thank you. news t to share breaking from the associated press. we asked you earlier about talks resumingce in washington. we are learning from the a.p. is planningnt obama to meet with the israeli and phre at the n negotiators white house and we expect john kerry to make comments to the media. website and find out about our coverage there. he house is coming in at noon today so we will bring you to the senate armed services committee where a hearing is under one to head up the strategic command and the other two had the united states forces in south korea. two had the united states forces in south korea. have thef you confirmation hearings and it's hard to get answers when they have not pursued that position. you have a background in the position you are moving to.

i inc. you are both excellent choices. -- i think you are both excellent choices. a question about did you start the treaty. you said you did. , i looked at the treaty and there were a lot of commitments made at that time in order to get the votes necessary watch it. it was a close call. i remainhe said concerned that maintaining a is in the midst of a difficult financial time. modernization is what we are talking about here that was a commitment made that has not yet .eached its fruition in terms of modernizing.

i am concerned about this. about wasconcerned the nuclear weapons. would you have some ported it more insupported it terms of the ratio or the numbers of tax school nuclear weapons russia has as opposed to what we have? the is your feeling about tactical nuclear weapons? as you have address, modernization is important to us. i would hope that we continue modernizations as well as this that supports it. with recent port -- with regard to the tactical nuclear weapons, anye went into and with

treaty, it is important that we are able not just to reduce but able to verify the obligations heard that agreement are in fact able to be carried out. we were able to do that from the dozens of warheads. we solves launchers that. i would like to see the world with less tactical nuclear weapons. the same type of rigor has to be in place in order to have an agreement by which we can nuclear weapons.

>> would you have supported it more vigorously if they had included the tactical nuclear weapons? the other side of russia was carrying out an appropriate obligation. the warheads are going to be reduced. and we aredown reducing, it would seem to me that the modernization program important as we are going through a reduction. would you agree with that? >> yes. i would agree. >> there has been some discussion about doing a unilateral reduction.

outside of the gt? negotiations need to be negotiated. >> i believe that. i would only say for us to be in it would require more testing. with new agree with this?

he does all the things i mentioned in my opening statement. do you think the current strategy of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions would stop someone like kim jong-un from acquiring nuclear weapons capability? our present strategy is berect. i think we have to persistent and consistent with that strategy. i also believe in terms of if confirmed the position that i will take there i will have to do everything i can and build new relations in order to bring other countries to bear as well. more influence we have in the region and internationally, and i will have an opportunity to help with that if confirmed, will be

helpful in our strategy as well. i share with you the concern about the uncertainty. >> that is a kinder way of putting it than i would. we are looking at budget cuts. this does not happen in isolation. do you think that make something to beim more likely militarily aggressive? >> it may lead to a greater

possibility of miscalculations. >> thank you very much. i've had the privilege of working with general caparrotti for many years. thank you for your service. one of the issues that we face is the modernization of our nuclear deterrent. ofunderstanding is the hope our deterrent missiles are at sea now. is that a fair estimate? that is a fair estimate in terms of warheads. modernizations of our summary summer rains is a key priority

for the national defense? theaid the tour, replacement -- senator, the ouracement is critical to nuclear deterrent strategy and capability. have the committed to air launched missiles as well. this would seem to me to be the first priority in terms of modernization. is this consistent with your views and strategies? the flexibility of having a triad is very important to our deterrent strategy. form ise ohio last nearing its end of life, it is

very important that we replace it in addition to the calculations you just mentioned. one of the things that will be from theto support department of defense to do that. a -- nos to be commitment to modernization of the whole triad. since most of our eggs are in the summer rains, we have to do that first. is that your view? it is not in my purview as to how they are paid for. it is important that we move forward with that platform. >> we are in the met of a like the 70'sts

and 80's. now it is the sea battle. you will be in the midst of that. general scupper on the -- scaparrotti will be in asia. it is strategically toward the asia-pacific area. the battle is comparable in terms of that. them. one of the key factors we do not have to worry about with the land battle was cyber. in with they work developer of this new doctrine, particularly when it comes to cyber? senator, you are asking battle and air sea cyber. i would say this is a concepts.

it includes all of our capabilities and effort to include cyber. and guess let me go ahead ask the questions. we have been doing this for about 200 years. this is a brand-new dimension. it seems to me given in the press that given some of our competitors have very asymmetric powers with respect to cyber. air or seaped an battle, we have to make sure we can communicate, that we can control, etc.. key might be the most aspect. i would hope that you and your command would be engaged.

jointhave a series of forces. a disciplinary estimate of the value and do intentions going forward? these exercises are large and combined. we do this regularly throughout the year. i think they are essential to the readiness we need to maintain on the peninsula. i think they are essential in terms of the integration where trying to obtain and the forces.ents of the the milestones that are laid out in strategic alliance can be developed through the use of the exercises. those are the times we can bring together all of the

services as well as combined services. as has been mentioned, one of actors that influenced this is china. have made some statements or they contributed to them as suggesting to the world but their ultimate glue -- goal is to nuclearization. helpview of how you can facilitate the diplomacy between between the united states? >> china is key. as a part of my present duties, to help with china on economics.

if confirmed, i have a relationship now that i have begun to establish with the staff.chief of they know me. in terms of my position if confirmed, i also have a relationship that i have developed with north korea and south korea. i think these are very important to our objective of dude nuclearization. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. want to thank you for your service and the sacrifice of your families. we appreciate it. i want to follow-up on the question that senator i'm half -- and half -- cirencester in

-- senator inhoff asked you. he did say he would seek a one third reduction of art of floyd nuclear weapon. it was not clear at all whether that is something she would only except through negotiated exception or whether it would be would -- something he consider it unilaterally. what would your advice be to him on a unilateral reduction? >> thank you for that question. my advice would be that we negotiate a bilateral that also has verifiable components so we can have reduction that would work. >> if you would have proposed a --lateral reduction

>> >> yes. >> how important do you think it is before we receive any more reductions that we fulfill the modernization requirements in section 1 -- 1043? well aware.re are wel how important do you believe that we filled the modernization? >> it is very important that we modernize our industrial base in order to maintain sustained weapons that we have. it is so important to have a safe and nuclear deterrent.

>> if we are continuing to diminish the resources which is what is happening right now under the new treaty, do you think it is advisable that we further reduce our nuclear deterrent without meeting those responsibilities? i think this is agreed upon and is satisfactory. for the knowledge i have the fy 14 budget it supports the modernization of that industrial base. with sequestration it is a question of how well we will be able to do that with further cut across the board to include this modernization unit. announcese president that he is going to seek a third

reduction, it seems that unless we further fulfill our commitments to modernize our deterrent pursuant to the existing treaty obligations then that would not be advisable, particularly if we do not know we have modernized what we have now. in that regard, i want to ask you about the recent missile defense agency test so that the chairman asked you about. this issue needs to be prioritized. isn't it true that the last time this have been tested was 2008? that is my understanding it has gone to a number of tests. it is operational.

test we haveflight 2008.s since 2000 -- here we are in 2013. if we are going to have the equipment to the defense that we need to put resources that will further test it. this was cutting funding for this program. , what do youard hope the priority should be in terms of making sure it that our missile defense programs are supported? my priorities would be that

we invest in reliability of the of the missiles. and that we do adequate testing to ensure that reliability exists. >> with regard to an east coast missile defense site you said to the chairman that you felt there .ere further threats to iran do you dispute what has been the report from the national air and space intelligence center's from earlier this month that concluded they could test an icbm capable of reaching the united states? >> i am not here to dispute what you just said. >> what further once we need to conduct? it wouldhe agree that

be providing additional battle space? >> we have to continue to study how we are going to adjust that. as thentioned earlier, fire are missiles to address this problem that we had the right targeting. with that i also supports that we move forward with the environmental impact agency. allow us an option in the future. >> my time is up. i will follow up. in the written answers, you have

talked about additional analysis about the threat. 2015 is when they may have ice -- icbm capability. i am not sure what we're waiting for additional analysis. even going forward, it would take several years for us to stand that type of site up. then they have the missiles. i appreciate it. i will follow-up with you on that. i want to thank you both. >> thank you. good morning. i want to add my voice to the members of the committee.

i chaired the subcommittee. i look forward to working with you in that capacity. it is good to see you again. o know we will work together to given the challenges you will ace as the head of the u.s. if i can turn to you initially, i want to pursue the same line of questioning. you think this will allow us to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent and to be able to early -- fully respond to a nuclear attack? as fully stated in this earlier questioning, the new sensetreaty numbers make

to me. we ought to march toward that goal. that weentally believe should always look for the right balance in all of our capability. piece.not studied this if confirmed i would be willing to come back to this committee. >> i think you can respond. if reductions were made we would be able to maintain those weapons that were reduced in a status that would allow them to be redeployed. is that correct? it would really depend on any future agreement that we had in

terms of what were the basis and components that was relative to what we would retain. prison -- the present agreements do allow that as an option. is that fair to say? that is my understanding. >> it it just is deployed and non-deployed and adjusters launchers. launchers.esses >> talk about the benefits you see them associate with the proposed changes to our nuclear employment strategy? do you think they outweigh the risks? >> i believe the benefits relative to the new treaty

provide us the adequate members of nuclear weapons and launchers to address the threat now and into the future. >> there are some who i respect that modern conventional weapons have provided us with capabilities that once would have been divided by nuclear weapons. we simply do not need as many new. i would say that as you look nukes, the combined capability is also important.

just the significant quantities we have had. it is pretty interesting and how we have made significant reductions while still retaining quite a few weapons. we haveentally believe to be careful and look at all of our capabilities matter what was , that it is also part of our countries capability and what we can bring to bear. as long as other countries have nuclear weapons we have to have a safe means to address that. >> you are saying the conventional arsenal we had today is advanced and it complements our nuclear weapons capability. is that what you're saying? >> i am saying i do not have a

that it equals this capability. we are talking about a significant difference in the capability when we look at a nuclear weapon. turn to the be 61 bomb. do you support that modernization plan? i think the modernization program is very important to our nation. i fully support it. i also believe we can, we will be at risk if we do not support it. through the modernization it also reduces the number station -- the numerous nation of other nuclear weapons we have today and brings it down to one type model series in order to have a

safe and secure platform for our use, particularly in terms of the technical nukes associated with the program. >> you paid me the honor of a visit. we talked about this particular plan. we also talked about your willingness to work with senator sessions on the subcommittee to bring down the cost of the program. i want you imply that to make sure that you have a chance to clarify. you will work with us to bring down that price i can do everything possible. is that correct? >> i will work hard to look at costs in every program. >> thank you for that answer. >> let me interrupt you. we only have a minute left. there was a miscommunication here. we are right at the end of the

boat. we only have about five minutes to get there -- vote. we are going to have to for 10 minutes or so. we will let them know we are on our way. we have to recess. i am sorry to interrupt you. we are going to hold off on that. he can continue. if other folks come back, do want to finish? the issue of the management i think you are well aware of it. if we have public access to that bandwidth it would be a great economic benefits. do you believe the lower 25 megahertz of that spectrum could

be vacated within the currently proposed timeline without julie affecting our military missions? as we go forward, as much as it is also becoming extremely utilized the we had to be very at the cost associated with taking the spectrum away at the area of the military is using. there will be cost associated with migrating those of governments to a different day. in your answeron but i want to continue to work with you on this opportunity and to do it right. thanks again to both of you. i look forward to working with you after you are confirmed. >> thank you. >> senator donley. >> thank you. be with both of you. i want to thank you for your

service to the country and your families for everything you have done on behalf of this nation. we are very grateful to all of you. march the 60th anniversary of the korean war. i would like to recognize our service members who currently serve in the republic of korea them for their service. once such korean war veteran inshe was buried arlington cemetery just recently. his body was recovered in 2004 as part of a recovery team. mia in northl korea. what conditions are necessary for resuming recovery operations in north korea? let me say that i fully

support efforts to reprieve gh and -- repatriation. it is a service we have as our nation. as part of those duties i will have particular duties regarding the arrangements. i do think in terms of what we should do, to go forward we should ensure that that it is within the priority of our other that weinterests and should assure the security of the individuals who we would put into north korea to retrieve the remains into the operation there. >> thank you. , recentlycil haney they put out a report regarding ballistic missile systems and said china has the most active and diverse listed missile

program in the world. unitsdeveloping qualitatively updating systems and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defense. the lastook at that three tests have failed how do we rectify that situation? as we look to the future here it is very important that we are able to continue to work our missile defense solutions across to getrd, in particular our ground-based interceptor solutions that operating with the conclusions we expect here at we have had a numerous variants.

it it is operational. it is operational to the extent that it is currently protecting our country. it is important that we get the portion of this also correct. and that we look at the full range of options as we look at addressing the muscle defense threat. >> one of the other concerns i at the easte look coast missile defense system or the suggestion of whether or not we need one, folks have said there is no point in going further with that he cuts we do not have the other system working right. able to dok we are two things at one time? do you see a need for a east coast missile defense system? >> ica need for us to look at other options of how we address

this problem. i am fully supportive of moving forward with the environmental impact statement which is fully supported as we go forward while at the same time making writes get our sensing so we can further refine our capability in terms of able to tackle these with our current programs. it is aere kind enough dangerous situation when these are used in equipment that protects our soldiers. thesere a way to use facilities to minimize the risk

of receiving counterfeit parts in the military supply chain? it is very important that we continue to work hard as a country and as a military to look and avoid counterfeit parts. this is a very important area as we look at our current posture and also as we look to the future with the number of chips with various capabilities in so much of our military apparatus. ith regard to how we do that, will look at that from the standpoint. i have not been to crane. this is one of the areas of the early months.

>> will be honored to have you come. in regards to north korea, what you think their intent is? >> north korea has an aggressive ballistic missile program. they have hundreds of short and media range missiles. prestige for as regimes. they see it as a means of .xtending the security the regime itself sees their ballistic missile system is very important. in recent years the conventional forces have been combining. there are special forces that i

think have changed their y toward.- >> thank you. thank you for being here today. i thank you for your service and your families through the years. i can see you should be area proud of the families you have raised. thank you again for taking the time to come and visit me and my office. i thought we had a great discussion. i would like to follow-up on on the issues we touched on in my i asked you about our relationship with russia and your views. we did not have the opportunity to discuss their views on

missile defense. have do you think the united states should deal with the russians repeated demands for legal limits? how do you define the term legal limits? i do believe as we have articulated from the defense review and continued in the journey we have continued to all continue to-- articulate how it is a limited defense system that should not be conceived as a threat to russia's deterrent capability. as we continue to work with the russians we will have to

continue the dialogue that have been started to continue to make sure their questions are answered but at the same time we have to be mindful that we defend and have adequate capabilities to defend our assets and homeland. i see russia is a country that is doing some investment in their capability. the combination of continuing to i think it'sions important for our future. >> in terms of defining the , that is an area where i would like to look at more closely and come back. >> do you believe it should be our decision as a country and a ouron on where we deploy

defense systems and the number that we use in those deployments? it is important that we work analysis and worked with our allies and partners and in terms like russia of how we come with an integral solution. as we do that we really have to prioritize what we want to achieve is part of that calculus. >> do you believe we should support or do you support classified data on our missile defenses with the russians? would you draw the

line on how much to share? > .> that is a very good question the business in terms of sharing is one that has to be from aat closely standpoint of how we look at the world to day and in the future. information sharing between two with a variety of subjects that is one that has i could not talk about .hat i would like to have an opportunity to continue that discussion. continuingiate your to do that. it is well-meaning to have a

conversation about. you support more testing for missile defense. do you believe our current budget can adequately do that? do you think we need more resources especially given some recent test failures? what would you advise if you are confirmed? when ever we talked about adding more resources it is very important that we at what resources we currently have and what they are doing or as. we have to be careful before we come out and asked for more before doing rigorous reviews. old gamutvers the that you can do without launching in space as you narrow

down into the analysis. i know this last test is being under reviewed until confirmed. give youd for me to an answer that would be substantial. i look forward to that if so confirmed. that youd assume believe that we need to have equipment that is going to work and make sure that they can do the job. is that correct? very important for us to be able to achieve for the future. our deployed forces as well as our allies. >> thank you. >> we talked a little bit about the new facility that is being constructed.

hopefully it is on schedule and it will continue to move forward at the feet it needs to move forward so we can updates the resources that we have. do you have anything you want to add on that about the value that facility will have? innow you were assigned 2010. you are familiar with the area. i know you are familiar with the planning. what would you add to that and the value that it has for the mission? >> i thank you for that question. the complex but is being built to our nation. .t is important

command and control that connects the relative information to our leadership, the decision could not be made in a prompt time. that is such an important part of our capability going forward. i thank congress for their sid for it. >> thank you. .- for their support >> thank you. i hope that it continues to move forward. i believe that senator keane is next. very much for your service to the country and are joining us this morning. i have heard a number of witnesses over the past six or seven month characterize ciber as the most serious immediate face. we

the next pearl harbor will probably be ciber. do you think the cyber command should be set of parts and elevated to it on command? -- to its own command? i am a fan of structure that would allow us to win. that would be my first overarching statement. as we look at how we are aligned the work isieve ongoing as it is working in a very synchronized fashion with allocated responsibilities. my first principal would the the first part we have to keep intact is the nsa and cyber command under the same cap we

synergyy and that the is so important going into the future. we have to continue and get it right. at a future and grow our cyber capability, there may be a time where cyber command is a separate bat and command and will be appropriate. as the are applying our next dollars in terms of the manpower we need to address this threat and the toolsets we need to address this threat, that is important. as we do step into moving this , there is command also a price to be paid. i am not opposed for the cyber command.

has beenrategy deterrent. assumes a level of rationality in one's enemy. what is our strategy for deterrence for madmen with nuclear weapons. people that are not necessarily rational. especially for nonstate actors. what is our overall strategic particular -- thinking about nonstate actor or's who may be able to obtain nuclear weapons? >> that is an area in particular is articulated. part one being that it is

important that our efforts in terms of combating weapons of mass destruction continued. we have had the initial operating capability of the headquarters for elimination. the business of having that capability and the ability to countries capability of knowing where the nuclear and to work hard to avoid having these capabilities fall in the wrong hands. is an intelligent function. ?s that what you're saying our defense against nonstate nuclear weapons is knowing who have got them and how to prevent them? this is also in the spirit of reducing the number of weapons that exist in the world.

been striving to achieve it. it is not just an intelligence function. it is a function that the u.s. strategic command is heavily involved in. the strategy of deterrence may work with russia. terrorist cell who winks if they die in the holy war they will go straight to heaven. deterrence is not necessarily a viable strategy. what is the strategy? >> the strategy is to work across the apparatus in ensuring that they harbor folks that want to do harm to us and what means. there is some work that occurs

ally or militarily. >> and the full preparation of our committee, i want you to know we are preparing you today for korean winters air- conditioning. we want you to be ready for cold weather. >> thank you, sir. >> this past saturday i had an opportunity to visit with a number of korean war veterans. a little statement. korea is often characterized as a forgotten war. in looking at a very rigorous ,ountry the people in the south

i cannot think of too many wars that made as much difference as that war did. it should not be forgotten war. a question that i'm sure you're going to have to deal with in the next couple of months, to what extent is the sequester going to affect readiness in korea? affectink it will readiness at some point. they enjoy it very high priority. in terms of funding and resources. just after the forces deployed in harm's way, korea is on that level. we have to be fight in korea tonight. it is that an certain. we have enjoyed that kind of funding. if confirmed, i intend to keep a

very close watch on our resources that we have. as we reduceuld be our funding, particularly if we go into full sequestration we know we have seen a reduction in the forces now. would be extended into the next year and become worse over time. the forces in korea depend on the rotation of forces and certainly the forces that would come forward if there is conflict on the peninsula. i think that is the impact as we look to the future. >> i hope you could provide some analysis. it is now looking more and more like a full sequester at 14 is a likelihood if not a certainty. the analysis of what impact would be and how it will be allocated because it is very important for us to know because as we are discussing sequencer

that we have a realistic extra of the impact. is that theding sequester will be a much more serious impact than it was in 13 because of the lack of low hanging fruit. it is going to be a higher level of impact. perhaps you could give us some serious analysis of the impact of korea. we need to have that information. we presently already see the 13.ct in fy you know the army has the majority of its brigade at a lower training level and focusing on company level training for those brigade to her either not deployed or those who are about to deploy. those two categories -- you are either not deployed or those who are about to deploy. all other brigades have come to a lower for finches see --

proficiency level. the navy has cut back on ships going to see and the maintenance they are providing. you will see a much deeper cuts as we go eons. compound itself. it takes longer to get up to trained that have not in the fundamentals, particularly the integration of combined arms at a higher level. it takes much longer to train. it is more expensive. we see our readiness coming down. that is of some concern. >> how does that impact of the u.s. forces in korea? >> it is the forces that we may rotate there. they would take longer to be ready for the missions they are going to do. if they had to be deployed in response to provocation, we

would probably take some time here in the states to train it to the readiness level we believe they need to be at to do the job before they deploy. it may be delayed as a result. >> think you. i appreciate that and any additional information you could provide as would be helpful. >> thank you. >> senator mccain. >> thank you. you just came from the commander of the commands pacific fleet. how is that combat ship working out? the uss freedom deployed today in the western pacific. it is -- >> right out of singapore. >> it has been involved in a variety of exercises and operations since it has been out there. combat have two other

ships, the independence and the ft. worth that are operating out in thediego and working mayan warfare module.

>> are you satisfied with this performance. are the cost estimaáes what they should be? please answer the question admiral. >> senator, i can get a status report whenever i want one. i want to know your view as to how the combat ship is working out as far as its ability to defend our interest in the pacific? >> senator currently it's working out very well from the ability to deploy and the ability to do its work. both varieties have move my personal view is that part is also working out well. we have learned some things that have been incorporated from freedom lcs1 to lcs3. those improvements i believe añe right on target. if there's one area that

requires more work and that we have been working at the navy to get there is the mission module of the different varieties. the current modules deployed with combat ship number one is working fine. i'm looking forward to -- iá's a little early for me to give you the prognosis on the independence mind warfare mission module sir. >> general, there have been plans to move our troops from south korea to the base further away from seoul. how is that progressing? >> sir presently, those plans are under way. they're being worked with our counterparts as well. primarily right now, we're making plans for the ability to make those moves to -- >> we got cost estimates yet and

how who will bear those costs? >> yes, sir. there are cost estimates at this point. it's shared cost with our rock counterparts as well as our own payment. i'm aware of the issues with the cost today. as i said -- >> what is -- roughly what cost are we talking about to complete the contemplated move? >> sir, in terms of the land partnership plan which is the one that we pay probably the most part of it's about $880 million for our portion of that land partnership move. that have to do with forces north of seoul. the young sun relocation plan is paid by the public of korea for the movement of services. >> quote, paying for the move, does that mean paying for all of

the installation that is necessary there? >> in those plans, it is the payment for the construction of facilities to support the troops. there's also housing included in this as well for families etcetera. >> you think it's a wise move at this time for the south koreans to reopen that facility manufacturing area north of the d.m.z. >> sir i think if the two countries can come to terms on their agreements and as south korea said, it wouldn't be used as leverage again, that is a platform that can be used to develop communication and reduce the tension between north korea and south korea. >> i thank the witnesses.

thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator mccain. senator blumenthal. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you both for your service and extraordinary careers. thank you to the families as well for their contribution and service. let me begin admiral haney by asking but the ohio class ballistic submarines. i know you have called them critical to our national defense. yet as you also know the program has been delayed by at least two years. is that a wise move? >> senator, the delay with the program has encouraged some risks in that's some risk that we're working through. i would say we can now afford to have another delay with this program.

>> another delay would be unacceptable. >> that's correct senator. particularly as you look at the aging of the current platform, it's beginning to reach its end of life. 42 years is a long time to be operating a submarine. >> my understanding is that the official explanation has been that the delay will enable more refined development of the weapons platform of the technology and some prospect of cost saving. is that the reasons that you understand the delay has been implemented? >> senator, i think the delay was implemented for some of that but it was also matter of prioritization of resources. >> cost saving. in other words, the unavailability of funds.

>> yes, senator. >> in a more perfect world, not a perfect world necessarily but a more ideal world, that program would be implemented without the delay. >> senator, that is correct. i will say that know there's some work that continues to go on in research and development platform. i thi'k in the interim time, good work continues. >> if possible though, we would recalculate and eliminate that delay if possible? >> senator, i think we've already started the delay and you can't make up for what's already lost. we will be -- we're already in that phase. >> there's no question that we need that ohio class ballistic missile submarine and we need to provide sufficient resources without additional delay?

>> senator, that's correct. >> general if i could ask a few more questions about the relocation. given the stringency and you heard a number of my colleagues talk about the possibling of the sequester even though many, like myself, believe it will be unwise and really unjustified to apply it as it would be to the defense budget. can you tell me whether canceling the relocation is an option that perhaps we should consider? >> sir, i can't say for sure whether that will be an option we consider. we made part of strategic alliance 2015. with made agreements with our rock allies. those moves are tied to that. from the position i'm in now, i

can't really comment whether that's really an option. i would say too, those moves help us our forces better so we can continue on that line. my judgment it will be readiness for the force as well. >> you said it will be good for the -- is it essential for the readiness of the force? >> sure, if confirmed, i will certainly review that and be willing to come back to you. i don't believe that from this position, i have the capability to answer that question fully. but i will be able to once i'm on the ground and i can see the impact of both the moves and also the importance with respect to our bilateral agreements. >> do you have an estimates as to what the cost canceling

delaying will be? >> no sir i do not. >> would you be able to provide one to the committee? >> if confirmed i will provide one. >> i appreciate that. i don't have too much doubt you will be confirmed. i expect from you as much the same from others on this committee. i certainly will be supporting you in that vote. what is the over all cost of the project? i've heard the number $10 billion? >> of that project -- >> yes, i'm sorry of the relocation project. >> i heard a lower number than than. i don't know if that's the entire cost of the project. >> finally, we hear a lot about readiness and about the impact of readiness, the impact of sequester on readiness, could you may be give us a little bit

more concrete or factual basis for what the impact is. talk about what the effect is on the troops on the ground who will be under your command, the captains and lieutenants, the sergeants and staff sergeants, how their everyday training, life is affected. >> sure if i could, i like to take that as a general question and not specific to armed forces in korea. i done some checking and i haven't checked with those serving today in korea. secondly, they enjoy a very high resource category right now. across the force, the reduction thus far in resources and the impact of sequester has resulted in the reduction of training that's being done. the troops are training everyday

but they're training at a much lower level. >> that would mean -- i know i've heard this numerous times which is why i wanted to specify it. does that mean that they're out in the field last. they are sitting in classrooms rather than firing live rounds somewhere. >> they may be in the field. they're likely going to the range less. they're likely qualifying with weapon systems and the vehicle systems they have less. the pilots are likely flying less. you asked about morale. that also impacts morale. our young men and women are proficient and experienced and they know what it takes to be ready for combat across all the services. they've been in a fight for 10 years and when we start to delay ability to reach that kind of proefficiencicy, it affects the

morale as well. also their concern about their future in our force. >> thank you. my time is expired. i think this topic is supremely important. i want to thank both of you for your very helpful and insightful answers. thank you very much. >> thank you senator blumenthal. i have one additional question. general scaparrotti, had has to do with the various approaches to reduce the number of sexual assaults and inappropriate sexual conduct. given your experience at west point and as a commander, should we take the chain of command out of that decision to prosecute court-martials? >> senator thank you. i strongly believe we should take the commander out of the process in terms of dealing with

disciplinary issues. in the military, the commander is central to all that we do. the commander in fact, is held responsible for his unit. all it does or fails to do. he or she are the most important person establishing the climate within that command or whatever size it is. it's the employment in -- climate. i believe the commanders take this seriously. some of the initiatives that have been presented by a members of this committee, perhaps in legislation that can also help us strengthen our ability to deal with this with our commanders in the chain of command. in the end, i would just say it's a matter of integrity.

we entrust them with great amount of responsibility. we entrust them with the lives of men and women. to not trust them does not follow through with what we say and what we do. i say that we hold them accountable. train them properly and give them the tools to do that and maintain integrity of the system. >> any other questions? >> senator, just follow up. i appreciate your answer very much to that question general. i think -- did you happen to see the compromise that the chairman and i and this committee put together that would maintain the integrity of the commander but also give some relief in the event that there's some abuse takes place. did you see that? >> i did senator. >> what do you think about that?

>> i agree with that. there are some initiatives here that have been proposed to retain the commander in the process but there are things that we can do in article 60 for instance, which i think yours also contains, that provides less authority but proper over sight. in other words, had this case, they would not retain the capability of changing a charge after a court-martial is found. but that will be left to judicial authorities on appeal. when i think things like that that have been proposed and your bill that is acceptable in the long run will be helpful to this problem. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you if i may follow up again briefly.

in your career, general, have you acted as a convening authority and decided to prosecute cases of sexual assault? >> in my time, i believe i have acted as a convening authority in terms of sexual assault. i know i dealt with this issue as the commander or the commandant at west point. that is the age group that we have the greatest challenge in the military. it happens to be the group that we have at west point at cadets. i became very involved in every aspect of this issue. >> did you take the course in uniform code of military justice? >> yes, sir, i have. the courses we go through isn't part of our career. i personally made a point to go

to our legal school. i purposely did that to ensure that my understanding and training was honed. >> using that training, did you decide to prosecute individuals under your command for sexual assault? >> yes, i have sir. >> on how many occasions would you say? >> i couldn't give you the number sir. i know i dealt with cases at west point in particular. i'd have to go back and review. if first corps i probably did just given the number of cases. >> did you ever decide to recommendation to the contrary of judge advocate? >> i never have. i can't remember an occasion i disagreed with judge crockett. >> when you received

recommendation to go forward and you did so? >> yes, sir. one of the initiatives that we've talked about within the services, is the use of judge advocates and those who are specialized in particular crimes that the case of sexual assault. i can tell you clearly, i dealt with as a convening authority in cases that had to do with murder. in those cases i sought not only my jags, his opinions but i also asked that he go to the army. we had their specialists in that area provide me advice as well. i think that's something that we can do in this area with those especially trained. >> you like to see prosecutors specially trained in that areas of sexual assault because it is

a very challenging and some times difficult one not just to decide but also to actually proceed and prosecute and try and convict, am i correct? >> that is correct. >> would you also like to see those types of training and prosecutors involved in the decision to prosecute? >> i would. as i said, i sought that kind of help when i was convening authority. >> i very much appreciate your answers to my questions. as you may know, there is another point of view on the convening authority issue. i personally, deeply respect solution that the chairman and ranking member have helped to lead. it has been great leadership on this issue and seeking to change. i also think that we need to treat this crime as, in fact, a predatory heinous crime and

someone with prosecutorial expertise maybe better position to make the decisions. i really appreciate your answers to my questions. >> thank you sir. >> just to be very clear here. the alternative proposal is to transfer the decision-making to whether it proceed to a trained or experience jag or prosecutor. that's not what you support i gather? >> that's correct sir. senator said assist. senator's word were to assist. i believe the commander should still be in the chain. >> when you say you like to consult with such a trained and experienced jag officer, for that person to be involved in that sense to be consulted, i take it from your testimony in no way diminish your belief that the decision-making needs to remain in the chain of command?

>> correct. >> anything else? >> i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we're all done. thank you both. thanks to your families. >> thank you.

>> the senate is in session today just a short while ago, they voted 64-34 to limit the debate on kent yoshiho hirozawa. the senate continues to debate this week on the transportation spending bill. meanwhile in the house, they are back at noon eastern for general speeches. legislative visits will include their version of the 2014 spending bill for transportation and housing. "washington journal" says the house bill will cut those programs about 9%. the senate version increases them by 12% follow the house here on c-span when the gavel is

on noon. the senate is live now on c-span 2. covering this snatch a hearing by the senate hearing and natural resources committee. they will hear from the senate secretary on managing nuclear waste. they'll be talking about alternaáives to the cooling pools that currently holds most of the waste. that will be live this afternoon 2:30 eastern. here on c-span next we're going to take you live to the state department. we're expecting to hear from secretary of state john kerry and also possibly from the negotiators, the palestinian negotiators. as a matter of fact the two met this morning with the the white house with president obama. comments from secretary kerry set to get under way shortly. we will stay here live here on c-span. the secretary announced yesterday that martin,

president's clinton's ambassador of israel has been tapped for the u.s. point person for negotiations. staying here live waiting for comments for secretary john kerry.

>> this is the state department, secretary john kerry is suppose to come out and speak to reporters and others about the beginning of the negotiation between israel and the palestinians. the two lead negotiators are anne washington, president obama's saying yesterday the most difficult work of these negotiations is at hand i'm hoping both the israelis and palestinian will approach these talks in good standing. that's statement from presideñt obama yesterday. the negotiators met with the the white house with the president this morning. we will have the comments from secretary john kerry when they start live. the house and senate in session

today will have house coverage beginning at 35 minutes. here's a look what's ahead this week in the house. >> the budget appropriations reportser for the associated press. the house and senate back to work this week on a government spending bill on transportation and housing program. what can you tell us about the measures being considered? >> the first thing to know, they are very different. this is unusual year in the appropriations process because the house is working from a very much lower figure for the grand total for the bill than the senate is. this is because the house is incorporating across the board cuts with sequestration. they're anticipating tñey continue. whereas the senate is incorporating a deal that will be worked out. this transportation and housing bill is a prime example of the traces that are made when the

house is much lower figure. for instance, they really cut community development grants in a very popular places across the country. they cut amtrak subsidies. in the senate, the democrats controls the chamber trying to demonstrate, look our bill will do more to create jobs and it will do more to house people. what's going on -- the mismatch really is just sort of preliminary to show down that's going to happen later on this year. >> how unusual is it that both chambers are considering their individual versions at the ápsq time? >> iñ's very unusual. the senate hasn't considered a stand alone appropriations bill in something like two years. typically, the house is suppose to go first, senate bill picks

it up. all of this inside congress stuff. the fact they're doing it at the same time is really no coincidence. >> mentioned a few of them, who are some of the key issues coming up in debate? >> well, i think there's going to be efforts to restore some of the cuts on the house side to things like subsidized housing amtrak and the like. under the rules, you need to find money some place else to replace the cut. the house measure so sort of starkly written something like 20% or so below the level that were passed in march give or take a few percentage points. it's going to be really hard to move much money around and create or fix some of the problems that people who support

these programs. >> as you know, congress is set to start their five week summer break at the end of this week. what kind of progress they making on the list of the dozen spending bills that fund the federal government? >> not very much. this will be the fifth one to pass t$e house and if the senate manages to pass, it will be the first. the appro(riations process has been going on but they really is kind of marking time. quite frankly, until they figure out some solutions these bills don't amount to very much. they're going to need a what we call a stopgap measure or continuing resolution in september. that's going to be tricky. i wrote a story last week which suggested if you hear about all of this talk about a possibly government shut down at the end of september, --

õ>> what exactly is the conflic? what the spending levels each chamber using and how far apart are they? >> the senate is using an over all cap. remember we're talking about what is known discretionary spending. this is what passes each year to do day-to-day operating budgets, medicare and social security in a whole different box. they have chosen a spending level of 1.058 trillion i believe. the house is using spending level that's like 91 and $92 billion less. inside that 91 and 92 billion, they need money from the domestic program to help the pentagon out. the domestic program like the transportation bill are vastly different depending on which chamber is introducing it. >> how involved is the obama administration as congress gets

closer to the deadline? >> they don't seem to be very involved quite frankly. i think they're anticipating in the fall some kind of -- some sort of catalyst that gets a broader budget negotiation going. now republicans think they need to raise the debt limit, it's going to provide that spark. the president is going around saying, look, two years ago, he was getting ready to run for reelection, he accepted all of the spending cuts as a condition for increasing the borrowing cap. it's a real economic could its could its a -- everybody is kind

of hoping that as the fall goes on, they find a way to sort of massage that and get a negotiation going that gets budget agreement some kind of budgets agreement worked out so you can alleviate some of the sequestration cuts and do some real budgeting for some of the agencies. >> reporter andrew taylor of the associated press, we talk for joining us today. >> sure. >> again, the house will be gaveling in about half an hour noon eastern for general speeches. the senate is in session today as well. you can follow the senate on c-span 2 and the house here on c-span. we're live at the state department in washington. waiting to hear from secretary of state john kerry and perhaps the negotiators israeli negotiators. negotiations set to get under way in washington this week. president obama met this morning

with the lead negotiators. "new york times" writing this morning that secretary kerry yesterday said in a brief appearance at the state department that his goal is to pursue a reasonable compromise of some of the middle east issues. he also write in making the revival of middle east talks his top priority, mr. kerry is not only challenging the status quo in the region but also taking on the conventional wisdom in much of the american foreign policy establishment. we're expecting to hear from john kerry in just a couple minutes.

>> there may be a few more minutes before we hear from secretary of state john kerry. of course the house coming in about 25 minutes noon eastern for general speeches. while we wait for secretary kerry, we will bring you part of this morning's "washington journal" with former chairman of the fdic sheila bare.

>> many of you recognize her name and face. now the chair of the systematic risk counsel. welcome to "washington journal." appreciate it. three year anniversary of the dodd-frank reform bill. judge its effectiveness. >> there have been process but it's been disappointing slow. we've had good progress implementing the ban on new taxpayer bailout. it's like a bankruptcy process. we had some very good news a few weeks ago. the bank regulators posed higher gap requirements. which is a key driver of the crisis. the consumer bureau i think it sends tremendous work.

that said, lot of key reforms haven't been completed. the volka rule is still out there. that's work in progress. some reforms have been proposed very incremental right direction. maybe a c plus. >> the senate banking committee is holding a hearing today this morning at 10:00 a.m. with mary joe white as well as the chairman of the commodity futures trading commission. what would you ask them?

>> well, i guess for mary jo quite, i hve -- quite, i -- white, i have a lot of respect for her. i would ask her friendly questions about how her inability to fund herself having to go through this yearly appropriation process which lead to dysfunctional to run the agency. i would challenge her on the reform. i'd also ask her about market structure issues, high frequency trading, dark pools. some of these new so called trading strategies i think really under mine the public's confidence in the pricing mechanism in our equity market. i those will be my top three for her. for gary, his inability to fund

himself. at the end of the year. also ask him what more needs to be done. >> we're going to be covering that hearing here on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. this morning for those of you that are interested. you heard sheila bair. she asked questions that could be asked from those two regulators. -process of implementing the dodd-#rank bill. take a look at this. this is from june 2010 to july

2013. what do you make of those numbers? you sat in meetings like that. >> it just shows there are reform groups pushing. shows unevenly matched this debate is. that's one of the reasons we formed the system. we tried to provide some balance as well as the feedback and input. it's a huge problem. it's a spectacle. they need a credible regulatory process. relentless lobbying all rigged and the banks driving the process and helping to write the rules. that undermines long term interest. their industry is all about trust. if people don't trust their regulators, they will not trust them.

let's get the rules done. they will tell you, we want the rules finished too. but it's only the rules they like. i really wish the leadership will take it from their hand and the lobby operations here. the people who are trying to stick to the public interest are outmanned with all of these people going to the regulators trying to press them to do the wrong thing. >> sheila bair head of the federal deposit insurance corporation from 2006 to 2011. now the risk of systemic risk counsel. tell me what that is. >> it's a joint project. we focus on systemic issues.

so issues we think that need to be addressed that could have system wide impacts. we work on con training large banks that can be highly destabilizing. we focused a loot on -- lot on too big to fail. trying to get the banks higher capital of the risk they will fail. also unsecured debt. we have a website systemic risk council.org it's really a stellar group of people. they're all volunteers. none of them are being paid for this. but they want to do the right thing. they want to provide the appropriate balance. >> all right, we'll go to michael first. first phone call for you. imperial beach, california.

independent call, hi michael. caller: good morning. ms.bair, i heard prior to 1999 there was zero dollars invested. i heard there's upwards of $700 trillion of derivatives in the market. can you verify that? >> that's probably right. even if you adjust for these so called -- it's stale really big number. most of that is just financial institutions trading with each other. i think only about 10% of the market is actually a derivative being taken by a nonfinancial commercial entity. there's a lot of risks in that. lot of interconnections, a lot of risks. my view is that one of the reasons we had the crisis, we had losses with underlying mortgages. there were a lot of unaffordal

mortgages that had been made. we could have absorbed those losses. it was the magnification of those losses. notwithstañding the progress that's been made. i still think this is a huge source of systemic riái and really need to be a prisp)y focus. >> what's going on? >> it's a huge amount of money. we've had this in the clinton administration, chairman greenspan and secretary rubin pushed legislation through that basically said nobody can regulate this morning. the s.e.c. couldn't regulate it, hands off. really, at that point, it was a

very small market. it grew to a monster. there's no insurable interest. if you want to buy credit protection. you go buy the protection, and it's like insurance. if there is a default you will be paid out. but there's no requirement that you own that underlying debt. you can speculate on ibm's debt. more importantly, you can speculate on how mortgages perform without having to own any interest in mortgages or mortgage backed securities. it gave people incentives for the mortgage market to deteriorate. we were in a public dispute when i was pushing for loan modifications getting the loans

restructured. some hedge funds came in and opposed us. the more people lost their homes, the more money they would make. it creates upside down incentives. it's like fire and insurance on your house. you go to insurer to get fire insurance and the insurer if you own that house. it's the same problem. i think it's very dangerous and hasn't been dealt with yet. >> and the voleker will do what? >> it really says that to bank and bank holding companies to get profit insurance and get access to the discount window. those government support is there for public services to provide for the real economy. it's cheap government funding and trade to make its own

profit. that's really what it's about. it's hard to define what's legitimate market making. buying and selling securities to help a customer who wants to buy and sell certain assets. but the over all principle is a good one. i think it's very necessary especially since after the crisis, the investment banks involved in trading with goldman sachs. >> it hasn't why? >> there's been a tremendous amount of lobbying against the rule and one of the reasons is so complex, there are all of these exceptions in the rule trying to accommodate all of the entry lobbying. >> what role did the fdic play

in the recovery from 2008? can you concern the efforts from all government agency it is your final analysis? >> we did some things right and we did some things wrong. i think our response in 2008 was too ad hoc. some were bailed out and some were put into the fdic resolution process. there really was no play back for dealing with these large financial institutionsñ there was play book for insured banks. most of these problems were occurring outside of the insured banks. citigroup was insured bank. even citigroup, lot of activity was occurring outside of the insured bank. there was consistency though. at the end of 2008, we were dealing with very difficult situation. we threw a lot of money at it.

people on wall street made a lot of money on the support program. in 2009, and the fdic played a role in the stabilization measures. that take place in 2008. at the same time we were dealing with a lot of small banks. i'm very proud how those were handled. they were smooth and seemless. in 2009, we had a stabled system. i wish we had done more in opposed to accountability on these banks. i think our economy would have been better off if we forced the banks to really make the structural changes and management changes and cleaning up their balance sheets so they'd be in a better and stronger position. we didn't, we left all of those

bad assets on their books. now they're finally recovering and hopefully we'll see more growth. >> you write about all of this in your book. " bull by the horns, fighting to save main street from wall street and wall street from itself." it comes out in september for those of you that haven't read it yet. joseph tweets, how bank regulators funding controlled significant and explain why? how it's controlled, is that significant? >> it is important. the bank regulators for instance, the fdic support itself through deposit insurance. the fed can fund its budget so it doesn't accept fees on banks. the eeoc charges examination of

fees to fund itself. all of the funding mechanisms have strengths and weaknesses. the regulator control them. at the end of the day if you want strong regulator, they need to have the capacity to fund themselves. what you find with the s.e.c. and are regulators who have to go through the appropriations process. that creates a lot of uncertainty. lot of regulation is building i.t. systems to monitor markets. it makes it very difficult through this yearly cycle. also, lobbyist play games. so they try to put amendment on the appropriations bill saying, the s.e.c. can't fund this rule or that rule or just distract the agency. it really hurts the quality of regulation. i know there are people in congress who are disappointed with some of the mistakes the

s.e.c. has made in the past. think think they will be better regulators. if we want them to be better regulators give them some autonomy to assert themselves and discharge their obligation. >> we'll go to keith in new jersey, democratic caller keith go ahead. caller: i have a couple questions. one in particular sense the banks sense too big to fail are bigger are leaning towards trading activity the like goldman sachs moving around. isn't there any emphasis to get these banks to introduce -- >> certainly raising capital will create pressure to downsize. the easiest way for them to raise their capital ratio is to

reduce the number of assets to their funding . raising capital will create competitive pressure to downsize and that's a good thing. the resolution planning process. now under dodd-frank these big banks have to file resolution plans with their regulators the fed and fdic. this will require them to simplify their structures . that i think can happen to the regulatory. john mccain introduced a bill to reinstate a new version of glass seeingly. it takes process to make loans.

the traditional processes we have for dealing with failed banks, you can deal with that. it's when they get into multiple business lines and it becomes extremely process and very difficult to manage and unwind. >> front page of the companies of the financial times. j.p. morgan chase was expected to announce announcement after charging rigging power in california and the midwest. the fine is $400 million. is that enough? >> we haven't seen the actual settlement yet. it sounds pretty serious in the newspaper certainly. it's astonishing. all of these big banks are into in business. i'm troubled and i hope congress

look at the process how they got into this to begin with. it sounds like it was more legal opinions coming out of the fed. i find that amazing. i hope there's a lot more public scrutiny of this. i hope the feds deal with it. congress should look at the process by which banks allowed to get into these activities. >> rules for radicals. ron could be the next chairman. "washington journal" this morning coming out against him. this is what they say over all about the agency.

then referst to the j.p. morgan settlement $410 million. is it appropriate? >> yes, manipulation of the energy market, that's what ferc should be doing. at the same time, that doesn't really have expertise in commodities. one question why they let the bank to get into this business to begin with. these banks were manipulating this market. so they need to be held accountable. >> do you know ron benz? >> no i do not. >> a ferc chairman has brought power much like ceos even if other commissioners dissent and the chairman not suppose to

carry m r. obama's banner is what the "washington journal" these say about that possible nomination to head up ferc. rob from georgia, republican caller. caller: i remember at the end of 2008 there was a huge financial crisis that appeared to bring about a depression even worldwide. we bailed out a bunch of these financial institutions and ultimately general motors. i'm curious how much of that money came back into the treasury, one, i guess we made some profit on some of it. two, i'm curious about where did it go? did it go to pay back the debt that the country owes or did it go into the general fund and we spend it? guest: well on a cash flow basis, the government did make money. part of that was treasury investments. part of it was fed lending facilities and the fdic guaranteed program. for those programs they went back into the budget the fed and

fdic. you can judge as well as i how you think the government spending its money these days. on a cash flow basis, we did make money. we did make a profit on all of those bailout programs. if you look at what's called the subsidy cost, if you look at what the government could have charged based on market conditions at the time, we lost money. that's more the accepting definition of taxpayer cost. you know, i'm glad on a cash flow basis we made money. again these banks were hurting a lot of them. they couldn't access loans and equity investmentser for any crisis so the government stepped in. the benefit of that was quite substantial.

i never want it to happen again and i do worry when people say the bailout made money, what's the big deal. of course it's a big deal. on a subsidy basis they did not large institutions they can go out and take risk again and get help from the government. that's a very bad precedent. >> let's go to springfield, massachusetts, independent caller. >> part of our conversation this morning, you can see online at c-span.org. you'll see secretary john kerry at c-span.org. we apologize the house is coming in next where we have to take you to that. this you can follow on c-span.org. we'll show you after the house as well. the house is coming in momentarily for general speechessen and we'll be back later this afternoon 3:00 p.m. eastern to begin debate on the 2014 transportation and housing spending bill and the senate meanwhile is in today. they have voted to move forward

on one of the nominees of the national relations labor board. the senate debated on that 2014 transportation bill. we'll take you live to the house floor now for general speeches here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 30, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable john culberson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by

the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, for five minutes. mr. speaker, a: it's me again. i rise on behalf of our native american communities to speak on a subject of great concern, the use of the term redskins used by the washington redskins franchise. mr. rush limbaugh attempted to rush away years of pain, suffering and humiliation endured by our nation's first inhabitants by questioning their motives and seeking the

rid of the nfl of the most racist, disparaging and badly offensive word. as he doesn't know the violent and abusive history behind this racial ep at the time. i'd like to take the opportunity to provide mr. limbaugh and the american people some much clarity on this subject. the outcry of the name of the nfl's football franchise is due in large part of the federal government's protection of trademarks granted to redskins. 1946 requires that the u.s. patent and trademark office deny registration of any such words. the origin of the term redskin, mr. speaker, is commonly attributed to the historical act of not only killing native americans but also cutting off certain body parts and scalping heads of even women and children as evidence in our --

paid by the colonial officials. these scalps, mr. speaker, were described as redskins. i submit, mr. speaker, native americans are human beings. they are not animals. despite this most despicable act of genocide against the native american people, the u.s. patent office in 1967 granted the nfl's washington football franchise a federally registered trademark for the same word. mr. speaker, this should never have happened. native american nations have treaty and trust relations with the federal government and it's clearly recognized by the supreme court and the u.s. constitution. 66 years after the law was established the word redskins continue to enjoy such protections. in fact, the nfl's washington football franchise has six federally registered trademarks with the same word. mr. limbaugh calls them a bunch

of p.c. >>. it was a work of a federal agency that ignored the law and the duty owe to shield the native american people from degrading trademark legislation. mr. limbaugh asks, why does the federal government have to be involved? the federal government is part of the problem. after years of pleading with nfl, the d.c. courts, the native american communities left right where they started with a $1.6 billion football franchise freely exploiting the sinful memory of an ethnic cleansing that was forced upon native american people. mr. limbaugh also states, so the redskins may not be a popular name with some people. mr. speaker, i submit this is not a popularity contest. it is not even about sports. this is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when native americans are not only considered outcasts but

colonial ies by the government. the only game of sporting was hunting and killing inindians like animals for money. mr. limbaugh, mr. snyder, to mr. goodell and all nfl club owners, i ask, haven't american indians suffered enough? have me not paid the price placed on their heads, their scalps, their skins? mr. speaker, i think the answer is clear. enough is enough. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for five minutes. mr. wolf: mr. speaker, there are only three more days until the august recess. given that no new public hearings are scheduled on benghazi, it's apparent that e questions i've been asking for the past two weeks and the american people have been asking for more than 10 months will not be answered by the one-year anniversary of the

benghazi attack, if ever. after a year of investigation in five different committees, we still do not what happened and no one's been held responsible. the house and the senate have failed. is it any wonder that the american people are losing confidence in their government? this is even more remarkable given that over two months ago senior administration officials admitted to the media that they failed to properly respond to the attack in benghazi. yet to congress never pressed the matter further. in a little article published on friday, may 17, cbs news cheryl ackson reported that, quote, obama administration officials who were in key positions on september 11, 2012, acknowledged that a range of mistakes were made that night of the attacks on the u.s. mission in benghazi, end of quote. s continues, the list

include standing down the foreign emergency support team and failing to convene the counterterrorism security group, among others. one of the key revelations from anonymous senior administration officials is the admission it refused to deploy the foreign emergency support team, fest. according to the article, the fest mission is a seasoned team of counterterrorism officials who can respond quickly and effectively to terrorist attacks providing the fastest assistance possible including hostage experience, and the leader said benghazi was precisely the sort of crisis which his team is trained to respond. the article continued, as soon as word of the benghazi attack reached washington, fest members started packing, said the official involved in the response. they were told they were not deploying by patrick kennedy's front office.

in hindsight, i probably would have pushed a button, end of quote. it's particularly notable that the administration sources decision not just on the state department leadership but also on the white house, quote, while it was the state department that said to have fest taken off the table, the team is directed by the white house national security council. speaking of the white house role in directing a response, ackison reported that the national security council s. -- to convene the c.s.g. that evening. it is a plan to synchronize agencies playing a part in the global war on terrorism. the body did not convene, given quote. given the number of agencies involved, including the state department, c.i.a., defense department, it's hard to understand while the n.s.c.'s

interagency anti-terrorism response group wouldn't be convened. as she noted, because the c.s.g. wasn't assembled, quote, there's evidence of high-level decisionmakers were unavailable all -- known of all available resources. now white house chief of state, n.s.c. spokesman initially told cbs news, quote, i didn't know what fest is. who are the anonymous senior administration officials who admitted their mistakes to cbs? why haven't they testified to congress about these mistakes? why wasn't the fest team deployed immediately? last week general hammond admitted he believed ambassador stevens may have been taken hostage by terrorists given the fest team's hostage and errorism expertise, who made the decision not to deploy them?

why didn't they convene the c.s.g. that night to coordinate the response to the attack? and if that group wasn't responsible for a coordination, who was? while the agency was leading the response that night, what agency, was the state department directing the pentagon not to deploy its planes or defense teams while not deploying the fest team? i conclude with an important article, from the moment president obama was briefed on the benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in government. the mistakes these anonymous senior officials admit to mattered. lives were on the line. ultimately lives were lost. the congress must compel these most senior national security officials responsible for the response team that night to testify publicly. we need a bipartisan select committee and if we do not do it, the congress and the house will have failed. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, 48 years ago today, lyndon johnson in independence, missouri, signed into law the medicare program in the presence of former president harry s. truman. it's important when you think about that event which i would argue transformed our country, to go back in time and remember that seniors in 1965 only half had health insurance of any sort. 30% of america's seniors lived in poverty. live expectancy for america's seniors were age -- was age 70. we have universal health insurance coverage for all seniors, life expectancy is now age 79 and only 7% of seniors live below the poverty line. the decision by congress earlier that year, it was april of 1965, when former -- when our colleague, congressman john

dingell, was sitting in the speaker's chair and brought the gavel down when the medicare law was passed, has again paid off huge dividends in transforming america's health care system. back then it only covered doctors' visits and hospital visits. now it covers a broad range. dialysis, medical equipment, outpatient services such as prescription drug coverage, and as a result the health care sector of our country has grown. and for many it has created literally careers and opportunities to pursue a system which again has produced great results for the folks who live in our country over age 65 and people on disability. now, today, you know, we have challenges that medicare faces, but there is good news. the trustees for medicare recently issued their annual report and it showed that the solvency of the medicare trust

fund this year it was extended out an additional two years to 2026. beyond that date complare does not go bankrupt to -- medicare does not go bankrupt to zero. there is a shortfall in prosection of the trustees of roughly 10%. a serious problem but one we think manage using smart changes to the system. and the trustees in the report pointed to the affordable care act when it was signed into law by president obama in 2010 as extending by nine years the solvency of the medicare system. for seniors under the affordable care act, they are now getting more help with prescription drug assistance. they were stranded in the doughnut hole prior to 2010. now they get over half of the cost of those prescription drugs while they're in the doughnut hole, discounted. they're also getting free preventive care services, whether it's annual checkups, smoking cessation programs, all those essential services for primary care are now -- carry no out-of-pocket costs because of the affordable care act. the fact is that those changes

have extended the solvency of the affordable care act and we have not cut benefits for seniors. e have not made unwise choices such as the ryan budget which proposed raising the eligibility age for seniors to qualify for medicare to age 67 and would butcher the program into private health insurance for people under age 55. in other words, turning the clock back to where we were 48 years ago when president johnson signed that measure into law. the best way to celebrate medicare's birthday, which again has transformed the lives of every american family since it was enacted in 1965 is to make smart changes to the system, to build on the progress of the affordable care act, to make sure that it's going to be there for our children and our grandchildren, just like the people who had the wisdom to vote for that program 48 years ago and signed it into law. again, with the vision and prophecy of harry s. truman who as a senator representing the

state of missouri, had proposed medicare as a law and then saw before his time on earth ended it actually come into fruition. medicare is a wonderful program, it is a program which every family is touched by and has experienced and benefited from. our best way to celebrate its birthday today is to redouble our efforts to extend its solvency and to make sure that all americans, today and in the future, are able to enjoy its wonderful benefits. with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, last week as we debated the defense ppropriations bill for the upcoming year, my good friend, jim mcgovern, democrat from massachusetts, joined me in a measure that would have guaranteed that congress would vote on funding the strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan. this agreement with afghanistan is a 10-year agreement that

would start after 2014. it has been negotiated and will soon be signed by president obama and the -- president karzai. during the debate i quoted the former commandant of the marine corps with regard to this agreement. i called him and asked him what he thought about the agreement. he sent me a paragraph back. i use one sentence that i will use again today, mr. speaker, simply put, i'm not in favor of this agreement. it basically keeps the united states in afghanistan to prop up a corrupt regime. it continues to place our troops at risk. the amendment failed. i want to thank the seven republicans who joined me in that vote along with 100 democrats, but it failed. the problem is we really have no oversight in afghanistan. it is a joke at best. the joke is it's not really a joke because of the young men

and women who are dying in afghanistan even today. the waste, fraud, and abuse in afghanistan goes unchecked. we sent inspector generals over there, they do their best, but it is a no-win situation in afghanistan. mr. speaker, according to a "washington post"/abc news poll just last week, only 28% of american people believe the war in afghanistan has been worth fighting. i believe that number would be even lower if they knew that we are going to sign a 10-year agreement with afghanistan after 2014. if they were polled on that i believe the 28% would go down to about 8%. the american people are just finding out that we had this 10-year agreement with afghanistan where we'll keep spending billions of dollars per month and have a presence of at least 10,000 to 15,000 military. during this same week last week a poll was done of congress and 12% of the american people approve of congress.

if it gets much lower we'll be right at zero. i'm not sure the american people will be wrong with they give us a zero, quite frankly. especially when i look at the ct that we continue to spend money in afghanistan. we continue to cut programs right here in america for our young, our old, and our infrastructure. the american people are frustrated and fed up because they don't think we in congress are listening to them. and when it comes back to afghanistan and the fact that we would allow a 10-year agreement to go on with a corrupt leader in afghanistan makes no sense to the american people. it makes no sense to many of us in congress in both parties. mr. speaker, during that debate i made the statement on the floor at 11:10 that night, probably no one on the floor and in fairness to that statement there were only about 10 or 12 people to the floor, but they probably don't realize from

march 1 until july 1 we have lost 78 of our soldiers and marines in afghanistan. mr. speaker, that's why i . ought this poster down today it is a family that happens to be the army, they are prepared to walk behind a caisson, probably at arlington, to bury an american hero. the sad part about it, mr. speaker, is that there is a wife, i a am assuming, probably on wife, she has sunglasses and a black dress, and she's holding the hand of her little 6, 7, appears to be maybe 8. and the little girl is holding her mother's hand and the little girl has her finger in her mouth. how many more families in this country have to go through a sadness and tragedy like this family? while we sit here in congress and never debate the war, we'll debate the funding that we did last week, it was a 10-minute

debate, five for my amendment and five against. mr. mcgovern and i had five minutes. and yet we do not debate the policy that continues to send troops, continues to send money, and all we do is continue to let this war go on and on and on. mr. speaker, it's not fair to the families who have loved ones in the military. again i will continue to come to the floor one time a week and rail about the policy in afghanistan is a failed policy. history has said no nation has ever changed afghanistan, and we are not going to change afghanistan no matter how much money we spend, how much blood we spend, and it's not fair to our military. with that, mr. speaker, i will close by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform. please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. loving arms to

hold the families who have died for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. i will ask god to please bless the president that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people today and god's people tomorrow. and three times i'll say god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, for five minutes. ms. mccollum: i ask unanimous consent to address the house. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, in the world's poorest countries nearly one billion people struggle with hunger every day. chronic food insecurity limits a child's ability to grow, to learn. across africa and asia, hardworking farmers need to help to produce enough food to feed their families throughout the year. many of these farmers are women. estimated 80% of

the agricultural workers are women. so earlier this year i traveled to tanzania in southern sudan where women farmers told me they needed access to better seeds and training. with assistance from the united states, and with our support, they can grow enough food to feed their families and have extra to sell as produce. last week i introduced the global food security act, along with representatives aaron schock, and jim mcgovern. this bill directs the president to develop a strategy to improve global nutrition, food security, and agricultural development. more than 35 n.g.o.'s and faith-based groups also support this bill. this bill will improve food security for millions around the world, which is the right thing to do. but it will also make america more secure and protect our own national interest. i urge my colleagues to support the global food security act.

mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, for five minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to honor walter thomas durham, a man who did great things for tennessee and for the future generations of tennesseans. tennessee has one of the great histories of our united states. tennesseans fought and tipped the balance of the revolutionary war at the battle of kings mountain. tennessee produced three of the first 17 presidents. tennessee had more civil war battles than any other state except virginia. tennessee is proud of its history and walter durham is a giant in the world of tennessee histry. like so many brave members of mr. durham ion, served in the u.s. army in world war ii. seeing action in north africa

and italy with his u.s. army air corps. he went to vanderbilt university, and after he graduated he started a building supply company called durham building supply. e went to launch another business, an aluminum products company, which he and his partners later sold. then in the early 1970's, he was encouraged by his doctor to establish a hobby that would reduce his stress. so at the suggestion of a friend mr. durham started a book on the history of thunder county. as the history goes, the county has a pretty amazing one. summerville tennessee's forts and settlements were in sumner county. they had many characters, such as thomas spencer, a man of legendier strength who once spent a cold winter alone living -- hollow sick more

sycamore tree. walter durhamas hooked on history. in fact his book would be the first of 24 that he wrote on the local and state history. he wrote books about the history of the thoroughbred racing in tennessee. the tennessee governor, who fought in the war of 1812. he also wrote about james winchester, another veteran of the war of 1812, and a man who co-founded the city of memphis with andrew jackson. and a book about general daniel smith, a u.s. senator and a surveyor who created the first map of tennessee. he wrote a very detailed two-volume history of nashville during the civil war, and those two books were one of the ones he later said he was the most proud of. he also wrote a book called volunteer 49ers, about people

who left tennessee to take part in the virginia gold rush. in fact, tennesseans were some of the first people to hold public office in california. in short, walter durham created an entire shelf of books that people interested in tennessee's history should have in their libraries, and he generously gave the book rights and oceeds to various entities across the state. in addition to writing, he was a long-time member of the tennessee historical society, and he served as its president from 1973 to 1975. he was also the chairman of the tennessee historical commission and the founding president of the tennessee historical alliance now known as the tennessee preservation trust. in 2002, tennessee governor appointed him to the official post of the tennessee state historian. he was appointed by governor

phil breadyson in 2008 to continue to hold this title until his death. two years ago he was awarded the honorary dock rat from tuscaloosa college to commemorate his work on behalf of tennessee's historical significance. he also took time to encourage others. 10 years ago a young man in the tennessee -- in tennessee decided to start an organization to help public schoolteachers teach tennessee history and civics using the internet. his very first endorsement letter was from walter durham. a man who hand wrote, he hand wrote every one of his books in pencil. and these handwritten manuscripts now reside at the vanderbilt library archives. he was also a devoted sunday school teacher at the first united methodist church. e passed away on may 24, 2013. he is survived by his wife, anna

armstrong durham. his wife of 64 years, and his four children and four grandchildren. tennessee and the durham family will miss this great man. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house to be in recess until 2:

>> the house and senate are back to work this week on a government spending bill and housing programs, what can you tell us about the measures being considered? >> well, the first thing to know is that they're very, very different. this is an unusual year in the appropriations process because the house is working from a very much lower figure for the grand total for the bills than the senate is. this is because the house is incorporating these across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration. they're anticipating they continue, whereas the senate is incorporating a section that a deal will be worked out and they're writing a bill for that level. so this transportation and housing bill is a prime example of the choices that are being made when the house works for a

much lower figure. for instance, they really cut community development grants. they cut amtrak subsidies. they're not able to do as much for road and bridge repair. in the senate, the democrats who control the chamber over there, are trying to demonstrate, well, look, our bill will do more to create jobs. it will do more to house people. but what's going on in the mismatch really is just sort of preliminary to a showdown there will happen later this year. >> how unusual is that both chambers are considering both versions of their legislation at the same time? >> well, it's very unusual for the simple point the senate hasn't considered a stand-alone appropriations bill in something like two years. typically the house is supposed to go first, send the bill over, the senate picks it up.

they get all this inside congress stuff. but the facts they're doing it at the same time is really more of a coincidence. >> you mentioned some key issues in the debate. >> well, i think there will be efforts to restore some of the cuts on the house side to things like subsidize housing, amtrak and the like. but, you know, under the rules you need to find money someplace else to replace a cut. and the house measure so sort of starkly written something like 20% or so below the levels that were passed in march. you know, give or take a few percentage points. that it's going to be really hard to move much money rarned -- money around and to create -- or to quote-unquote fix some of the problems people see with

the bill to fix the bill. >> congress is set to start their five-week summer break at the end of this week. what kind of progress are they making on the list of the dozen spending bills that fund the federal government? >> not very much. this will be the fifth one to pass the house. if the senate manages to pass it will be the first. the appropriations process has been going on. they're really kind of marking time. quite frankly, until they figure out some broader budget solution, these bills don't matter much as far as how things will turn out in the end. they're going to need a stopgap measure or a continuing resolution in september, and that's going to be tricky, but i wrote a story last week which suggests that if you hear this talk about a possible government shutdown at the end of september, maybe view that kind of talk skeptically so

far. >> what is the conflict? what spending levels is each far apart ng and how are they? >> as i say, the senate is using an overall cap. remember we're talking about what is known as discretionary spending. this is what congress passes each year to do sort of day-to-day operating budgets. medicare and social security is in a whole different box. and they have chosen a spending level of $1.058 trillion, i believe. and the house is using spending level that's like $91 billion to $92 billion less. and inside that $91 billion or $92 billion, they move money from domestic programs that help the pentagon out. these domestic spending bills like the transportation and housing bill are vastly different depending which chamber is producing them. >> how involved is the obama

administration as congress gets closer to its deadline to getting the spending bills done? >> they don't seem to be very involved, quite frankly. they're anticipating in the fall some kind of -- some sort of catalyst that gets a broader budget negotiation going. now, republicans think they -- the need to raise the debt limit will provide that spark. but the president is going around saying, look, two years ago, which paraphernalia theycally he was getting ready he was anthetically getting ready for re-election, he said you can't pay social security recipients. it's a real economic catastrophe. he is saying he's not going to be held hostage to the threat of catastrophe again. the republicans who control the house and the obama administration and everybody is kind of hoping that as the fall

goes on, they find a way to sort of massage that and you get a negotiation going that gets this budget agreement -- some kind of budget agreement worked out so you can alleviate some of the sequestration cuts do some real budgeting for some of these agencies. >> reporter andrew taylor of the associated press, we thank you for joining us today. >> sure. >> and the house back at 2:00 p.m. eastern. legislative work at 3:00. president obama left washington this morning heading for chattanooga, tennessee. he's speaking at an amazon fulfillment center today. he's expected to announce a new proposal for tying changes in the corporate tax code with increase in education. before the president met, he met with with the former u.s. mbassador to israel.

the three of them spoke with john kerry to reporters at the state department at about noon eastern. here's what they had to say. it's 15 minutes. >> i'm delighted to stand here think it's still morning. i had a ster libby who privilege of knowing for a long time. as all of you know it's taken

an awful lot of work and a long time, a lot of time to reach this new moment of possibility and the pursuit to an end to the israeli-palestinian conflict. it's taken the leadership of president obama who set this process in motion with his historic visit to the region this spring. d then he spoke powerfully about the possibility and necessity of peace, not only to the leaders but also to citizens who overwhelmingly hope for a better future for their children and for their countries, for their peoples. the president's support for our efforts, including his personal engagement with the parties this morning, has been essential. and i thank him for that, and we had a very positive meeting with the president and vice president earlier this morning at the white house. i want to misemphasize that

prime minister netanyahu and president abbas have both demonstrated courageous leadership to bring us here. and i commend them for the tough choices that they made in home.of the politics at i know the path is difficult. there's no shortage of passionate skeptics but with capable, respected northors like the minister and the doctor, standing side by side here today and last night sharing a meal together with all of us, with their efforts, their expertise and their commitment, i'm convinced we can get there. we're here today because the israeli people and the palestinian people both have leaders willing to heed the call of history. leaders who will stand strong in the face of criticism and are right now for what they

know is in their people's best interests. their commitment to make tough choices frankly should give all f us hope that these negotiations actually have a chance to accomplish something. i'm pleased to report that in the conversations we've had last night and again today we've had constructive and ositive meetings, both meetings with the united states president and also with meetings with the parties themselves. the parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues the hey will meet within next two years in either israel areas. alestinian the parties have agreed here

today that all of the final status issues, all of the core issues and all other issues are all on the table for negotiation. and they are on the table with one simple goal, a view to ending the conflict ending the claims. our objective would be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months. the parties also agreed that the two sides would keep the content of the negotiations confident. the only announcement -- confidential. the only announcement about the meetings is the one just made. and i will be the only one authorized to comment publicly on the talks in consultation, obviously, with the parties. that means that no one should consider any reports, articles or other -- or even rumors

reliable unless they come directly from me and i guarantee you they won't. the united states will work continuously with both parties as a facilitator every step of the way. two states living side by side living in peace and security. two states, because two proud people deserve a country to each call their own. two states because the children of both peoples deserve the their ity to realize relidgement as perations and e two -- relidge mat aspirations. and we appreciate the challenges ahead. but even as we look down the difficult road that is before us and consider the complicated choices that we face, we condition lose sight of something that's often forgotten in the middle.

and that is what awaits everybody with success. we need to actually change the way we think about compromise in order to get the success. compromise doesn't mean giving up something or giving something away. reasonable principled compromise in the name of peace means that everybody stands to gain. each side has a stake in the other's success and everyone can benefit from the dividends of feas. we simply wouldn't be standing leaders, president abbas and prime minister netanyahu and their designated negotiators and all of us together didn't believe that we could get there. we can envision a day when palestinians can finally realize their aspirations for a flourishing state of their own, and the ground-making economic initiative that we've been working on with the quartet and

with tony blair and others, with the help of the private sector, can help transform the palestinian economy and build up unprecedented markets and unblocked waves of foreign investment. and we shouldn't forget that the new jobs, the new homes, the new industries that can grow and a new palestinian state will also benefit israelis next door where a vibrant economy will find new partners. we can also envision a day when israelis actually can truly live in peace, not just the absence of conflict, but a full and a lasting peace with arab and muslim nations and end once and for all the pernicious attacks on israel's legitimacy. israel and israelis and palestinians both have legitimate security concerns. our commitment to israel's security is why president obama's administration has done more than any before it to

strengthen our unshakeable bond and why general john allen is on the groundworking to ensure israel's security needs will be met. and i emphasize we have worked very closely with our palestinian friends to help develop palestinian security capacity, and we cannot forget that the security of israel will also benefit palestinians next door. the israeli government has recognized this which is why it will be taking in the next days and weeks a number of steps in order to improve conditions in the west bank and in gaza and the palestinian security forces have recognized this which is why we have seen such a dramatic improvement in law and order and such a dramatic increase in terror attacks originating from the west bank. the israeli and palestinian people understand their common interests, and that's why they

continue to take positive steps on the ground to improve relations between themselves. i also want to point out that the arab league understands this too, which is why it has reaffirmed the arab peace initiative and provided vital statements of support for this process. finally, i just say everywhere i go leaders from around the world understand that they share a stake in this endeavor's success. they all have a role to play, where i is why they have continued to contribute to this effort, to advise, to make commitment of support and to push and advocate and encourage the parties every step of the way. and president obama and i join in thanking all of them for their concern and initiative. so many things are already happening. when somebody tells you that israelis and palestinians cannot find common ground or address the issues that divide them, don't believe them.

just look at the things they are doing together and trying to do together. there are many reasons why we need to solve this conflict, but none more important than the security and the dignity of the next generations of israelis and palestinians, jews, muslims and christians and the generations who will follow them and benefit from hopefully. ations i think everyone involved here believes that we cannot pass along to another generation the responsibility of ending a conflict that is in our power to resolve in our time. they should not be expected to bear that burden, and we should not leave it to them. they should not be expected to bear the pain of continued conflict or perpetual war. so while i understand the skepticism, i don't share it, and i don't think we have time for it. i firmly believe the leaders,

the negotiators and citizens invested in this effort can make peace for one simple reason, because they must. a viable two-state solution is the only way this conflict can end, and there is not much time to achieve it and there is no other alternative. we all need to be strong in our belief in the possibility of peace, courageous enough to follow through on our faith in it and audacious enough to achieve what these two peoples have so long aspired to and deserve. doctor. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, ms. livni. on behalf of president mahmoud abbas, i'd like to extend our deepest appreciation to president barack obama and to you, secretary kerry, for your

lentless efforts and unwavering to commitment toward a lasting peace of veilis and palestinians. palestinians have suffered enough, and no one benefits from this effort more than palestinians. i'm delighted that issues are on the table and will be resolved. without any exceptions and it's time for the palestinian people to have an independent, sovereign state of their own. it's time for the palestinians o live in peace, freedom and dignity within thirne independent, sovereign state. -- their independent, sovereign state. thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, ms. livni. >> thank you. thank you, secretary kerry.

on behalf of prime minister netanyahu, the state of israel, for your determination, for not giving up because you need to know that i think it was our first meeting during this process that you said to me that failure is not an option. nd you proved today that failure is not an option. secretary kerry showed everyone that nothing can stop true believers. and thank you for that. i also want to thank president obama for his personal commitment to peace and to israel's security. the powerful impression left by the president's last visit to israel still remains in the hears of the israeli people. e came here today, the special envoy of president netanyahu, nd myself after use of -- we

came here today from a changing region. we are hopeful, but we cannot be naive. we cannot afford it in our region. we owe to our people to do everything, everything we can for their security and for the hope of peace for future generations. you know, it took more than just a plane ticket to be here today. a courageous act of leadership by prime minister netanyahu that was approved by the veili -- israeli government made these visits here in the beginning of the negotiation possible. we all know that it's not going to be easy. it's going to be hard with ups nd downs, but i can assure you

that these negotiations -- in these negotiations, it's not our intention to argue about the past. but to create solutions and make decisions for the future. you know, saeb, we all spent some time in the negotiations room. we didn't reach a dead end in the past, but we didn't complete our mission. and this is something that we need to do now in these negotiations that we will launch today. and the opportunity has been created for us, for all of us, and we cannot afford to waste it. no, i hope that our meeting today and the negotiations that we have launched today will cause, i hope, a spark of hope, even if small, to emerge out of cynicism and pessimism that is

so often heard. it is our task to work together so that we can transform that spark of hope into something real and lasting. and finally, i believe that history is not made by cynics. it is made by realists who are not afraid to dream. and let us be these people. thank you. >> thank you very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] >> and back on capitol hill today, the house and senate in at 2:00 g back briefly and will return at 3:00 to pick up on the 2014 transportation and spending bill. coming up later this week a bill addressing the doubling of student loans which the senate passed last week. also, a bill this week that would prevent the i.r.s. from implementing any portion of the health care law. we'll have live coverage of the house here on c-span when they return, 2:00 p.m. eastern. also this afternoon, we'll have live coverage of a senate energy and natural resources committee looking at managing nuclear waste. they will hear from among others energy secretary earnest moniz and will be discussing alternatives to the cooling pools that currently hold most of the nuclear waste. that hearing live on c-span3 at 2:30 eastern. well, president obama out of the white house today, but he is heading to chattanooga today to speak on jobs and the economy.

yesterday, civil rights leaders met with the president and the attorney general on the voting rights act. and after that meeting, they spoke with reporters outside of the white house for about half an hour. >> we had a very candid and very significant meeting with the president and the attorney general around voting rights. this is a broad coalition of , vil rights and voting rights organizational heads as well as attorneys and legal groups. our concern was to protect the right of all americans to vote. given the decision of the supreme court in terms of section 4, it was a certain amount of alarm around the country for those of us in voter rights and civil rights and state pledge slators.

and we have been assured by the president and the attorney general they will continue to aggressively fight to protect the rights of all americans to vote. they are open to many of us on the ground to continue to use the voting rights act. it is not dead. we've been greatly encouraged by that. there is a wound in the voting rights act but it is far from dead. it the not even on critical. and we intend to use the information that we have today to ensure our constituents that we intend to aggressively fight to protect those rights in all communities, which is why everyone, the latino, the asian, the black communities

were represented in this meeting today. as we head toward the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and as many of you know we're having a -- not a commemoration march but a continuation march, because we're under assault in many areas. we will emphasize voting and we will launch a huge voter mobilization and voter registration drive on august 24 at that march. and we informed the president and the attorney general of that. but i think the collective, the involved of those and the multiracial and multiethnic -- demonstrated was something that the president oted and i think it was very noted. mayor reed. >> what was clear from the president and with the attorney general is that this administration's commitment to making sure that every american has fair access to the polls

and to the right to vote is total, it is whole and it is absolute. that's really what the conversation centered around. of the historic organizations that are assembled in front of you are prepared to go to work and that we will be doing more education than ever because the bottom line, while there are a number of adverse or tactics being used to undermine the right to vote, if we do our job we will be able to make sure that people maintain access to the ballot and the conversation centered around what is going to need to be done. we're also going to have a partnership with mayors across the united states that partner in a fashion that they have not done with these incredible organizations. because more resources are going to be required in order to set the record for the kind of discrimination that we

believe is a foot in the united states of america. nd we cannot rely on these organizations to respond without being well sourced. >> well, as you can see, there is a broad commitment, an inclusive coalition that is supporting the voting rights act. i was very pleased with the very constructive meeting led by the president and where the attorney general and the new secretary of labor who has been the assistant attorney general for civil rights, tom perez, and there is a broad consensus to support the voting rights act. i want to tell you that one in three latinos live in areas covered by the voting rights act. we're very invested in this and we have worked to support the voting rights act. i have in turn seen broad support by this coalition to together. er -- work

we've marched in alabama together against voter suppression and against the anti-immigration laws and i just think the strength of this coalition represents the strong unity and commitment that everyone must have that right to vote and we're here working together very committed to see that through. >> i'm the president and xecutive director of asian americans for justice. we are all about advancing the right to vote for all americans. it doesn't matter if you've been here five generations or five years. the asian american community is proud and honored. it's part of our commitment. i stand with all of my coalition partners, this is a fight by americans for all americans for all americans' right to vote. >> thank you very much. last week it was at our annual

conference in philadelphia that attorney general holder announced that he was taking action against the state of texas. in today's meeting, there were a number of things that i think are important to emphasize. .