possibly russia or other places, and i suspect there is trial and error that they are doing on their own. host: elmhurst, new york. democrats line. hello. host: -- caller: given the fact hat china is developing china may possibility take over as the super power in the world? guest: i think by 2025 we're looking at a situation where china's economy in terms of gross domestic product may be the largest in the world. it depends on whether or not china engages in economic reform which we've seen peter out over the past ten years. it's part of the reason their economy is slowing. another piece to this is actually chinese demographics.

they are beginning to run low on cheap labor because china's population is growing older. one of the things that chinese leaders are worried ability is the prospect of china growing old before it grows rich. and that combination of factors china may top the u.s. in terms of g.d.p. and if it doesn't there is a possibility that china may never catch up with the united states. host: we have a call from china. this is john independent line caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. my wife and i have have been living in china for 20 years. we work in the field of education. i would encourage americans to dig deeper, to do more homework and not be swayed by just sense lationizing articles because

the truth is much more positive than often we hear in these horror stories. host: specifically how, sir? give an example. caller: well, people are afraid of the competition. but the future belongs to people that learn to cooperate together. and the founding fathers when they were forming the 13 col anies they were afraid the rich were afraid to connect with the poor but when they did they became very strong and i think we have a similar situation with china and the u.s. it's not a competitor, it's a cooperate or the and i think that's what's in the hearts of most people of both countries. host: what's the perception of

chinese to the average there? caller: generally it's mixed. there are some that wonder why the military is so strong and that makes them worried. but in the heart of most chinese people they have a very positive attitude and opinion about america. they don't think they are perfect but they admire their efforts. host: what's the perception of the average person there to its government? caller: it's more positive than you hear in u.s. press. they are not ignorant. they see the problems and want to improve. if you stop and think that china has the most populated nation, it's going to be the most challenging to educate, house and feed them. and if you look at how much they do correct instead of all the problems just picking apart

the problems, you start to appreciate that there is a lot that is going right. and this is true with both cultures and countries. host: thank you very much. mr. cheng. guest: certainly i would agree with the caller that it is important for folks to learn more about china. china is a country of 1.3 billion people. it is going to be complex. and there is no question there are people in china that support the government. but it is interesting that over 100,000 mass incidents a year. over 500 incidents a day. that suggest there are a lot of chinese that are unhappy with what is going on. we see growing splits between rich and poor, between urban and rural, between the coast

and inland. these are are problems the chinese leadership need to address. and at this time it's not clear that the chinese leadership are going to address them, certainly not in ways that are going to relieve the more reprogressive measures we see. >> we celebrate the anniversary of tan man square this week. >> and we saw a huge number of search terms that were banned from the chinese internet. even the words today on june 4 lingt were being edited out. you would get an error. that is striking when you think about it. it reflects a leadership that is insecure about how it is perceived by its own people. host: mike democrats line. aller: my question is what influence do you think china has on north korea to have them

behave themselves? and second part is if god forbid north korea did attack south korea, what do you think china's response would be? guest: two good and important questions. china essentially has a giant sledge hammer which is useful if all you're going to do is crack nuts. but it is a lot less useful if you are going to try and do brain surgery. d china is worried about a north korean collapse which would release refugees into china. that being said, north korea depends on china for fuel and food and a lot of other things. so china we think is walking a fine line between influencing north korea and bringing down the government. that also being said, china does view north korea as a

friend so it has little interest in collapsing north korea. if they vaded south korea china would be horrified. south korea is a better source of technology and is an easier country to deal with. so china might is it it out. if on the other hand for whatever reason north korea was perceived as being attacked by south korea and responding, then if that case china might choose to intervene. but in all likelihood china might choose to is it it out. host: can you comment on the return of refugees back to north korea? guest: china does perceive north korea as a friend and ally so refugees are seen as an embarrassment and this goes to the chinese attitude they don't interfere in the internal

problems of other countries. if north korea chooses to execute them that's north korea's issue. host: on our republican line next. caller: thanks for taking my call. one thing i've thought especially going back to the trade and balance we had with japan and now with china regardless of this bond buying, is it possible that the american government is allowing a trade and balance as a type of foreign aid rather than a cash payout for foreign aid they allow this imbalance? thank you. guest: i think the idea that the u.s. government allows an imbalance denice the reality that it is american consumers not the government who chooses to buy whether it's t-shirts, washing machines or computers made in china. so unless the government is

able to somehow influence what it is that the average american buys at wal-mart, at target, i think that the fault here if there is a fault lies in our own decision making as individual consumers, not that of the u.s. government. host: does china consider freedom of the press? guest: china i think is very leery of a free press. the chinese press in china is state run. it is an arm of the chinese government. all the newspapers are run by the government. there are some interesting sort of experiments at the edges, things like southern daily that are semiprivate. they have stocks and corporate ownership but even they get directives from the ministry that used to be cault ministry of prop gandda. i believe they've changed the translation but not the chine

niece name. you will cover this story and not cover that story. there are very few press visas and keep those people under tight control. cracked tories are down. there are some ugly videos of some people being beaten up by chinese police and plain clothmen. >> do they have internet when it comes to news? >> ther internet is interesting, facebook and twitter are banned in china. there are chinese versions of them run by chinese. the government can pull the plug at any time. many of the riots and things are not covered in social media. there are nine central television channels. one is dedicated to agriculture

ws but all is run by the state. so there are no private t.v. stations in china. host: this is will from franklin tennessee with dean cheng from the heritage foundation. caller: earlier you were talking about the trade between china and the united states and it's pretty obvious that china relies a lot on the economy in the united states. and considering how fast the economy is growing in china, does the united states or any other country have any national if rity concerns concerning their economy were to collapse?

guest: yes. it's often been said that the only thing more worrisome than a china that succeeds is a china that fails. if their economy collapsed or strank significantly we would see population movements, potential refugees. we'd see a lot of internal unrest. they have nuclear weapons. there would be the question of who is controlling them. but there is the larger issues of if you did that, you would be disrupting the global supply chain. if you consider the mike chips that run cars to computers to spacecraft are made in china. if you disrupted the factories that make them that's going to disrupt the earth. after the earthquake you had trouble getting spare parts for hondas. that would be much more global if china were to come apart.

host: this is independent line in rhode island. caller: i just want to make a omment i think it's rid that -- ridiculous that if an american based company moves to china they should be considered a chinese company. having an office here in rhode island it's ridiculous that the ay that china is charging us a 25% import tariff tax and we charge them a 2.5% tax, so there is no way we can compete with that. and on top of that the prices they pay for labor there is no way we can compete. and these problems are not the problems that you have mentioned that it's the choice of the people that have decided these problems that we're having. it's corporate america. corporate america is able to

give as much money as they want to people's campaign contribution funds and that is resulting in corporate america dictating whatever they want they seem to get. host: thanks caller. guest: well, i guess one of the things that difficult chates us from the chinese is the broad spectrum of opinions that manage to make its way out. whether or not we're a company that has facilities abroad should be considered a foreign company is one of the sorts of things that is to be addressed by our congress and our president too. but i think that it does -- that sort of concern belies the reality of a much more globalized economy and i guess we'll leave it at that. host: you did an issue lead b up to the summit that starts today. you said it's another in a

series of important but aimless steps on an increasingly rocky path. could you expand on that when it comes to today's summit? guest: i don't expect much to come out of this summit for two reasons. there are limits what leaders can achieve. in terms of actually substantively changing or influencing the relationship it's very hard. and it requires an awful lot of detailed work that frankly negotiate president is qualified to do, not because they are smart people but because they are presidents of major countries. ey have a lot on their agendas. but president obama in particular secretary of state and defense have not filled in these positions to do the hard staff work. we will have six hours of meetings where you can air a

bunch of concerns but if you think the chinese are going to agree to end cyber intrusions or solve the north korea problem for us that is hopelessly optimistic. host: what does that mean going orward for secretary kerri and secretary hagel? guest: i think they need to get their appointments on the table and congress needs to approve or not approve so we can have working meetings that are ssential so dialogue have some real subs tanive agreements initial tives to move the ball actually forward. if you think that the tone will be set in this summit, that's all well and to the good. t let's not mistake that for instance. host: asia supports that or

who? guest: both. who will be the assistant and under secretaries of defense with the east asia portfolio? who is going to be working for secretary hagel with regards to cyber? and the same applies to secretary of state kerri. these slots haven't been filled. these are the people working on a day-to-day basis on cyber issues. there are lots of equities that need to be balanced out. it's not like state d.o.d. or treasury can say this is policy. they have to work with each other. we need to walk in with a single sheet of music. host: one more call for you. this is mary an from wisconsin. caller: let's talk about what the so-called trade imbalance would do. as far as that goes when people

in this country can no longer go to wal-mart and buy a t-shirt for $4 and have to pay $29 for the same t-shirt we're not going to be talking about a trade imbalance anymore. we're going to be talking about a civil war. guest: caller identified a key point. american's standard of living has improved because of the level of trade we have with china. we need to recognize the deficit and debt are things that tesketvablet of money and that effects our economic strength which is the key thing that influences u.s. china relations. host: dean cheng with the heritage foundation. if you want to read his writings you can go to the website had is linked on our

website. we're going to take a look at the help of u.s. counties and look at the issues that go into that. michelle larkin and dr. patrick remington will talk about that when "washington journal" continues. >> in order to raise money i filed an application with the i.r.s. seeking to obtain 501

-c-3 status. as of today i've been waiting 23 months without status. >> many of the agencies do not understand that they are servants of the people. they think they are our master's and they are mistaken. i'm not interested in scoring political points. i want to protect and preserve the america that i grew up in. the america that people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of. and i'm terrified it is slipping away. thank you. >> thank you very much. c-4 purpose of a c 3 or tax exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political work. >> it is the responsibility of the i.r.s. to determine which groups are choosing the correct status and which are trying to manipulate the system to avoid

taxes and hide campaign done no, sir. >> house weighs and means hears from tea party members on targeting of their groups this weekend on c-span and c-span2 saturday and sunday starting at 11:00 and on c-span 3. >> in poor health first lady mckinley sufficient furred from epilepsy and her husband would is it next to her at state dinners so if she had a seizure he would shield her face from guests until it passed. she attended the expedition where her husband was assassinated. we'll look at her life as we conclude the series of first

ladies 9:00 monday night on -span and c-span 3 and also on c-span radio and cspan.org. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now for american by the numbers michelle larkin and dr. patrick remington with the university of wisconsin, the madison school of medicine public health everybody ises as associate dean. to both of you welcome. the topic is the health of u.s. counties. my question is when we look at health we look at a nationwide aspect. why fock does at the county level? guest: you can look at the health of an entire state and rank states 1 to 50. but if you rank within a state and bring it down to counties within a state then people relate to it. they like to compare the health of their community with their

next door neighbor or other counties in the state. it makes it more local. host: you did a joint study taking a look at these issues. what were you looking for as far as the health of a county is concerned? guest: we did this because in this country we love rankings whether it's college rankings or test scores. we make decisions about where we live based on rankings. we decided to invest in it because at the local level that's where people make the decisions and they need to understand there is a lot that . es into health really wanting to understand jobs, edge case, employment, our behave yors, the choices we make. those things come together to determine how healthy we are. host: as far as the data where

do you take the data from and how do you compile it? guest: we're a one stop shop for data. it can come from statistics but pull in data from telephone surveys, from the centers for disease control, environmental data and put it together in two different parts. one is what we call the health outcome, how long and how well people live. and then we put together four groups of factors into what we call the things that asket health and that's healthcare, the behave yors in the population, the social and economic factors and the environment. when you group those together it represents the future health of a community. host: are those four topics equally weighted or are there varying degrees? guest: there are varying

degrees. ucation and housing is weighted more highly because hey have a greater impact than healthcare or behave yors. host: how does your county rank. if you want to give us a call and compare your county to the out lying counties. for those of you in the eastern 202-585-3882.s the eastern time zone 202-585-2881. >> we're really struck within every state there is a dramatic difference in how long and how well people live.

you can have counties right next to each other. urban community can rank dead last in health out comes and a suburban right next door can be top ranked. and i don't think everybody is aware of the dramatic differences in health out comes. you might understand the differences in how the community looks or the type of houses. but this is the first time people can look and see stark differences between the health of places right next door to each other. host: you provided a ranking of counties. in pennsylvania when it came to the healthiest in 2013 chester county was listed, when it came to the least healthy that's philadelphia county but those by are not related too much space. guest: they are close to each other. we can have our neighbors next

door have very different health out comes. one of the things we learned after the first year of doing the rankings that it was starting a different type of conversation. it was bringing together policy makers and the city councils to say why are we so different we're separated by five or ten miles and dramatically different out comes are happening for the people living here. some of those folks live in the city and they want an opportunity to have health like the people living in the suburban count tiss. so that was the purpose of the rankings to start those discussions and make sure we are building out how we can be helpful to those community leaders to really have a conversation about how are we making our decisions and do we really understand what the health out comes are for the people living in our community and how do we do a better job making sure our resources are

helping them have the opportunities they can possible have. host: was it a social economic issue or issues like pregnancy, how did that factor in? guest: all of the above. to have a healthy community you need educational system, job opportunities and you need accessible and affordable healthcare that is high quality and policies that promote healthy behave yors, things like zoning for walkable communities. and finally our transportation policies often have an influence on the air quality. so urban communities toned have more poverty and also social and economic factors that challenge healthy living. ost: in maryland the

healthiest county was howard county the least was baltimore ity in maryland. caller: i think you answered my question about prince george's ounty where they rank. guest: i would encourage you to on countyrankings.org because you can go into the state of maryland and click on your county and see where it came out in rankings and you can get a sense of how it's doing and how your neighbors are doing. and it also has a great place that you can click on that is road maps to health which is a tap next to rankings. if you want to get engaged and figure out what you can do as a mom or business leader it gives you examples of how you can use

the rankings to start a conversation and change the action that is are happening in your community to promote better health. there ow would you gauge as far as health is concerned? caller: i'm not sure. i feel some positive things but i need more information. i'm concerned ability housing. i'm concerned about affordable housing in the area in prince george's county. the cost of living is high. i'm concerned about the had housing being unaffordable for year, who earn $50,000 a $60,000 a year even. and housing cost go up every year, renting apartment that is sort of thing. tell me that website again to go on checking the health of counties online.

.org.untyhealthrankings >> could you clarify if there is a relation there? guest: people struggling making minimum wage are going to be less likely living in a neighborhood where there is safe and healthy food and walkable communities. the other thing is the stress living on the edge not knowing if there is going to be a paycheck definitely effects health. we have three questions on how people are feeling. in the last 30 days how has your mental health, your physical health and how would you rate your health overall. and these measures you get on the telephone are highly correlated within individuals with length of life. so when you ask people if

you're homeless or if you're not able to make a rent payment or getting foreclosed, your mental and physical health will o down and affect your overall health. host: hello. caller: hello, my name is car ren. i agree there are many problems but my city is working on a community schools project. the goal of this project is to address some of the diversity manchester and create safer neighbors by fostering the social cohesion that is lacked in communities. even though it's not a huge community we have a lot of big town problems. we are working to connect neighbors with one another in an attempt to build some of these things that really do oster our neighbors.

host: she said social cohesion and relation to county's health. guest: that's right. we know from science the more children are exposed to stress whether that's homelessness or worrying about their parents making payments or move, that ability to have connections in your community and also to reduce that stress has a great impact on how those kids grow up and how they deal with stress and how they manage illness as they grow older. so it's important that the rank rgs just a conversation starter but bringing together business, educators, the health department, healthcare rofessionals, moms and faith leaders help knit that community together and develop the solution that is work for them. i applaud you in manchester for

taking that action and saying we have a problem and here is how we are going to tackle it. host: hello. caller: my name is lisa. spo can washington has the poorest zip code in the state. as a community we've circled around educational attainment because we've recognized less educated individuals end up in low skill jobs, they don't have health insurance, it makes it difficult to get healthcare. as a community we've started rallying around training in adverse childhood experiences. the schools are creating early warning systems to recognize when kids are in danger of dropping out of school. we're providing truancy boards for kids that are truant.

and we've seen an increase in the graduation rate from 60% to almost 80%. guest: that's a great point. encourage to you go to countyhealthrankings and look at your county. we have a couple of measures in there. one is high school education. since we get data from all counties across the nation. we don't go down to the zip code level for example. what we find is if people in one county begin looking how their county ranks overall on health out comes or things like high school graduation then you begin looking within your community and from neighborhood to neighborhood because you'll find that measures of the overall health of the county vary dramatically within the community. it is important to go to places

in greatest need such as the zip code you described. guest: and it's great to see you are making the connection between high school graduation rates and health because we know that the longer a person stays in school the better their opportunities are to live have a livable wage. they also have better health out comes and make better decisions about healthy activities. again, congratulationses to you for starting that. host: healthier counties you're 1.4 times more likely to have access to a doctor or den tiss. we have a viewer that asked how is your health related to the vablet of state of the art healthcare? guest: the most important thing is to have access to healthcare period. without that people won't be able to stay as healthy as they

could. we use two measures the number of primary care doctors in the population, it's the number of people per doctor. that varies tenfold. some areas have few primary care doctors so it's hard to get in to see a physician. the other measure is dentist. it's a proxy for vablet of healthcare. of so measure quality care. presentable hospitalizations for example. how likely are you to be admitted to the hospital for conditions that should be prevented. it's not the enkike peed i can't but it's a good over view. if you go to your county you can see how it ranks in clinical care overall. host: hello jerry. caller: hello to renl remember ho is a crowned jewel in

health. in improving the safety of our communities is reducing the number of people we send to prison. a study done with a grant found that we could increase the public health out comes by ininvesting in treatment as an alternative to prison and that could have significant savings to the prison system and those savings could be reinvested into mental health and substance abuse and keeping families together. we found that by increasing treatment and reducing imprisonment we could prevent 1500 parents a year from going to prison and that would be a significant improvement in all of our county health assessments. host: before you go, but the healthiest county in wisconsin

ozaukee county. >> i would defer to dr. remembering on the on that. but those are part of the suburban rural dynamics we see so nauven healthcare. guest: i think you make a couple of good poinlts. one is linking the problem. f you look at the county health rankings, that starts the conversation. that county ranks dead last and have for many years. what are you going to do about it? you can go on the website what works for health and you'll find evidenced based programs for example in the criminal justice program keeping people out of prison for crimes that

relate to mental health services. so we allow the conversation to get down to the community level and then for people to go into the what works data base. ours or others to find out things that can work. and it's amazing the number of programs that are available that work but aren't fully implemented. host: according to the survey healthiest counties have low rates of teens living in poverty and smoking and teen births. how does personal responsibility factor in? guest: the decisions we make determine that. it's very difficult for a person to make good healthy choices if they don't have those choices available to them. pat used the example around primary care and the importance

of seeing a primary care provider. if that provider tells that patient you need to eat fresh fruits and vegetables and you need to walk but that patient is in a community has high rates of violence and no parks and they don't have a grocery store that sells nutritious foods, it's hard for them even though they want to do the right thing and they know that they are responsible for their health it's hard to do it. policy makers need to help them create communities that have those healthy choices available. we have a mayor we've worked with over the years, he's a republican mayor and a strong believer in personal responsibility. his job is not to tell you what to do but to make sure those healthy choices are available and you can make the choice

whether or not you want to take advantage of them. host: in north carolina the wealthiest county wheat county the least healthy columbus county. caller: good morning. i'm getting ready to say a dirty word in this country and that's race. nobody wants to take about race in regards to economics or prison population and other objective metrix in this country. i would like to find out if they've ever conducted a study or if there is plans to conduct a study in regards to the impact of race and health out comes for folks who are similarly situated who come from the suburbs and live right next door to one oot but have

starkly different health out comes. nobody wants to say it but there is discrimination in the healthcare industry and it's practiced by doctors, it's practiced by nurses and folks who have the same education, the same amount of money, come from similar areas have starkly different health out comes and i would love to see a study conducted on that topic. host: you see that where you live and specifically how? caller: i see it all the time. in the area i live we have several top notch medical facilities. but i see the situation all the time. in this country there are still some people who are valued more than others. host: caller thank you. guest: you make a great point caller. and i think there are two way that is race can affect health out comes.

race does matter. first of all for example african-americans may be less educated and have lower incomes, we know that through studies. and those affect health out comes. but you're bringing up the point when you say an african-american living in a suburb has a different outcome. even when you control for differences in social factors race still matters. there is still discrimination that is independent of these social and economic factors. so it's a very important point. what we look at is we look at the health of entire places and so then communities come in and in effect then go into the community and find out where are the exact communities perhaps communities of color that have worse health out comes. ost: carroll on the georgia go

ahead. caller: i recently went to my primary care doctor and he read off the list of things that -- i'm on social security and he read off the list that i could go get that would be no co-mamente. one of them was a pap smear that is covered by social security under the affordable care act. the only problem is the ginecolings that i called, yes hat is covered, however, the $275.'s visit not that is ridiculous. to called medicare complain about this and they

told me that that doctor did medicare assignment. you've got to find a doctor who takes medicare assignments. now they gave me the name of a cover ere who will everything. host: thank you caller. guest: that's an important point. one of the things the rankings illustrate is healthcare is important. it's one of the factors that goes into health but in this country we focus so much on the healthcare system that we forget there are other things we can do that are lower cost that prevent illnesses like screenings, walkable communities things that encourage physical activity and good nutrition. those are things that don't cost a lot of money to do but

we have focused so much on repair work and sick care and what the rankings have done for a lot of community as cross the country. what are the root problems we're having and how do we catch it before it's a big problem that is going to cost us a lot of money. host: is there a feeling your rankings will change? guest: i think we'll engage in conversations more. i think the caller made a good point that you need to be a smart consumer these days. it's not good enough to get the advice that pap test are paid for. the advice should be make sure your provider has accepted medicare. some don't and they'll charge you. it will get the healthcare sector at the table and businesses. and we all need to understand it's important to have elingt

insurance but it's also important to be able to afford the care. we are seeing plans that shift the cost of care to consumers and patients and we should hear about those challenges in getting care. host: it's our weekly america by the numbers segment. dr. patrick remington and ichelle larkin joining us. thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe if we have single parents we wouldn't have this problem. but my question is -- i have two questions. what about sequestration? i know that affects so many communities and the fact that they are cutting food stamps and head start is affecting children and low income. i know that's a factor.

and also what about the natural disasters that happen in communities and how they have to come back which are comening back faster than others? guest: you are right. one of the things the rankings has done is bring together those diverse leaders i talked ability business, education and health departments to take a look at how they are using their current resources. when you go to the web silent it talks about those programs that work or those policies that are shown to create better health. some of them are very inexpenive, it just takes political will and leadership and the community to champion it. the resources are always going to be limited and so it's helping the those communities to be create i have and thallingtful about how they use their limited resources. you asked about natural

disasters. i'm going to use new orleans as an example. this year we recognize six communities who were taking the rankings and thinking about that in a holistic way. new orleans is a terrific example of that. you can see their prize videos. they got a $25,000 cash reward. they've brought together their community in new and different ways. they are addressing the healthcare needs and some of the challenge that is new orleans has had for a long time in terms of how do we make sure the housing is good for everyone in new orleans and how do they have access to the same choices and they are doing that. and that's post katrina. in a lot of ways katrina was a catalyst for them because it helped them come together as a community. and that community cohesion is so critical for them. host: in texas is healthiest county williamson county the

least healthy polk county. caller: my question deals with how you gathered the data? williamson county had is right next to us is where we get most of our healthcare from, it's where we do most of our shopping. my county is more of a rural county. statistics did you take into account those from neighboring counties that didn't have the facilities and had to go to williamson county? those statistics for williamson county are they based on just the residents of williamson county or is it based on other counties that have to go there for their services? guest: that's a great question. when you go to the website county health rankings.org and

you click on your state and county you'll see a snapshot. under the circumstances a one page overview of all of the health factors, about 30 factors. if you actually click on any of those factors you'll get detailed information about the source of the data and to answer your question, yes, all of the data is based on where the individual lives. so if someone lives in williamson county to get care but they live in an adjoining community and they have a health problem or smoke cigarette or failed to graduate high school, all thotes statistics will be based on where they live. those people are interested the data can drill down the sources. host: not only having healthcare services but the transport to get the services? guest: that's interesting about the rankings too.

kansas city has some of the best healthcare in that area of kansas so when the mayor saw the rankings he thought how are we doing well on healthcare but our health out comes are so bad and part oist is they weren't thinking about things like transportation. so he actually used his tax insenive policies to address healthcare and say we have great medical care. how do we get people to flive this community and get them from where they live to the medical centers to their jobs and to places to shop aso that they can actually get the things they need and have those opportunities. so he actually redid the bus route to make sure it went from places people lived to places they worked by grocery stores and other places for shopping so that people could actually have access.

because the tweeter is absolutely right, it's not just about whether or not you can access, it's the logistics of how you get there. so having our policy makers be more thoughtful about that is coming out of the rankings. host: hello. caller: hi, my brother has property up in wisconsin and most of the people i think up there are indians and i was just wondering if there was a difference in the healthcare for the indians as opposed -- not opposed to but in ranking with some of the other people such as just some of the other counties and states. guest: it's a great point caller. we've looked across the nation at states that have tribal communities and it's quite shocking actually to see the bottom ranked counties are most

ften in montana and alaska are ind reservations -- indian reservations. these communities know about it. it's not just problems with healthcare. when you look at the healthcare they have a great tribal health clinic, good access to healthcare. they are challenged in other areas, unemployment, educational problems. there isn't a grocery store. when we did our survey we found no grocery stores listed there. it's hard if your doctor gives you advice to eat healthy and there is not a grocery store in your communalt, how are you going to do that? it's all the factors in the communities. tribal communities are challenged. hopefully this information will be viewed by policy makers and talk about what we can do

collectively as a society. host: the website is available. we've linked it if you want to click it for yourself and check out your county and find out the findings. we go to missouri. lisa joins us. good morning. caller: hi. i'm part of a group that is working on using a policy decision making tool called a health impact assessment. we're looking at that in relation to public trance it and expanding trance it in our county. we've been able to do a couple of assessments and found out they are a useful tool for decision makers. our first assessment looked at the expansion of trance it overall and found it would be good for our community for giving people healthcare and getting people to be more active in trance it. we currently have an assessment under way looking at mechanism for trance it and how the

increased funding might affect citizens in your county. we believe that's a unique way of using this tool. guest: it's a great tool and just taking into consideration the impact on health when you are looking at housing decisions or new construction or putting in bus routes or transportation it can have a significant impact on people's act to access the healthy choices we've been talking about all morning. host: hello. caller: i live in virginia and no matter how much money you throw at healthcare the parents have to step up to the plate. here it is almost like an insult if you ask your kid to walk two blocks. they act like it's almost child abecause. if it wasn't for exercise at schools they wouldn't have any exercise. they probably wouldn't get off

the couch. guest: i think the caller makes a great point. it's not either or. it's not safe and walkable communities, parents helping kids be active ; it's both. as a parent if the sidewalks don't exist or it's not safe to get to school, i understand the need to drive. so you have to begin with making safe and walkable communities but then parents and individuals families have to take responsibility and the outcome that we're looking for is the healthy community. all of the factors that relate can be addressed but ultimately we look at that measure of how healthy your community is. how long people are living and how well people are living. host: what do you hope people do with this information? guest: i hope they use it to start a conversation and take action. we've heard examples from callers about how they used it

to start the conversation but they are thinking ability low cost investments in their children n their families and in that communalt as a whole to make sure they are creating that future they want to see, hat culture of health. michelle larkin dr. patrick remington thank you for being with us. 'll see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. captioning by the national captioning institute >> u.s. employers added 100 and 85,000 jobs in may. the department saying the

unemployment rate rose to 7.6% from 7.5% in april. the increase occurring because people have begun looking for work. new jobboehner says the numbers are "a positive sign of modest job growth." the president is in california today speaking about -- possibly talking about jobs but in particular talking about the health care law and its implementation in california. we will have live coverage from his comments at 11:50 a.m. eastern. lautenberger'sr casket received. old five-term senator passed away on monday morning. he was the last remaining world war two veterans serving in the u.s. senate.

♪

>> discussion looking at the latest element in syria where

more than 80,000 people have died since the start of protest against the assad regime over two years ago. former state and defense department officials will be speaking at an event hosted by the national council on u.s.- arab relations. we'll have live coverage. at the u.s. capitol the senate began at 930. a bill creates a conditional path to citizenship. more than the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. it also seeks to improve poor security. the senate is expected to bill from the month of june. you can watch the debate now on c-span to. house members returned to the dick returned tuesday at noon eastern. they will devote most of the next week on the floor to debating the annual defense policy bill measuring on authorized programs -- measuring of rice programs in long-term strategic capabilities. watch what house coverage on c-

span. the defense authorization bill was debated and passed 59 to two by the house services committee. -- prohibiting the defense department for proposing featured grounds of disclosures. the amendment was eventually defeated 34 to 18. that debate is about 20 minutes. >> this amendment goes to one of the comments mentioned in her comments. aile this mark prohibits block for this year and the next couple of years and though i disagree with that i will not oppose that decision. it goes even further than that and prohibits the department of defense from planning or proposing an additional rack.

that is just bad legislation. the executive branch has its role, the legislative branch has its roots. the executive branch wishes to propose of the weekend oppose it. we can have a debate and discussion about it. to go so far as to prohibit the department of defense from planning an additional brack round does not make any sense to me. i think there are many on the republican side of the aisle that were critical from the department of defense for not planning for sequestration. they say they do not think it is going to happen so they cannot plan for it. it is a fair criticism. you have to plan for what is coming. to say they cannot plan or proposal in the future is an unnecessary restriction. it also goes back to the larger point that i made in the beginning of my opening comments. i would disagree with the chairman slightly. while this mark reflects the house budget resolution and

house budget resolution has a significantly higher defense number than the senate budget resolution that is a basic agreement because obviously the senate budget resolution has a much higher number for other programs and we can work our way through that. neither of those budget resolutions and not this bill either consider sequestration. it is considered fiscal year 2014 -- sequestration is most likely to happen. there is the pathway toat of it. i would not ask for a show of hands. how many democrats in the senate and the white house are going to accept strict mandatory spending cuts as a way out of sequestration, not enough. that is in our face it locks and swayback of july of 2011 that

led to sequestration in the first place to get nothing has changed. it is coming and we continue to act like it is not. further restricting the department crop figure out how to deal with it does not make sense. i understand the emphasis in the short term. it begins toerm save money. at a longer period of time we've done to the point in this committee and i will not " the specifics but senator mccain in our conference was flabbergasted by being in some states somewhere where they were c-130s.ng five everything came to conclude. i moved stuffed into my district. up and saynot stand

the one and only rule is my district cannot be reduced by anything. the wind up penalizing them. when we redoubling the budget over the course of 10 years to do that. with the cuts have are the cut -- cuts that have already come and sequestration now been a and if someone wants to argue with me what will happen there -- with all of that happening i did not think this committee has the luxury of being so darn broken up here anymore. to say any time with the services concern to our status as we have to rearrange that you're going to fight tooth and nail to stop this, i guess this is just the logical extreme of that to say that you cannot even think about it. we do not know what it is but

don't you dare think about it. urge is at a minimum to strike that language that prohibits them from even planning or proposing additional rack rounds. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia requests time. recordnt to be held on as speaking in opposition to -- >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. if you look at the process planning and proposing is the process. -- that is the process. if you look at the other elements of planning that are being undertaken right now to look at where we are going, what is the strategy, you have the secretary of defense doing a

strategic choice in the management review. you also have annexed the did you also have an independent review done by this committee. planning is putting together information to achieve an objective. what the butknow it is why would we can expect propose a crack? it does not make any sense would be in strength reductions. costs look at to the there is cost and time associated with the planning and proposing. if we are focused on making the best use of time and resources, ultimately it will be useless because the objectives may change and the strategy may change. we're doing all that now, putting the cart before the

horse. tolook at this is this propose this amendment at this time nor is it the right direction. we need to make sure that we understand all the different moving pieces about it, whether it is sequestration are planning on this nation's strategy or the drawdown in afghanistan, to go forward and say somehow we a point to come together and plan to propose a brack and not call to me is foolishness and it is not the right time or place to do this. i stand in strong objection to the amendment and we -- and yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman of california requests time. support of the amendment -- cut the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

a very sound argument for being prepared. for understanding the options that we will have to face and the choices we will have to make, to be ignorant is never wise. we rely heavily on the department of defense to provide us with information. as representatives of the american people on the choices --h regard to the military with the ranking member wants to do here is simply gives the military opportunity and responsibility to continue to think through, to plan, and to prepare options for us to consider. i think that is wise. i think that the ranking members amendment allows the department

of defense to do that and provide us with the information that we will ultimately need to make some very tough decisions in the question of how we use the taxpayer resources. i support ranking member. back. gentleman yield from what purpose the gentleman from virginia is requests time? >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i like to join the distinguished chairman and readiness subcommittee in his objections to this amendment. i have enormous respect for the ranking member. i hear is consistently talked about the need to raise taxes. and also the need to plan because of additional resources we will need. i just wish and i have outlined this before that we have had that kind of planning and discussion before we spend $0 billion on a stimulus bill and

an $347 billion of interest on that. all of which is almost the exact overlay of what we are cutting out of defense. we pleaded and pleated and pleaded when our friends on the other side of the aisle when majority. please to not do that because it is going to come back out of the defense. we are harvesting what we planned the second thing is the distinguished ranking member mentioned that we protect programs because we like them. there are some members to maybe do that. most of us try to protect these defense programs not because we like them but because we need them. when you look at the pentagon they are not coming over here saying we do not need these four structures. they're saying because of the budgets we are given the cannot have them. we have to go back to a point in time in this committee when we are asking what the united states needs to defend this country, not just what we can afford to what is the risk to the net states of america if we do not supply the resources? the chairman of the readiness committee is exactly correct

when he says this, if you believe that these four structures on the right structures, but we need to reduce the army where we are reducing it, if you believe we need to reduce the marine corps we are reducing it, if you believe we are -- we ought to reach deuce the air force we're going to reduce it. if you believe we ought to reduce the number of ships then vote for brack. if you believe that these four structures are heading in the wrong direction, the curved lines are heading in the wrong directions and we need to be careful of having another round of losses into that for structure. that is why the other thing out disclose is that the chairman of the subcommittee said that in the pentagon planning is in the process. once they start the planning it starts in motion. he did not turn them around. that is why it is important that i think we stay with a subcommittee recommendation and we reject this amendment.

to thewhat purpose is gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> ic recognition to support the amendment. -- i see recognition to support the amendment. >> recognize for five minutes. >> every dollar wasted in the defense budget is not a dollar spent defending this country. i think what mr. smith is trying to do is really give the authority to the department of defense to determine what the excess capacity is. we can make a decision as to what the trade-offs are. by not supporting the amendment what we're saying is we do not want to know. we do not want the pentagon to make a determination as to what the capacity is. 2004 was the last time the study

the issue. it was determined to be 20% in army installations. waspeculated the number much greater now. the success of the nba is prohibited of them fighting out. we have to know what the number is so we can have an appellate -- we can have an intelligent debate in this committee. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. what purpose does the gentle lady from south dakota request time? >> to speak in opposition. >> recognize for five minutes. >> i was proud to vote with my colleagues. doubt that our country is facing serious physical challenges. if you look at the 2005 package that is the perfect example for why this should not be pursued at this point in time. it costs over $35 billion, it was a 67% increase or the

original cost. according to the recent report they said that the braque cost more than what the savings are point to be in the long run. the categorized as excessive. i know it is our responsibility to save dollars but if recent resorts proved true planning for brack is not a good way to do that with significant upfront cost. the same report states that the last one under the up-front cost, it overestimated the long- term savings. i supported section 2711 in the committee. i stand in opposition to this amendment and i yield back. but the gentle lady yelled back. for what purpose does the gentle lady from california request time? >> to speak to this amendment. >> she is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i think the ranking member from washington in doing a good job in outlining how this is -- it

really shouldn't be prohibiting the administration from taking a look at things that they feel are necessary. to some how disclose and say we just do not want this to happen, we may need this to happen. with that i will yield the rest of my time to mr. smith to speak on the subject. >> thank you very much. 2005 in part was so expensive because we are so flush with money that as we are closing down the bases it kept -- they're kept being more and more proposals for how to soften the blow and how to get more money from the local communities. the previous four cracks were much more cost-effective and i would not propose that we revisit the 2005. i will say of the long term even

the 2005 will wind up saving money. in opposition to the company, proposing and planning is doing. that is just logically it that what we troubles me because the department proposed and planned for this year. proposingf evidently and planning is not doing. that very logical point was made by a couple that i find troubling. i will yield back support to the amendment. on theurther debate amendment? >> president of the united states speak in opposition. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i does want to remind folks began that the process is supposed to beat and a logical process. it does include planning and

proposing. it you say you are in favor of this amendment than what you are saying is you want it to be planned for and be proposed. you also have to know that the planning process assumes you are going to reach an objective and know what the strategy is going to be. we are undergoing a review of what our strategy is going to be callable at the department of defense, secretary of defense and this committee. they are all undertaking this review. it seems to me it is illogical to say that somehow we can pursue and plan and proposed brack without knowing what the strategy is going to be. how you structure even looking at one if you do not know where you are going. we are going to do it just because we want to make sure we have the option to do it. that is not what this process is about. it is supposed to be a logical process at this particular time with all of these uncertainties.

this provision and this amendment makes it an ecological process. it makes it the outcome of the planning and proposing that would happen if this amendment were passed. it would itself be useless because it would be based on not knowing where we are going or what the strategy is. i urge the members to vote against this amendment. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut request time? >> thank you. andll strike the last word beat in opposition. i will point out that the post 2005 braque, but that is the they have asked us to pouring more money to the process. it was something that all the predictions back in 2003 and

2004 when the process is moving forward with never projected or disclosed to this congress. on the followed this subcommittee over the years. i think there are huge questions which the department and hearings we have had over the last two years has failed to answer in terms of why we should have any confidence in moving forward this time around and why it would be any better. i would just also note that when secretary panetta was rebuffed in the last congress the indicated the request to move forward with some installation closing at in europe. they need no authority from us in congress to go forward with that. to date our committee has not received any updates, and the progress report, any information regarding where the department is on that initiative, which

was promised to all of us. that theust simply say chronology of the 2005 brack, gao will be 13 years before there is net savings of one penny, going back in time to the prior practice. it will take at least six years for any savings. >> part of wednesday's markup of the defense authorization bill with the house armed services committee, that amendment by a vote of the four to 18. the debate next week will cover the market coming up on c-span. we are going to take you to the national council and u.s. air relations. they are going to be talking about the assad regime and the latest element in syria were more than 80,000 people have died over the last two years since the start of the rebellion. live coverage here on c-span.

>> permitting to have a vision and a mission. place america as relationships with its arab friend and our ears, strategic out lies. it has been -- then it has been, then it is. then it is likely to be honest enough good people on both sides of this equation work to make it so. projects,range of problems, events, and activities year round. our biggest one is in the autumn, this coming october put its second of the arabic u.s. annual policymaker's conference. , last october, we

have had four of these kinds of events here on capitol hill and elsewhere. he attended by members of congress on the senate and house side, their defense and foreign policy advisor is, the chiefs of staff and information and communications affairs directors. we also tried to reach out to the university community. four-ousand 500 american year institutions of higher education, we are happy to say we have someone in 800 of those universities. some of whom are here today. we also try to focus on passing the baton to becoming a generation via emerging elements of america's leaders who will manage this relationship more effectively and successfully and

in rewardingficial than has been the case over the last half century. of thesehe fourth kinds of conversations on topical issues that are relevant, urgent, and timely. they have a great deal to do with america's national security, economic, strategic, political, and private sector and interest. -- we aree are seeing seen as an organization focused on the arabian gulf, this is not by accident -- it is because this is the one place in the planet's more than any other in the last quarter of a century to which the united states and its allies have mobilized and deployed more forces, killed ,ore people, spent more money

and not necessarily come up with a set of consequences that will be synonymous with policies in our positions, actions, and attitudes necessarily having been infected or efficacious, let alone economically effective. extraordinary array of individuals focusing on the crisis in syria we are pleased and proud to have sent 400 american leaders to syria since the national council's inception. in 1983. the individuals that we will rayed before you to share their insight and information -- we will parade before you to share their information about as

complex country would be hard to be matched, let alone surpassed onng experts and specialists the western side of the atlantic. we'll go in the following sequence. and then with regard and missl david sharon and paul sullivan. motta is yet -- mona is known within the beltway as one of the foremost specialist of american policy makers and analysts, having to do with the eastern end of the mediterranean. she is with the stemson foundation and is the head of

its working group. she has focused consistently on syria. an extensivey had stint in the department of state and was also a senior policy adviser in the united states institute for peace. time we havest been blessed and honored and privileged to have him participate in one of our history defense. he is a twice honored, prize- winning journalist with the bbc, for which he remains a commentator and having received the royal television society's forrnational media coverage , forocus on afghanistan his work on cairo focusing on iraq.

and for his courageous reporting on the front lines of syria, not just in terms of newsworthiness but in terms of putting his professional and physical courage on the line. dave is an alumnus of one of our programs, the joseph malone arab and islamic studies program. and an alumnus of the national council's program in syria. he previously was the director in the office of the secretary of defense for arabia and the gulf. he is now a professor at the center for studies at the university of the u.s. department of defense. from lastt returned evening from jericho, dealing

directly and indirectly with the kinds of issues that this particular program addresses. atlowed by sharon and comes it from the humanitarian aspect with regard to the element of compassion regarding the international refugee dynamics where she is the head advocate of the international refugee ,ommittees in some 40 countries previously having served as an aide to the late senator edward kennedy. and to wind up with professor paul sullivan, who is professor of economics at the national defense university and a professor of national security studies at georgetown university and a regular

columnist for newspapers in turkey. and we start with mona have asked that those that have questions please write them on arethree by five cards that on your seat. these will be collected by our intern's and we will way through them in terms of as many as possible. we thank c-span for making a decision to fill this live. it has an embarrassment of riches, each day to choose from any number of the events to enhance the americans and people pause understanding and knowledge of this region. theas chosen for five of

six councils on u.s. peregrinations events to come this live. its proceedings available to millions worldwide and is an achievement in in no small moment. please join me in unwelcoming miss mona the caribbean. -- in welcoming this mona yakubian. >> thank you for that kind introduction. good morning. i also want to thank the national council on u.s. arab relations and corporate cooperation committee for sponsoring this very important event. what i like to do, because i think it is more important, i want to keep my remarks brief. i am sure there is plenty many questions and comments. i want to talk about where we are in serene and focus for a specifically on the regional spill over, which is becoming much more prominent.

i like to offer a couple of remarks on how we got to where we are and conclude with some thoughts on u.s. policy. are todayf where we with syria, the uprising and conflict is into its third year. it is by far the most brutal of the arab uprisings. the death toll estimates range between 8100 20,000 people killed thus far. mostly civilians. is situation on the ground nothing short of a humanitarian catastrophe. i know sharon is going to address that so i am going to leave that dimension to her. what i would like to focus on this morning is the regional spill over. for think the conflict has the sectarian civil war to a much broader regional sectarian conflict. i think the events over the past

couple of weeks mark a real inflection point in where we are and a very troubling term in syria's trajectory. let us take a quick look. love and not in some ways is the most volatile and fragile of syria's neighbors. events over the past couple of weeks we are extraordinarily significant in terms of the degree of spillover. fighters openly engaged in syria. we have reprisals taken against hezbollah taken in lebanon. now more concerning in some ways from those within lebanon. , it youeeing a melting will, of the borders between

lebanon and syria, where the arena for conflict is now broadening. that has serious and significant implications for the non's stability. the of the border with the rock -- with iraq, another country with a fragile sectarian makeup, we see may was the most violent month in iraq in the years, with a dramatic uptake in sectarian violence, in part as a result of the dynamic within iraq. no doubt also said by the conflict in syria, in particular by the rise of suny -- of sunni jihadist resurgence in iraq and vice versa. in some ways we put all that together we see the potential

makings of a very broad swath of instability that stretches from the mediterranean to baghdad and beyond. i think that has huge implications for the region as well as u.s. strategic interests. we also have had significant spillover this week with israel. a think we can raise the specter of the potential for a broader, petition between israel and syria. the broader competition between israel and syria. there are clashes that went on over the -- the only border crossing between syria and israel. the rebels at one point had that crossing in their control. this is obviously very concerning from an israeli security perspective. we have already noted the austrians are withdrawing their contingent from the united nations force that is responsible for monitoring that

border. from as and speak from an israeli perspective what was once a quiet border is now becoming most dangerous. there aren continuing and deep concerns about the potential for this transfer of strategic weapons from the assad regime to hezbollah. this is of paramount concern to israel and we have seen three missile strikes this year. israel has laid out a clear red line that it will not abide the transfer of strategic weapons to hezbollah. in addition we have continuing tension with turkey there was a

double car bombing last month which underscores the ways in which the syrian conflict is spilling over across the border to its neighbors. that bombing provoked a lot of upset anger from the turkish there have been arendt shells that have gone basically border and all the bordering countries. is bearingdan, which a significant strain with respect to refugees, an infrastructure that already is stretched to the limit. the resources are already stretched quite thin. there is growing concern that the burden of syrian bettis and

jordan's system is becoming untenable. it could be the source of instability. i think we can see around the region a picture that is disturbing about how syria's conflict is now no longer contained within its borders. we can talk of people are interested in the question and answer about what some of the questions might be to mitigate that. we all really need to be braced for conflict that is going to be and during and will continue to have significant effects both on regional stability and the u.s. region. let me take a step back for a moment and talk about how did we get there? how did syria go from one of the many arab uprisings that started as a peaceful protest then morphed to an armed uprising?

and then from that to sectarian civil war and now verging on a much broader regional sectarian kong predation, how did it get there? the situation is extraordinarily dynamic. the pace, the velocity, it is in in many ways unmatched. throughout all of this to have been three constants from the very beginning. they arergue responsible for how syria got to where it is today. has viewedregime protests, although a peaceful, as an existential threat. as a result they respond to those protests with disproportionate and brutal force. think -- they have not been open to any sort of reform nor do i believe this is any

open -- the hard core center of the regime to negotiate an exit. the second condition that pertain from the beginning is that de syrian opposition has been divided. it has been in a state of disarray. arguably the political opposition is in greater state of disarray than it has been. they have been unable to coalesce around a vision of what a post assad syria would look like. as a result they have been unable to attract significant elements from syria's many minority populations, namely from the sector from which the president hails come from the kurds to the true spirit that has been a significant failing of the opposition. in addition we have even the current opposition as it is configured. rivalries,ersonal

and ideological differences, differences between those on the outside of syria, those on the ground. differences between political opposition and the armed elements and so forth. third, the international community has been essentially at a stalemate from the beginning. unable to form a consensus on how to handle the question in syria. in particular there are entering forces between the united states and russia put differences in the region between saudi arabia, turkey, primary supporters of the opposition and iran as the most staunch ally of the regime. as a result the united nations has been rendered essentially ineffective, subtly at the level of the security council on how to deal with syria. it is the interplay of these factors that has led syria to where it is today.

in terms of u.s. policy. u.s. policy has been marked by statementing by a made by president obama in 2011 that bashar al-assad must set aside. that has been and continues to be the u.s. position on syria. its policies toward syria has been largely focused on diplomatic isolation of the regime, promotion of economic sanctions, assistance to the opposition in terms of trying to help bridge some of these gaps, as well as training and technical assistance to those elements of the opposition and those on the ground who are already involved in some level of governance in areas beyond the virgin's control. he buttoned sport -- the u.s. has been a provider of humanitarian assistance. united states is the largest

provider of humanitarian assistance to serene refugees. nomany in the room probably united states is also approaching syria with a great degree of caution when it comes to the question of any sort of military intervention. rebels it is arming the or the question of establishing a no-fly zone or a targeted military strike, all of these options my colleague is going to be talking about in greater detail. the u.s. has opted at this point to not pursue those. i think it is in large part because of the many factors that we can talk about but certainly the degree to which the situation is in syria is chaotic and becoming more so. i think very serious questions about whether military

intervention would in fact exacerbate the situation on the ground. let me conclude by saying where u.s. policy is now this the focus on diplomacy, we are engaged in active discussions with the russians to try and restart something called the geneva process, which is attempting to bring both the syrian regime and the opposition around the table to negotiate some sort of transition. obstacles.ormous the next time the u.s. and russia are to meet is june 25. no specific date has been set for this geneva conference. the hope is july. it has already been delayed as a result of some of the lingering differences. i will conclude by saying that my sense is that at this point diplomacy, given all the

various risks and difficulties, not least of which concerns civilian protection, for many in syria the answer is going to have to be a diplomatic solution. >> thank you very much. >>, mr. chairman. i am honored to be here along such a distinguished company. i have been traveling into syria for two years. most of it has been illegal entry into the country approved by the b.c. management because we felt that reporting on events in the north of the country in territory that was contested was important for us to do and that is why we took the decision to do that. i would just like to talk a little bit about how the situation on the ground has evolved, how i see it.

the bbc is in non-partisan organization. i did not have my opinions. a lot of the decisions that were taken are not necessarily as well informed by the true story on the ground. it is a very complex picture. crossing into syria july 2011. at that point the entire north of the country is controlled by the government, the government controlled all of the crossings. what we saw was a protest movement in a state of abolition. -- of evolution. based around families, what we are seeing over the last year and a half is how that has evolved.

we read stories about foreign jihadis. the time last year opposition's third coalesce a round large groups. the opposition started to coalesce around larger groups. this was essentially a secular movement. these people were mechanics. these were amateurs with old rifles trying to work out how to mount a campaign. already at that point the outside world was taking an interest and people were supplying weapons. larger forces were coming to play. at that point when the syrian government talked about foreign

terrorists being inside the country, largely speaking it was not true. civilians, secularists, most of them were sunnis but they preached the language of inclusive the. -- of inclusivity. i will come on to that because that is more problematic. i know parts have evolved into a sectarian struggle. i still cannot believe that it is entirely defined by sectarian differences and it does not necessarily have to be that way. one of thethere was rebel commanders who sat there and had a serious. . because serious beard.

was -- hegested he was the exception to the rule at this point. you did not see people like that. you did not see people who were ideologically committed to the cause. that has completely changed in syria. southip we did recently of the city, in order to get to the heart of what we wanted to report on involved getting a permission slip from a court inside aleppo. with the syrian government has been saying and not necessarily have been to start off with but has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. many of the fears that the outside world had about what is happening in syria is it became involved and had come to pass anyway. the conflict has spread.

this time last it is something in the region of 90,000 dead in syria. it has become increasingly sectarian. a there were a possibility of clear initiative that could bring a swift end to this conflict, i do not see it now. it is as complex as you can imagine. i remember being in iraq in 2006. people were talking about the division of the country. there was a plan that talked about splitting iraq into three states.

when it was rocked by a people looked into the abyss but did not go that far. i do not think the breakup of i do not think it is a done deal at the moment. the policymakers to be as a engaged as possible. thes worth thinking about armed opposition has essentially two groupings and it is changing all the time. stalemate. about day we are very impatient. if things don't change in two months, we think nothing is happening, nobody is winning the

battles. there is control south of damascus. there has been fighting near the golan heights. they have taken control of that border crossing in the last 24 hours. it is not a straight line. the armed opposition controlled a few villages in the north of the country a year ago. there was nothing in damascus and nothing in aleppo. it has been sustained and supported by weapons coming in from outside of the country. most of the weapons have come gulf, qatar, saudi

arabia. capableintelligence is of closing up that border if they choose to do so. the rebels were not able to get any kind of a weapons. that changed this time last year. they are given enough to fight and die but not enough to win. they are not heavily armed. have arehe arms they from government bases they have managed to overrun. rockets taken from one military base on to another. has evolvedposition coalesced.ast --

the most hard-line elements are those who have sworn allegiance is essentially to al qaeda. more towardsse who aresecular fight but there lots of fellow travelers who fight in syria and they move from one group to another. we should never see it as a static situation. they are moving all the time. everybody feared this was al qaeda getting involved in syria. they have very little following. -- they are essentially again, a militant islamic

organization, different in the sense that they are not jihadis. they have a certain vision for its hard-line islamic state inside syria. this is what people tell you. many of the people who follow these groups to follow them because that is worthy focused attention is. they are able to pay fighters. most of the people who pick up weapons have not worked in syria for 18 months. they will probably move from group to group, depending which group is getting money and resources. this is something to bear in mind.

icn evolution over the past 12 months. the armed control most of northern syria, certainly the northern provinces. aind of south of aleppo city, which point the government starts to reassert control. it is muslim and sunni. that doesn't mean there are not exceptions. things have got to point where you feel the armed opposition it is probably being capable of advancing much further than it has. it has relied on audacity and guerrilla warfare. it has relied on david and goliath tactics, a vastly superior military force but not

geared to dealing with an armed insurgency. which is what the racine has which is why you have seen hezbollah has been so ineffective. there is potentially a potent force there. our very first trip over was to visit people who were displaced and living in tents right on the border. you could see the road in turkey. it is just spiraled out of control. everywhere you travel there are displaced families living in greenhouses and in caves. we were shown an old rumor and

were a family had been sheltering. this was near the armed opposition and the government. my camera man discovered five small boys who sat there in the dark on their own. their mother went out to get food. still waiting for her to return -- they were waiting for her to return. nobody knew that they were there. it is a crisis and as bad as i've ever seen it anywhere. it is probably compatible to afghanistan during the civil war. people rely on handouts. there's no perception the outside world has done anything

at all. people received humanitarian aid. fighters get some weapon. been's a sense they have abandoned by people from the outside world. people asked about the difference between a series and a libyan. t sounds like a bad joke -- people ask about the difference between a syrian and libyan. of aof them are victims war they did not choose. ultimately they pay the price. the bombing is pretty indiscriminate. you cannot use of artillery to pinpoint attacks.

therefore that is why you have so many killed. 90,000 this year. it is a gloomy picture. i am happy to take your questions. thank you for listening to me. >> thank you, ian. anthony.you, dr. my remarks to not reflect the blessings of the department of defense. fornot pretend to speak professor sullivan. topics.o address two i will do with the united nations in the context of warfare.

every american president prefers to take military action with allies. significant for nevis. democrat elected in the post-iraq era. there have been only two military actions which did not have some kind of claimed sanction since the fall of the berlin war. kosovo. cosa v iraq.her awas russia was determined to f thwart what it saw was a u.s.

power grab. said they didns not support -- theuncertain nature of armed opposition which would be merged in syria. the leaders of the armed opposition within syria are extremely shady, at worst. a u.n. mandate would seem to be the minimum requirement for an american president to begin military action in syria. ed.y feel they were hoodwink libya is treated differently from syria.

libya was first. this has shaped the international inaction on syria. a loss to was a major disaster -- unless there was a major disaster occurring, the u.s. will probably not take action without some kind of u.n. sanction. my second point concerns the nature of a no-fly zone. i am not an air defense artillery man. soldiers who work with dick equipment may call people like isscrunchies, because that

the sound we make when you run over us. i was a guest at a major weapons opposition. they were showing laser weapons. i want a grease pencil that will write when the temperature is below freezing. at the a great panel u.s. institute of peace. andcan hear the remarks find them informative. a colleague has written on this subject in formidably. has also spoken on

this subject. then make a few quick points. a no-fly zone is a euphemism for war. it is an actce but of war. our noble motives are forgotten and the dominant narrative becomes yankee-inspired destruction. war remains exactly what general sherman said it was. there is room in defining what a no-fly zone is. it is shaped by the operations over northern and southern iraq. there could be courses of action

that do not involve aircraft over damascus and the cratering of every runway. ano-fly zone will require base somewhere close by. these bases would probably come with a cost. turkey may insist on conditions address. u.s. would . worked in turkish affairs we can work in more remote locations. still intankers are high demand in the gulf. -- thank point is that

geography matters. most of the targets were on a flat strip in libya. wouldions in syria involve flying around mountains. the calculations are much more complicated. is that modern military practice is not to deploy a pilot into an area where you cannot retrieve him shoot his plane be shot down. activity has the potential for ground combat. thehould understand

implications of what is being proposed. airplanes get shot down. suggesty of history whatever type of no-fly zone is implemented whenever satisfies a no-fly zone. we'll hear about helicopters. if the helicopters are destroyed, most of the killing is being conducted by indirect sarajevo.e saw in i do not blame insurgents for their fight. they are in a struggle for the death.

wouldmoval of assad diminish the demand for intervention. i've not discussed other technical matters. if you are burning to hear that, i would be delighted to take a question. thank you and a welcome your questions. [applause] dave.nk you, miss waxman. anthony for, dr. inviting us here today. the conflict in syria has resulted in the largest humanitarian emergency in history. ian talked about the massive scale of displacement inside the country. people are million

displaced internal monely. more than 1.5 million have sought refuge in neighboring countries. the largest funding appeal ever has been launched today to respond to the crisis in the region. my organization has been working vitalartners to deliver medical aid for field hospitals and clinics. we are working inside syria to deliver health care for people living on the border and provide education to children who can no longer attend school, and build safe places for traumatized syrian children. they're refugees in syria and

iraq and reaching out to those who are suffering the most. $50ave spent more than million on aid to syria supported by the u.s. and the u.k. and from private donations. i want to focus on three issues. what the international community needs to do to get aid inside syria. help refugees realized their rights and protect them from the conflict. committeeational needs to increase support inside syria. the u.s. and other donors have been generous humanitarian needs outstripped the support provided.

the american government and american people deserve enormous credit for stepping in early and at a scale in an unprecedented assistance. the united states is the largest donor and it can claim a greater role as a donor and as a assistance. of equally important is that aid needs to flow through a diversity of channels. the international community should continue to explore to reach those across borders from neighboring countries, across the conflict lines inside syria. more aid needs to flow directly through syrian partners, especially those that are properly supported.

there needs assistance in building their core capabilities. needhree key areas of continue to be food, health care, and fuel. doctors have been targeted systematically. ow that summer has provided, emergency water and sanitation is essentials. the international community east to ensure that aid is not conflated with political objectives. assistance should be provided for the purpose of alleviating the suffering based on need. action is about saving lives. political aid jeopardize his humanitarian aid workers and risk diverting

insufficient resources from reaching syrian's most in need of help. refugee camps continued to garner most attention and resources. that is not where most syrian refugees are living. are living in rural areas across the northeast. if they have family and friends, they live with them. refugees to survive, sparse sending their children to work and exchanging sex for basic goods. refugees anden the

communities are rising. are clear today in lebanon. refugees live in villages across the country. many are living in settlements that are spontaneously emerging. led a non offered their borders to half a million banon openedled by their borders to half a million refugees. today requests the largest amount for the banlebanon. ais is a clear acknowledgment

about this massive influx of people. the international rescue committee believes we should refugees from syria. we need to increase the quality of services provided to most refugee groups, specifically woman and non registered refugees. thated to insure traditional development dollars buy the refugee influx. it may be months or years before displaced syrians can return home to destroyed homes and communities. planning about the future of syria is to be addressed on a multiple range of issues.

it is essential that border remain and keep their borders open to provide a safe ven. appealing, there is a poor record in practice and it will create a false sense of security for civilians and displaced persons inside syria. it will take a political solution to end the way inside in order to protect the syrian people. i appreciate the opportunity to join you today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, sharon.

open thespeaker before floor to questions is paul sullivan. >> a lot territory has been covered. i'll have to give the usual caveats. alone andmy opinions do not represent any institution, i may be involved with. now i might just get myself into trouble. rwanda.uld be obama's how many people have died? this is not slow motion. one year?to 90000 in this is far from slow-motion. heart hurts when

i think about syria. it is so complicated. this could turn into a maelstrom. no kidding. look at the neighborhood -- israel, bahrain, iraq. killed.s a bahrainy iran. port has kept this going for some time. syria has its own internal maelstrom. thinking as a strategic person, you know gets to me?

this right here gets to me. the children in syria. if you did not read this report yet, read it. i think of myself as often a tough guy. i work with the military. i read some of the stuff and i held my head in my hands and i wept. this is what is coming here. the shattering of the society. the shattering of infrastructure. this is a dangerous situation. how do we get from here to there. appeal.lion for an billion sound?

we have to figure out how preferred outcomes in the short term and the long term. i don't think that thinking has even started for what is needed to be done. maybe the first start would get waxman wasss wa saying. how angry these children are going to bay and how this will come back at us. not just the united states but the neighborhood and possibly the world. clinics., have take care of the orphans. maybe bring some of them to this country. this is a strategic thinking and just being human.

do well by doing good. too well by doing good. we can talk about all the big theories and political science. it all boils down to the people on the ground that ian and others have talked about. this is about people. the no-fly zone was talked about by david. this was mentioned as a possibility. no-fly zones are messy. people die. we can use soft power and hard power but it is probably too late and it will probably be too little. this could have been dealt with months ago. it was not. it is getting worse.

it is pulling in the rest of the region into the whirlpool of syria. ook what is happening in iraq and on the border with israel. as a 3dlook of this spiderweb with intrigue. every time you change something, everything else changes. there is a military term for this, complex and ambiguous. washington is not good with any of those. could we build a coalition to work on this? i doubt that right now. and the maelstrom is coming. astonishing.is it is all over the place.

so what is the option? give or a chance? -- give war a chance? officialsenior sunni it is and effective jihad for hezbollah. the russians are there. an iranian general was killed in syria. they are sending material up there. it is becoming out of control. is split.shia

the differences are of value to all oft -- are avail to that. the more a situation like this continues, the more money you will have. difficult when their lives are shattered. of the syrians nostrum could have global defects in oil and other markets and other strategic issues. batten down the hatches. get out the sea anchors. here we go. [applause] >> thank you, paul. it is my privilege to ask

questions of the presenters from the carts filled with questions that have been submitted. for you.o i will try to have two for the others. will necessitate the your answers be shorter. that might be the case elsewhere if we had a longer time. tried to keep your responses to three minutes or something of that nature. mona, two questions. involvementn's with hezbollah affect the obama administration paul's political calculus? what ways with the current israeli government if federal

regime toe assad remain in power or deal with whatever regime rises to replace it? >> thank you. think their involvement makes the administration's cackle is more complicated. just to take a step back and look get iran's role and hezbollah. they provide financing and .eapons and advice they have some commanders on the ground. a deepening involvement by hezbollah. ofre are perhaps thousands hezbollah fighters on the ground operating in syria.

in terms of political calculus, we have is more complicated situation. think it underscores iran's ability to play a key role. have maybe aollah strategic decision to go all and in. they view this as an existential battle. there will be persistent adversaries in this. i think ultimately we need to consider iran's role in this, particularly with diplomatic solutions. iran i would argue holds the power to play a real spoiler. on some level at the countless has to take on board iran's role

and perhaps how to counter them. i would not israel, pretend to have insight on to what their preferences are. isael new line israel viewing understandably what is happening in syria with increasing alarm. perspective, to take hard to see any good outcome in syria. they are very much in the mode in establishing what their key interests are and laying out clear redlines with the people and borders. is preventing the transfer of strategic weapons. i think they will do what they deem necessary in pursuit of

those goals. >> thank you, mona. these questions are for ian. given your recent experiences in might you comment on the degree to which american and/or other intervention thus far has more. more or for morhurt how sustainable is the possible reality of a state spending damascus, tartous and southwest quolms. how sustainable d.c. that has now come?

seew sustainable do you that has now come? prevails.ime ian? >> thank you very much. i will try to keep my answers brief. on the question of the degree the u.s. has helped or hurt. the perception on the ground, very few people believe there's been any intervention. theon talked about humanitarian aid. delivered on the ground and see that happening. a sack of flour appears in the village.

they go home and make bread. i would probably argue the message is not getting through at the moment. in terms of intervention militarily, has it helped or hurt? let's be honest here. without weapons, people cannot fight. the delivery of arms are tools for the defense originally and have become tools of offense. .t has led to greater killing the supply of weapons to the rebels has led to this massive loss of life over the last 12 months. i don't pretend to know what the answer is in syria. the only thing guaranteed is

that more people will die and the majority will be civilians. the idea of an allied state. many people talk about this. are notinces of tartous as homogenous as people like to think. people think perhaps this is the government's fallback plan. i think it would be incredibly difficult to pull off. it is hard to imagine that would be a desirable outcome for anybody in the country. sectarianism in- syria does exist. they do not have to have the day and it doesn't have to be

inevitable. a highly fanciful idea. creston something similar to that if it is sustained by an outside power. we've had some contact with the kurds. they have managed to govern themselves and some are working with the rebels. some villages you travel through and they run their own village now. they have an agreement on the ground. there are a lot of practical agreements that seem to fly in the face of everything you hear. that localds, agreement stands. they are allowed to run their own affairs.

the rebels are non worried. granted?autonomy is they will demand a high degree of autonomy. >> thank you, ian. next is for dave. what can be done to prevent and spillover of violence into syria's neighboring states? what might change the calculus of russia or china moving to support assad to a greater degree than they already have? is are any point they might agree to facilitate a transition of leadership? if so, where mike that point be?

how does the instability in syria change israel's caucus, if all, with iran's nuclear program? >> thank you for the questions. they're all easy ones. if i could give you -- effort.ive the my best what can be done to prevent spillover of violence? violence to ber an unhealthy metaphor. somehow yourccurs, sovereignty has been defiled. borders are permeable. it goes fromjuarez,

nogales and it can be restored. states realize this and they can ratchet up or ratchet it down. what we've done it in jordan -- is so the department to prepare for a key humanitarian support and i imagine any other contingency. you see the deployment of u.s. patriot battery to jordan. that is to deter any possible missile strikes. measures like that seem to be the effective ones. if you look at iraq. rollins could spill over into our racked -- violence could spill over into iraq. the u.s.t have --

border patrol does not have to intercept every single illegal alien the moment they crossed the border. or 50an stand back 40 miles and deal with the problem. the concept itself is relatively on helpful. each state think h. as an independent element and say, what are the elements of stability and address those elements. will lead to a change of leadership in china or russia? lead is falling russia's -- china is a following russia's lead. let's just look russia. i think russia feels humiliated. they were misled over libya.

what will be our place in the world if we give up a naval base? be a graceful transition. there cannot be a win-loss. win.e has to be a win- which at human rights, are a motivating factor. a big issue is the idea of impunity. will possible that assad remain in power or that he will meet the same end that gaddafi did. , he willur client have a graceful easement from

power." he might wind up in moscow. arear al-assad and his wife graduates of the university of london. they have great columns supporting people they do not like. that would run counter to the idea that people commit student rights violations would be punished. instability in syria and israel israe. leader, ie an israeli would prefer a centralized state where there are discreet buttons that i can push work their institutions like to take actions against and get a predictable reaction. that would be more stable for

me than this maelstrom of activity. not cheerfulse are answers. this is the truth as i see it. here are two for you. chemicalhe use of weapons in chemical constitutesa all the deaths of tens of civilians has not thought to the same? same how do syrians view this distinction of what is acceptable by the syrian government? with regardon that, is not the case

that syrian took in 1.3 million iraqis in the early years of the occupation and invasion. correct mentil now, to allowong, has yet one as many as 30,000 iraqis, many of whom have put their lives on the line for the united translators, drivers, interrogators- and the like. how has assad been informed? assad haves might of him to remain

in power? carefulve to tread a line in not answering political questions. itthe question about iraq, is true that many iraqis fled the violence in iraq during the war and found safe haven in syria. many are now going back to iraq. were resettled as translators and others who work for the american government. that program continues. the united states has resettled tens of thousands of iraqis and will continue to do so in the future. we have not yet reached a point where a massive resettlement program has been instituted.

there is some small-scale resettlement and that is an area in which the international community needs to plan for in the future, should this conflict persist. aboutms of your question targeting of civilians. we don't have faith redline on chemical weapons. our view is that the governments should not target civilians, period. the civilians must have the ability to flee and seek safe haven in neighboring countries. we want to make sure the civilians are targeted or feel persecution can find safe haven outside of the war zone.

was aboutd question -- assad? >> the lessons from libya and egypt, to what degree if that'll have they informed assad in terms of perhaps what he might be able to succeed in getting away with by remaining in power? not in opposition to analyze lessons learned from any government action. even our position is that regardless of the actions of any government, civilians ought not to be targeted and should have and findity to fulee safe haven. >> paul, for you. the question that was gradually the kurds andut

self governance as the rebels get the reins of power. of whichays if any still too soon to say how the defense in turkey impacted one way or the other on turkey's role in the humanitarian matters or security issues? >> i will take the turkey question first. i don't think it's clear what is happening with this. it was not clear when the first demonstration that began in egypt and libya and syria and other countries. it could be a simple demonstration. it could be a discussion of political differences. or it could spin it into something else.

there is a huge difference between turkey and these other countries i mentioned. erdogan was elected. .e is not a dictator this is in many ways a maturation of the society in turkey. people are speaking their minds. small grassyg in a space in turkey. where is this going? i do not know. military. a powerful they will be able to handle different things at the same time. if this starts to spin out of control, turkey has to start

awhile.in nearwardly for it is a serious concern for them, particularly when a missile start killing turks by the border. what was the other question? >> whomever would like to respond to these questions. reports york times" today of advanced israeli preparations for the possibility of a third lebanon war, which will be aces say total shock and awe war. please elaborate on the role of inudi arabia and cotqatar

promoting one side or another of this conflict. any takers? mona? >> on the question of qatar and have, both countries played a role in supporting the syrian opposition. the issue has been rather than according their support, they have instead often worked at cross purposes. each country has been jostling for influence in the syrian theater. that has deepened those differences. there is more attempt to be made to centralize channels of support and have the gulf inntries work more closely harmony. whether that will be successful

remains to be seen. qatar isegard to that, involved in many different countries in the region. it is a small have a lot of strc depth. looking at way of this is catarrh is playing with fire in the many number of countries. the coronation is definitely limited. the idea of another shock and all wore -- shocked and all is an war, nd aw uncomfortable with that? can anyone see the ripples and waves that will come with it. do you think will and in syria? do you think it will and in iraq? has it ended in iraq?

bad idea. a question to you regarding more recent events in turkey. government that the can now play given what has been occurring in the last week. >> i defer to paul on turkey. turkey has been our host for many in this week's on the border. lots of my colleagues have focused on istanbul. here seems to have been a movement and it is difficult to ascertain what has happened. the focus of power in terms of support for the rebels have shifted toward saudi arabia, away qatar. a meeting

in saudi arabia and the the last few weeks is members of the syrian opposition. it seems to be being empowered by the west and by saudi of tibia to be a unified figure. -- and by saudi arabia to be a unified figure. the central power is with beyond command. it is those notre commanders affecting anyes kind of political impact on the ground. it is difficult to be sure. byre is an interesting piece someone who has monitored this movement to saudi arabia, and specifically talking about saudi

arabia's first battle inside syria. western policyis makers in particular are trying to see that as it tench a credible way they did see that as a potential credible way forward. think the audience and speakers -- thank the audience and speakers. i want to extend an appreciation to c-span for its role in making decisions through a myriad of opportunities and possibilities to better inform the english speaking public on these issues. it is hard to recall a more and at the same time relevant an urgent program at any event that the national

council has been privileged to host your at the nation's capital on capitol hill than at the one we have been treated to for the last two hours. yet at the same time with a note of humility none of the speakers nor any of those in the audience would claim to be bereft of blemish were devoid of defect or free from flop. none have any pretense of having a monopoly on the method, copyright on the concept, a trademark on the technique, or a patent on the process. we thank all of you for coming. we have a lot of food for thought and thought for food. thank you all. [applause]

>> if you missed any of this event is on our website, c-span got bored. president obama is in california ahead of a weekend summit with president ji xinping. is speaking in san jose on the health care law and its impact on california. he's going to take a question or two from reporters. you can follow that live now on the [video clip] c-span3. from six.umber jumped tweeted from 7.5% to 7.6% because more people are in the job market. the job market adding when

hundreds of the 5000 jobs according to the department. bill nelson of florida is beginning a debate on the immigration and border security bill, likely to last the month of june. you can follow the debate over span2.- a 501seeking to obtain -- i have been waiting for 29 months without status. >> many of the agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. they are masters and they are mistaking. not interested in scoring political points, i want to protect and preserve the america americarew up in,he

the people across oceans and risk their lives to become a part of. i am terrified it is slipping away. thank you. >> thank you very much. taxhe purpose of a c3 or c4 exemption is to enable easier promotion of public good, not political accord. it is the responsibility of the irs of choosing the correct -- and highs, which political organizations and campaign donors. >> this weekend, house ways and means hears from tea party members on iras targeting of their groups, said today at 10:00 a.m. eastern. tv,"this weekend on "book -- the life and legacy of medgar

evers. >> the u.s. house is not in session today but it is a landmark day for john dingell, who becomes the longest serving member of congress today. he was elected in 1955 in special elections to replace his father, who had died. he has been elected to 29 full two-year terms since. statements coming from president obama about the service of john. he says, "john has always worked tirelessly for people of his be the house returns tuesday at noon with legislative work starting at 2:00. legislative workers will devote much of the week to the legislative bill. they voted on the defense authorization bill to, passing

late wednesday evening 59 to two. we are going to show you some of the highlights of that all they markup, specifically some debates on the amendment did telling the transfer of detainees from guantanamo bay, also budget cuts. a look at several amendments that the committee considered dealing with sexual assault in the armed forces. this portion is 55 minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. the military personnel subcommittee report before each member is the product of an open bipartisan process, with an extraordinary emphasis from susan davis of california. this provides veterans and families to care and support they need, deserve, and earned. this year's proposal includes reforms in which way the department of defense must address sexual assaults and

provide significant support, especially in the form of dedicated legal assistance and protection. would -- n, the mark cut the gentleman will suspend. >> do we have a copy? we do not have a copy. >> it should be there. >> he is giving his opening statement. the mark should be on your desk. >> i see it now, thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is not an amendment. this is a mark. >> thank you mr. chairman. i hope everyone has their copy.

proceeding, we still support the services requested in strength with ensuring the army and marine corps adhere to the limitation on reductions mandated in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013. it reaffirms the committee's commitment to the operational reserves by requiring minimum of vacation -- minimum of vacation of deployment and to improve the readiness of the national guard. it requires the secretary of defence to review and make improvements to the innovative disability evaluation system for members of the reserve components and further it authorizes transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of a service member who is separated from the armed forces because of a court martial and forfeit all pay and allowances. this does not include the department's request for military retirees to pay more by

fee increases for health care. in conclusion i want to thank ms. davis and their staff for their contributions in support of this process. we are joined by an active, informed, and dedicated group of subcommittee members. i particularly appreciate it. appreciate the dedicated subcommittee staff, john chaplin. genet james. greg greene. bosey.lin back. gentleman yields we will now recognize the rights member of the subcommittee, the military personnel, the gentle lady from california mistake this for her opening comment. the personalthank staff. all the names have been read for working in such a bipartisan manner.

this marketing number of provisions to address the issue of sexual assault. while it may seem that it is only recently that this became a focus of congress i want to remind everybody that we have been working to resolve this issue last several years. i am very pleased that the market continues to build upon a foundation that we have established and i particularly want to thank many of our members, many of our new members who have so often -- who have been so actively involved in this issue at this time. i know that there may be some disagreements on the way to move forward. i certainly hope that all members will focus on the fact that the goal here is to eliminate sexual assault in our armed forces. to do so in a way that keeps the trust of the all volunteer force. i am also pleased that the mark contained and continues to focus on the dependent families who have also fat -- who had also

sacrificed so much and have been the backbone of support for our service members over a decade of war. receiving the course seeing the stress and transition from the members of congress come back to the garrison, and they need help. continues to provide such assistance. it also cliffs' of opposition to the reserve components, including a requirement that members of the reserve component be provided at least 120 days notification of deployment. our nation has been in conflict for more than 10 years and it is time to the services ensure that individuals upon or units were called to deploy or if their orders were canceled that they have adequate time to prepare. much toagree there is be done. we recognize the budget climate has changed and we must work within this new environment. the overall personal provisions

are good and i urge my colleagues to support the mark. thank you. >> the gentle lady yells back. thank you for your comments. before entertaining amendments are there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? the gentleman from mr. rich to the gentleman from ohio? >> thank you, i would like to comment on the sexual assault missions. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to congratulate channel wilson and the ranking member davis -- general wilson and the ranking member davis. for their rich and ensuring we have a bipartisan process in looking to the importance of sexual assault. thank the caucus. we've worked very closely with each other and others to pull together sexual assault provisions that are a follow on at what we have done previously.

the act that has been incorporated in much of its provisions in this version of the national defense authorization act. last year we had the strong act. most of those provisions are already law. it continues to focus of looking to protection of victims. there are three things we do to -- we need to do. we have an issue of culture where perpetrators deal safer than victims do. our effort is try to address this in addition to the military address and their culture. i will just highlight a few of the provisions. requirement a victims receive as a council. we have placed a minimum sentencing in this bill. the word should go out clearance strongly that if you commit a sexual assault in the military

you are out. you are out with a dishonorable discharge. no more do we have victims a come before committees and testify that they were later forced to salute their salter. if you commit sexual assault you will be discharged. its up is article 61 of competing authorities have unfortunate set-aside -- where -- convening authorities we addressed the issue of the coast are not being included. eliminated the five-year statute of limitations on sexual assaults and that no people would be prevented from a record -- from moving forward. also provided commanders

with the ability to remove military personnel who is committed of a -- who is accused of committing a sexual assault. we have also asked the secretary of defense to report on commanders in the military justice process. there was much discussion gone on with how the military process works. we are fixing article 60 but there are other issues of concern. we are requiring that we receive a study and report addition. there are if additional items a need to be reformed. something that for years we have taken up. every time we find an additional seek a legislative fix, i think we've done that in a responsible way here. we know the department of

defense's task is not over. the last report showed that of the 3000 people that came forward and reported sexual assault last year, about 65% of them reported that they have in the workplace persecution from that fellow co-workers after reporting a sexual assault. that culture has to change. embraced,ould feel secure, and the perpetrators of those who should feel insecure. chairman -- i thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work. i yield back. >> than one yells back. the lady from south dakota. >> i would like to make a couple of quick comments. but the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. of the personal subcommittee and ranking member i think for the leadership on this. they have got a comprehensive report to stop sexual assault in

the military, including several positions -- several provisions i worked myself. we have the most capable military and the the large part because the man and woman had volunteered to serve and then the country because they love this country, any man or woman who enters the service does so with full knowledge and understanding that he or she may be called into duty in times of danger. still's chairman and lead, chairman, and sailors should feel safe. -- marines, airmen, and sailers should feel safe. we also have to provide support for victims and insist on swift punishment for those responsible. this does take a comprehensive

look for ways can bring a comprehensive and the problem. 835% increase since 2010 is unacceptable. today ton opportunity readers that trend, defended the name of servicemen and women, by getting rid of the root of this problem. i will yield back. >> the gentle lady yells back. request time? " a request opportunities to speak. >> the delay is recognized for five minutes. >> i too want to talk about the sexual assault prevention provision in the underlying bill and thank you, think our ranking member and congressman for including these provisions in the bill. it has been a strong bipartisan effort working with so many others who have fought to address this issue over many years. just today the senate armed services committee held a

hearing to address this widespread problem. the hearing was dominated by military leaders without one sexual assault survivor testifying. of the 20 witnesses only two were from advocacy organizations that fight for change. i do not doubt the commitment of our military leaders to eradicating the scourge of sexual assault in our ranks. it is of course vitally important to hear the plan and forward. opinion and information from a variety of sources, especially those whose lives have been directly and oftentimes impacted is a vital part of changing this flawed culture. in recent-we have commanders and supervises of using their some party -- their authority. supervisors abusing their authority. this is a systemic problem and accountability is needed at every level from everyone. i am so proud that the members

of this committee will not let the status quo stand. the military has obviously been idle for selfish problem, independently of congressional action. i believe our role is to provide tools needed and be sure they are being used properly. moving in the same direction toward the same goal of reducing these horrific crimes. this bill takes important steps to address this issue. congressman turner has referenced many. it continues our push to provide victims of sexual assault access to legal counsel. this is a critical step in the process of creating an environment that encourages victims to report these crimes and in bringing those responsible to justice. an air force pilot program in just four or five months of being in place -- over 300 survivors came forward and request this council to support

them as they saw justice and make sure that those who are convicted of sexual assault will be absolutely discharged or dismissed from military service so they can no longer remain in the service and prey upon future victims. most importantly takes with the power of commanders to throw out the jury verdicts of those who have been convicted of sexual assault, a significant first step in constraining and challenging the commander's authority. there is still much work to be done this language is a step in the right direction and i thank you for your support. >> the gentle lady yelled back. are there any amendments the subcommittee report -- to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to certainly celebrate with my colleagues the good

faith effort by some money on this committee to try and stem our is a black stain on military and on our congress. this is an issue that has been around for 25 years. there has been tailhook, there has been the military academy. recently there has been an air force base, several officers, another nibble academy scandal. the list goes on and on. -- another naval academy scandal. nothing will change unless there is a concerted effort for more prosecution. there was 26,000 cases of sexual assault and rape. there were 3600 reported cases and of the 3600 reported cases only 191 resulted in conviction. if there is no conviction there

is no discharge dishonorably from the military. as long as the chain of command continues to allow for the decisions to be made by the chain and through the chain the decisions will be made not to prosecute. decisions will be made to offer non-judicial punishment in stead of prosecution and conviction. as long as we continue to have restrictive reporting of these crimes those sexual predators will continue to be able to roam and continue to prey on other victims, as well. i applaud this effort. step butery positive nothing is going to change unless we deal with the issue of the chain of command. to the senate armed services had the guts to take to bring in all of the cheat joins of staff. they held a hearing precisely on

the issue of chain of command. i hope some point in the near future we will. >> the gentle lady yields back. any amendments to the subcommittee report? i ask unanimous consent to call up a package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection will the court please pass at the amendments to the opera and block? the amendments will be read and dispensed with. forgentleman is recognized five minutes for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you. one,l up package number comprise a the following -- amendment 001 by mr. wilson to award purple hearts to two service members wounded or killed in the attacks on the

tooting stations -- on recruiting stations, little rock, at fort hood. amendment 24-are one to consider medical research related to the peer reviewed medical research program. amendment 26-r1 by mr. andrews requires a brief on dod research in improving prostate cancer detection. amendment no. 61-r1, to direct the secretary of defense to sufficiently fund collaborative programs which respond to escalating suicide rates in combat stress related of arrests. r1, itent no. 62- expresses the importance of the department of defense meeting the deadlines to expand opportunities for female members of the armed forces.

amendment no. 151 by mr. turner, requiring an eight-d incident reporting requirements in response to unrestricted reports that sexual assault in which depicted as the member of the armed forces. amendment no. 51-52, requiring a defense counsel with presence of counsel for the complaining witness or sexual assault victim advocate. amendment no. 153, places limitations on competing authority destruction, recording . court martial findings requires no. 172-r1 the independent panel established by the secretary of defense under this year 13 -- 13 on anyal year authority to prosecute such

assaults and remove from the chain of command. i yield back. " the gentleman yield back. is there for the discussion on the question of the amendment offered by mr. wolfson? i wanted to get a credit statement. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> said collins and senate from paschal introduced the be safe act. they added several provisions that were not included in the national defense authorization act. the amendments that are in this block conform to the senate side. there is one additional item i would like to highlight, and that is the first amendment which is the eighth day incident reporting requirement with response to on reported sexual assaults. of all ofr efforts this is to move up the chain of

command accountability on the process of reviewing sexual assault in this provision requires reporting up the chain of command so that those within the cave -- those within the chain of command can be held accountable with the disposition of sexual assault cases. this is a nice complement to what we have done in the underlying bill in amending article 60 and lessening the chain of command's authority in the tribunal does position. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the request time? " i like to speak to the independence schori the report. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. like many of my colleagues i have been disturbed by the recent reports of sexual assault in the military. the military is an institution which i love. the challenges i face and the camaraderie i experience are a core of who i am.

for too many are armed forces have now become a place of fear and imitation -- fear and intimidation. a case of sexual harassment and assault is a dishonor to the uniform. wound has nolicted place in the grid is military in the world. come to theally conclusion that some aspects of these cases may have to be taken out of the authority of the chain of command. i commanded an army unit and placed the highest priority on the importance of the commanders' authority to lead, and each, and disciplined men and women under -- lead, manage, and discipline men and women under their command. i now recognize the the military has shown that it is not able to uniformly implements existing apostasies for investigation or punishment slowly within that change did solely within the chain of command.

for investigation are punishment solely within the chain of command. -- to study how to best eradicate how this cancer in the military. the civilian domestic violence and other academic experts and other retired military commanders will be well-equipped to develop a plan for comprehensive reform to prevent sexual assault. i have to expedite the military report, this will help reform us as to try to address this crisis in the next year's act. i am asking them to take a comprehensive view at what taking this position authority away from commanders may do to the chain of command. secretary of defense is commissioning shortly after this and hopefully they will bring more light to it means to --

thesestem aga -- systemic failures cannot continue. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. cut the dead lady yells back. >> since there is no further discussion on the amendment questions. many that are unfair -- and if robles say "aye". -- if any are favorable said "aye." the "aye's" have it. are there any amendments to the report? mr. turner? >> thank you, i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment? without objection, leading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> and thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering this amendment with the intention of withdrawing it after describing establishingre, as a mandatory minimum to stand sing with such assault. that is a dismissal or dishonorable the discharge. we are going to further ask for sentencing guidelines, a review by as to whether or not the sentencing could include incarceration and confinement and it could be set a mandatory minimum level. i am offering this memo and withdrawing it and the suggestion that it is a confinement for two years.

was not included because we did not have a full consensus on adopting a minimum sentencing that would include confinement incarceration. we picked two years but many states have greater confinement time periods. we did it also because it minimum sentencing of dismissal. this includes the forfeiture of pay and seniority removal from the military. be aning the two would sufficient deterrent for those who might perpetrate a sexual assault. i am offering this for the purposes of lane marker that i believe we should move to a mandatory sentencing the includes cod congregation to mandatory

sentencing that includes congregation. i am still very proud of the fact that in this bill we have a mandatory sentencing requiring that if you to commit sexual assault you are out of the military. you will be dishonorably discharged. -- withthat a truck that i withdraw this amendment. >> no objections. >> there are other amendments to the bill. >> can we pass on these two amendments, i am waiting for some documentation. >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. >> this number one 10. will clark piece pass that amendment?

-- will the clerk please pass out that amendment. >> reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman is now recognized of fiver the purposes men's offering an explanation of your amendment. when that for me it carries a lot of weight. i represent in air force base in san antonio were much of the activity in question took place. justice to the san antonio was ranked as the friendliest city to the military. we understand the of three military bases now. it can match in the community there has been appalled at what happened in the air force. hamas -- my

amendment is as a status update on the recommendations that were made on improving situation. their 46 recommendations. 22 of them will require status updates. the reason that i will withdraw it is because that language is already in the mark. my first committee hearing that when something like this happens we need to make sure that the folks that are guilty are held accountable and justice is provide us with input also make sure that's like this carpeted and into office i had a chance to go personally visits the air force base and with regard to ensuring that tight- fisted not happen again paul with of positive steps in terms of security. two examples. there had been a policy that had informally not been followed, which is a rule the said cadets

had to walk two at a time. that will have not been followed for years. they were now reinforcing that. there were also a new security features by careless that had been installed the peace and training areas. there was an effort to remedy that part of that situation. they also realize, as we all do, that there are many more changes that need to take place. i asked about those recommendations and changes. the leadership was eager to make sure they follow through with it. i also want to thank all the folks, -- all the folks who have taken this issue at heart. they have made sure that it not only states in the spotlight in our country to make sure it makes real progress. thank you mr. chairman. gentleman asks unanimous

consent to withdraw his amendment. no objections, so ordered. we will now move to the barack amendment. blockto the -- to the amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up a second package of amendments approved by the minority side. >> without objections, but the clerk please pass at the amendments to the block? reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. recognizedtleman is for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendments. >> thank you. i call up package number two, comprises the following. first amendment to improved climate assessment and dissemination of the tracking results of improved the performance of the evaluation

process, increase accountabilities to commanders, and change the culture to improve security and health, .elfare inspections it requires establishing a unit on the national guard and american samoa. amendment no. 114 provides certain rights to set this members who are victims of crimes similar to civilian rights. amendment no. 124 requires the secretary of defense to conduct an anonymous survey. we submit the findings in a public available report. d amendment. 127 includes carrying military service from a commander's decision making on disposing charges on sex-related offenses.

amendment no. 148 by miss davis, requiring a review of programs by male victims of sexual assault in the u.s. military. amendment no. 170. that recognizes the service in the reserve components as veterans under the law. thedment no. 194, requiring secretary of defense to use certain elements when calculating full life cycle cost of manpower. amendment no. 216 by mr. wilson, which expects substation seed of section 117 title 10, u.s. code. amendment to under 47 by mr. smith establishes the commission and the services of the nation to study the effects of warfare on the members of the armed forces, their families, and communities and the gaps between the military and the rest of civilian society. i yield.

>> the adam and yelled back. for the discussion on his amendment? >> mr. chairman? i would like to speak a little to the amendment, please. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, that the start by thanking you and ranking member smith and the committee staff for working with me to include a number of my amendment in the package. mr. chairman, this country has an unbelievable group of men and women who dedicate their lives to serving and defending our country. they add to the military knowing that it is an honorable institution and they will be held up to a higher standard. servicemen and women volunteer to defend this country knowing that if they look to protect this country their country will protect them. unfortunately when we look at the number of related reports of sexual assault this is not the case for at least 26,000 men and

women. i think back to napoleon who said, "it takes a really bad man to make a really good soldier." we in this country have a different definition for our military. we honor them and we lift them up. we think they should be educated, they have the virtues that we stand for in this country. hard to makeso sure that our military is the best trained and best educated, when we really think of this military person as a great person it really is unbelievable to see what we have seen with respect to sexual harassment, domestic violence, and sexual assault in this country. in this bill i am very happy

billyou have included the by congresswoman waters key and i that would introduce the military whistleblowing protection laws to clarify the victims of sexual crimes are protected from punishment for reporting sexual assault. with the help of the committee staff and with support of the chairmen and ranking members we packet toded this prevent the act. this creates a crime that was a higher standard of the military armed force. it is time to make it clear from the listed to the officers from the private first class to the sergeant and lieutenants that the military abides by a much higher level of standards and once you enter the u.s. military you are expected to live up to those standards. by preventive act does this implementing more health in

services. in order to send a clear service -- a clear message to the military that is appropriate and rotatory items that threaten the units will not be tolerated. the amendment also requires inspector general to create a tracking system to ensure that prime assistance is conducted and secretary of defense to look into including a section in the performance evaluation were failure to conduct these assessments can be indicated. currently commanders are not required to include letters of the letters of reprimand, even if it involves sexual harassment cases. that includes an amendment that requires commanders to include these letters of reprimand in service number performance evaluation in order to identify and prevent the trans -- prevent the transfer of bad behavior -- prevent the trends of bad

behavior. 70% of the time sexual assault started with sexual harassment in the workplace. amendmentded is an that directs the secretary of defense to look into expanding the multi-source amendment and expand to all services and making this a part of the performance evaluation. this is a program work commanders are not only assessed by their senior commanders but also by his or her colleagues, in support and it's, increasing accountability and oversight for the commanders that does not exist today. i believe we need to improve the overall performance evaluation process. i believe we need better information. i believe we need better reports and more detailed reports about what is really happening, not just on sexual assault also on harassment. in order to prevent health the climates -- unhealthy climate's we need to change the culture

and we can only begin to change the culture by tracking performance and behavior is from the very beginning. the mosso much, mr. chairman for having included this in the onslaught. >> the gentle lady yells back. any other discussion on the amendments? amendment, no. 2 by mr. wilson, any and -- any favorable say "aye." the "aye's" have it. are there other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> are you now ready? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> ok. we will go back to miss per se please pass out

113-r1.t the chair now recognizes the lady for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. gloom >> thank you, i am arriving -- >> thank you, i am waiting to rise before the amendment to arrive at my desk. -- for the amendment to arrive at my desk. this deals with a particularly pernicious aliment -- elements of a concert in the military. if you are sexually assaulted in the military you have the option

of filing a restrictive report or an unrestricted report. or not filing a report at all. as was indicated the most recent report says that 26,000 gallons -- 26,000 victims are rate each year. that willstill some file a restrictive report. and when you file a restrictive report what happens is you are able to access health services but the assailant is not identified, there is no investigation, there is no prosecution, and we are creating an environment in which the assailant, the sexual predator, is allowed to continue to prey on other defense. -- on other victims. but why would be what to be implicit in allowing for that

kind of activity? a restricted report creates that kind of environment. the argument originally offers up -- this is a more recent development, it has only been around for 10 or 12 years. ace they have filed restrictive report they can be coaxed into making it on- restricted. that has not been the case. a very small percentage of these reports have become unrestricted. nowndly we do know that victims can access the health- care anyway. having this restrictive report is not necessary to their advantage. if there the, even though they are told that this is confidential the truth of the matter is -- even if they are told this is confidential the ruth of the matter is --

this particular amendment would get rid of restrictive reporting. if we truly want to go after these perpetrators creating a construct that allows someone to file a complaint and not identify the assailants means that we are complacent in allowing that assailant to continue to him on others. i yield back. but the gentle lady yelled back. -- >> the gently yields back. with myld agree colleague. >> the lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. in an ideal world we would want all victims of sexual assault, men and women, to feel comfortable coming forward and giving unrestricted report. we know that is not always the case.

while we continue to focus like a laser on this issue i think it is important that we continue to provide the necessary medical andntion that is deserved not necessarily force people into that unrestricted report at this particular time. we have to recognize that the movement from a restricted report does give the victim power to move forward and work through the trauma that they have been going through that is an important movement and i think we need to honor that. we need continue to allow that to occur. the other thing that is so important is we have valuable statistical data and have representation of the numbers of sexual assaults that are occurring. my worry is that that may

change. we may not be able to use that data as we continue to do so today. i think that is important. allowing the flexibility does allow a victim to feel that process can be something that they have great confidence in. i would agree that it could become a whisper campaign. we have many stories in that regard. i also have had an opportunity to have my colleagues talk to a number of people who have seen that shift. at the present time as we are trying so hard right now to take that away i think it would be problematic. i think we actually understand there have been some attempts to do that in theater. once again you have a concern that people may not come forward.

provide and be very strict about accountability in all regards. in this when we continue to get the information, we continue to get very important for information that helps us understand this problem better. the reality is there are many just-- i think we have begun to scratch the surface. if we continue to have restricted and unrestricted reports i think that we will be more knowledgeable about what is going on and how we can better hold our commission and non- commissioned officers responsible for the town that they set -- for the town that they set working with the men and women in command. i thank my colleagues for bream as ford and raising this issue.

-- for bringing this forward and raising this issue. >> the gentle lady yields back. speak ind like to opposition to the amendment. >> but wintley is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like at my thanks to my colleagues. we have worked together on other issues involving this whole arena of sex abuse in the military. as a formerd reporter covering crime i saw some situations where there is female especially on victims wanting to come forward. i think is to continue to move this serene and we talk about things to talk about in this committee, trying to eradicate sexual abuse and the military, i think we have to honor the key provision of confidentiality and honor the right of the person to have a restricted report. my fear is if we right now

remove that restricted report and take that decision and all those ramifications of reporting away into an agreement for everything starts taking off we will have one and that will possibly not seek medical help. that is exactly what we do not want to have happen. i realize we're talking about men and women both here. i just think that as we move -- to the bill that my rep mentioned that she and i co- authored and whistleblowing protection, my fear is that allowing a safe environment report is the starting process on this latter of climbing out of this mess by allowing a save some to report. my fear is if we take that have now pute simpler abilities in a place that it does not need to be and women and men should be deserving and get the medical treatment they deserve without coming forth and engaging before they are ready. i would ask that we oppose the

amendment at this time. i want to thank my colleagues for being it for. we will continue to talk about this issue because we will continue to talk and move in the right direction. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentle lady yields back. request time to speak in opposition. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleague for all her work and continued attention on this issue of military sexual assault. i have to disagree with this proposal to remove a military member possibility to submit an unrestricted report for a sexual assault. restricted reports allow of it and to report sexual assault to sexual response coordinators. -- to sexual assault response coordinators to make sure they can receive medical care, treatment, and counseling without notifying law enforcement officials.

restricted reports give victims the time to get help and get a rape kit before they decide they want to move forward with a criminal investigation. some victims decide to make to make their restricted reports unrestricted and move forward with a criminal investigation. while i understand and agree that we must hold perpetrators accountable, i do not believe we can do so at the cost of predicting the victim from getting the help that they need in an effort to recover from such a traumatic event. as we work to get a handle on ,he investigation, prosecution and adjudication of sexual assault cases, we cannot ignore the legitimate need of the phantoms as this is so important to ensuring their recovery. in addition, 62% of victims who report a military sexual result -- assault also report they clearance professional and personal retaliation in astonishing numbers. we do not have a system where victims can report an assault and be free from retribution.

we aspire to that system. we have to be so so committed to getting there. what we do not have it yet. and to we have system where we can better protect victims from retaliation, i believe the services need to remain restrictive reporter. i will vote in opposition. i yield back. >> the gentle healady yield bac. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank our colleagues for all the work on this issue and all that have taken the time to drill down on the specifics. i oppose this amendment because of the fact that number one, the restricted reporting have 2700 40 victims of sexual assault to receive the medical care, counseling, and support from victim advocates. i believe that if we remove the

options for individuals to follow restricted reports, it would his current individuals -- it would discourage individuals. they would be unwilling to participate in the investigation process. they would never report. it would drag these cases underground. in them notesult receiving the necessary care and support. but it can also have a chilling effect on military members reporting sexual assault. so it is for those reasons that i oppose this amendment and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas request time. the gentleman from ohio requests time. thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to speak in opposition. >> the gentleman is recognized

for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i want to clarify one athar done restrictive reporting because when she was giving the reporting, i think many times it is is understood to make a be stage in a way to make the like dod is doing something sinister in having this specific reporting. and ecb clarified that restrictive reporting was a congressionally directed process. in fact, ms. sanchez and ms. davis deserve credit for seven forward in understanding that there needed to be an alternative process for those who wished to seek medical care and attention but did not perhaps of that time or ever anh to move forward with official report of the assault. i want to make certain it is clear that this is not the maybe department of defense initiated on their own. nationalin the 2005 defense representation act. two members of our committee were the ones who came forward and pressed this. i think it has proven, asked ms.

roby had said, to provide greater access to those victims of sexual assault who wish to seek care, but have not reported their sexual assault. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. markup ofthe daylong the defense authorization bill held this week finally passed the committee by a vote of 59-2. it will be on the house floor next week. more from that's markup session coming up in just a moment here on c-span. president obama is out of washington today. he is in california. head of a weekend meeting with chinese president xi jinping. the president also making .omments about data collection he said "i think it is important to understand you cannot have 100% security and 100% privacy and zero inconvenience." even find those comments on c- span.org. back to wednesday's markup

session of the house armed services committee. they talk about military chocolates. -- military chaplains. this is an amendment by walter jones, which will allow the look. chaplains to offer closing prayer outside of ceremonies. this is about 20 minutes. >> mr. chairman, t waiver much. the title -- thank you very much. the title expands on the freedom of military chaplains to close the are outside of religious service according to the traditions, expressions, and endorsement of a specific faith group mr. chairman, i have sent was, into the vibe i contacted and and asked to call an army chaplain in iraq. his name is jonathan, he is now retired. i called him in a right.

he said i have a problem, can you tell me what it is. he said in this division we had a young soldier killed who attended my chapel. independent baptist by training. have a grouped to meeting outside the church. , he division at that time had to e-mail his prayer to the divisional chaplain. they do -- the brigade chaplain struck to the course. it went to the company commander and asked permission not to pray at the soldier's for members.

the officer said you will pray and you will pray as you see fit. he did closes prayer in the name of jesus christ, and he was removed from his chapel. five of in congress in 2006 at four on investigation. the pastor was eventually put back in his chapel in iraq. mr. chairman and ranking member and members of this committee, this is an issue and a problem. i do not care if this chaplain in iraq that i spoke to was of the jewish faith and he had been denied to close his pair -- his prayer to base on its favorite i would've onto his added -- his aid. if it were a muslim chaplain, i would have gone to the aid of the muslim chaplain. what this is is to bring clarity to how i chaplain in the military may close a prayer outside the church on base. this could be a change of command. america and how

the military can ask our soldiers to go to muslim countries and give their life for freedom one) america out chaplains who happen to be of christian faith or the jewish faith or the muslim faith would have any type of restriction as to how they could close a prayer. to me, that is not america. all this does is to clarify that a chaplain of whichever religion or faith, who is asked to pray at a change of command, this is all outside of the church, there's no problem within the church, the synagogue, or the mosque. this is outside. is beenhairman, this an ongoing issue that a few of us in this committee have been hearing about. it still is a problem. i think this is a way to try to deal with this in a fairway that takes the research is in the pressure off the mind and the

heart of a chaplain. so that when he or she closes the prayer, then they are not concerned about will they be called down by a higher up in the military. with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back my time and take any questions. >> the gentleman yield back his time. agent amend from arizona which is to be -- the gentleman from arizona which is to be heard. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. .> thank you, mr. chairman i have the privilege of serving as the cochair of the religious freedom caucus here. it occurs to me that there are really two issues to deal with here in this amendment. first of all, those in the military often times put their lives at profound risk for all this. in facing death and great danger. often times their faith is a

core foundation of what maintains their ability to do that. and so there is a national security issue here in that people are somehow disallowed i practice their faith openly believe there is a national security diminishment because of that. mr. chairman, true tolerance is not in pretending we have no differences. it is being kind and decent to each other in spite of those differences. and religious freedom is the cornerstone of all of the freedoms. and if somehow we see that diminish within our military, we undermine the very reason we have one. it occurs to me that if our chaplain, those who are there to try to comfort and encourage people in their faith, are somehow disallowed to express it according to their own

sincere perspective, then i think mr. chairman, we have really fareiled the death of our job generation. i encourage everyone to support this a minute, and i thank the gentleman for offering it. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. if there is no further discussion, ms. davis request time. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to speak your. i appreciate the words of mr. jones and others have offered. i have to say in those circumstances, when we have largely attended events that are of anythe context particular religion, we have to be very careful about that. we see here even in the congress when we have chaplains

coming forward for the house of representatives for a prayer, and many instances, i think they are suggested they might not go to their own religion come i think they do it. but i think that we have a strong tradition of different cultures and religions in our country. and we have to respect that. i believe that chaplains of every religion are able to pray of to invoke the blessings religion in many different ways without necessarily invoking their own religious police. i think we have to understand that. it is difficult to understand that. it is important that we recognize that. any agency of the federal government should be represented

by lots of that government is really sundered freedom of religion for us as a first amendment right -- we have to respect that. particularly in the military, particularly in the service, where people come together and may, in fact, represent different religious, philosophical beliefs. at the same time, they are as one in the battlefield and certainly in all the work that they do for our country. and for our national security. if we have people that are really struggling to do that, i think we need to help them through it. not to take away who they are. i would never want to do that. but i think that for those of us who might be in the present, it would be incumbent upon them to understand that there are marginalizing sometimes. not everybody feel that way, some people feel that way. and in this country, i think it

is important for us to be careful not to marginalize people in a very important way in which they are looking to religion to give them comfort at a very difficult time. >> the gentlelady yield back. thank you. i think it is important, the exactly the point that we just made, that this is about freedom of religion, it is about freedom of speech. and the whole purpose is to win -- to invoke their own religious police. when i just have a vanilla chaplain corps if we are not going to let people rare to -- pray according to the dictate of their conscience and why they were change. why not have a protestant pray for a muslim and a catholic pray for a jew if it is just going to be vanilla gecko it undercuts the whole reason why we have a chaplain corps is a cannot pray to the dictation of their

conscience. if a jewish person was a rabbi, they should have that rybak, and that rabbi should be be able to pray in the name of jehovah. or a protestant who want somebody to pray for him in the name of jesus christ, he or she should be able to do that. if a muslim wants to have somebody pray for him or heard according to the dictates of their faith, that is why we have someone trained the can work with the muslim. we are going to honor freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and not make all chaplains just vanilla, just say some kind of break it -- blankets prayer, then why'd we have a chaplain corps that allows us to have the freedom? this gets to the heart of what freedom of religion is about. so for that reason, i think we should support this amendment. we should not handicap our chaplains from somebody who is on death's door in the name of the one that they believe in.

concern here. >> with the gentleman yield? >> not at this time. i want to make sure that we allow that freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that we honor that, whatever a person's faith maybe, let's honor that. let the chaplain pray according to the dictates of their conscience and not muzzle them, which is what the concern of them, or to give them a spirit of intimidation or a chilling effect, as we all see here in legal circles as well. with that, yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. , i would liken to speak in support of the amended. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> i would like to congratulate mr. jones on his persistence. religious chaplains called upon to lead a prayer according to traditions to make threats of, and religious exercises of the endorsing faith group. the national defense authorization act of 2007 adopted a similar provision with that prayer might be limited to military necessity. an current law, which was adopted in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year of 2013, requires that the member be accommodated, which i think is so important to promote freedom of speech and freedom of religion. i have seen personally how important this is to families. reference iraq, my oldest son who served in iraq, the chaplain truly was a vital for ourn service

members. in fact, he came back and conducted the wedding for my son. so i know how important a chaplain to be. finally, i am very grateful at fort jackson, we had the u.s. joint chaplain school. i want the persons who are training there to know that they have freedom of speech, freedom of religion. i yield my time. >> the gentleman is recognized -- yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms.sh to yield my time to davis. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. shields or time to ms. davis. >> i want to clarify because i know my good friend and colleague reference a much more personal know -- more personal kind of service that someone could give out at about that or any other setting. we are not talking about that. we are talking about those

largely attended events in ,hich someone is there representing of course, we know what religion they are representing. that is very acceptable. that is not a problem. but i think we're also asking not to open that door so that that they can in a course of being able to be the kind of chaplain that they would be in their own religious service to opening that up wider for those that are attending an event in which everyone is coming together in a military setting. i think that is all we are asking, to be sure there is a respect for and understanding, that it is a different kind of setting. .nd that it is not appropriate i think there are many, many ways in which chaplains of all religions can invoke blessings.

i would certainly encourage them to do that. and they don't necessarily have to be religion specific. thank you, mr. checker >> the gentlelady yields back. -- mr. chair. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the comments from the gentlelady from california. constitution gives us the freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. when we talk about individuals being marginalized, we should never need a minute like this. we should not have to bring this forward, but the people that have been marginalized in the last several years have been the people of faith. and the facts speak for themselves. sometime when the pendulum swings too far back, you have to have language like this to corrected. when you can no longer use the word god in the air force, even

if it is not in a religious context, that is too far. when a navy issues memorandums that say you cannot bring a bible into a hospital, even if you are a minister, and even if the patient requests you, that is too far. when you have the air force issuing ai memorandum to commanders that say even when thatave a proved programs are there to help the men and women under their command and a know they need those programs, a commander cannot even tell them the programs exist, if those programs are under the offices of these chaplain, there is no other part of the service where they do that, but talking about marginalized -- it is marginalized for people of faith. we don't want to not have respect or understanding, but most of these chaplains do. want tois we do not censor what they are saying. that is where this pendulum has shifted. i wish commerce meant johnson not have to bring this. i wish the military had not gone

this far. i wish the pig on had not gone this far. but the reality is they have. the only way we began to get that pendulum back is by having what i think is a commonsense provision that says this -- when these people have these prayers, i am not when i hear somebody else to do that. but what we are doing is simply wantnalizing a people who to express their faith. i hope that we will support this amendment. i hope we will pass it, and i hope we will send a message to the pentagon. you have got to be writing this pendulum. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. did you request time you g? >> yes. the gentleman yields back.

--the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. if you both want to speak, that is fine by me. i will try to cut off. , i am actually seeking clarification here. i can remember when -- i am roman catholic, and i can remember when years ago we were not supposed to go into anybody's church and hear anything different. i would thought that was ridiculous. to hear somebody else's prayer is a very beautiful thing to me. however, i need to clarify that when we are talking about the safe tradition, are we talking about a specific gathering for a specific date? or are we talking about a gathering of people that are not necessarily of the same faith tradition. and yet to be one minister leading one prayer that reflects only that tradition. recently, i was in the event

where i know that there were jewish men and women who died for this country, and yet their prayers did not for flight that, it only reflected jesus christ. and it is my faith, but i felt that others there might not have felt included. i'm trained to get clarification. are we talking about this easily when they are gathered in a share a faith tradition, or that anybody who happens to either with whatever particular isister is there or rabbi that a random event, in other words? , this is whenrter a change of command, and usually the person that is coming into the new command, they will select a chaplain to pray at the change of command. all this is saying is that if in chaplain wants to pray the name of jesus christ, then he or she may do so.

maybe they don't want to, but the way the rules are now, they are discouraged from disclosing that prayer in the name of their faith, their religion, and they have been dictated as to who -- as to how they should close the prayer appears to me that is just a dangerous. this simply just deals with how you close a prayer. nothing else. >> thank you, i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> i will be brief. when a military service member puts his or her uniform on, he does not lose his first amend the right to the constitution. he has the same ability to express himself or herself religiously. and this certainly should apply to chaplains because they are there by way of their endorsing agencies. and so i agree with the other comments here that the pendulum

has swung too far when a chaplain has to get command approval for his prayer. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. let me just say that i agree with just about everything i've heard here. i think the pendulum has swung too far. i do not get offended when i hear somebody pray from another religion, and i hope that they would not get offended when somebody in my religion says a prayer. but i think we have gone too -- to take christianity make things political. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering a minute with the support of chairman mckie and yourself and chairman roger. this amendment would require the mitchell -- the agency to require an additional missile defense sites protect our homeland on the east coast. this year has had the experience of a methyl sitting on the launchpad in

north korea -- of a methyl sitting on a launch pad in north korea were the state of north korea openly made threatening statements to our nation to engage in a nuclear attack on both of us, celtic korea, and japan. we are all aware of the intelligence reports that indicate that iran and north korea's rogue rents are continuing to threaten the mainland -- programs are continuing to threaten the man in -- the mainland united states. we have an administration that is winning a forward plan of missiles as part of a missile defense to protect the united states. with the wish administration having plans 10, the obama administration having plans 24 block 32 missiles that were to be placed and at the

demonstration have also since canceled. knowing that there are those who are threatening our nation seekhat are continuing to missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, it is imperative that we move quickly to ensure that our missile- defense system is expanded and is completed. ndaacommittee in the last began the process of an proration for an east coast defense site. this commitment would ensure that the missile-defense site is operational as we see these emerging threats. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ui. the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i would urge the colleagues

to oppose the amendment. wherewas a hearing someone was asked what an additional $250 million in the 2014 ndaa be of use to you selecting a third sigh, the admiral responded not at this time, sir. so what we have here is a well- intentioned amendment, and i at least am in -- am strongly in favor of an east coast site. i do think it is unduly expensive and premature at this point, though, to rush the selection process. speed does not equal safety. we've got to get this right. there is a process underway. admiral siring is annexed ordinarily capable leader. is ane sufficient -- extraordinarily capable yield

-- leader. i yield back. >> any other discussion? mr. garamendi? forgentleman is recognized two minutes. >> following on mr. cooper's comments, this is not necessary, and it is very excessive, and is very quick. when 18 means we basically would have to start construction now, probably well ahead of the environmental impact report any studies that are under way today. as was said by mr. cooper, the man that runs this whole program says he does not need additional money now. this bill basically commits us to the next ordinary expenditure for a missile program that right now does not work. the missile system that would go into this particular site does not work. so we ought not to move until we and a program that' works

is necessary. >> will the gentleman yields? want to take, i issue with your statement that it does not work. as the president assured the american people when north korea had their missile sitting on their launch sites, that our missile-defense system, part of which is near your home, is both operational and is essential for us to be able to defend ourselves against that type of missile attack. every administration has -- time, the specific missile that is to be used here is not useful against a sophisticated missile coming at us. it is not work in a context. beyond that, -- >> again, i take issue with that -- >> excuse me, sir.

it was my time, and now it is gone. that is not made you have won the debate. it simply means you've occupied most of my time. n from alabama, mr. rogers, is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to say i completely disagree with mr. garamendi's justification. primarily, the admiral said he did not need money right now for the study on the site. mr. turner's amendment is trying to make sure we keep us on track and get this done in a timely and reasonable amount of time. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? ms. sanchez is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on this years committee, 15 years on the committee that deals with this

issue. the truth inhat my opinion is much closer to what mr. garamendi is saying than what mr. turner saying with respect to the real feasibility situation in california who actually should something out of the air. we are developing, we are working, we are researching, we are trying to get this system to work. as you know, many of the tasks have not worked out the way we wanted them to with respect to the system. i truly believe that at this point to build a third system on the east coast is very premature. it would be in our best interest to continue to refine so that when we do go to build these systems again, if we were too intact but a third set in on on the east coast, that it would actually have a high

probability that we would actually hit a missile that would be coming at us from a north korea or iran or one of these rogue states that intends to try to build a system that would reach us. so i would just say -- i would behoove the people on this committee to really say no to spending this type of money at this time until we get the system well on the way to effectively working. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would disagree with the gentlelady who just spoke. there are many successful tasks that have taken place, and the technology is getting better year by year. or belatedemature

-- what would be premature or belated as if we wait until the iranian threat is mature and then we start moving to an eastern site. because there are several years lead time that needs to take place first. before we can install a third sigh. by then, it would be too late. we have a window there of uncovered capability. so knowing how we have these huge population centers on the east coast, i think it is prudent to begin the work now. mr. garamendi, you mentioned an terminal impact statement is not quite ready. ,hen i look at the alternatives if one of these ever got through, that would be the least of our worries, friendly. -- >> with the german yield? -- would the gentleman yield? >> yes, i would. you are gracious to my colleague

earlier. >> the purpose is to determine where would best locate the purchase site. if you would recall the testimony we heard, it is not at all clear that the east coast site is the preferred site. it may or will be that it may be better to have a ship in different locations. so what i am concerned about here is that this directs the military to build this site by 2015, and that is the problem. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. actually, we give you some extra time. mr. franks, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just add my voice in favor of this amendment. the thing about the east coast site, and we do not know where this would be yet, a big thing it will do is give us the biggest battle space weenie need. it is as fundamental as that. .o have the time to engage

there is an old saying, the more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war. this is one of those things, a to make sureation that we are defending the lives and the national security of this country. weeally hope that understand the importance of this and go for it. i yield back. thank you. mr. johnson is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak in opposition to the motion. $3 billion is what it would cost. should any fact that middle east power attained the ability to produce a rocket with the range that could hit the

east coast, isn't it a fact that we would still be able to take that kind of missile out with on either -- in the air or in the sea? will somebody please answer that for me? >> will the gentleman yield? mr. johnson, the truth is that we do have the gdi's in the west coast and four greeley. the challenges their are 2000 miles between the west coast and east coast and 4000 from four to greeley to the east coast. these vessels are not fly at the speed of light. the reality is, it really reduces our chance to engage. if something comes on the

coastal attack. we would not have time. >> reclaiming my time, should we position on aircraft carrier or some submarines in the atlantic? would that not be sufficient to counter the threat that this $3 billion expenditure reports to eliminate? >> if the gentleman would yield, very quickly, the challenge is the missiles lead, the exhilaration out of our chips are not -- our ships are not fast enough to catch them. -- the gentleman's time is expired. we had this debate a couple of years ago or a year ago, and we lost. we shut down the missiles for the west coast. then when korea got pretty

aggressive a few weeks ago, secretary hagel reversed that decision and the west coast will receivinginga lower -- those missiles. it is interesting that i find now it seems like the west coasters are trying to defend the east coast by trying to put a site on the east. anyway, if there is no further discussion on the amendment -- >> mr. chairman -- >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes, mr. frank. >> thank you peer dino that mr. turner had a couple of --thank you, mr. chairman. i know that mr. turner had a couple of comments. i will yield my time to him. >> the only point i wanted to make is that president obama himself has said the missile defense system works. point, this became a

partisan issue as to whether or not the missile defense system that we had installed on the west coast in california and alaska work. when president bush was in office, it became a partisan banter. now you have president obama, who clearly should take it out of a partisan issue, saying that it works and that's in fact it should be a deterrent for north korea. but we know that iran also is seeking missile technology and weapons of mass destruction knology. -- technology. it is prudent for us to take action now before we have a missile on the launch pad in iran. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> the gentleman of utah is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. you now have me confused again. i'm glad we were able to take out the north koreans so effectively. and since obvious he we on the west coast are covered in the east coast isn't, just as long

as you can make sure the bad guys attack us when we are on a district work period, let's go. [laughter] i yield back. >> i think that is a tremendous recommendation. the problem is, i've heard the enemy sometimes gets a vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this would allow for the transfer of the wonton him obey --guantanamo bay. a lot of the crotch of your seats going on there with hunger stories -- a lot of the controversies going on there with hunger strikes, one of the criticism has been that the president has not offered a plan for how to close it. unfortunately, congressional language has consistently barred him from doing it. so if we are going to ask the president to come up with a plan, we have to at least give them some flexibility to do that, as long as it isn't restricted from transferring them out of guantanamo to the

u.s., there is no way to get there. it is worth hammering that president -- remembering that president toward bush and john mccain all wanted to close guantanamo. they had a good reason for it. it is an international eyesore. an exhibit of the united states not living up to its values. make no mistake -- it hurts us when we try to work with our highlights to get their full cooperation and confronting al qaeda and the threats from ,ther various groups, closing whenever reddy said that we should, and it continues to make sense -- whenever everybody said we should, it continues to make sense. it is the most expensive he world given its remote location. it is not easy to maintain, to do the basic construction necessary to continue it. again, we are now asking 200 philistine million dollars -- $250 million to make it

temporary. there is no way to make it permanent. the objection is we cannot possibly bring these folks to the united states. in thei will say that united states of america, we have successfully locked up some of the most dangerous, despicable people in the world. if the u.s. is incapable of having a prison that will successfully hold the most dangerous people in the world -- then we are in a whole world of hurt. we have well over 300 terrorists exactly like the people in guantanamo held here in the u.s. in a prison. we have rapists and murderers and serial killers held in maximum security facilities. there is no question that we are capable of doing it. there have been some concern about cost. they were the report we try to bring many in a group to the u.s. for a trial, the security costs would be outlandish. well, we have tried ramsey, the

blind sheikh, many others. the other for whose names escape me are in the military commission. they're not going to be taking out of that military commission. that is where they're going to be tried. so that is not going to be an issue. i understand that the political argument hasn't made. oh, my goodness, we cannot have them here because they're so so dangerous. that argument does not bear scrutiny when you consider who we have to hold in this country, no matter what in our supermassive facilities. the cost of quantum up, the fact that it continues to be an international eyesore, argue for it to be closed. it cannot be closed if we do not have the option. we still have a tough question. in termso with them of which one can return to their home country, which was we try, which once our military

conditions, those are difficult questions, but those questions at avis now in guantanamo -- those questions exist now in guantanamo. our values and constitutional principles are going to be upheld. just to give the president the option of coming up with that plan that i know several in this committee have asked him to come up with. i yield back. >> you yield back. [laughter] >> real appreciate you. the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president does have the option because this ban is not permit law. we have to vote on it every year. so the president comes up with a plan that can gain the support of the american people and the

representatives in congress, then that band can go away. but so far, the american people have made their views clear, as have their representatives in congress. yesterday, we had a vote on for having funds from being used to bring people here, to house people who are right here from guantanamo, and 254 of us in the house voted not to bring them. even the president's speech last week that these are difficult questions, what do you do do with them, that is the point. you've got to figure that out before you just bring them here and then figure out what to do with them or let them go back to yemen and then hope that they're going to be safeguarded. you've got to have a plan first. if the president can do that and then convince the american people and us that that is a good plan, this ban goes away. again, it has to be renewed every year. but until he does that, it is hard to see that there is a better option than guantanamo as long as this war against

terrorists continues. i's minutes. i recommend that members do as well. -- i oppose the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. tonight is a sea change because we had a motion on the floor where we said that our government is better off when we fight to keep terrorists off of u.s. soil rather than fight to bring them here. and we pointed out then that at the time that the president stopped these prosecutions, we had one of the best prosecutors in the u.s. against terrorists. --t if you'll -- a full they had a full prosecution team. almost two years of litigation. the president walked in and stopped all of that and stored it also that we had to start all over again. and destroyed it also that we had to start all over you. ,he chairman of this committee

ike skelton, stood up on the floor and said this -- she said we have dealt with these issues strongly in the committee. this adds to those secular issues. we are in a vision to except this motion. he said -- i just went to point out there is no difference between the democrats and for public when it comes to fighting terrorism. mr. chairman, we are changing course tonight, and there is a huge difference. no one has ever argued in this committee. we cannot hold these terrorists in prison. it has never been argued on the site. what we said is we place a target on the back of every school, every business, every community that we put these prisoners and when we bring them here one because that is where the terrorists are going to go. we are not worried about whether we can get them and share. -- angelle. the second thing is, the moment they touch u.s. soil, they pick up new contour -- new constitutional rights. no one here can tell us what those rights are. because of that, i would say i just -- we were right on may 20,, 2010, and we are right today.

we are not going to ring terrorists today and i say, we're going to keep them in guantanamo. with that, i yield back. >> i seek to speak in opposition. i serve it the largest facility in iraq for one year. of taken when i call -- what we call guantanamo and eyesore. i've been there. i think prisons are treated in a way that americans are being -- can be proud of our way of handling that. guantanamo is well-established. we spent millions of dollars completing a court room down there. we have not completed any trials. as far as hunger strikes, we're dealing with that in a humane fashion as well. it is a safe place. i do not think there are many people in cuba that are trying to free the people that are held weguantanamo, where as when were in iraq, that may be the

case. additionally, it was mentioned that we lock up some of our most hardened criminals. there are not many americans trying to free those people either to release them back to our society. but that threat would exist here as we have seen with the violence that has taken place from our data within our country still, or those affiliated with it. i think it is the most humane option that we have. i think we are conducting it very well. and transferring people here to the united states. i think it puts all of us at a greater risk. so i oppose this. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. any further discussion on this amendment? mrs. and jeff, the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i have probably been one of the few democrats who has continued to believe that there is a reason to have continue to be-

open. but i'm reading what is in the and then mr. smith wants to strike what is in the mark. i will particular issue, be supporting mr. smith, i believe, i would like to ask him a question to make sure. , mr.se in your text chairman, it says that no funds are to be used to transfer relief or assist any transfer. i always thought that it was important to have both the military commission and our regular federal system, which is said to be enabled able to to tryse systems, to try to hurt us and our country. , wewhere would make sense might decide we want to try

people under the federal system that we have versus the military commission system. i know a lot of people have not wanted to have that happen. i just think that there should be fox ability to be able to try these people in wherever we deem is necessary. mr. smithould ask because i know traditionally the ranking member has wanted to honestly, i think, shut down gitmo. so my question is to you -- >> your time is rapidly drawing to a close. >> my question would be -- if you're intent and limiting this wack your time is illuminated -- is eliminated. > the latest time is expired. mr. barber, do you want to yield

her sometime. >> i would like to yield. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i share many of the concerns that have been raised here about closing gitmo. i think inevitably this country has to get this job done. i would like to give the balance of my time to mr. smith to illuminate the steps that we need to take that make sense that we can move this agenda forward. i yield the balance of my time to mr. smith. >> this is one step. mr. thornberry is right. we only do this every year. we just do it every year. every year as long as it is in the bill, then you can't transfer them out of guantanamo back to the u.s., and i don't think any of us want to just let them go. what we want to lock them up, a fair number of them, at any rate. there are some that have been deemed safe enough to transfer, but there have been prohibitions and blocks on transferring them back to their home countries there as well.

it is not require that the guantanamo bay and bates -- inmates be transferred to the u.s., it merely allows it. what we have been doing congressionally, and mr. forbes is absolutely right, he got the votes, that is where the majority opinion is. certainly in the house. is make no mistake -- it the united states house of representatives that has been making sure that one cinema bay stays open --guantanamo stays open. if this amendment were to pass, there would at least be an option to bring them to the u.s. because there is no other place that we're going to be able to set up a prison to hold the people we need to hold. as long as this band is in the legislation, we kept saying this president needs to have a plan, the president has laid out repeatedly eveready of different --ns to deal with it, repeatedly laid out different plans to deal with it. the first step to getting to that happy place is lifting a ban, giving the president the opportunity.

it is pretty straightforward. it does not close guantanamo. it creates the possibility of doing it. they we would have to see what the plan was. but as long as you seem you cannot transfer it them out of there pretty -- transfer them out of there, the discussion is over at that point. >> the gentlelady from guam is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make a point of clarification here to be very clear when we are talking about guantanamo and transferring them to the united states, please let us add u.s. territories. because we don't want them, either. [laughter] >> are you ok? >> i did not hear what she said.

>> to answer your question, it is in the mark. it's territories or possessions. that does not hurt to have it answered. mr. garamendi is recognized for two minutes. , mr.question of you chairman, as to your mark. is there a chance to inhibit the release of prisoners to places other than the united states? it tolease or transfer places other than the united states. and it's territories and so forth. >> there is a separate provision, and we have covered that. we have given the president the he can transfer

if he meets certain criteria th. >> i understand some of these prisoners, particularly those on hunger strike, were scheduled to release somewhere in the world, but they have not yet been released. looking at dealing with it you have here, i think it may prohibit a release to anywhere. do you have section 1034, page 24? >> john, will you yield? i think i can clarify this. there are two separate sections. the only section this amendment vocus is on here is the band to transfer to the u.s. there is a separate section on the bantu transferring to other countries. you basically have to guarantee that the country you are sending them to will make sure that the person never reoffend. secretary gates said look, that

is a guarantee that i cannot give and don't feel comfortable making. effectively, and yemen is one of the countries where i forget the number, but there is a fairly large number, and obviously yemen is not the most stable place in the world, and there is concern about transferring them back there, whether or not they might reenter the battlefield. that is in one of the restrictions. but there are other countries restricted as well. thank the chair in the ranking member. thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ahave the honor of having super maximize district. i some interesting constituents who can't vote. but we do not want the guantanamo terrorists or detainees to be in colorado. these people have flouted the geneva convention.

they do not have u.s. constitution rights. the president has admitted that they're too dangerous to be --eased, and we don't have would want to compromise our intelligence sources and methods why revealing that in open court so some have to be detained. the president has no solution. and people say the solution is what we're doing right now. they're in territory that we control outside the u.s. in guantanamo, cuba. let's turn down this amendment. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. smith. number 244. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, say no.