only now in the last 20, 30 years have we seen policies put in place that have created the st inequality ever in modern american history. what does that mean? what does that mean to the average american family? it means that both mom and pop are working, it means that they cannot afford to send their children to school and added on top of that, the great recession thestripped the wealth from 90%. . the wealth was stripped mostly in the housing market collapse. what can we do? what we can do is to rebuild the american manufacturing sector, because this is where the middle class had decent wages. .50 not talking about $7

an hour minimum wage, but wages that a man or woman could earn to protect and to provide for their family. ms. norton: if the gentleman would yield on that point, because the point you're making about december parts in income needs to be understood as you are portraying it, as a new fen no, ma'amon in american lives. yes, there were recessions and very hard times and times before the new deal when government couldn't do anything about it, policy made of disparity that we are experiencing today, not disparity that comes because a few wealthy people create wealth in the last part of the 19th century and there was a need for so many workers that the

disparity was not as great, but disparities that come straight from policies like failure to raise the minimum wage, come 20, ght from policies like years from failing to raise the user fee so we could build roads. now those are classic middle class jobs. if you want to understand how do we build this great middle class and have to go back to post -world war ii and people didn't have college education who could raise four and five children because they had good manufacturing jobs made in america. my good friend talks about if you take the materials of bridges, however, and you buy it only in china, we're not making it in america and we're having a

downward effect on our own manufacturing sector, but at the same time as he points up infrastructure, he points up the classic way to come out of a recession. by building what you have to build any way. here's the government investing in something that's never controversial, because roads and infrastructureer are always the function of government. so if you would have to do it any way, the theory goes, you do it when and the process of doing it, you create jobs and fuel the economy. we are about to have to do another infrastructure bill. we did one two years ago and will last two years because we didn't want to raise the user fees so it goes two years at a time. and even though we had some of the materials from abroad,

something we have to keep from doing next time, every bridge had to be built by an american worker, all that cement had to be the work of the middle class. if we have to do it any way, construction is probably the best way to revive the economy in the first place because it has an effect upon all the rest of the economy. it wakes up the rest of the economy. because we should be -- and right now, i know mr. shuster, who is chair of the transportation and infrastructure committee, does want to do something. we ought to be thinking about precisely the sector that you have mentioned, the sector that creates jobs. that's what we have to do for the crumbling parts of our country which turn out to be the parts underground where our water and sewers are and the parts above ground where we drive to and fro work every day.

mr. garamendi: if the gentlelady would suspend and yield for a moment. you are exactly right about the infrastructure, we need to build it. i notice our colleague from ohio has joined us. and last time we were on the floor, we talked about these issues. so if you would like to carry on here for a while -- >> -- mr. ryan: i would like to support what the gentlelady that been saying. this is bread and butter, this is 101 economics and how you get the economy back up and running. and at a time when we have these high unemployment numbers for the building trades and the construction trades, what a shot in the arm. and i think this is the essential point, this work needs to be done any way. so it's either going to get done now or going to get done later, why now do it now for the best

bang of your buck and also jump start the economy as opposed to say we are going to do it five years from now when cement is more expensive five years from now and labor is more expensive, all the other costs associated are going to be more expensive five years now. so let's get the job done now and make these investments now and let's get the economy going now. and we are having some job growth and the sequester is hurting, but we have to make these investments and let's rebuild the country and let's rebuild the cities. let's have an innovative approach the way we create and invest in our downtown and tie it into what we are doing in my older industrial areas where we are knocking down a lot of old homes. city of youngstown, 180,000

people lived in that town, we are at 70,000. we are knocking down homes. we have green space. we are planting urban gardens and get fresh food into these food deserts because of the investments we are making and do the same thing with bike trails and downtown redevelopment and incentives, as we do the roads, bridges and heavy infrastructure. combined sewer. how many cities have billions of dollars in need for combined sewer overflow? these cities don't have the money to do it. and if they do it, if they even can, if they have the bonding capacity to do it, they are going to drive rates up so high in their own communities, they are going to further create sprall, which means more new water lines, more new sewer

lines in more green space and it's counterproductive. let's drive people back into the urban core. let's have urban space, urban gardens, farmers' markets, fresh food to our young people and people living in our cities, at the same time we make these investments. and when you're building roads and bridges and needing steel, it's going to affect manufacturing. mr. garamendi: if you use american taxpayer money to buy american-made equipment, supplies and products. mr. ryan: look at the supply chain with manufacturing. and you see the six, seven or eight jobs for every one job created on the manufacturing floor. i love representing my district, like we all do. i'm in northeast ohio, so i could do a factory tour a day for my career and not even scrape the surface as to what the manufacturers are. and whether you are talking

about the defense industrial base, whether you are talking about construction, all the way down the line, auto, the manufacturing capabilities in this country, they're tremendous. and now we see on the defense side that maybe a lot of the defense industrial base isn't in america like it used to be. how do we come together, democrats and republicans, and say, well, we're spending this money, why don't we drive it in youngstown, ohio? in toledo? mobile, alabama. iowa? some of these old industrial areas? this can be done. i want to make one last point. the narrative today is that everything that the government does, everything, every dollar the government spends money on is bad. well, that's the narrative we're all operating from now because

our friends on the other side, quite frankly, have won that discussion. but here we are. we can't get a transportation bill, because that falls into government spending. early childhood education, head start, that all falls into the abyss of wasteful government spending. when the fact of the matter is these are investments that yield value and create wealth in our society. and i will just say that we were in the defense appropriations subcommittee hearing today and we were talking about the navy. and we were talking about the sea lanes. and we were talking about the straits of hormuz and all of these different areas that we protect, tax dollars protect, so that commerce can go. government investments to help business thrive.

it's a delicate balancing act and to come up with just the bumper sticker slogans in order to score political points has damaged our ability to do what we did from post-world war ii in the 1980's and that is invest in education, infrastructure and american workers and let the free market go from there. i thank the gentleman for his leadership in the make it in america caucus and promote manufacturing and thank the gentlelady from the district of columbia. mr. garamendi: the gentleman from ohio knows what it is to rebuild the manufacturing base and the work that you have been doing. ms. norton if you could wrap and then i'll wrap and call it a day. ms. norton: when both of you have spoken manufacturing from different view points, look

what's happening, the private sector is bringing manufacturing home because we are -- because of the low cost of gas and we're doing more of our own gas because of low cast energy, because of what we are doing in i.t. it wants to do it. the government just needs to do its part. do what the gentleman says. don't take jobs from youngstown. help youngstown to build youngstown. now's the time to rebuild it. i thank the gentleman for yielding to us in this important discussion every week. mr. garamendi: if we start thinking about what we can do rather than what we cannot do, this is america, this is the country built the future. we really did and we can claim the future if we reach back into our history and do what we did

before. we were builders. we built the foundations. and as you said so very clearly, it's investment. it's investment into intellectual ability of americans and education and research and investment in the infrastructure, investment in the business community. there's a combination of government and private sector. it's the history of america. it's an exciting history and potential. unfortunately, we are ignoring the key role that the government's -- governments, local, state and federal play. we are builders and we are americans and we will do it. we will make it happen. and i will tell you this, when america begins to make it in america, americans are going to make it. i thank you so very much mr. speaker and i yield back and i thank my colleagues.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act 50 united states code 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the until emergency with respect to the actions of the government of syria declared in executive order 13338 of may 11, 2004 as modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken

in executive order 13399 of april 25, 2006, executive order, 13460 of february 13, 2008, executive order 1372. executive order 13573 of may 18, 2011. executive order 13582 of august 17, 2007. executive order of april 22, 2012 and executive order 13608 of may 1, 2012 is to continue in effect beyond may 11, 2013. while the syrian regime has reduced the number of foreign fighters bound for iraq, the regime's brutal war on the syrian people who have been calling for freedom and a representative government endanger not only the syrian people themselves, but could yield greater instability throughout the region. the policies, including pursue

chemical and biological weapons and supporting terrorist organizations and obstructing the government to function effectively continue to pose unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the united states. for these reasons, i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect the national emergency declared with respect to this threat and to maintain it and enforce the sanctions to address this national emergency. in addition, the united states condemns the assad's regime abuse of brutal violence and human rights abuses and calls on the assad regime to stop its violent war and step aside to allow a political transition in syria toward a future of greater freedom, democracy, opportunity and justice. united states will consider changes in the composition of policies and actions of the government of syria in determining whether to continue

or terminate this until emergency in the future. sind barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. . . under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, for 30 minutes. mr. fleming: thank you, mr. speaker. it's indeed a pleasure to be here tonight to talk about a very, very important subject and that is the case of dr. kermit gosnell. before i do, i do want to mention a couple of things about the previous special order, my friends across the other side of the aisle who were talking about, for instance, medicare and coverage under medicare and obamacare pointing out that insurance companies are not as good as the government in terms of denying care and i would

suggest to my friends that at least you can change your insurance companies. you cannot change your government. and so i see that as a fatal flaw among many with obamacare. also, a lot of time was spent talking about income disparity, and i absolutely agree with my friends that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in america. but i have to have a hint for them, mr. speaker. president barack obama has been our president for the last nearly five years. it's his policies that's creating that situation. in fact, unemployment levels among minorities, particularly hispanics and african-americans, are at historically high levels and it's because of the policies of and omics, dodd-frank, the excessive spending that's been occurring in washington that has led to this problem.

and then finally my friends talk about the fact that the president has submitted a couple of jobs bills and we've refused to bring them up and pass them. i submit, mr. speaker, these jobs bills are nothing more than many stimulus bills that passed this house under democrat control in the first two years of the president's first term. and what did we get as a result? only more deficits and more debt. we did not get an improvement of the jobs picture. on the other hand, in the last term under republican controlled house, we passed 33 obs bills and the president, senate did not bring up one of them and that would be diverted federal land to rebuild bridges and highways. so again i'd submit, mr.

speaker, to our friends on the other side of the aisle that perhaps they need to update their talking points. they're giving the same ones they gave in 2009 at the beginning of the obama administration. now we're nearly five years down the road and the second obama term and the policies we're living under and have been have been the obama economic policies, not the republican policies and certainly not president bush. so mr. speaker, i'd like to talk about kermit gosnell. you know, the mayor of philadelphia says that dr. kermit gosnell is an aberration, an outlier, a rare case. gosnell, of course, is the abortionist in philadelphia who's awaiting a verdict on charges of killing four babies and a woman. we know there were many more. philadelphia's mayor said of these atrocities, quote, this is a highly unusual situation,

unquote. perhaps it's no wonder why some see gosnell as an aberration. his clinic was inspected only three times in 31 years and it was never inspected from 1993 to 2010. the gruesome discovery of multiple body parts from aborted babies, blood spattered on walls and other deplorable conditions were discovered only by accident. and i want to point out that i think we know what dr. gosnell was all about. he was about not elevated principles of doing right for women, women's health, this sort of thing. it was about money. mr. speaker, it was about money and you'll see why. despite the fact that this had been going on for 31 years, it went undiscovered. agents from the drug enforcement administration entered the clinic with the correct belief that gosnell was

running an illegal prescription drug business selling oxy cotin and many other highly addictive drugs. he was writing about 1,900 prescriptions a month and customers were picking them up in a takeout fashion. so again it was not about elevated principles and women's health. it was about money. law enforcement had no idea until they raided gosnell's clinic in 2010 that the pill meal he was running by day was a gruesome abortion clinic by night. he had been performing the late-term abortions for decades and his procedures caused so much harm to women that he was being hit with malpractice lawsuits. you see, in late term, doing those kind of abortions that must be done, it's very damaging to the womb. many cases using sharp instruments to literally cut up the little baby, to puncture

the skull, that's very damaging to the womb and, of course, women can have excessive bleeding, perforated uterus and these things lead to complications and of course lawsuits. so it's a sad irony but abortion supporters have argued for years that making abortion legal protects women from the kind of butchery performed by doctors like gosnell. you see, dr. gosnell, after having literally dozens of lawsuits, he decided it was safer for him, safer for gosnell, not for the women, to stop trying to kill the babies in the womb. he just went ahead and induced labor in late term and then kill the baby shortly thereafter birth. how did he do it? it was what he referred to as snipping. he would thrust a pair of scissors in the base of the skull, in the back of the neck, clip the spinal cord, destroy

the lower part of the brain and make the baby stop breathing. in fact, witnesses said that in a number of cases babies were there, again, late term but somewhat premature but certainly well enough mature to have survived outside of the womb would be there breathing before he did his heinous acts or in some cases were actually rying. i know we'd like to wish that kermit gosnell were an aberration. i hope we look back and see the practice of abortion as a horrible aberration and a culture that should defend life and protect the innocent. since bill clinton first said it in 1996, the pro-abortion side has been telling us that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. yet, there are still many more than a million -- than a

million -- still there are more than a million abortions each year in the united states. we know they are never safe for the unborn child because the child dies, of course, and as we can see they are often dangerous for women involved, not only during the procedure but shortly thereafter and often long term. we know statistics tell us that the infertility rate down the road, suicide rate, depression and many other scales by which we measure quality of life will all be diminished after abortions and the more abortions the worst the outcomes. how many other gosnells work in secret without inspections or regulations, as in this case? perhaps they're not really so rare. take, for example, dr. leroy who was responsible for the abortion procedure earlier this year in maryland that ended with the death of a 29-year-old oman who was 33 weeks pregnant

? another patient died after a similar procedure in 2005. in muskegon, michigan, details are just surfacing about an abortionist, another one, who's accused of leaving a decapitated head of an unborn child inside a woman's womb after rupturing her uterus and nearly taking her life. the michigan state legislature is investigating why the state board of medicine did not pursue earlier complaints about the same doctor. you see, what we're finding is in many cases, while the medical agencies that are responsible for oversite, are turning their heads when it comes to the i shall -- oversight, are turning their heads when it comes to abortions. they inspect doctors' offices and hots, it's like they don't want to go there, apparently.

in recent weeks we've seen video showing doctors and medical personnel at abortion clinics with a calous and even heinous disregard for life. in the most recent video, a woman who's 23 weeks gestation in her pregnancy asked if there's any chance her baby might be born alive and could she take it home if it is and the clinic counselor assures her it's not likely to happen and said if the child happens to be born alive during the abortion procedure, the medical staff will make no efforts to preserve the life of the -- the child's life but allow it simply to die. that's no surprise considering the planned parenthood representative who testified about the late-term abortions in march before a florida state house subcommittee. when asked what planned parenthood would want to happen if a baby was born alive and

still struggling to live after a botched abortion, she said, quote, we believe that any decisions that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician, end quote. when pressed further about what planned parenthood physicians do if a baby is alive and moving and breathing on the table, she answered, quote, i do not have that information, end quote. doesn't that sound familiar? remember that president obama was once asked, when does life begin, of course implying, does it begin at conception and he said, it's above his pay grade. mr. speaker, if it's above the president's pay grade, then where do we go from there? certainly planned parenthood doesn't know either. well, i can tell you i do. i'm a physician. it's called the born-alive infants protection act, a federal law that was enacted in 2002 that extends legal

protections to any infant born alive during an attempted abortion. there shouldn't be any doubt or any question about what to do with that baby. it is a life that is to be preserved. remember that planned parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in this country. so if a planned parenthood representative in florida thinks it's ok for the family to decide to let the child die, is there really any doubt that there are many more cases like kermit gosnell? beyond cases of being fantasized -- badly injured women and even women who died during abortions, there has been an increase in the number of reports of dangerous and filthy conditions at abortion clinics. state officials in delaware investigating planned parenthood of delaware for unsafe and unsanitary conditions. in virginia, again, aberration

here. many different examples of problems. in virginia an abortion clinic closed this month because it didn't want to operate under new safety standards and proper inspections that have been long overdue in the commonwealth. va's state legislature saw the need for commonsense rules like making sure door ways are wide enough for an emergency guerney can pass through so a patient can be taken in an ambulance. with the industry focused on bottomline profits and remember, gosnell, he ran -- we know what he was all about. not elevated principles or women's health but about the almighty dollar. what the gosnell case and these

others have helped expose is the sad truth that states look the other ways while abortion clinics run amuck and the health and lives of women are in danger. let's be clear. there's no such thing as a safe abortion. not only does the pregnant woman face emotional and physical risk up to and including death, but each abortion is the ending of an innocent human life. o how is it that we have a humane society for animals but don't have a humane society for the most innocent and vulnerable humans, babies? why is it that the media and many americans go crazy over the treatment of wild and domestic animals but turn a deaf ear to the silent screams eminating from inside the wombs of millions of young women?

mr. speaker, what can be done about such alleged murderers as gosnell? how many more gosnells are out there damaging wombs and killing babies? if we hate on the media and state health care officials to find them, we may have to wait many years while many deaths occur. therefore, i call on state legislature and governors to write iron clad laws and regular layings to protect mothers and infants, state regulators to ensure that abortion clinics are adhering to every rule and law now in place and the many more that will be established in the future, we hope. and i call on prosecutors and judges to make sure that abortionists and abortion clinics that break the law face the full measure of law. finally, we stand today with our national conscience stirred by the gosnell trial to stop and

look again at life in the womb. gosnell was killing babies that otherwise would have survived if they had been -- had they been given the chance. this trial is merely scratching the surface of the greater reality that medical technology has been showing us now for more than a decade. the life that is developing in the womb is a baby. it is a growing and developing child that feels pain. we know scientifically as early as 20 weeks. and destroying that life is extremely painful to the baby and should not, that is abortion, be an option. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from

massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for 30 minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, next wednesday, the house agriculture committee is expected to mark up the farm bill. the farm bill is an important bill for many reasons, chief among them is the re-authorization of our anti-hunger safety net programs. the largest and arguably the most important is the supplemental knew trishon program or snap, as i continue

to remind my colleagues through end hunger now speeches, hunger is a real problem in america. even as we slowly come out of this recession and as americans struggle to get back on their feet, there is still nearly over 50 million hungry people living in this country. nearly 17 million are kids. the hungry labeled by some as food insecure because they don't know where their next meal is coming from, aren't like those who starve in third world countries and that's primarily because of snap and other anti-hunger safety net programs. snap has prevented millions of people going -- from going without food. the population served by snap is not the rich and not living in mansions or driving expensive cars or eating in five-star restaurants but primarily low-income families.

they are trying to provide healthy food for their families or try to keep a roof over their head and pay the bills to keep utilities running. and that's why the farm bill is so important. every five years we have an opportunity to look at snap and other programs to make up the farm bill. we have an opportunity to look at what is and what isn't working. we have the opportunity to make the program run better, at least that's what we should be doing. and unfortunately, mr. speaker, as we move to the markup of this farm bill, we haven't had a single hearing this year on the snap program. but next week, the house agriculture committee will mark up a farm bill that will cut $20 billion from snap. that's $20 billion that could go to feed hungry americans. that's a $20 billion cut that will literally take food out of the mouths of hungry americans

in america e hunger worse not better. snap is the most effective and efficient federally-run program. error rates at an all-time low. when it comes to error rates, more snap benefits are underpaid than overpaid. a snap error will likely result in a beneficiary receiving a smaller benefit rather than a higher benefit. waste and abuse is almost neglig i believe. and people who defraud snap and those who break the law are being arrested and are going to jail. the program is working, mr. speaker. and i defy anyone to show me any other federal program that is as effective and efficient as snap. yet, some republicans are hell bent on cutting the program. i should say obliterating the

program. and i simply do not understand why. what do they have against poor people? why do they think it's ok to pull back a helping hand? people use snap to put food on their tables during difficult times. the way to reduce the number of people on snap is by creating jobs, helping to get this economy going again. the more people who go back to work, the less people need to rely on snap. but what some in this house are proposing is that we ash temporarily and indiscriminately cut the help that people need. $20 billion cut will do real damage. it will be harder for some to get snap. for others, they will see the snap benefit cut, meaning you will buy the same amount of food

with less money and we will see a minimum several 100,000 poor kids lose their free meals. this will take the food away from poor kids. for the life of me, i cannot understand, why anyone, i don't care what your political party is, would want to do this. cutting snap is a bad policy. cutting snap in the name of fiscal responsibility is not just a misnomer, but a falsehood that must be debunked. there are many other programs in the farm bill that have programs hat have high fraud and abuse. these programs must be taken in rather than going after programs that help poor people struggle to feed their families during difficult times. mr. speaker, i continue to believe that we can end hunger now if we have the political will to do so, passing a farm

bill that cuts $20 billion from this program will not end hunger now. it will make hunger worse. it is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time in our history. i'd like to believe that my republican colleagues on the agriculture committee would realize this before they embrace a bill that would have such a draconian cut, that would have a $20 billion cut in snap. mr. speaker, i'm urging my democratic colleagues in the agriculture committee to join me in rejecting these cuts. and if these cuts prevail, then we should vote against this farm bill. i think it is simply wrong to send a bill to the house floor or if it passes the house floor, over to the united states senate, that ends this important

program. it is just wrong. and for some wrong it has become fashionable in this house to not worry about the poor and vulnerable. every time we need to find a cut, you go after programs that benefit the most vulnerable. it is wrong. it is outrageous. it goes against everything we're supposed to be doing in this congress. mr. speaker, rejecting these cuts is the right thing to do, especially if we want to end hunger now. mr. speaker, i would remind my colleagues that hunger is a political condition. hunger is a political condition. we have the resources, we have the means, we have the infrastructure to end it, but we don't have the political will. we have the political will when it comes to going to war, we have the political will of giving tax breaks to wealthy people, we have the political will when it comes to protecting special interest subsidies to

big oil, but when it comes to ending hunger, the political will is not here. it is not here. and what a shame. and what a shame, mr. speaker. i remind my colleagues that there was a cost to hunger, when people say to me, oh, we can't afford help these people or expand these programs because this is a tough budget -- budgetary time that we find ourselves in. i remind my colleagues that there is a cost here, health care costs, for example, people who do not eat on a regular basis, children who are denied food, who are hungry, their immune systems are compromised and get common colds and ends up turning into something worse and go into emergency rooms and stays several days. there is a cost to this. senior citizens who can't afford food and medicine, they take medicine on an empty stomach and

goes to the hospitals and stays for few weeks, there is a cost to that. workers aren't as productive and let me remind my colleagues, mr. speaker, when people think snap is only a program for those who are unemployed. millions and millions and millions of people on this program work, but they don't earn enough to not qualify for this benefit. if you want to do something -- increase the minimum wage. get -- invest in this economy and get more people back to work. there are millions of working people who rely on this program to feed their families. there is a cost, mr. speaker. there's also a cost in terms of kids going to school hungry who can't learn. you know, i mean -- if you're hungry, you can't focus. i wish if i had my way, mr. speaker, i would have -- i would

require universal school breakfast for everyone who goss to school in this country at the bell because the bottom line is that meal, that nutrition is every bit as important to a young child in terms of learning as that textbook is, because that textbook doesn't do a kidney good if he or she is hungry, if all they're worried about is where they are going to get their next meal. there are 17 million children in this country that are hungry. mr. speaker, we are supposed to be a political body here that is dedicated to solving problems. that's what our job is supposed to be. we are to help people and solve problems, not ignore them or make them worse. you know, there are millions of vulnerable people in this country who need our attention and who need our help. they don't want a hand out. they want a hand up.

they want to enter the job market. they want to enter into a secure economy. they are looking for some help to get them to the point they can survive long enough to see this economy get back on its feet. you know, hunger in america is a real problem. this is an issue. no one talks about it here. but it is an issue. you don't see the leadership of this house, the republican leadership of the house paying any attention to this. they never even mention the word hunger. they haven't mentioned the word poverty when they speak, but this is a real problem. this is a real problem. and i would urge my colleagues who are about to embrace a $20 billion cut in snap to get out of washington or better yet, just leave the capitol grounds and go out and meet some people who are struggling on this benefit. meet some people who don't have enough to eat, who end up going

to food banks. . . this is not a get rich scheme. here's something else my colleagues need to understand. even if we protected everything as it is, i mean, didn't make any cuts in the farm bill next week, guess what, the average benefit, the average food stamp benefit, the average snap benefit is going to go down anyway because we have dipped into snap to pay for other programs. it has been our a.t.m. machine to pay for a lot of other programs. and so the benefit already is going to go down for people. people are going to feel it even if we were to do nothing. but to pile on $20 billion worth of cuts, and my friends will say, well, it's this categorical eligibility or it's this -- or, you know, we don't like the way this state does it

or that state does it, here's the point i want to make. if people were truly interested in making this program run better, then we would be doing hearing after hearing after hearing not only here in washington but out in the field , listening to people who are beneficiaries, listening to the food banks, listening to the anti-hunger advocacy groups, listening to the mayors, listening to the governors, listening to people and we would figure out how to to this in a way that makes sense. by the way, any savings we find in snap, we ought to put back into programs that promote nutrition, not take this money and help pay for a subsidy to some big agribusiness or ntinue to fund some cock amaimy crop insurance program. subsidy to put any

back in these programs. my friends that don't want to -- they're not interested in helping this work better. all they're interested is in taking this money without taking from the special interests that fund political campaigns here. i find that outrageous. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues, both republicans and democrats, don't turn your backs on the poor. don't turn your backs on the hungry in this country. as members of the united states congress, we should be ashamed, we should be ashamed that there are 50 million people in the united states of america that are hungry, that 17 million of them are children. it is outrageous. we're the richest, most powerful country in the world. there shouldn't be any hunger here. there shouldn't be anybody who has to worry whether or not they will put good, nutritious food on the table. so i urge my colleagues,

democrats, republicans, please, what do not fall for this notion that cutting $20 billion won't make any difference to anybody. we're tightening the program up, don't fall for that line because it's just not true. it's just not true. $20 billion in cuts from this program will mean that people today -- who today are getting food tomorrow will not. again, if people qualify for this program, their kids automatically qualify for the free breakfast or lunch program at school. you cut these families off this program, those kids will no longer be eligible for that. how that helps our interest in this country, how it deals with our deficit or debt problem is

beyond me because we're creating a whole slew of new problems. i mean, we are so much better than that. we are so much better than that. let me just close with this, mr. speaker. you know, some people have said to me, you know, hunger's been around for a long time. there's nothing we can do about it. those people are wrong, mr. speaker. they are wrong. you know, in 1968 there was a documentary on television, it was abc that documented for the entire nation to see the hunger problem in america. and in the aftermath of that documentary in a bipartisan way people like senator george mcgovern of south dakota, senator robert dole of kansas, senator jake jabbetz of new york, senator humphrey of

minnesota, in a bipartisan way came together and helped putting together an effort to end hunger. and in the 1970's, mid to late 1970's we almost succeeded in ending hunger in this country. we almost succeeded. and then came along a congress that undid everything. and today we have seen the results of the negligence of congress and of various white houses over the years and that is 50 million americans, 50 million americans who are hungry. mr. speaker, i believe that we can do better than that and i believe that we are a much better country than that and i plead with my colleagues here. please don't do this. please don't do this. the people we're talking about who benefit from this program, you know, they don't have any big political pacts, they don't have a lot of high-priced lobby

yists here in washington. -- lobbyists here in washington. i'm not sure how many of them will vote in the next election, but there are neighbors, -- but they're our neighbors, they're part of our community. we're supposed to represent them. we're supposed to help people, not hurt people, and if this farm bill goes forward with a $20 billion cut in snap, we will be hurting people in this country. we will be hurting millions and millions of people in this country. i hope we don't go down that path. i urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to join with me, end hunger now, reject these attempts to -- cutting snap by $20 billion. support a farm bill that supports not only our farmers but supports good nutrition and supports an effort that will end hunger now. i thank my colleagues for listening to me and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from iowa, mr. king, or 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and also the times that i've had to be here on the floor and listening to the dialogue and the debate that's delivered by members of both sides, the republican and the democrat side of the aisle. i listen with interest as my friend and colleague on the ag committee, mr. mcgovern, talked about the snap program and the necessity to maintain the dollars that were there. it's a little -- i was a little surprised that he didn't ask for more dollars going in the snap program as opposed to reduce the program increase in the snap program. we have about $78 billion a year that are going into food stamps now. $78 billion. little more than that.

and by next year it will be $80 billion. now, we do calculate our budget and spending in a 10-year budget window, so that means $800 billion is the universe of money that he's talking about and he's pleading with us not to reduce that growth from $78 billion -- a little more than $78 billion a year, up over to $80 billion so that $2 billion increase between this year and next year, over the period of time of 10 years, there would be $20 billion trimmed off of $800 billion. it comes to about a 2.5% decrease in the overall projected expenditure of the food stamp program known as snap. after all that technical jibberish, the bottom line is a $20 billion cut is a $2.5 billion in the increase, spread out over 10 years is not going to be noticeable. when the gentleman speaks of

how we would be, and i quote, literally take food out of the mouths of hungry americans. mr. speaker, it's important to point out, literally taking the food out of the mouths of hungry americans have not happened in the history of the united states. it's very unlikely to happen in the future of the united states and it's not something that would be the result of a piece of legislation that would come out of this congress and specifically out of the ag committee and specifically out of the subcommittee that i chair. no, mr. speaker. there's not going to be any literal taking of food out of the mouths of hungry americans, to quote the gentleman from massachusetts. literally means really. it means actually. it means it physically happens. now if you are literally going to take food out of the mouths of hungry americans, you would have to extract it once you put it in their mouth. that's what he said. that's perhaps over-the-top

rhetoric. i understand he's passionate about the issue, but even figuratively speaking, it's a real stretch to argue that 2.5% reduction in anticipation of the food stamp program over a 10-year period of time is going to do something to starve kids when we're addressing the eligibility for the food stamp program. and we're seeing -- we're seeing narratives, facts, actually, of people that are using their e.b.t. card, that electronic benefits transfer card, that card that has spawned rap music about the easy accessibility and the marketability on the street. that card being used to get tattoos, that food stamp, e.b.t. card, to bail at least one individual out of jail. there has to be a place where the gentleman from massachusetts and i would draw the line and say enough. enough. we've taxed the taxpayers enough. we've punished the producers enough. we borrowed enough money from the chinese and the saudis. we should not be borrowing money from the chinese and the saudis to fund somebody's

tattoos to help hold up a tattoo parlor that in the neon sign say we take e.b.t. cards. no, mr. speaker, there has to be a place to draw the line and actually say no. the gentleman from massachusetts gave me no indication, even though i listened to every word, where he would say enough is enough or even an amount being too much. and so i would suggest that i have watched as the numbers of americans that have signed up for the food stamp program have gone from 19 million people to 49 million people. think of that. 30 million new people on the food stamp program. millions of dollars being spent by the u.s. department of agriculture to advertise food stamp signups so we can expand the numbers of people that are on another government program and encouraged them to sign up. what for? it grows the empire of dependency which grows the empire of politics of the

people on the left. they know that. they're not stupid. i have a whole different set of motives than i have but i understand what they're doing. no longer 19 million people on food stamps. 49 million people on food stamps. and secretary of agriculture that has an advertising budget spending millions to go out and recruit more to sign on, and now having communications going on and publications popping up from mexican consulates that in spanish say, in foreign countries even, you can -- we don't have to ask you and will not ask you about your status in the united states. if you're here illegally, sign up anyway, and we'll do that in your native language and advertise in mexico to get people to sign up on the food stamp program here or there. do they send the e.b. card through the mexican consulate or does it go in regular mail or do you have to show up and claim it? i question all of these things,

mr. speaker. and what do they, he means republicans, what do they have against poor people? here's what we have. we have an aspiration for everybody to be the beth they can be. we have an aspiration for everybody to succeed the limit of their god-given abilities and to demonstrate their ambition and to be challenged out here in this society. that's why people come here. it's not because we offer 80 different means tested federal welfare programs and we advertise that you come here, you don't have to be responsible, you don't have to work, you don't have to carry your share of the load. you may have thought that america had a safety net, no, it's a hammock and they're out of hand and this administration is promoting the expansion of them for political purposes as whatever the level of compassion might be from the gentleman from massachusetts and when he said arbitrarily and indiscriminantly cut and that there are 17 million kids hungry and 50 million americans that are hungry, this reduction

of this 2.5% over this 10-year period of time that's in the anticipated formula for food stamps is not going to be arbitrary and it's not going to be indiscriminant. it is going to be a number close to $20 billion, but instead it's going to lower the eligibility so that people that need it less. in fact, many of the people that don't need it at all won't qualify so we're not paying for tattoos and we're not paying to bail people out of jail and we're not sending food stamps along with everybody's -- everybody's liheap claim where in the past if you qualify for $1 in low-income heating assistance program, you qualify for the full array of snap benefits. that's going to be adjusted upwards so that the evaluation of liheap raises the bar a little bit and that's a tiny little trim and a little haircut that is 2.5% but it's not arbitrary, it's not indiscriminant. it will be those who don't need this nearly as much as others.

we're going to protect hungry kids and we're going to protect people that need the benefit but we're not going to be paying for tattoos and we're not going to be bailing people out of jail. by the way, i don't think we're either going to pay for the deposits on those $7 water jugs that people are going in and using those e.b.t. cards to buy a jug of water, take it out in the parking lot of the grocery store, carry it back in and turn it in for the $7 cash refund for the deposit. that is a place where millions of dollars have been wasted by people who have e.b.t. cards and if they're hungry they're not going to be spending that e.b.t. money on water and converting it into $7 worth of cash. the gentleman from massachusetts, i'd like to see him look at some of the fraud that's going on here and has the compassion for the american axpayers. several hundred thousand kids will lose their school meal he said. mr. speaker, that may or may

not be true. i don't know about the basis of that statement. but i know this, that decision won't be made by the ag committee, it won't be made under the snap fleasm school lunch program is a product of the ed and work force committee, it will be appropriated out of a different committee than what we'll expect as the farm bill is appropriated. he's worried about this being part of the markup. that won't be a subject matter, as much as i'd like it to be. because if the gentleman from massachusetts is concerned about hungry kids, then i would think he would sign on to my bill. my bill, mr. speaker, which prohibits the u.s. department of agriculture from rationing food to our children in the school lunch program. that is what they're doing, mr. speaker. there was a piece of legislation that passed through this house in the lame duck session of 2010, pushed by, there was the first lady's

bill, the healthy and hunger-free kids act. they have a way of putting real nice labels on bills that do something else. i understand her initiative on this, and her -- she wans people, she wants especially young people to get good, healthy, well-balanced meals, get some exercise, and i think that's a good message for the first lady to send. when you promote a piece of legislation, however, and that legislation then requires that there be a certain mix of vegetables and fruit and carbohydrates and that kind of thing spread out through the usda school lunch program which the ag committee doesn't have jurisdiction over that recommendation on its basis was relatively sound, mr. speaker. even though i didn't agree we should be dictating that at a federal level i didn't have a major objection to that initiative either. but we've seen what's happen. secretary of agriculture has taken license that doesn't exist within the bill and

capped the calories to our kids in schools. and so they have put a lid on the amount of dal res that can be served in each of the cat goifers elementary, middle school and in high school. and that cap on the calories, at least in one case in the middle schoolers, it is the calorie limitations that they had as a minimum coming into the school year was greater than the maximum that they allow to some of those middle schoolers today. they have put every kid on the school lunch program in this country on a diet, mr. speaker. the administration, a policy supported by the gentleman from massachusetts, a policy driven by manufactured, i think out of thin air, but with a self-assigned license by the department of agriculture is rationing food tour kids in school. i listen to the gentleman from massachusetts and he said that the kids can't if you're hungry in school, you can't focus. i agree. i think kids need to go to school and they need to have

food in their belly and they need to go to lunch knowing they can get all the nutritious food they want to eat because for many of them, that's the only decent meal they'll get all day. they need to be fed in school, i will make this statement, mr. speaker, there's not a single kid in america that's getting fat on school lunch. that's not where it's happening. it's in the junk food afterwards because they can't wait to get out of the school door because they've been starved at the school lunch program, shortened on calories. if i were going to set up a new fan chies and try to make money, i'd set up a junk food wagon like the ice cream truck and set up in the school parking lot, and as soon as they're out of school, sell them the junk their clamoring for. that's what they do, leave school and eat junk food and sit in front of the tv and somehow the administration thinks the kids are getting fat at the school lunch program.

same level of calories to a 70-pound freshman in high school as in a 250-pound high school football player with a high level of activity and energy requirement. how is it that one sides fits all for four grades in school, a 70-pounder and 270-pounder, need the same amount of calories? you know that you're going to be starving the biggest kids and probably not providing enough opportunity for that younger one to grow. meanwhile, we're not just inhibiting their mental growth, we're inhibiting their physical growth as well. if you think you can reduce calories and ration food to kids that are growing and are active and somehow they're going to grow untilly and mentally in an environment like that that is a tragedy. that's -- i say to the gentleman from massachusetts, that's tragedy we should be able to work on together, starving kids in the school lunch program. i point out that north and south korea, pretty close to the, let me say, as close as you can get ethnically speak,

genetically speak, have been separated over 60 year the people in north korea don't get a lot of diet. people in south korea have been successful and get a far more healthy diet. people in south korea are on average 3 1/2 inches taller than people in north korea. if we're going to starve our kids in school, under some myopic idea that we're going to train them to eat their raw broccoli and raw call flower and somehow they'll get enough to eat and be active and healthy and grow, that's a mistake. give them all the healthy food they want to eat at least once a day, do not starve them. and i could go on with the gentleman's statement, we're going to write up and markup a good farm bill that does the prudent thing and it doesn't starve people, doesn't take food out of the mouths of babes or adults or anybody else, it just prohibits the utilization of these e.b.t. cards, food stamps, snap program, for being used for -- by people who are

needy, by people that use it for something it wasn't intended for. that's just the beginning of my response to the gentleman but this fits in with the broader theme, mr. speaker, that i came here to speak about and that is, the issue here in the united states of this massive dependency that's been growing in this country, the gentleman's worried about 50 million people that are hungry, i don't know where that number comes from, i think we've all been hungry at one time or another, that would be a subjective number. but i would point out that we have over 100 million americans that are simply not in the work force. when you add the unemployed to those who are not in the work force by the definition that's put out by the department of labor that number is over 100 million americans. and the highest levels of unemployment that we have in the country are at the lowest skilled jobs. no skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs, double digit unemployment. this isn't a country like it was back in 1849 when we needed

to build the transcontinental railroad and brought people in from across the ocean to drive spikes and lay ties and lay rail coming from the west. we brought people in from western europe to go build the track, the train tracks from the east and they met at the golden spike territory in that period of time, this country needed labor then. we needed low-skilled labor then, people that would put their hands and their back to this work. some folks think that america needs that kind of labor today. if we did, we wouldn't have double digit unemployment in the low-skilled jobs. and here we have united states senate that seems to be poised and too many people in the house of representatives that seem to be prepared to support them, to move an immigration bill out of the senate that would be this it would grant instantaneous amnesty to everyone that's in america illegally with a few tiny exceptions, maybe later, not right away, it would send a

message off to everybody that had been deported in the past, why don't you apply to come back to the united states, we didn't mean it when we bought you a ticket to wake up in the country you were legal to live in and it's an implicit promise that anybody that's in america after the cutoff deadline or anybody that should be able to come after that date, today, tomorrow, next year, next decade, all would be granted a presence in america where they didn't have to fear that immigration law would be applied against them unless they committed a felony and were brought to the attention of law enforcement or unless they committed a series of three misdemeanors undefined in the law that may or -- it would be the discretion of, i suppose it would be i.c.e. or janette napolitano and this open borders policy would be perpetual. i knew in 1986 what this meant, mr. speaker. ronald reagan only let me down

twice in eight years. one of them was in 1986 when he gave in to the advisors around him and public pressure and signed the amnesty bill of 1986. i knew then that the stroke of ronald reagan's pen did severe damage to the rule of law in this country. and that to restore it and re-establish the respect for the law was going to be a very difficult task indeed. but i also lived in fear that if i had job applicants coming into thinkmy country and didn't have all the i's dotted and t's crossed on the i-9 form and didn't review the proper identification documents, fraudulent or not, and keep my records to protect myself, i expected i.c.e. would be knocking on my door, actually it was i.n.s. at the time, and they would be scouring through my records to make sure i didn't violate one of the details of the federal law of the 1986 amnesty act.

of course, mr. speaker, we know the i.n.s. agents, later to be i.c.e. agents, never showed up at my office. they didn't show up at thousands and thousands of companies where there are employers in the united states and that the roughly million people, started out to be 800,000, roughly a million people estimated to be the beneficiaries of this amnesty act which at least they were honest and called it amnesty then that million people became not a million, three million people because of underestimates and because of a massive amount of fraud including document fraud. so the rule of law was eroded in 1986 and ronald reagan really did intend to enforce the law to the best of his ability, it was undermined by leftists and open border people in america that didn't want to let that happen and each succeeding president enforced immigration law less and less and less. from 1986 through bush 41

through bill clinton, who accelerated a naturalization process of a million people in 1996, just in time to magically vote in the re-election of that year, and following that, george w. bush and his two terms and new barack obama who says, i refuse to enforce immigration law. there are 300,000 people on the list that have been adjudicated for deportation and with the stroke of his presidential edict pen he forbid that that law be enforced and required that they simply waive their applications on an individual bay circumstances i might add, that's just a little tiring to read that when it is group and it's class. nonetheless, the president got away with that. he told a high school class here in town, i remember the day correctly, it was march 28, 2011, that he didn't have the authority to grant the dream act by executive order, it had to be a legislative act and a little over a year later, by the stroke of his presidential edict pen, he did so however,

created four classes of people and gave them a legal status by presidential edict, by memorandum from janet napolitano, supported by a presidential press conference, gave people legal status in this country unconstitutionally, unlawfully and granted -- granted them also a work permit manufactured out of thin air. every document that allows people to be in the united states who are not american citizens is manufactured by the congress of the united states, except the president took it upon himself to take on article 1 activity, legislation, from article 2, the executive branch. so i.c.e. and the president of i.c.e. chris crain sued the president, sued the executive brample, they have the first decision that came out of the circuit in texas and the answer is on 10 people the judge held with the i.c.e. union on nine of the 10 and the 109 one,

today is the deadline for them to come back with their response to this in a cogent fashion so the judge can rule again. i'm hopeful he'll be consistent in the theme. the theme of his decision is this mr. president, the executive branch, all who will see and hear, shall means shall, when congress says shall they don't mean may. that doesn't mean the president may do whatever in the world he may wish to do. if congress writes it into law an it's sind by any president, going to be a preceding president, that means shall. you shall enforce the law, you shall follow the directive in statute if you don't do that, you undermine the constitutional republic we have. tomorrow morning, mr. speaker, at 8:00 in the morning, in a members only gathering, robert rector of the heritage foundation will be delivering his report that was released yesterday around 11:00 or so. this report is about 101 pages of which the executive summary is around five. i have read through this, it is

definitive, economic data that i believe will be assailed but it's logically unassailable and he says in the document that the at every stage of the life cycle unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, that's benefits that exceed taxes, unlawful imgrans on average are consume they never generate a surplus to pay for benefits elsewhere in society. . this situation will get worse after amnesty and if you think the second generation will make up for the first, if they were all college grass they would still have a tremendous struggle to make up the $6.3 trillion deficit that's created by this and expenditures minus taxes collected from this group of people, but only 13% of their children will go to college, so that will tell you how difficult this will be. this is a generational economic

burden takesen on, proposed out of the senate. if the american people take this on there is no undoing this. we must get this right and we must have a congress that's informed and educated and pays attention and i urge all to take a look at the heritage foundation report by robert rector released yesterday and it is titled, mr. speaker, as i close, the fiscal cost of unlawful immigrants and amnesty to the u.s. taxpayer, dated yesterday, and that is may 6, 2013. and i would urge that you and all pay attention to that and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

which is marking another milestone. i'm told that in korea, a 60th birthday is a special celebration of life and longevity. this year we're marking the

60th anniversary of the defense treaty between our nations. yesterday the president visited arlington national cemetery and our memorial to our korean war veterans. tonight she's hosting a dinner to pay tribute to the generation of american veterans who have served in the defense of south korea. and tomorrow she'll address a joint session of congress, an honor that is reserved for our closest of friends. and in this sense this visit also reflects south korea's extraordinary progress over these six decades. from the ashes of war to one of the world agencies largest economies, from a recipient of foreign aid to a doan that are now helps other -- to a donor in a thank now helps other nations develop and of course people are being swept up by korean culture, the korean wave, and as i've mentioned to the president, my daughters have taught me a pretty good gangnum style. [laughter]

in your first months in office, south korea has faced threats that would test any nation yet you've displayed calm and steady resolve that has defined your life. like people around the world, those of us in the united states have also been inspired by your example as the first female president of south korea. and today i've come to appreciate the leadership qualities for which are you known. your focus and discipline and straightforwardness and i very much thank you for the progress that we've already made together. today we agreed to continue the implementation of our historic trade agreement which is already yielding benefits for both our countries. on our side we're selling more exports to korea, more manufactured goods, more services, more agricultural products, even as we have a long way to go, our automobile exports are up nearly 15% and our big three, ford, chrysler and g.m. are selling more cars in korea. and as the president and i agreed to make sure that we continue to full yimplement this agreement, we believe that

it's going to make both of our economies more competitive, it will boost u.s. exports by some $10 billion in support of tens of thousands of american jobs and will create jobs in korea as they are able to continue to do extraordinary work in expanding their economy and moving it further and further up the value chain. we agreed to continue the clean energy partnerships that help us to enhance our energy security and address climate change. given the importance of a peaceful nuclear energy industry to south korea, we recently agreed tokes tend the existing civilian nuclear agreement between our two countries, but we also emphasize in our discussions the need to continue to work diligently toward a new agreement. as i told the president, i believe that we can find a way to support south korea's energy and commercial needs even as we uphold our mutual commitments to prevent nuclear proliferation. we agreed to continuing modernizing our security

alliance. a guide to buy our joint vision. we're et investing in the shared capabilities and technologies and missile defenses that allow our forces to operate and succeed together. we are on track for south korea to assume operational control for the alliance in 2015 and we're determined to be fully prepared for any challenge or threat to our security and obviously that includes the threat from north korea. if young yang thought its recent threats would drive a threat between south korea and the united states or somehow garner the north international respect, today's further evidence that north korea has failed again. south koreans have stood firm with confidence and resolve. the united states and the republican of korea are -- republic of korea are as united as ever and faced with new international sanctions, north korea is more isolated than ever. in short, the days when north korea could create a crisis and elicit concessions, those days are over.

our two nations are prepared to engage with north korea diplomatically. and over time build trust. but as always, and as the president has made clear, the burden is on pong yang to take meaningful -- pyongyang to take meaningful steps and we discussed that they should take notice of events in countries like burma, which as it reforms, is seeing more trade and investment and diplomatic ties with the world, including the united states and south korea. for our part, we'll continue to coordinate closely with south korea and with japan and i want to make clear the united states is fully prepared and capable of defending our -- defending ourselves and our allies, with the full range of capabilities available, including the deterrence provided by our conventional and nuclear forces. as i said in seoul last year, the commitment of the united states to the security of the republic of korea will never

waiver. more broadly, we agreed to continue expanding our cooperation globally. in afghanistan, where our troops serve together and where south korea is a major donor of development assistance, we're on track to complete the transition to afghan-led operations by the end of next year. we discussed syria where both our nations are working to strengthen the opposition and plan for a syria without bashir assad. and i'm pleased that our two nations and our peace corpses have agreed to expand our efforts to promote development around the world. finally, we're expanding the already strong ties between our young people. as an engineer by training, the president knows the importance of education. madam president, you've said, and i'm quoting you, we live in an agey a single individual can -- sing where a single individual can raise the value of an entire nation. i couldn't could not agree more. i'm pleased we have exchange programs that bring our students together and as we pursue immigration reform here in the united states, we want to make it easier for foreign

entrepreneurs and graduate students from countries like korea to stay and contribute to our country, just as so many korean americans already do. , so again, thank you for -- so, again, thank you for making the united states your first trip in. in your inaugural address you celebrated the can-do spirit of the korean people. that is a spirit that we share and after our meeting today i'm confident that if our two nations continue to stand together, there's nothing we cannot do together. so, madam president, welcome to the united states. [speaking foreign language] >> thank you, president obama, for the invitation and gracious hospitality. during my meeting with the president today, i was able to have a heart-to-heart talk with him on a wide range of common interests. i found that the two of us have a broad common view about the

vision and roles that should guide the korea-u.s. alliance as it moves forward and i was delighted to see this. first of all, the president and i shared the view that the korea-u.s. alliance has been faithfully carrying out its role as a stalwart of peace and security on the korean peninsula and in northeast asia. and that the alliance should continue to serve as a lynch pin for peace and stability on the korean peninsula and in asia. in this regard i believe it is significant that the joint deg declaration on the 60th anniversary of our alliance we adopted spells out the direction that our comprehensive strategic alliance should take. next, the president and i reaffirmed that we will by no means tolerate north korea's threats and provocations which can ecently been he is

lating further and that such actions would only deepen north korea's isolation. the president and i noted that it is important that we continue to strengthen our deterrence against north korea's nuclear and conventional weapons threat and shared the view that in this respect the transition of war time operational control should also proceed in a way that strengthens our combined defense capabilities and preparations be made toward that as well. we also shared the view that realizing president obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons should start on the korean peninsula and we stated that we would continue to strengthly urge north korea in close concert with the other members of the six-party talks and the international community to faithfully abide by its international obligations under the september 19 joint statement and the relevant ecurity council resolutions. korea and the u.s. will work jointly to induce north korea to make the right choice through multifaceted efforts

including the implementation of the korean peninsula trust building process that i had spelled out. i take this opportunity to once again send a clear message, north korea will not be able to survive if it only clings to developing its nuclear weapons at the expense of its people's happiness. concurrently pursuing nuclear arsenals and economic development can by no means succeed. this is the shared view of the other members of the six-party talks and the international community. however, should north korea choose the path to becoming a responsible member of the community of nations, we are willing to provide assistance together with the international community. we also had meaningful discussions on the economy and ways tone gauge in substantive cooperation. the president and i welcome the fact that the korea-u.s. free trade agreement, which went into effect one year ago, is contributing to our shared prosperity. we also said we will make efforts to enable our people to better feel the benefits of our

free trade agreement for them. i highlighted the importance of securing high-skilled u.s. work visas for korean citizens and asked for executive branch support to the extent possible to see to it that the relevant legislation is passed in the u.s. congress. moreover, we arrived at the view that the korea-u.s. civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement should be revised into an advanced and mutually beneficial successor agreement. we said we would do our best to conclude our negotiations as soon as possible. the president and i also had in depth discussions on ways to enhance our global partnership. first, we noted together that northeast asia needs to move beyond conflict and divisions and open a new era of peace and cooperation. and that there would be synergy between president obama's policy of rebalancing to asia

and my initiative for peace and cooperation in northeast asia as we pursue peace and development in the region. we share the view about playing the role of co-architects to flesh out this vision. furthermore, we decided that the korea-u.s. alliance should deal not just with challenges relating to the korean peninsula and northeast asia, but confronting the broader international community. i am very delighted that i was able to build personal trust with president obama through our summit meeting today and to have cooperation. thank you. >> we've got a couple of questions from each side. so we'll start with steven colson. >> thank you, mr. president. does the united states have a core national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria or merely a strong moral desire to see the violence end? and at what point does the cost of not intervening in a more

direct way than you have done so far outweigh the cost of doing so? and if i may ask, president obama's critics have warned that failing to act on perceived violations of u.s. red lines in syria could emboldin u.s. enemies elsewhere, including north korea. kim u convinced that jung-un has taken the u.s. and south korean warning seriously and do you see the withdrawal of two missiles from a test site as a sign that he's willing to de-escalate the situation? >> i think that we have both a moral obligation and a national security interest in, a, ending the slaughter in syria, but, b, so ensuring that we've got a

stable syria that is representative of all the syrian people. and is not creating chaos for its neighbors. that's why for the last two years we've been active in try toning sure that bashir assad -- in trying to ensure that bashir assad exits the stage and that we can begin a political transition process. that's the reason why we've invested so much in humanitarian aid and that's the reason why we are so invested in helping the opposition, why we've mobilized the international community, to to -- to isolate syria. that's why we are now providing nonlethal assistance to the opposition and that's why we're going to continue to do the work that we need to do. and in terms of the costs and the benefits, i think there

would be severe costs in doing nothing. that's why we're not doing nothing. that's why we are actively invested in the process. if what you're asking is, are there continuing re-evaluations about what we do, what actions we take in conjunction with other international partners to optimize the day when -- to hasten the day when we can see a better situation in syria, we've been doing that all along and we'll continue to do that. i think that understandably there's a desire for easy answers. that's not the situation there. and my job is to constantly measure our very real and legitimate humanitarian and national security interests in syria, but measuring those

bottom line which is what's in the best interests of america's security and making sure that i'm making decisions not based on a hope and a prayer but on hard-headed analysis in terms what have will actually make us safer and stabilize the region. i will note, not to answer the question that you lobbed over to the president, that you suggested that even in your question a perceived crossing of a red line. the operative word there i guess is perceived. and what i've said is that we have evidence that there has been the use of chemical weapons inside of syria, but i don't make decisions based on perceived and i can't organize international coalitions around perceived. we've tried that in the past,

by the way, and it didn't work out well. so we want to make sure that we have the best analysis possible, we want to make sure that we are acting deliberately. but i would just point out that there have been several instances during the course of my presidency where i said i was going to do something and it ended up getting done. and there were times when there were folks on the sidelines wondering why hasn't it happened yet and what's going on and why didn't it go on tomorrow, but in the end, whether it's bin laden or gaddafi, if we say we're taking a position, i would think at this point the international community has a pretty good sense that we typically follow try on our commitments. -- follow through on our commitments. [speaking foreign language]

>> with regard to actions toward syria, what kind of message would i communicate to north korea, that was the question. and and recently north korea seems to be de-escalating its threats and provecations. what seems to be behind that, ask you these two questions in fact, north korea is isolated at the moment. so it's hard to find anyone that could really accurately fathom the situation in north korea. its actions are also so very unpredictable. hence whether the syrian situation would have an impact is hard to say. for sure. why is north korea appearing to de-escalate its threat and provocations? there's no knowing for sure but what is clear and what i believe for sure is that the international community, with regard to north korea's bad

behavior, its provecations, must speak with one voice, a firm message and consistently send a message that they will not stand and that north korea's actions in breach of international norms will be met with so and so sanctions and measured by the international community. at the same time if it goes along the right way there will be so and so rewards. so, if we consistently send that message to north korea, i feel that north korea will be left with no choice but to change and instead of just hoping to see north korea change, the international community must also consistently send that message with one voice. to tell them and communicate to them that they have no choice but to change and to shape an environment where they are left with no choice but to make the strategic decision to change. and i think that's the effective and important way.

>> you just mentioned that north korea, in order to induce north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, what's most important is the converted effort of the international community. with regard to this, during your meeting with president obama today, i would like to ask what was said and the views that you shared. with th regard to this, russia and china, the role they're playing in inducing north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons hour do you feel about that? my next question is to president obama. regarding the young leader of north korea, kim jung-un, i would appreciate your views about the leader of north korea and if you were to send a message to him today, what kind of message would you send to him? >> with regard to the north korea issue, korea and the

united states, as well as the international community, the ultimate objective that all of us should be adopt something for north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and to induce it to become a responsible member of the international community. this serves the interest of peace on the korean peninsula and the world and it also serves the interests of north korea's own development as well. that is my view. and so, in order to encourage north korea to walk that path and change its perceptions, we have to work in concert and in this regard china's role, china's influence can be extensive. to china taking part in these endeavors is important and we share views on that. with regard to china and russia's stance, i believe that china and russia, not to

mention the international share the of course, need for a denuclearized korean peninsula and are cooperating closely to induce north korea to take the right path. in the case of china, with regard to north korea's missile fire and nuclear testing, china has taken active part in adopting u.n. security council resolutions and it faithfully implementing those resolutions. and with regard to russia, russia's also firmly committed to the denuke larization of the korean peninsula -- denuke larization of the -- denuclearization of the korean peninsula and with regard to that, it has been active in supporting them and they've also sent sent a very -- and they've also worked very hard to include a stearn message to north korea in the g-8 foreign

minister's meeting. such constructive efforts on the part of china and russia unified to sending a message to north korea that their nuclear weapons will not stand and encouraging and urging north korea to make the right decision. >> obviously i don't know kim jung-un personally. i haven't had a conversation with him. can't really give you an personal ut his characteristics. what we do know is the actions that he's taken. that have been provocative and seem to pursue a dead end. and want to emphasize, we very much share the view that we are going to maintain a strong deterrent capability, that we're not going to reward provocative behavior. but we remain open to the

prospect of north korea taking a peaceful path of denuclearization, abiding by international commitments, rejoining the international seeing a gradual progression in which both security and prosperity for the people of north korea can be chieved. if what north korea has been doing has not resulted in a strong, prosperous nation, then now is a good time for kim jung-un to evaluate that history and take a different path. and i think that should he choose to take a different path , not only would we welcome it but the international community as a whole would welcome it and i think that china and russia and japan and other key players

that have been participants in six-party talks have made that clear. but there's going to have to be changes in behavior. we have an expression in english, you know, don't worry about what i say, watch what i do. and so far at least we haven't seen actions on the part of the north koreans that would indicate they're prepared to move in a different direction. christie parsons. >> thank you, mr. president. the pentagon said today that there may be as many as 70 sexual assaults a day in the military. up by 35% during your term in office. and also that many sexual assaults may not be reported, in fact. given what we know about an air force officer in charge of preventing sexual assault recently being charged with sexual assault and also the recent cases of a couple of air force generals who have set aside convictions of instances

of sexual assault, can you speak to the culture of the u.s. military that may be at play here and talk about your response to that and what you can do going forward to improve things? and if i may, i would ask you, yes you said that if north korea does not change its behavior we will make them pay. i wondered if could you elaborate on that comment a little bit. thank you. >> let's start with the principle that sexual assault is not -- is an outrage, it is a crime, that's true for society at large and if it's happening inside our military, then whoever carries it out is betraying the uniform that they're wearing. and they may consider themselves patriots but when you engage in this kind of behavior, that's not patriotic. it's a crime. and we have to do everything we can to root this out.

this is not a new phenomenon. one of the things that we've been trying to do is create a structure in which we're starting to get accurate reporting and up and down the we're seeing a system of accountability and transparency o that we can root this out. completely. and this is a discussion that i had with secretary panetta. he had begun the process of moving this forward. but i have directly spoken to secretary hagel already today and indicating to him that we're going to have to, you know, not just step up our game, we have to exponentially step up our game to go at this thing hard. and for those who are in uniform, who have experienced sexual assault, i want them to hear directly from their commander in chief that i've got their backs, i will support

them and we're not going to tolerate this. and there will be accountability. if people have engaged in this behavior they should be prosecuted. and anybody in the military who has knowledge of this stuff should understand this is not who we are, this is not what the u.s. military is about and it dishonors the vast majority of men and women in uniform who carry out their responsibilities and obligations with honor and dignity and credible courage every single day. , so bottom line is, i have no tolerance for this. i have communicated this to the secretary of defense, we're again o communicate this to folks up and down the chain in areas of authority and i expect consequences. so i don't want just more

speeches or awareness programs ultimately ut folks look the other way. if we find out somebody's engaging in this stuff, they have to be held accountable. prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court marshaled, , red, dishonorably discharged period. it's not acceptable. >> [speaking foreign language] >> regarding north korea's provecations and bad behavior, we will make them pay. with regard to that, for instance, what i meant is if they engage in military provocations and harm the lives of our people and the safety of

, it ople, then naturally is something we can't just pass over. so if north korea engages in provocations, i will fully trust the judgment of our military. so if our military makes a judgment which they feel is the right thing, then they should act accordingly. and this is the instruction that i had made. and north korea has to pay a price when it comes not only with regard to provocations but also with regard to their recent industrial complex issue, where based on agreements between the two sides, companies had believed in the agreement that was made and actually went to invest in the industrial complex but they

suddenly completely dismiss and disregard this agreement overnight. and deny various medical supplies and food supplies to korean citizens left in that industrial complex, refusing to accept our request to allow in those supplies, which is what prompted us to withdraw all of our citizens from that park. this situation unfolded in the full view of the international community. so who would invest, not to mention korean companies, but also companies of other countries, who would invest in north korea in a place that shows such flagrant disregard for agreements and how could they under those circumstances actually pull off economic achievement? so i think in this regard they're actually paying the rice for their own misdeeds.

>> my question goes to president obama. president park has been talking about the korean peninsula trust building process. as way to promote peace on the adrian peninsula -- on the korean peninsula. i wonder what you feel about the trust building process on the korean peninsula? >> as i indicated before, president park's approach is very compatible with my approach and the approach that we have been taking toket for several years now -- taking together for several years now. and as i understand it, the key is that we will be prepared for terrence, that we will respond to aggression, that we will not reward provocative

actions, but that we will an ain an openness to engagement process when we see north korea taking steps that would indicate that it is ollowing a different path. and that is exactly the right approach. a of wuse benefit from korea that would better in a less intense environment on the peninsula. all of the surrounding neighbors would welcome such a transition. such a transformation.

but we're not naive about those difficulties taking place. and we've got to see action before, you know, we can have confidence that that in fact is the path that north korea intends to take. but the one thing i want to emphasize just based on the excellent meetings and consultation that we had today, as well as watching president park over the last several the s dealing with provocative escalations have thank have been taking place in north korea, what i'm very confident about is that president park is tough, i think she has a very clear, realistic view of the situation but she also has wisdom to

lieve that conflict is not inevitable and it is not preferable and that's true on the korean peninsula, that's true around the world. and we very much appreciate her visit and look forward to excellent cooperation, not only on this issue but on the more positive issues of economic and commercial ties between our two countries, educational exchanges, work on energy, climate change, helping other countries develop. i've had a wonderful time every time i've visited the republic of korea and what's clear is that the republic of korea is one of the great success stories of our lifetime. and the republic of korea's leadership around the globe will be increasingly important. and what underpins that in part has been the extraordinary history of the alliance between

the united states and the republic of korea and we want to make sure that that remains a strong foundation for progress in the future. so thank you so much, madam president. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until the orean delegation has departed. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> south korean president park will address a joint meeting of congress tomorrow morning. you can see the speech live at 10:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> leading the way. the two great mayses. again, weapons of war in previous centuries. but now symbols of sovereign authority. black rod in charge of security and so much of the administration in the house of lords, you'll see more of him in a short while. sir george young, lord privy seal. lond chancellor kenneth clark bearing the purse with the speech. the duke of norfolk and the lord great chamberlain. and the queen and the duke of edinburgh. >> my lords and members of the house of commons. my government's legislative program, with progress on economic growth, justice and

constitutional reform -- >> queen elizabeth delivers her government's priorities for the upcoming year. a live simulcast from the bbc wednesday morning at 5:30 eastern on c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the new interior secretary testified today on capitol hill for the first time on her department's budget. her proposed budget for fiscal year 2014. here's part of what she had to say. >> i might shift focus to a couple of questions about the sequester. i have a little bit of a unique experience here because i was a member of the cabinet, as you probably know, during the bush administration. secretary of agriculture and i certainly appreciate the fact that the sheet of music you sang from comes from an office

that's oval in this town. if you know what i'm saying. and every cabinet member has talked about the sequester kind of in the same terms you have talked about in your testimony. and i must admit it's got an aura of the sky is falling, the sky is falling. talking to a so former governor, a former mayor who balanced budgets during good times and bad times when times were good and the revenues were good you could do some more things. when times were bad, for example, post-9/11, you just kind of had to deal with it. when i came here in 2005 and somebody said to me, you could get somewhere around a 5% cut and the best you can hope for is a flat budget, i thought, hallelujah. you know, this is a breeze.

after what we had been through post-9/11 at the state level, that didn't seem to be too big a challenge. and yet i hear secretary hays, i hear you, i hear other cabinet members talk about how dire this situation is. so let me ask a couple of very specific questions. >> anything that was necessary to get the budget balanced, we did. but if congress were to give your department and other departments greater flexibility o make judgments about where you would allocate resources

from one area to another, would you find that to be helpful? >> absolutely we would find that to be helpful. i am not quite four weeks in government service and north of 35 years as a private business person, i have dealt with tough budget years as you have referenced. i have never ever implemented those on a line item by line item basis. when you see the comments about the impact of sequester it is the nature by which these cuts have been required by us. the 2014 budget reflects priorityization. it is cutting in some areas and investing in other areas and no question there is a desire to develop resources both conventional and renewable and costs money to do that. there is a return on investment. and we need money to do that.

so we are reflecting the 2014 budget, a set of priorities that are scaling back in some areas and growing others and that's the big problem with the sequester. >> so your issue with us is more along the lines that it's not the cuts so much as the forced way of implementing them if we could get flexibility there, i could manage this budget is i think what you are saying and i suspect you could. >> we would appreciate all flexibilities given to us and predictability. so a 5% cut that is implemented part way through the year is a 9% cut and applied across every line item is very difficult. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> watch all of that on cspan.org. tomorrow, a hearing on the hearing in benghazi.

two state department officials testify before the house oversight committee live on c-span 3 at 11:30. and boston marathon bombings. they hear from the police commissioner in boston and the massachusetts homeland security director live at 9:00 eastern on thursday morning. and thursday morning, the senate judiciary committee takes up the bipartisan immigration bill and will be streaming live at 9:30 eastern on our web site cspan.org. >> this home was a gift that 13 businessmen gave to the grant family in appreciation for his service during the war. julia mentions coming up the hill and presented this villa that was furnished with

everything that good taste would offer. this was the parlor and entertaining part of the home and julia was an entertainer and loved it. and the family spent time here also. mrs. grant and their daughter played the piano. imagine the family sitting here listening to the sister and mother play some songs for them. grant launched his presidential campaign. his head quarters were located in the down town. the day after his election, they opened up their home and the parlor here for people, town folk to file through and congratulate both of them on his election in the next step of their lives. this is a lap book and have mrs. u.s. grant on it and she kept papers, pens and wrote letters and kept them stored in here. we have a bible that was given

methodist t by the episcopal church in 1898. this is the room where she would get ready in the mornings and evenings, ready for bed and get a little solitude. we have a lot of things in here. we have her sewing kit that probably mending some socks for the kids and little size 4 shoes and some purses she would have used. this is where he came back after he was a military hero and started his political career and his rise to the presidency and this is where he was living when she became first lady and this was home to them. >> our conversation on julia grant is now available on our

eb site. cspan.org/firstladies. next week, first lady lucy hayes. will ressman ted deutch talk about his recent trip to israel and the civil war in syria and look at the heritage foundation's recent reports saying giving legal status to illegal immigrants would cost the government $6 trillion and our spotlight on magazine series , smith season magazine on government and private research human health. and next up, a conversation from this morning's "washington journal" looking at benghazi and the boston marathon bombings. and senior correspondent

national security. let's begin with syria and the headline from your piece yesterday. and what does the u.s. do here? what does this mean for u.s. strategy? guest: this is not the first time that israel has struck inside of syria since this civil war began. the first strike inside syria in this context was in january. t in 2007, israel struck the alleged nuclear reactor. originally, not so much against u.s. wishes but the u.s. intelligence did not think it was a nuclear reactor at first and since came around and before that, the israelis had violated syrian airspace many times to end a message to assad -- this

latest strike is aimed at iran and the point is that the israelis believe in the chaos of the war that either syrian advanced weapons, chemical weapons will find their ways into the hands of hezbollah, the militia/terrorist group on israel's border in southern lebanon or iran will ship advanced conventional weapons as kind of a shore-to-ship missile that was first utilized in 2006 and sorts of things they believe would fundamentally give hezbollah the stra teague particular reach to cover most of israel's population centers. host: we heard from the white house yesterday and jay carney talking about syria and the president using that phrase. here's the "new york times" piece this morning, their headline. white house sticks to carbous

path. i want to show our viewers what carney had to say when he was asked about the president using that phrase red line. >> what the president made clear it was a red line and unacceptable and that it would change his calculus if he viewed the situation in syria because the use of chemical weapons represents the kind of threat i just described. what he never did and it is simplistic to do so is to say if x happens, y will happen. he hasn't said what policy he will take to the proved crossing of the red line in syria, simply that he would consider it a red line that had been crossed and he would take appropriate action and as the investigation continues and as we have said all along, they are looking at a range of options and not the ng any option from

table. host: what's the impact of what you heard there? guest: i think the white house is flailing right now. the common deficient situation is if you cross it, something terrible's going to happen. there is something else on the line, the president has said, i don't bluff when it comes to iran. they cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. there was a lot of diplomacy with israel, what the united states is trying to convince israel not to strike iran and trust that when iran crosses a nuclear red line, the united states will be prepared to act. in this particular case, in syria, what you have is carney saying when we say red line, we don't have a definition of what those consequences are. a couple of generations ago or a

generation ago, some social scientists on the right would line wherehis is red it has lost its meaning and the whole point of having a red line is your add veer sears will respect it and not cross it. the fact that the president has said red line has changed since august. the president may have flubbed that the movement of those weapons was a red line. ample those weapons have been moved around in trucks. i reported last week they were trained and some of the loyal militias to assad are being trained according to u.s. intelligence in how to use those chemical weapons. there is a lot of evidence that sarin gas was used. almost everyone believes that that would have been done by forces by the regime or forces

acting on behalf of the regime. and then to have this explanation that just because we said there was a red line, the president didn't articulate what that would mean. that may be the prudent policy call. it's unclear the united states has the wherewithal to represent the people in that conflict. that is a legitimate point. once you have articulated the red line and don't enforce it it gives the impression you are weak. host: who gave confirmation that chemical weapons were used by the syrian government and some have said well, it was small amounts? guest: you have three intelligence services at least right now. you have the french, the british and the israelis. and not just based on sources say. they have physiology call

evidence, means they have hair and soil samples. the question that the white house has raised, we don't know how the sarin got from the store house to the weapons and then to he ex exposure of the weapons. they don't believe it was used in a false flag operation by the rebel forces. what you have is the united states trying to put the brakes on this. they said our initial assessment they likely used a small amount but we are investigating and trying to wait for all the facts. as they do that though, you are eeing israel, u.k. -- and this is the arab allies have said this, too, but they don't have the same intelligence capabilities that those three countries have, they say the red line has been crossed. you have more and more reports

from the syrian opposition and elements of the syrian opposition that have asked for assistance from the united states that said after the incidents in march he used them again. what you saw, there were reports last month in april that there was another incident outside of damascus. ow you are tempting the tiger. host: you wrote a headline, where are syria's chemical weapons? >> they are on the move. in march, we saw the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey and clapper have to answer under oath in congressional testimony, they did not an operation to secure those weapons would be successful because they couldn't say where they are because they are moving them around so much. in washington, they didn't tell

the truth. i was able to report with sources on back grouped and my sources in the intelligence community that this is the assessment right now, they have the capability and the plan to send in very highly trained american forces to try and secure those weapons, the problem is they don't know where they are. host: what are the options for the white house? guest: what people discuss is that one is they can finally begin to send lethal assistance or arms to a general and he has been chosen as the one free syrian officer that the united states feels it can work with. there was an important piece last week that i recommend everybody read, the best source, he has the best sources at the c.i.a. he has pretty good sources at the c.i.a. and he wrote about that.

very important piece to read. and i think that's one thing that's being looked at. we saw last week, they changed the line on that. you saw secretary of defense chuck hagel and general dempsey saying they didn't think we knew who were the right rebels to arm. john kerry said different things. the white house -- think about this, your red line is the use of chemical weapons. your response is to introduce more weapons into the civil war. the concern has been, we don't know what's going to happen in the chaos of that war. we don't know who is going to be on our side down the road. what if you provide these weapons and they end up in the hands of al qaeda's afill kuwait, who is also part of the rebels. that is a big concern. and since there is no attention of the united states to have a long-term presence in syria,

hard to say we are going to be long haul. guest: senator menendez has had -- he is not a cutout for what the white house wants. the white house is now reconsidering their opposition to arming the rebels. you have to ask the question, armed with what? the united states has better weapons than anybody. would they send their best anti- weapons. it's not that difficult. the middle east is awash with weapons and we know the saudis

and other regional players have been sending weapons to anti-assad rebels for more than a year. suppose there is political significance. but it doesn't answer the question of how do you find the chemical weapons. and the problem -- the issue of the chemical weapons, you can't send drones to where you think the trucks are and shoot them. you have created a chemical weapons explosion. you have to get those weapons and secure them and take them to other locations and requires on the ground intelligence and at this point, people don't think it is going to have 100% success. if you get 98% of the chemical weapons, you have a huge counterterrorism problem. >> we are talking to eli lake.

first, josh in jacksonville, north carolina. republican caller. caller: i served in the united states marine corps for five years and graduated from university of north carolina with a degree in political science focusing as much as you can in international security issues. so while i may not be considered an expert on this subject, i'm ot a layman. the debate about syria so far has been focused on a two-sided conflict. let's not forget the third side that is spoken of, those civil yabs that were slaughtered in homes. these of that atrocities will never happen gain after rwanda is a total

failure. we can look at the humanitarian blunders in rwanda and bosnia right hereand put it in syria. we can do so much more, the united states of america, whether by ourselves or with the coalition, permanent coalition like we did during the first gulf war under bush number one. a lot of things we can do besides arming the rebels. that is a political thing that drives me crazy. guest: that is the best c-span call and i have been on since 2002 and he raised an issue of the what's equaled the right to protect, there is a notion in u.s. national security among

liberal intervisionists that in addition to securing its national interests believes it has an obligation to the world to prevent again side and to intervene in the humanitarian interests where civilians are being slaughtered not even by chemical weapons. assad has used heavy military aircraft and scud missiles against the civilian population. that itself should continue to shock us and it is absolutely awful and horrible. i mean, i think there is a sense where the failure to intervene earlier and the failure to stop him earlier will be seen in some ways potentially as a kind of rwanda failure. 2011, at thenic in

be left of power, leading scholar on the prevention of general guide, she wrote a book d prevailed on the president to prevent gaddafi from using his military forces to wipe out the civilian population and that's what president obama did and if you look at that speech in which he says, i felt i needed to stop him from trying to wipe out a city and he tried to bring that problem home and we have this obligation, it was the kind of moment that we're not seeing on syria and the question is, i think the syrian death toll has exceeded how many people gaddafi killed. sooner or later, assad will fall. someone needs to fill the power vacuum and some force that goes in and hopefully one that is

amenable to our values and also not interested in destabilizing the region that will provide the monopoly of violence and all people need to live in security. united states does not want to do that right now and there is something some sense after iraq and afghanistan -- and i think there are some -- the united states can do that. not that they don't want to. we aren't cut out for the job of rebuilding these countries and rebuilding the security services and staying in these countries for years and years and years and measuring slow progress as hese places transform from dictatorship to democracy. host:

host: you talked about securing the weapons, but what about a no-fly zone? guest: no-fly zone has been discussed for more than a year and from the perspective of trying to provide aid to the people that would be supported. i would just say there are very real concerns -- it's very difficult for the united states to separate friend from foe in the conflict and i can say this because i had three reporting tours i should say of iraq and i covered that war very closely. it's true when the united states came in iraq, they were greeted with flowers and people thought of them as liberators. a year later, most felt that the

united states was occupiers. i think that dynamic and experience has burned this country that it's unlikely to start with the no-fly zone. in 1991 there was a no-fly zone in iraq because he was trying to cleanse the north. and no-fly zone in the south because he committed atrocities against the shia population in the wake of the iraq war. it motivated paul wolfo witnesses that said they needed to finish the job in iraq. you start with the no-fly zone and will that turn into we have inherited another country, 51st state again. host: if you listen to obama's statement there were no stated consequences, it was general.

and then the associated press reporting this this morning -- guest: respond to the tweet, it is true, he did not specify what the consequencesr but it's a little bit like being on the playground and telling a bully if you keep taking the kid' lunch money, you are going to do it. and then you say i didn't say what i meant. red line means there will be serious con sense -- consequences. people will respect and fear the consequences of crossing you. you don't fear the united states. if you are iran.

you fear israel because israel has enforced its own red lines which is to prevent weapons transfer to hezbollah. you can always sort of use the israeli example as like the kind of crazy bad cop saying if you want to cod will to assad as you have been doing and arm him and have military advisers in the country and do these things, that's fine, but i can't speak for israel, i can't control them. netanyahu is going to do what he is going to do, that could be effective because it makes you look like the good guy and you don't have to take responsibility for the negative consequence. host: how about a war tax to pay for any action in syria. the tax we had -- the tax cut we had during the iraq war in iran did not work. ron, democratic caller. caller: thanks for taking my

call. just in regards to benghazi, i had a comment. i wanted to say, i have gotten tired of some journalists plight sizing national security. the truth is, there is never a case where there was an initial and accurate clarity when a terrorist attack takes place. in the t.w.a., the f.b.i. thought it was shot down by a issile but later to learn. the c.i.a. director took weeks and another example, the iranian hand on the attack in the us air force base. so with all due respect i would say the analysis from mr. lake should not be taken seriously.

hanks very much. >> we had no notice it was based on demonstration. nobody said it was a demonstration and that you know, that talking point that there was a demonstration that got out of hand and that's what happened in benghazi, appears to have no basis on any reporting on the ground at least -- as far as we know. we know the talking points that were given to susan rice and used by jay carney, were edited and we know from an interim house republican report at least that they were edited in such a way to take out references to

prior attacks in benghazi and make no mention of al qaeda-linked groups in benghazi. there was an effort to try and spin the story in a certain way with limited information. the claim that you know after a terrorist attack it's hard to get the information in, but susan rice and the white house didn't say we're still trying to figure it out, they said this is about a video -- protest of a video that we had nothing to do with and that was a deliberate decision. i think it's absolutely legitimate to ask how they came to that conclusion and not the other conclusion particularly since the c.i.a. dwrect tore did tell congress that he thought these were groups link todd al qaeda and those other examples that this caller raises happened before twitter and social media and we know sharia tried to claim credit and anyone who was

in in benghazi knew what the political agenda was. it was a hard core radical islam as well as anti--americanism and now we know terrorism. and in that respect, i would say there is a fear there on benghazi but at the same time, we should also recognize that the c.i.a. contractors did a great job of rescuing all the two. unfortunately the two on that evening and performed really heroically. that is my response. host: senate foreign relations will hear testimony from him chris stevens' replacement and house government reform having a hearing on tuesday to outline their report, their investigation that they did, about what happened. they have been leaking out to

reporters some of the testimony from the benghazi whistle blower. benghazi whistle blower requested backup. denied. what did you learn? for gory hicks took over ambassador stevens when it was confirmed that he died in the attack, claiming in his interview with the house government reform, that he was trying to get a separation operations team to benghazi and on their way -- at 6:00 a.m. and told to stand down. there were two kind of attacks. initial attack on the benghazi diplomatic/intelligence mission that ended up torching the place and ended up in the murder of stevens and smith. and after a heroic rescue

attempt where they took everybody in that facility and ought them to the c.i.a. annex, there was a lull, established positions on that roof to guard it and several hours later at 5:00 a.m. or so there was the two mortar strikes that killed the other two. two waves of attacks. the getaway cars from the benghazi mission were also attacked but part of one battle and quick burst afterwards. and the expression operations team would have left at 6:00 a.m. but according to hicks' testimony he was pushing that evening. he wanted to have some jets scrambled to send a message that we would be willing to tag you with a laser and shoot you. this is something that was dismissed by a lot of military

types and there is something to be said if you send an f-15 over a situation like benghazi, it's hard in the air to find out who is a good guy/bad guy having advanced targeting capabilities is no use if you don't know. hicks said he believes that would have been enough to scare off the attackers. at least potentially from the second wave. there is a lot here. i'm looking into other aspects as well. and the other thing that is very important, we have the inspector general of the state department is investigating the report that the state department did that the white house said should be the last word. we looked at this now and there are so many things what is called the a.r.b. didn't get into, i thought it doesn't answer all of the questions. it's interesting as they relook at that, i think the republicans

are going to make a pretty big deal. host: couple of tweets. caller: before the syrians' civil war even started, we had -- syria was on the news constantly for just little things and i looked at my husband and i said that will be our next war. after iraq and all the lies that we were told about weapons of mass destruction, why should we believe anything now because we don't need to get in there. not only the syrian rebels have

said they do not want our boots on the ground, all they want is arms and money. well, you know, this is ridiculous. we can't even afford to feed our people here or give them health care and supposed to go over there and do this. and what has happened in egypt with the overthrow? they are more radicalized now. libya is more radicalized now. guest: no doubt about it. the government of egypt is not nice tom american interests as it was under mubarak. the old way where we had close relationships with dictatorships is over. and the governments that replaced them are often resentful of american meddling. we have seen a rise of

popularity of parties that spouse radical islam and rejects a lot of american and western values. and so that's true. i guess what i would say about the weapons of mass destruction is you know, i will say it was not a lie. i think most intelligence services believe that saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction program. quiries into the alleged manipulation of intelligence when they looked at it from bipartisan committees and rockefeller's committee turned up something that supported the initial stories. and by all accounts, you know, you know, syria does have chemical weapons. one thing that can be true that turned out that za didn't have

weapons of mass destruction, doesn't mean that syria doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. and finally, the rebels -- some rebel leaders say they don't want u.s. boots on the ground. if there was a chance of success to secure the chemical weapons, there is a cost to allowing even small amounts of sarin gas or other kinds of unconventional weapons which can be used in terrorist attacks to fall into the hands of al qaeda and hezbollah and other groups that have attacked americans all over the world and that creates its own cost. if u.s. intelligence agencies know that a certain amount of sarin gas or vx gas or mustard gas is in the hands of al qaeda affiliates and we have lost track of that chemical weapons or chemical weapons precursor that means that you have to prepare for the potential at least that they could launch

some sort of an attack in a soft target in europe or who knows where and creates a lot of other costs that are then added to the u.s. to do basic certain security for their diplomatic securities, security for u.s. businesses overseas. there is a cost to not intervening and that is a serious threat. it's not about -- i don't think anybody is arguing that the ited states should spend $200,000 and bring democracy to the country. that's what ended up being in ishe. the equivalent of any kind of intervention is also false. in michigan, democratic caller.

caller: mr. lake, lindsay graham, john mccain, these are heads tty much talking for the dick cheney wing of let's go to war for the greater glory and good of israel. united states has no dog in this fight. we're broke, if you can remember that. we've got people who don't have jobs who are starving in this country and i want everybody to please call and support the president's process. ask the president to get congress started on jobs here. host: you say we have no dog in this fight. guest: i don't want to take this caller seriously. i regard you as a no-nonsense person and notion that graham and mccain are cutouts for the state of israel is part of a large conspiracy is a popular

fringe theory. enjoy your basement, enjoy your back s -- conspiracies, here, i will cover the world as it is. host: let's talk about israel. is there pressure on this administration and congress to act because of israel? guest: i don't think there is pressure. israel has intensive diplomacy with the united states on what it considers to be its red lines . israel is a sovereign state and doesn't do what the united states tells it to do. gives it military aid that is more important politically than it is to israel and certainly an argument for cutting the aid and should be debated. you know, but i don't think that

that intervention in syria in this sense is like something for the united states. the other thing i would point out is that syria evolving into a civil war and the popings of chemical weapons getting into the hands of terrorists is a problem for all of syria's neighbors, problem for turkey and iraq and saudi arabia and a problem for a lot of american allies in the region and yet there are certain segments that i think, a small fringe that are dedicated internet users. it's all about israel. and it's just -- i don't know. host: if national security was so important in benghazi why did the republic house block the funding for state department

security? guest: we know from charlie lamb deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic secretary, there -- the overall funding decision on diplomatic security did not affect the funding decisions for security in benghazi. the other thing i would say, there was an enormous increase since 2008, huge increase in diplomatic security funding and numerous government accountability reports have shown the united states has not been able to keep track of how it spends the enormous increase in funding. the state department believed that they had the kind of understanding with the c.i.a. station there that in case of emergency, there would be a local michiganisha that would be their protector and act as the

state would in a place like benghazi and that the c.i.a. would come to the rescue and the c.i.a. and someone made the wrong decision. that militia did not end up doing its job. you could argue there could have been more diplomatic security officers but when you have a crowd of all of these guys, it is the state itself. that would happen in greece and france. we aren't going to have a whole military special operations unit in every embassy. that's how diplomacy and agreements work and that failed in libya because it was a young state emerging from its revolution. host: south korean president coming to washington today? >> i don't want to give you some -- i imagine they are going to talk about north korea.

i haven't done the reporting on it but i covered the story. i know the south koreans are worried when they heard john kerry say that the u.s. would be willing to not extend its missile defense shield in exchange for china, in exchange for china putting pressure on north korea to basically dial back some of its threats. so we'll see how that plays out. south korea is a strong u.s. ally and concerned about north korea and the south korean -- the defense minister denied this, believes that the north koreans are certainly -- has the capability at this point to at least create a nuclear warhead, not necessarily deliver that on a multi-staged rocket.

host: ap reporting that north korea threatened the united states and south korea overjoint drills ahead of the washington summit. and president park coming to washington, the piece says that this comes ahead of president's park's meeting with the president. she's in town today and wednesday meeting with the president. guest: we started off our conversations with red lines and we have the boy despot of north korea is making a lot of threats and the problem is, if you make a lot of threats and don't back them up, people don't take you seriously. the reason why everyone was freaked out what he was saying is because we don't have a lot of experience with him. he might be crazy enough to start a war. if this looks like the kind of thing that he says because he is a young and inexperience the

leader. i don't think we should call him a leader. he conditions of north koreans where they believe there is a leader of their state. i was in north korea in 2000 and one of the saddest -- this is not a point for intervention, but i think in 2013, the world can do better than to allow that gul arch g st and state. guest: clapper, the current director of national he intelligence believes that there could be this movement of weapons. there were these convoys and never been confirmed. lots of smart people including the u.s. ambassador believes it

was not true that they were doing that. i'm inclined at this point not to think that those convoys were containing the w.m.d. and now they are in syria. it was something that the israelis believed was happening and something that clapper said although i don't believe clapper believes that. there were overhead photos of hese convoys going into syria. they have may have contained gold and hard currency, too. it's unclear and the israelis claimed to have line-of-sight photos who was on the ground watching that stuff. syria did not iraqi chemical weapons. they have their own chemical weapons program. we know in 2007 when the yillies struck this nuclear facility there were north koreans there in 2008. so that point that the north

koreans had an active program that were helping with nuclear stuff with syria leads one to believe why would they need saddam's stuff? host: is it true that syria -- has the third largest stockpile of chemical weapons? guest: we know they have a lot of it. syria's not a party to the chemical weapons conventions. all of it is based on some kind of estimates. i think they have a lot and let's leave it there. and there's a lot of classified estimates on this. it's really interesting. it is a fascinating world of how the united states tries to track the proliferation of this stuff. a lot of it -- it's spying. the companies that sell these are working for two masters, so to speak. and i know -- maybe i shouldn't talk about it, but you can find

examples of how sensitive equipment from a nuclear program that would be useful for a road pro liver ator like iran would have a lojack that could lead ou to a secret site. host: lorton, virginia, independent caller. caller: i was trying to steer the debate where this evolution -- revolution has started in syria for the syrian people needing to have democracy, freedom, dignity against a corrupt kind of regime. and all what we hear is chemical eapons, chemical keps -- weapons. the gentleman is saying -- they were used in a very limited way and by whoever uses them.

my question is more important an having these very, very ultraradicals who are supported saudi arabia and qatar -- heavy weight on the syrian people on the chest of syrian people. the syrian people who are very dignified. more than two million people are refugees now. they are seeking to survive and in order for you to survive you and your family, what is left for them. what choices are left for them? those radicals who have the money who can supply them with food with homes. the syrian people are left in a very desperate situation where the world has shifted attention

from going to defend democracy and freedom to actually trying here to have the debate now in the congress about whether to send weapons that would definitely end up in the hands of the strongest party. host: where are you from? caller: i'm originally from syria. i have a lot of family there. host: what have you heard from them? caller: huge desperation. they tell me about huge number of those who have supported this uprising initially against dictatorship and corruption. a lot of these people are so scared now that this country is ing to end up being governed by taliban people in syria.

the syrian people are very moderates. and this culture is being imposed by saudi arabia's forces, qatar forces. host: is your family able to work? caller: actually not. they are part of the middle class and trying to live on whatever means are left for them. my sister had to leave to go to asia. a lot of my relatives are in lebanon or jordan or in egypt. host: caller, hang onto the line. guest: i mean this is an argument in some ways for why obama should have become more involved in the conflict much earlier on. and it's a great call. but what i heard, what is the choice, the desperation between the terrible regime and the

terrible front. and the problem is if you don't i e another force -- but would just caution that, you looks ou -- sometimes it like the best option and i think maybe there is an argument of why he should have intervened earlier but start arming people in the middle east and think they are the right people and going to be your friends, but i lived in egypt, you never buy anybody in the middle east, you only rent them. and i'm just pointing out that that's a huge problem. i think it's a very important point which is that the majority of syrians and the majority of people in the entire islamic world don't believe in the radical -- hate-filled, bigotted

.onsense of the taliban we know in a everywhere they go, they have these punishments and so forth. we know the vast majority don't want to live that way. so the question then becomes, i think and he's right, there are wealthy individuals in saudi arabia that support this kind of stuff but they support fighting those wars in syria. host: we have run out of time and thank the last caller. thank you for your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington journal," the latest developments in syria and the middle east with representative ted deutch from florida, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee. he is just back from a trip to

israel. and derek morgan from the heritage foundation to discuss the new report on the costs of immigration. as part of our spotlight on agazine series, "significant seasonian" magazine. ashington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> congressional hearings includes tomorrow a hearing on the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya last year. two state department officials previously posted in libya as well as the department's head of acting counterterrorism will testify. live at 11:30 a.m. and thursday, a hearing on the boston marathon bombings. house homeland security committee hears from boston police commissioner and the massachusetts homeland security

director and former senator leiberman at 9:00 a.m. on c-span3. >> this home was a gift that 13 businessmen purchased to give to the grant family in appreciation for his service during the war. julia mentions coming up the hill and being presented this lovely villa that she said was furnished with everything good taste could offer. this is the parlor, which was the entertaining part of the home and we all know that julia was an entertainer and loved it. the family spent time here in the parlor also. mrs. grant and their daughter played the piano. imagine the family sitting here the general in his favorite chair and the boys listening to their sister and mother playing songs. grant launched his presidential campaign here. his head quarters were in the

downtown town. the day after his election, grant and julia opened up their home for people, town folk, to file through and congratulate both of them on his election in the next step of their lives. this is called a lap book and has mrs. grant on it and she probably kept papers and pence when she was writing letters or receiving them and kept them stored. over on the desk, we have a bible given to mrs. grant by the methodist episcopal church. this is the dressing room. this is the room she would come into to get ready in the mornings and ready in the evenings and maybe kind of get a little solitude from everybody in the house. we have a lot of personal things that belonged to mrs. grant. we have her sewing kit that she probably mended some socks for the kids, a couple of pairs of

ttle size 4 shoes and purses as she was going out on the town. this is where he came back after he was a military hero and started his political career, his rise to the presidency and this is where he was living when she became first lady and this was home for them. >> our conversation on julia grant is now available on our .org/firstladies. d next week, first lady lucy hayes. >> defense secretary chuck hagel orders the armed services to reduce the epidemic of sexual assault. several members of congress comment on sexual assaults in the military. and president obama says personnel who engage in sexual assault are betraying their uniform. and the fiscal summit hears from

members of congress and the administration about u.s. debt and tax policy. congressional race in south carolina today, the first district in south carolina for the house seat vacated by tim scott who was appointed to the u.s. former governor is mark sanford a south carolina the republican candidate and the democratic candidate elisabeth colbert busch, sister to stephen colbert. we will keep you posted with results as they become available. >> the herald is leading the way, again, weapons of war in previous centuries. now symbols of sovereign authority. security and administrations in the house of the lord. the baron asset george young --