those is a good thing. and as i understand, with this proposal, that would be one tool in so doing. >> sorry. my time's up. >> just one second. since senator kerry may have been out of the room when i put the letters in the record. the piece in the "wall street journal" specifically referred to the letter that you quoted and ads they say of course no one in rusha is foolish enough to defend jackson but feel it should be replaced with something else. so thank. next, senator? >> i was in and out because of other committee meetings. looking over your testimony and

hearing what i heard, i don't have any disagreement with the point you made. but i'd like to make this point, and maybe it refers more to agriculture than it does other as pecks of our economy, but -- was invited -- russia was invited into the w.t.o., and if they change their laws by a certain date in june that they have to change them, and then it's our responsibility to deal with jackson-vanik. and various times in the past, ip found reason both to change jackson-vanning for particular companies, and we had to do that. but the thing that bothers me is once a country is in the w.t.o., i know we have the processes of w.t.o. to resolve differences. it's kind of a very rigorous process.

and one that's not quite easy to predict what might happen, but you hope the rule of law is going to govern in the final analysis, but from what we have now and jackson -- it seems the white house is not doing what it could be doing based on what we have to make sure particularly in agriculture and -- i would call upon the white house to do that if they want to have smooth sailing on the jackson-vanik proposition. i'll yield back the recess of my time. >> mr. chairman i thank you for holding this hearing. i chair the trade subcommittee here at the senate finance

committee, and to me, really, the threshold question on this issue is respect for rule. and the question about how permanent normal trade relations for russia would in effect bring about better compliance of trade rule. as a trade supporter, i consistently supported these trade agreements. i've tried to say free trade does not mean trade free from rule. and i have real questions concerning the rights, and i think part of what you said in particular raises some of those concerns. that's what i want to explore for a minute. you all talked about the challenges in terms of doing business. in russia, we're talking about discrimination, corruption,

appropriation, flour enforce intellectual property rights, a host of issues that relates to this issue of rules compliance. and for me, an indicator of the administration's appetite to enforce russia w.t.o. commitments might be found in looking to the degree of interest we've seen in forcing the jobalt criteria for the generalized system of presences what's known as g.s.p. and i want to take a moment to look at how g.s.p. has applied to russia. it's a preferential program. we've looked at it on the subcommittee, that provides duty-free imports from russia, so long as russia come applies with the jobalt criteria that congress established in the program. and the criteria includes effective protection of

intellectual property and equitable access to russian requirements and that russia not -- property. i want to ask you, so you've had some experience, mr. williams. this is not -- you've had experience with the intellectual property question, and i would like to ask you what about when you brought home -- >> you know it's the greatest country in the world to be a song writer in. i had complete access to commerce and could sit down with victoria espy nella and got an immediate response. we used the 301 in china and

the caribbean. what we're dealing with in russia that's unique is the organization we're dealing with, row, is pretty straight ahead. it's not a fly-by-night organization, but they are constantly, the russian government is completely unwilling to really accept the fact that they represent us and that we can do business back and forth. so my problems is not the way we're being handled in the united states. i've had wonderful access, and what you've given us today, the opportunity to -- as you look at pntr, you give us the unique position of being able to be walk into this room and state our position. so we've had wonderful response from our own government. but we need -- if we're going so move forward with or without the pntr, we really need more aggressive action from our government to the russian government in protecting our rights. this value-added tax has a

potential for affecting our livelihood in the future. >> my concern, mr. williams, is if we're not seeing g.s.p. criteria used to give you and others a fair shake going to the point mr. larsen made, why would we expect it to be used on w.t.o.? >> i don't know. all i know is that we have. -- we have the rule and my request is that it is honored. >> can mr. larsen just respond? >> go ahead. >> mr. chairman, if i could, i am up. if mr. larsen can just respond to the question. great. thank you. >> senator, my point of view is that we do need to make a

concerted push as a country on a range of rule of law issues in rsha. -- in russia. i advocate at the extension of pntr and the repeal of jackson-vanik. but i think at the same time it would be important for the administration to come forward with a plan for the congress forwardsing some of the issues you raised and i raised about the testimony of the investment relationship and some of the issues that we all have with the corruption environment. and to present to the congress and for the congress to have a process for holding accountable the administration and making progress to address these issues. this would be a path going forward that would have us working together between the congress and the administration and russia to strengthen the rule of law. it wouldn't interfere. i'm not talking, mr. chairman

about a conditional extension of pntr. i'm saying let's tackle all these problems right now. as we tackle immediately the pntr issue. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. larsen, i'm glad you made that clear that it would not be conditional. i got that very important point that it would not be conditional. you would like the united states to invest in the treaty with russia. orlando all negotiations with countries and businesses and what not, the sequence -- you sequence your goals and try to leverage one against the other to get a mutual agreement. you would agree, wouldn't you? that this is not that case. there's no leverage here. i believe that countries generally do not grant trade con cessions altruistically out

of the goodness of their heart. they don't do that. they do it as leverage. you have to leverage a country to do something, to give into something that it knows it should do but otherwise could get away with not doing. you need leverage. this case, pntr is not leveraged. there's no leverage here. if the united states does not grant pntr, it does not hurt the united states one bit. if we do, it helps americans, not russians. it helps us. so this is not a free trade agreement negotiation. there's no negotiation going on here. either we grant pntr as ourselves pntr, or we don't. and if we don't, we deprive americans access to russian markets and to the w.t.o. procedures.

we're hurting ourselves not russians. i agree we should talk to russia about the investment treaty, but we can't sequence these things, because there's no leverage. the united states has no leverage over russia on pntr. we only hurt ourselves. we don't hurt them. but it's true at the time my judgment is talking aggressively and seriously about things to russia and china and other countries and of course following along the rules here. mr. larceny season? >> i agree with that. but i do think we have leverage with russia. >> this hearing is on pntr. >> all i'm saying is that in the context of considering and extending pntr, it is the time to have a plan for tackling these other issues and to make sure that we are aligned between the congress and the

administration on this. >> and i think russia -- why'd russia join the w.t.o.? russia wants to join the w.t.o. because it wants to be part of the world community and it will help russia's economy. but russia's already going to be part of w.t.o. irrespective of what have the united states does here. irrespective of what the yithe does. so once russia joins the w.t.o., do we help ourselves by granting pntr or hurt ourselves by not granting pntr? >> i believe many in russia. not all. many do want to address a lot of the concerns we have been talking about. for example, a more independent judiciary. i've spent a lot of time -- not a lot. some time in russia talking about the need for more

independent judiciary several ways. one instead of a transcript. have a transcript of proceedings. judicial proceedings. there are no transcripts these days. second, to have default trial by jury not by the judge. and open judiciary proceedings, not closed. get all that together, that's going to very much help. i asked mr. medvedev about those three points. i won't say he disagreed but asked about the premise of my question and said are these critical for russians to advance? he agrees that it is yes. and in russia, namely repeal jackson-vanik helps us address our human rights causes. doesn't hurt us. helps us. because otherwise sometimes putin. sometimes others will then use

it to grant pntr as a leverage, as a foil to attack the united states to help themselves. so i just think this is a no-brainer. at the same time we have to work very hard to address the serious issues of iran, syria, they are all extremely important. but we don't have leverage over russia on any of those issues with respect to pntr. we have to find other ways >> if we pass legislation for pntr, have we accomplished anything? >> senator, i think the way that we can accomplish something of --

>> this is a simple question -- is it not this is a to repeal jackson-danica for p antti are to mean anything? >> we need to extend pntr for businesses to benefit from joining the wto. >> that is why there is leverage. nobody can say that the russians do not want repeal of jackson- vanick. this is something the russian leader said it wants desperately. your comments reflect that, mr. chairman. there is leverage. there is a leverage. >> that is not what i said. i said that petition -- putin's failure to repeal jackson-

vanick has leverage. >> if you want to argue with me -- they need is free paled -- repealed. that is beyond any argument. >> i disagree. >> all right, then we have a disagreement. i believe that the u.s. has leverage with russia that good russian commercial business folks would like to see the u.s. have an opportunity to do better business with russia. they would like to see these rules of law changed. i understand corruption -- they understand corruption and the lack of a treaty is hurting investment in russia. they understand that. they but that does seem jackson- vanik repealed so that the pntr will be affected. that will help us, as well. i think it is erroneous to say

that there is no leverage for the u.s. with respect to jackson-vanik . the question is, will it go beyond the human rights abuses magnuski act?ws th i am suggesting the we have an ability to hereto get russians more engaged in the then they have been and that rather then doing this without any other conditions, i think we ought to consider that. this is not a question but i think your comment is yes, that would be ineffective without the repeal of a jackson-vanik . just pntr. >> -- >> your point is that congress has an ability to engage the

administration more than the administration has been engaged. >> i went to state the way that i see it and try not to step in between the chairman and senator kyl. >> you can step in wherever you want. >> i think that it is the right time for the administration to work with the congress to establish a plan for moving forward on all of these aspects of rule of law. they all relate to the business environment. investment, corruption, pntr. i think, as i have said before, that we should move forward as part of that consideration with the extension of pntr. you said that the duma has to take its actions. i understand it intelligent -- i understand intelligent

believers think that will happen june are july. we should be thinking about what needs to be done in the u.s. in that same time frame. on pntr and on cooperation between the congress and the administration on how to tackle the other rule of law issues that we see. >> thank you. >> thank you. there a two people in our states involved in this. last weekend, i got my hair cut in the capitol barbershop by a russian. she told me that she has been following this and she had written to her relatives in russia telling them they could expect to get more american

beef. could you tell us a little bit about how we can improve our export markets under this proposal? >> senator baucus, going to pntr will give us rate " as we currently do not have under the bilateral agreement, jackson- vanik . . the other thing that this does is opens us up to high-quality beef, which is what we are good at producing in this country. that will go in under a 5% tariff with no quota and i think we can take full advantage of this. to address some of these other issues, what i would like to say is, if we do not do it, if we are not trading with russia,

somebody else is. i think we want our influence to be in russia. i think we want them to go to a democratic style of government. our people that are sending cattle over there and our enterprises over there, i think are perfect examples and they can show these people what democracy is all about. and i think that is something that agriculture displays very well. >> thank you for saying that. mr. allen, it stuns me how big agriculture is in russia. first of all, i was very impressed with the equipment

over there. he was very careful when he it -- when i asked what his russian competition was. the main point i am making is that the manager over there told me that when a manager of the russian form tells his operator where to store his tractor, the manager tells the operator to get up first thing in the morning and go straight, as far as you can, then midday, you stop. you turn around and you come back. some of those pastors are big. he told me about the water,

irrigation and will be available. there is some much water per person compared to other countries. they have tremendous potential over there. we think we have big places in our state? some places over there are very big. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding the hearing and thank you to the panelists for providing your testimony and responding to questions. this hearing is somewhat unique in that we are actually talking about whether or not to repeal a law. the jackson-vanik amendment as it applies to russia and i think a lot of people believe it has outlived its usefulness. i know that will probably be a discussion that will continue here. but, i think is important that we provide u.s. businesses greater access to markets.

there is a growing export market in russia. i know that people like mr. williams are interested in intellectual property protections, which would be a big part of any -- russia comes into the wto and the disciplines that exist there -- as you look at the economics, this looks like it is a one-way street in terms of the benefit to u.s. producers and exporters. i want to ask a question. it is hard to ignore the fact that american companies have very little market penetration in russia. in fact, right now, u.s. products account for about 4% of russia's total import market while the eu accounts for 43%. i guess my question is, why is this the case? and, perhaps, if the u.s. does

not grant russia status pntr, do you expects the disparity to grow even larger than it is today? >> from our standpoint, we do about $800 million of business in russia -- we did that last year. 70% came out of the midwest. that is the opportunity. because of what the german talked about in terms of our russian agriculture potential, we think our market will grow 40 05 times. that has not grown because the whole country is starting to develop and move away from the russian base equipment that is low productivity test equipment to being hi productive farms. the transition is going on. the answer to the second part of your question, our number one competitor over there is another western company out of germany.

if we do not pass it, they have a major benefit from across and instead of seeing the business grow, it will shrink. >> this center, one of the reasons we are so small is because of geographic issues -- center, one of the reasons we are so small as because of the geographic issues. one of the things that these countries do is very much focused on exports. that is something the u.s. could do more of. that will help our government sell more. i think that the improvement of u.s.-russia relations has helped actually improve the business case and will help us going forward. we might see the relationship has not improved, but i think it has over the last several years from what it used to be. that has helped open doors. >> if we do not grant russia

pntr, and you see that as we did the disparity -- do you see the disparity in terms of penetration in that market grow? >> we looked at giving them an economic slap. i think that would have a negative reaction. >> i want to follow up. the senator from montana would like to export more of beef from ontana and we would like to export south dakota beef. in your testimony, you talked about the importance of beef wtoucers and russia's commitments to sanitary

standards. which of these standards will ensure the seniti of beef -- sanity of beef/ ? >> senator, i think all of these are important. simply from the fact that as you turn intohe road, some o protectionism. i think trying to bring russia in line with scientific data and international standards is what we seek from all of our trading partners. that is what level the playing field for all of us. but, we most definitely have a

product that, 10 years ago, was not going into russia. today, we are over 45,000 metric tons and that is more than what we are sending to the eu. that is an expanding market, from our standpoint. the profit that is coming to our business is from our export market. whether that be russia or korea or whatever. that has substantially helped us. >> we will go live now to chicago with remarks from president obama speaking of several campaign fund-raisers today beginning here in chicago and later in atlanta. [applause] >> hello, chicago. thank you.

thank you so much. thank you. to be home. [applause] thank you very much. thank you. everybody, please have a seat. thank you so much. i have never seen this city look more beautiful. i have to say. every time i come back, i am overwhelmed with not only the beauty of the city, but -- i was explaining to folks as we were flying over dick durbin -- what makes this place so special is not just this is where my daughters were born. i started my political career

here, but i got so many good friends and some relationships. as i looked out across their rooms seen so many people who put up with me -- [laughter] before i was president and helped me get their, it is extraordinary. i miss you guys. i wish i could stay the weekend. [laughter] especially, this weekend because we all know there is no better place to be on st. patrick's day than in chicago. [applause] let me say thank you to one of the finest attorney generals and the country. she proved it again in helping us get a settlement on housing. lisa madigan. [applause] the senior center in the great state of illinois, dick durbin.

he is in the house. [applause] the governor of the great state of illinois. [applause] you got a new mayor. i do not know how he is doing, but he seems to have a little bit of energy. [laughter] mr. rahm emanuel. [applause] we have representatives dan schakowsky and bobby rush. [applause] the trees were always trim debt. the snow was always shoveled. [laughter]

i want to thank axelrod and daley for the pre-program. he might have noticed that we have some guests in illinois this week. apparently things have not wrapped up on the other side. [laughter] there is interest in chicago in the primary on tuesday. my message to all of the candidates is welcome to the land of lincoln. [laughter] i am thinking maybe some linkedin will rub off on them when they are here. -- lincoln will rub off on them when they are here. [laughter] he was the leader who saved our union. in the midst of the civil war, he launched the transcontinental

railroad, understanding that in order for america to grow, we had to stick to ourselves together to be connected coast to coast. he said of the first land grant colleges in the midst of a war because this self-taught man understood that education gives the people the chance to realize their potential and if we were able to get them the opportunity to learn, that would be good for all of us, not just that person. he created the national commanded -- academy of sciences to provide discovery and innovation leading to new jobs and new in trustees -- industries. knew that if we did not

act to facilitate these things, they would not happen. as a result, we would all be worse off. he understood that we are a people that take great pride in our self-reliance and independence, but that we are also one nation and one people. we rise or fall together. i hope that while my counterparts on the other side enjoy the outstanding hospitality of the people of illinois and spend money to create the economy -- [laughter] -- i hope they take some time to reflect on this great man, the first republican president. of course, you may not feel confident that will happen. you may be watching some of this avalanche and think that this is

not appealing to the better angle of our nature. [laughter] aat vision of a lincoln's, vision of a big, bold, generous, dynamic, active, inclusive, america -- that has driven this country for more than 200 years. that is the vision that helped create chicago. that is why we do not make little plans here. that is not a democratic vision or a republican vision. that is a quintessentially american vision. [applause] that is the vision that drove our campaign in 2008 and that so many of you work your hearts out

to see realized. it was not because you were willing to settle for an america where people are left to fend for themselves. everybody is playing by their own rules. what he believed in was an america where everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. everybody. does not matter what you look like, where you come from, what your name is. everybody has the chance. hare andthe vision we s the change we believe in. you did not get involved because a guy named barack obama was going to become president. [laughter] we know we did we knew it was not going to be easy or quick -- we knew it was not going to be easy or quick. i t was going to be hard.

think about what happened over the last three years because of what you did in 2008. because of your efforts, your commitment not to me but to -- but to the country into each other. we started to see what changed looked like. i signed the first bill into law that says women deserve an equal day's pay for equal day's work because our daughter should have the same opportunities as our sons. [applause] change is the decision we made to rescue the american auto industry from collapse, even when some are saying let us lead detroit go bankrupt. we had 1 million jobs on the line. the entire economy of the midwest and the country at stake. i was not about to let that happen. because of your efforts, it did not happen. today, gm is back on top as the

world's number one automaker, just reported the highest profits in 100 years. [applause] the factory here in chicago is going gangbusters. they have more than 200,000 new jobs created in the past two and a half years, the other industry is back. that change happen because of you. change is a decision we decided -- we need to stop waiting for congress to do something about our oil addiction and finally raise efficiency standards in our cars and trucks so that by the next decade, we will be driving american-made cars that get 55 miles to the gallon which will save the typical family $8,000. [applause] that is what change is. change is as a longer handing

out $60 billion in taxpayer subsidies to banks who are managing student loans. instead, giving the money directly to students who need it and families who want to see a better life for the next generation. so that millions of children all across the country benefit. fact that forhe the first time in our history, you do not -- you do not have to hide to you love because -- to serve the country you love. do not ask do not tell is over. [applause] change is health care reform that we passed after a century of trying, which means nobody will go bankrupt in this country just because they get sick. [applause] we have to in the half million young people who are the have

health insurance today because -- 2.5 million people who have health insurance today because they can stay on their parents' health insurance. more seniors have lower drug prices. not only is preventative care not covered, it also means that families with children with preexisting conditions are not willing to have to worry that somehow their child is going to be left or they will have to mortgage their business or lose their home because of that illness. that is what change is. james is fulfilling the first problems reaching -- change is fulfilling the first problems i made by ending the war in iraq. [applause] we have made sure that wall street is playing by the rules,

stabilizing our economy. all this happened because of your efforts. now, the question is, what happens next? none of this has been easy. we have got a lot more work to do. there are still too many americans out there who are struggling. whose homes are under water. who are still looking for work. there are too many families right here in chicago who can barely pay the bills. we are trying to figure out -- they are trying to figure out how to let their kids go to college. over the past two years, we have created close to 4 million new jobs. [applause] we have got the biggest growth in manufacturing since the biggest 1990's. [applause] the economy is stronger. our exports are going to double. businesses feel more confident.

so, we have an opportunity to build on all the work we have done over the last three years and the question is, are we going to be able to stay on track and move in the right direction? the other side has got an entirely different idea. their basic theory is that we go back to doing things the same way we were doing them before the crisis hit. promoting the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. it is my belief that the last thing we can afford to do is go back to the same policies that got us into this mess. that is the last thing we can afford to do. that is what they are talking about. they are not making any secret of it, you can watch the ads on tv. they want to go back to wall street playing by its own rules. they want to go back to the days when insurance companies deny coverage or jack up premiums

without reasons. they want to spend trillions of dollars more on tax breaks for the various wealthiest individuals, even if it means adding to the deficit or cutting things like education or medicare. they want to leave everybody on their own. everybody likes their own rules. they are wrong. the united states of america, we have always been greater together than alone. we are better off when we keep to the basic american promise that you can -- if you work hard, you can raise a family and on a home, send your kid to college, save money for retirement. we are better off when the laws are applied fairly to everybody, not just some. that is the choice in this

election. this is not just another political debate. this is the defining issue of our time because we are in a make or break time not only for the middle class, but everybody fighting to get into the middle class. we can go back to an economy based on outsourcing -- we cannot go back to an economy based on outsourcing. an economy built on american manufacturing and energy and skills and education for american workers and the values that made this country great and made this city great and made a mistake great, hard work and fair play and shared responsibility is what we need. that is what is at stake. so, over the coming months, we will have a great debate about who's vision will deliver for the american people. i think we need to make sure

that the next generation of manufacturing takes root knot in asia or europe, but not -- but in pittsburgh, cleveland, and chicago. that is what i believe. [applause] i do not want this nation to be known just for buying and consuming things. i want us to be known for building and selling products all around the world. [applause] this is why i have said, let us stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas. let us award companies that are creating jobs right here in the u.s. [applause] most americans agree. we should be making our schools the envy of the world. by the way, there is a chicago export named arne duncan who is doing unbelievable work at a national level. [applause] he understand, as i understand, that it starts with the man or woman at the front of the classroom.

a good teacher can increase the lifetime earnings of a classroom by over $250,000. so, i do not want to hear washington either defend the status quo or spend all their time bashing teachers. we have been talking about giving schools at the resources they need to hire good teachers and keep them and reward the best ones and provide schools the flexibility to teach with passion. and, replacing teachers who are not helping our kids. [applause] that is what i believe. [applause] when kids do graduate, the biggest challenge they are facing is how to afford a college education. we have more tuition debt than credit card debt. this congress has to pay attention because in july, student loan interest rates are

scheduled to double if we do not do anything about it. we have got to focus on how we make sure our kids can get good value, that they're making informed choices, and they're getting help. colleges and universities have to do their part. i have said to university presidents that we want to work with you and help you, but we cannot keep on finding tuition rates that are skyrocketing. higher education cannot be a luxury. it needs to be imperative that every family should be able to in -- afford. an economy that is said to last is one where we support science and research trying to make sure the next breakthrough in clean energy and biotechnology happens right here in the u.s. we have restored science to its rightful place.

on things like stem cell research, we said, let us follow the science. [applause] we also have to make investments in science. we have to make investments in basic research. lincoln understood that. you understand it. nowhere is that truer than in the area of energy. we have been subsidizing oil companies for 100 years. now is the time to stop subsidizing an oil industry that has rarely been more profitable. double down on a clean energy industry that has never been more promising. solar, wind, while fuel. homegrown, american energy. [applause] that is what we believe. the other side has a different view. we believe we need to get our businesses the best access to railroad and fast

internet. i believe in having the best off. [applause] i do not want to go to time and see a better airport and over here. -- i do not want to go to china and see a better airport than over here. i do not want to see a better road in germany than when short drive. [applause] it is time to take the money and spend down -- take down the debt and then do some nation- building here at home. let us put people back to work. [applause] and we need to make sure we have a tax system that reflects everybody doing their fair share. [applause]

i was with warren buffett a couple of days ago and he is quite pleased that i named to the rule after him. the buffett rule, which is common sense. it says if you make more than $1 million per year, he should not pay lower tax rates and your secretary. -- you should not pay lower tax rate than secretary. [applause] if you make $250,000 a year or less, which is 98% of americans, your taxes should not go up. a lot of folks are struggling. for people like me, we can do a little bit more. i know. you know. this is not class warfare. this is not enzi. and this is basic math. -- this is not envy. this is basic math.

if we are getting tax breaks, that will either add to the deficit, which the other side claims as their top priority, or we have to take something from somebody else. that student who is trying to go to college, suddenly there interest rates go higher. that senior trying to afford their drugs, their costs go up. that veteran who desperately need help right now, they get shortchanged. that family trying to get by, they are forgotten. that is not right. that is not who we are. a lot of politicians are talking about values in election years. some of the advertisements have been talking about that here in illinois. let me tell you about values. hard work is a value. [applause] looking out for one another is a value. [applause] the idea we are in this

together, i am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. that is a value. [applause] caring for our own, that is a value. [applause] making sure that seniors can retire with dignity and respect, that is a value. [applause] making sure our -- are veterans are cared for. that is a value. [applause] you understand that. one of the great things about this town is that we come from everywhere. i guess you cannot look in a phone book because they do not have them -- [laughter] -- but when you think about chicago, what you think about is all the last names. el, sanchez --

will come from someplace else. the only reason that we can be in the spring of this and ballroom is -- we can be in this magnificent bottom is because somebody took responsiblility for their families, and generations of immigrants making sure that they were leading something behind for the next generation. our grandparents and great grandparents, striking out. sometimes falling down, taking themselves back up. they took responsibility for our country's future. they understood the american story is never about just what we can do barker -- by ourselves. we will not written -- we will not win the race with the same old you are on your own economics because it has not worked in the past and it will not work now.

[applause] it did not work in the last decade. it is not like we have not tried it. it does not work. we have to have a stake in each others success. we all understand that. [applause] if we attract enough -- an outstanding teacher to the profession, giving her the pain she deserves and support she deserves and she educates the next jobs -- steve jobs, we all benefit. we get faster internet so tha brinklow can have access to a worldwide market place -- some entrepreneur can have access to a worldwide market place. workers, consumers, we all do better. this is not a democratic or republican idea. lincoln understood.

teddy roosevelt understood. eisenhower built the interstates. fdr gave heroes the chance to go to college on the gi bill. [applause] here is the thing -- that same spirit, the desire to pull the country together and focus on what means -- would need to get done come in a serious way, that still exist today. maybe not in washington. it exists here in chicago. it exists in america. you go to main street, town hall, at church, synagogue s, it

is there. it is there when you talk to the armed forces and folks at baseball games or places of work chip -- worship. our politics may be divided, but most of their and since -- most americans understand that we are graded together in a matter who we are, we rise or fall as one nation. that is what is at stake. that is what is at stake. in this election. that is what we are fighting for. as much as 2008 was exciting and as much as all of us, i think, saw that night at grand park as the combination of something, it was just the beginning of what we are fighting for. that is what 2012 is about.

i know it has been a tough few years. change isve said, and not coming fast enough. when you see what is going on in washington, it is tempting to believe that what we believe in in 2008 was an illusion. maybe it is not possible. it is easy to slip into cynicism. remember what we said in the last campaign. the real change, big change, would be hard. it takes time. it might take more than a single term. it might take more than a single president. what it takes is ordinary citizens who are committed to continuing to fight and push to keep inching this country closer to its ideals. i said in 2008, i am not a

perfect man. i will never be a perfect president. i made a commitment then that i would always tell you what i believed and i would always tell you where i stood. i will wake up every day fighting as hard as i know how for you. i have kept that promise. [applause] to the american people. [applause] so, i am a little grayer now. it is not as trendy to be involved in the obama campaign as it was back then. [laughter] some of you rolled up those posters and they are in a closet somewhere. [laughter] but i am more determined and

confident that what drove us in 2008 is the right thing for america than i have ever been before. [applause] i want to keep pushing for the obstacles and reach for that vision of america that we all believe then. i promise you change will continue to come and if you work as hard as you did then, now, i promise you we will finish what we started in 2008 and we will be the greatest nation on earth. [applause] thank you. god bless. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama is live in chicago, the first of four campaign fund-raisers beginning in chicago. later, he goes to atlanta to make remarks there.

>> the first of 500 is for president obama today. he has two in chicago -- the first of five fund-raisers for president obama today. he has two in chicago. illinois has the primary on tuesday. romney is campaigning today in the state. he hosted a campaign event and travels to puerto rico for a rally tonight at the state capitol in san want. their primary is sunday.

rick santorum is in missouri and he travels to illinois today. he was in missouri at osage beach. he will be in illinois for campaign event this afternoon at arlington heights high school. newt gingrich is taking the day off from campaigning. he has no event today and ron paul is also on the sidelines today. >> we are hearing that the supreme court has rejected requests from news organizations including c-span for live televised coverage of this month's historic arguments on president obama's health-care overhaul. they have agreed to release audio recordings of the proceedings on the same day. the court issued a statement saying there will be a quick release of the audio on each of the three days of the arguments because of the extraordinary public interest in the health-

care case. we will have audio of the arguments from those proceedings said to take place at the end of this month. they will be online and on c-span3. on "newsmakers" ken cuccinelli discusses the importance of the 2012 presidential race. >> this president and his administration are the biggest lawbreakers to run the federal government in our lifetime. they are trampling the states. they are suffocating economic opportunity the way they're functioning. do not think any of the nominees are going to do anything but reversed that trend at least. at least to me to play by the rules, those being the laws and the constitution. how you can see the entire -- you can see the entire interview with ken cuccinelli on "newsmakers" on sunday.

you can also find it on c- span.org. >> i was a radical as a young person. i was the one that got that we should saying we should overcome is not an effective way of gaining civil rights. and i thought that more confrontation was needed. economics professor walter williams on being a radical. >> i believe that a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. i have always been a person who believes that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing without -- so long as i did not violate the rights of other people. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q. and a.."

>> nuclear regulatory chair testified yesterday on the recently approved rules to improve safety at the nation's 104 operating reactors. this is coming one year after the fukushima meltdown calling a nine point earthquake. plants have five years to comply with the new rules. and the environment committee held a hearing. this is about two hours.

>> i am very pleased to welcome you back before the committee. when you're go, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of japan, triggering a tsunami that reported to reach 5 feet high and 6 miles inland. the silky she meant that she nuclear plant was hit hard. -- the fukushima plant hit hard. the buildings were torn apart. nuclear reactors melted. radiation poured out into the environment. people's lives were uprooted. they were evacuated to avoid poisoning. poisoning.