that needs to be accomplished as quickly as possible. i'd point out to the gentleman in conversations that he says it's going to be on suspension. i'll support it on suspension, urge my colleagues to support it on suspension. can the gentleman tell me, however, how long that c.r. will go? that will affect us somewhat. mr. speaker, -- mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say in response to the gentleman, the expected termination, if you will, expiration of the c.r. will be saturday the 18th of january. so giving a week really, mr. speaker, is for the senate to act, because we will be acting next week in the middle of the week, we hope they will finish their business by september -- i mean, january 18. . mr. hoyer: i hope that was another freudian slip of our

confidence to get that done as quickly as we would like. in any event i think that's appropriate and i'm hopeful we can accomplish that. i want to tell the majority leader from my perspective of that -- we don't get that done in the short term, then i would be very reluctant to support continuing resolutions at the level which has now been substituted for the agreement that was reached in the budget, the bipartisan budget agreement. substantial difference as you know in the 302-a allocation, the allocation of discretionary spending. 967 t 1.012 trillion and $ billion so there is a substantial discrepancy between those figures. we reached agreement on the higher number, the senate came

down about 45. the house went up about 45. and reached a compromise. i think america was pleased that we reached a compromise. i would just -- want to be on the record as saying that if we went to longer term c.r.'s i would want to have serious discussions about the level of those c.r.'s in terms of the operations of government. the other issue i wanted to ask the gentleman about, as you know we had a previous question yesterday. that previous question had it been defeated would have allowed the house to consider the extension of unemployment insurance for three months consistent with what the senate has proposed. now the senate has not reached agreement on this issue. but, unfortunately, that has not been considered on the floor this week. as the gentleman knows, 72,000

people a week are losing their unemployment insurance. that adds to the 1.3 million that have already lost their own insurance on december 28. i know it's not listed on your sheet nor did you mention it in your comments on the floor, can the gentleman tell me whether there is any prospect of the unemployment insurance bill coming to this floor? mr. tierney has a bill that he's introduced that i think probably enjoys at this point in time well over 150 democrats, and i think all democrats will sign on to it, and i would hope that we could, together, as we did in the bush administration -- when president bush was president we did it five times, i would hope that we could extend unemployment for those people who are relying on it to put food on their tables. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. just for the record make clear

that the bill or the measure that the gentleman is speaking to is a bill that would extend beyond the more than six months that unemployment benefits insurance is available now. as the gentleman knows, we have been trying to focus this congress on getting back to a more optimistic view of what the economy can do. it is about jobs. it is about growth. our focus is about wanting people to get a job. it's on employment, not unemployment. so i would say to the gentleman if we could work together and try to reject what, unfortunately, has seeming to become the new norm for many, instead let's talk about the things that we do, maybe skills training, those who are

chronically unemployed, frankly, could find a job if they had the skills necessary to do so. we would love to be able to work with the gentleman in a bipartisan fashion to perhaps do those kinds of things. unfortunately, this congress, this house, has passed the skills act and there was no bipartisan support for that. we need to be focused on growing the economy and getting people back to work. and know that there's a lot of pain out there right now. the best response to the pain some are looking for some hope for the future is a job. i would respond to the gentleman we are watching what the senate is doing and i think the reports today indicate that the senate's going to have some difficulty in passing what it was thought to have been an easy thing to pass a few days ago. i would ask the gentleman to join us in looking towards a more optimistic future for this

country and economy and focusing on employment and those who have been chronically out of work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. irst i would say there's nothing to disagree with in what the gentleman has said. we do want to focus on jobs. we do want to focus on creating jobs. we do want to focus on growing the economy. the gentleman is absolutely correct. as a matter of fact as the gentleman knows, he and i have discussed an agenda that democrats have been talking about for 2 1/2 years, and it's called make it in america. that make it in america agenda focuses on manufacturing and growing opportunities in this country for good jobs, for skilled workers and unskilled workers, frankly. but mainly skilled workers in the new manufacturing environment in which we find ourselves. that ought to be our long-term objective.

but i would say very candidly, mr. speaker, we ought not in the short term forget those who have been deeply damaged by the economic dislocation that has occurred in our society, in our country and frankly globally over the past five years. actually starting in december of 2007. we ought not to forget those people because while a future investment is very interesting to them, and i'm sure important to them, their critical interest in putting food on their table today, tomorrow, and the next day. and i think the richest country on the face of the earth can do both. i tell the gentleman. and i think that we ought to do both. and we have done both in the past. now, we had some job figures

that were out today. apparentlyly -- aparnle 84,000 jobs, 87,000 jobs in the private sector, that's not enough. we lost 13,000 in the public sector, apparently, for a net of 74,000 appreciation of jobs. that's not nearly enough. the gentleman would agree, i know, to solve the problem we have. the gentleman talks about the skills act. that bill would freeze the work investment act frame punding for fiscal year 2014 to 2020. so we would make no more investment in doing what the gentleman has said we want to do. it has already been cut by half since 2001. and would also consolidate or eliminate 35 programs, most of them work incentivize programs to state block grants they could spend on things of their choice. i'm not saying some states wouldn't make good choices.

i think they would. other states would make different choices and we may or may not agree with those, but i certainly tell the gentleman, he and i have had the opportunity talking together, the make it in america agenda or jobs agenda or whatever that agenda is called is certainly something we ought to pursue. let me transition if i might, mr. leader, to talk about another issue which analysis of almost every economist and the congressional budget office says will help grow the economy and that is comprehensive immigration reform. we continue to believe that that's one of the most important issues that this congress and this second session of the congress ought to deal with. can the gentleman indicate whether there is any possibility of either as i said in weeks past bringing four, the four bills that came out of the judiciary committee or the border security bill that came

out of the homeland security committee. i might say unanimously. none of those five bills has been brought to the floor. the speaker said just the other day, and i quote, i'm trying to find some way to get this thing done. thing being immigration reform. he said, as you know, it's not easy. not going to be an easy path forward but i have made it clear since the day after the election it's time to get this done. the speaker said that on november 13, 2013, a couple months ago. we are very, very hopeful that the speaker will pursue that. the house will pursue that, and the majority leader will put on the floor legislation on which we can act. we may or may not agree with the legislation brought to the floor, but we think it needs to be given attention consistent with speaker boehner's observation and c.b.o.'s assertion that that would have a substantially positive effect on growing the economy and creating jobs.

i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. if i could just revisit the issue of the skills act. the gentleman speaks to the amount of money called for in the bill, and i would say to the gentleman the thrust behind the skills act was to try and refocus the program on actual effectiveness and results. i think the gentleman will agree that the job picture right now is not as bright as it should be. as i indicated earlier, a lot of the folks who are trying to access skills training are unable to do so. there's evidence that the existing programs are not results oriented like we'd like them to be. and the purpose is behind that bill to realign the focus of the skills and training programs across the country with job availability and openings in the different regions of the country. so rather than insisting on spending more money on a

one-size-fits-all washington approach, we provided for the flexibility for the regions so it could be tailored, the training programs could be tailored to the job openings in these specific regions of the country. and they are different. they are different in my region of the country than they are in the pacific northwest. they are different in the midwest than they are in the northeast. we know that there's diverse knit this country and we should allow for those differences and the improvement reforms necessary to make it so that we are not accepting the status quo. so i would ask the gentleman to take a look at that again as something that perhaps we could work on together. and i would also say again the jobs numbers, the gentleman is completely correct that these job numbers, this latest report this morning, reflect the lowest number of jobs added since january of 2011.

that doesn't speak well about the track record of what's going on here. so let's focus on jobs together. and as for the question about immigration, mr. speaker, i think the gentleman's right. immigration reform could be an economic boon to this country. we've got to do it right f and along those thrines -- right. and along those lines the speaker has said we are going to look for the release of a list of principles of our position in the majority here in the house of what we believe is an appropriate path forward for immigration reform. there are plenty things we can agree on. as the gentleman knows, i have been a strong proponent of the kids act, the working with the chairman of the committee on. because i think all of us can agree in a we shouldn't hold kids liability for the misdeeds

-- libel for the misdeeds or illegal acts of their parents. this country has never been about that. there are pent of things like that. strong border security and making sure that occurs first so we don't see a continuing problem of illegal immigration. i think there are plenty of areas for agreement. hopefully, mr. speaker, we can see after the release of a set of principles much our side that there could be some productive discussions, bipartisan, with the white house so that it is not my way or the highway and that we can see a proper way forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the leader, mr. speaker, for his comments. certainly we are not proponents of my way or the highway. and we are glad and i believe hopefully the majority is not either, briefly on the skills act we have legislation, of course, on our side of the aisle, a number of of legislation, which deal with training, job skills, and we

are certainly prepared to work on those. unfortunately as the gentleman knows, that bill passed out in a partisan way. there were two democrats who voted for it. partisan way, but i am certainly willing to work with the gentleman and i think our side of the aisle is willing to work with the gentleman to invest and to get give flexibility so that we can recognize, obviously, what may be needed in my district or the gentleman from virginia's district is different from the district in washington state or california or texas or florida or maine. so that i want to assure the gentleman we are prepared to work on that. lastly, but not lastly but can i ask you when those principles that you talked about might be expected? because i think that would be a very positive step forward. but in my view if we wait long comprehensive immigration reform will not get accomplished as i believe it should be in the next few

months. i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the -- there is an expectation that the list of principles will be released in the near future. hat's about as definite as i can be. again the sense is that there is common agreement on certain issues. i think that there are, unfortunately, thus far, given the track record around this town, very little room for discussion, negotiations, and hopefully this could be different. but thus far, mr. speaker, all i can say is we are looking for the release of those principles in the near future. . mr. hoyer: we welcome moving ahead on the omnibus. we think that's very critical. we hope that we can address the unemployment insurance issue. not as a substitute for focusing on growing jobs and growing the economy, essential,

t as recognition that some 1.3 million people, growing by 72,000 people a week, are in deep distress and we want to help them. we think that's the right thing to do. and we think america can do both, grow the economy and help the who have been hurt by rundown or the decrease in the availability of jobs available. and, lastly, i might say that we also hope that we can get to immigration reform as quickly as possible and we look forward to seeing those principles. and unless the gentleman wants me to yield i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next, when it

shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, although the healthcare.gov website launch was a severe disappointment, an even greater concern has been expressed concerning the website's security vubblenerblets, including the security of personal and medical information. what's most concerning is that it appears to be more important for this administration to avoid political fallout than to conduct a thorough evaluation of the website's security. unfortunately it has become very clear that the rushed implementation of the launch has affected the site's ability to perform on both accounts. mr. speaker, if the administration wants the

confidence of the american people, they should make every effort to ensure private information is kept private. the bill we passed today would with significant bipartisan support, the health -- today, with significant bipartisan support, the health exchange and security act, would make sure individuals knew if their personal information was stolen or unlawfully accessed through an obama exchange. this is a simple, commonsense reform that will go a long way to help stem the fears that americans have with the online exchanges and the security of their personal information. mr. speaker, the american people deserve as much. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entleman from california rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, in southern california and across the midwest, 2013 was another year of extremely dry conditions. and as of today, snowpack in

the sierra nevada mountain range, which is our water storage facility, is well below its seasonal average. in 2011 and 2012, drought and heat waves cost the united states more than $90 billion in economic damages. further evidence of the economic harm we're enduring, due to climate change and increasingly extreme weather. 2012 saw the worst drought in the country in 50 years with more than 80% of the country designated a drought disaster area, affected by late november. mr. peters: since the year 2000, there have been nine droughts that have each cost more than $1 billion in damages. research from the scripts institution of oceanography has shown that in san diego the main effects of climate change are rising sea levels, more intense wildfires and increased pressure on water supplies. it's time to get serious about climate change so that we can protect our scarce water resources that hydrate our

farms and our families. mr. speaker, i yield back and go chargers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize indiana's outstanding first responders and emergency management officials because when times truly get tough, we rely on them to protect our loved ones, neighbors and friends and we rely on them to save lives. this past week a nearly unprecedented wave of frigid temperatures and snow bore down on the hoosier state. in madison county, indiana, wind chills plummeted to nearly 40 degrees below zero. mrs. brooks: more than a foot of snow made roads unpassable and at one point there were more than 70,000 power outages in our state. and schools actually remain closed each today, for the entire week. thankfully hoosiers were able to rely on a coordinated and

effective response from government officials, first responders, utility providers and volunteers. they relied on our national guard which stepped up to assist in clearing roads. they relied on police officers and fire fighters who went door to door. they relied on the red cross which set up numerous emergency shelters in. in indianapolis they relied on the mayor's action center which took more than 10,000 calls to address their concerns. it's times like these when we're reminded how much we rely on our emergency management people. we rely on them to be ready and they always answer the call. and we are so grateful. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, less than two weeks ago, more than a million americans lost access to

unemployment insurance benefits. another 3 1/2 million will be impacted if we don't act, if congress doesn't act. american families will lose that tiny amount of money, that small amount of money that keeps food on the table for millions of americans. mr. cardenas: as unemployment -- has unemployment decreased or increased? well, it's increased a bit. but unfortunately unemployment is still too high for the people of the san fernando valley and many places around our country. californians have already lost more than $64 million in unemployment income, just in this past week. this is unacceptable. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of americans struggling to buy food for their families. and unfortunately the budget that was passed recently did just that. we must act now and pass an unemployment insurance extension bill immediately. we need to continue the

opportunity for these millions of american families to be able to put food on the table. that is the america that we grew up in and that's the america that we have to figure out how to keep going forward. extension of unemployment insurance occurred under president w. bush, continues under this president, obama, but this congress needs to act to make sure we continue now. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today i come to the floor to honor the life and legacy of an icon. a poet who died yesterday in hits hometown of new -- in his hometown of newark, new jersey, at the age of 79. born during a time when racial intelligences were at their -- tensions were at their peak, he ed poetry to empower and

enlighten. mr. payne: he eventually found the black arts movement of the 1960's and 1970's in newark and around the country and received countless awards for his contributions to the arts. my father and he atended the same high school and i'll never forget, as a youngster, hearing his poetry and recognizing the power of his written words he had over a person, regardless of race, age or gender. he was not only a poet, he was an activist. in 1969 he organized the black and puerto rican convention which brought those communities together at a time when it looked bleak. he also was one of the main organizers and the keynote speaker of the 1972 convention in gary, indiana. his profound words were influential, as many searched

for meaning in some of the most troubling struggles of our times. like civil rights, war, oppression and poverty. my heartfelt condolences goes out to the entire family, including my former colleague, newark city councilman, and his brother, who i've come very close to over the course of the past four or five years. to their mother, what has brought me in as almost a son as well, my deepest sympathy. i know where you are, i have been there shortly, just a while ago, but let me know, today, the nation is in deep mourning at his passing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013,

gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: sometimes people say, gee, if you're back here in texas, you ought to be in washington, in session. and i have to remind them that when we're in session, it is often the single biggest threat to american liberty because when we're in session we pass laws. and most every law in some way impacts people's liberty. one way or another. for good or bad.

but so often anymore we think we know so much more here in washington, that we can do so much better than others. and of course that message is not helped by ignorance in the media, particularly left-wing and so many in the mainstream. i, mr. speaker, spoke a couple of days ago here about a real burden on my heart for women who are lured into ruts by promises of money by the federal government, lured into dependence and how that's immoral for a government to do that. the government's not supposed to encourage or lure people into conduct that is not helpful to the individual. the government is supposed to be about encouraging good conduct, but if you do evil,

then you should be afraid of the government because, as roman says, god doesn't give the sword to the government in vain. that's the point, that we should not be about encouraging or paying people to engage in conduct that is hurtful to them. and yet ignorance in the left wing of our media is so pervasive that you could actually have people write stories saying i was here blaming single moms. i mean, it's either ignorance or just complete dishonesty of people that want to destroy the very fabric and foundation of this country. because of their ill will for all that's good and wholesome. why would they want to protect into em that lures people

prevents them from reaching their god-given potential? i realize some of them don't believe there is a god and that's problematic because since the founders believed that we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you don't believe there's a creator, it creates a problem because then you have to think that government is the sole source of your rights. and if that's the case you really have no rights. . as c.s. lewis pointed out after being an atheist to being a believer in some god, universal authority of right and wrong, f you don't believe that, then

there's -- there can be no justice, no right, no wrong. if there's not a universal standard. so it's releague on some government to establish what's right and not an innate sense instilled in us by some high hope of n there's no most people of ever having rights and freedoms and liberties as we have had in this country. which may explain as we become more and more secular there are becoming fewer and fewer liberties. less and less privacy. the government now, especially looking at obamacare, it invades every room in the house. it used to be that our liberal friends here in the house complained repeatedly if they thought a republican bill might in some way invade some room in the house. and yet without a single

republican vote the democrats passed through a law that invades every room in the house. am a big fan of mark r. levin, and i don't know that there is a better synopsis that could be a better textbook for people to learn about our founding history than the book, "liberty and tyranny." i guess the reason "libertyy and tyranny" could never be a textbook for some government class would be that it cost less than $20 and in order to be a textbook some professor normally has to make $100, $200, $300 a book or it's not going to be utilized or some left wing source has to be the one providing the book and profiting or it doesn't get used. "libertyy and tyranny" has so

many incredible jewels as i have read from here on the floor numerous times. but in mark's last book, there are things that we need to be reminded of that is brilliant -- i don't know anybody knows more about the history of the supreme court than mark, a brilliant man when it comes to our law, our constitution, our supreme court. but he mentions in here, he draws so much from our history and throws it back in our faces so that we can't miss it, but mark points out the nation has entered an age of post constitutional soft tyranny. and then he quotes from french thinker, philosopher alex detocqueville as he explained presciently, quote, it covers the surface of a society with a

network of small complicated rules. minute and uniform through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. the will of man is not shattered but softened, bent, and guided. men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. it does not tir nies, but it compression -- tirianize, but it compresses, distinguishes, stupefies a s -- people until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid, industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd. some people don't like to be beat up by the left wing as i

apparently do, they don't want to be pointing these things out and so i know that apparently we've got republican staffers helping senators who think that the things in this book are not worth spreading around the country. but this is our history. you don't learn your history how can you ever figure out the best way to go forward? i am a big fan of the comments of satchel paige, incredible baseball player, but some great lines that he came up with. i guess baseball's answer to will rogers. he's often quoted for saying, don't look back, they may be gaining on you. but i read that later in life he had a quote that i like even better. satchel paige reportedly said, it's ok to look back.

just don't stare. i majored in history. i think it is good to look back as the old adage goes, those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. some follow-up and say those who do learn from history will find new ways to screw up, but that's another lesson. mark goes on in the liberty amendments and says, detocqueville observed further, quote, it would seem as if the rulers of our time sought only to use men in order to make things great. i wish they would try a little more to make great men that they would set less value on the work and more upon the workmen. that they would never forget that a nation cannot long remain strong when every man belonging to it is individually weak. and that no form or combination

of social polity has yet been devised to make an energetic eople out of a community enfebled citizens. that's end quote. today congress operates not as the framers intended but in the shadows where dreams up its most notorious and oppressive laws, coming into the light only to trumpet the genius and earnestness of its goings on and enable members to cast their votes. he goes on and says, congress also and often delegates unconstitutionally lawmaking power to a gigantic, ever growing administrative state that in turn unleashes on society myriad regulations and rules at such a rapid rate that people cannot possibly know of them, either and if by chance

they do, they cannot possibly comprehend them. nonetheless, ignorance which is widespread and deliberately so is no excuse for noncompliance. for which the citizen is heavily fined and severely unished. this is really a great synopsis of where we are. congress thinks we know better. the president thinks he knows better. and some of this woos started before the republican -- last republican president left office. ith tarp, what a disaster. you can never achieve greatness if you do not have the same opportunity to fail. if -- the tight rope you're walking to achieve something on the inary is sitting

ground, then there's no risk. here's nothing great achieved. and yet this government wants to put such restrictions on people that they can never reach the greatness, they can never reach as high as the rass might go. i love this part in mark's book, and i realize it may bother not only the left wing republican senate staffers, but having delegated, this is mark, having delegated broad lawmaking power to executive branch departments and agencies of its own creation, contravening the separation of powers doctrine, congress now watches as the president inflates the -- ressional delegation's

delegations even further in defiance of or over the top of the same congress that sanction add domineering executive branch in the first place. notwithstanding congress' delinquency but because of it t. and unquenched president in a hurry to expedite a societal makeover has repeatedly admonished congress that, quote, if it won't act soon to protect future generations, i will. unquote. that is if congress will not genuflect to his demands to pass laws to his liking will he act on his own. and the president has made good on his refrain on a growing list of matters he's displayed an impressive aat this tude for imperial rule with the help of filings and policy czar from immigration, the environment, labor law, to health care,

welfare, and energy. the president exercises his executive discretion to create new law, abrogating existing law, and exploit legal ambiguities as a means to his ends. he's also declared the senate in recess when it was not. thereby bypassing the senate's constitutional advice and consent role to install several partisans in top federal posts. today this is glorified and glamourized as compassionate progressivism. the framers called it, despotism. and here's what makes mark's book so great, he goes right to the source quotes federalists 48 by james madison, most people give more credit to madison for the constitution getting specifically written an other people, but madison

wrote, quote, an elective despotism was not the government we fought for but one which should not only be founded on free principles but on which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of madgistry as no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually blocked and checked, restrained by the others. he cites, this is mark, cites federal 78 by alexander hamilton. quote, whoever attentive ty considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which there are separated from each other the judiciary from the nature of its functions will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the

constitution because it will be leased in a capacity to annoy or injure them. this is a founder saying that the supreme court that we must now all bow and scrape to as they rewrite the constitution in their own image, like some mount olympus, the founders said they are the least dangerous because they are going to have the least power to quote, annoy or injure, unquote. la vin goes on, yet having -- levin goes on, the final word on all matters before it, the supreme court with just five of internine members can impose the most far-reaching and breathtaking rulings on the whole of society for which there is no recourse. and my copy of mark's book's falling apart. still good stuff. he also says in the liberty

amendments, what was to be a relatively innocuous federal government operating from a defined enumeration of specific grants of powers become an ever present and unaccountable force. it's the nation's largest -- this is so scary. but mark puts it so well. talking about the federal government. it's the nation's largest reditor, debtor, lender, mployer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health care provider, and pension guarantor. with their agra diesed police powers what it does not control directly it bans or mandates by regulation. for example, the federal

government regulates most things in your bathroom, laundry room, kitchen, as well as the mortgage you hold on your house. it designs your automobile and dictates the kind of fuel it uses. it regulates your baby's toys, crib, and stroller, blans your children's school curriculum and lunch menu and administers their student loans in college. at your employs -- at your place of employment the federal government oversees everything from the racial gender and age diversity of the work force to the hours, wages, and benefits paid. indeed the question is not what the federal government regulates but what it does not regulate. . and it makes you wonder, how can a people incapable of selecting their own light bulbs and toilets possess enough confidence -- competence to vote for their own rulers and fill out complicated tax returns?

he also points out, the federal government governments nearly 25% of all goods and services produced each year by the american people. that should, if people will wake up, it should begin to scare them because if the federal government is the largest consumer, just on that alone, it has the power to bankrupt companies, to make companies, and then you start running into the horrible constitution that we rubber stamp, may have helped put together, over in afghanistan, where they so centralized the power in the federal government that the president in afghanistan gets to appoint governors, gets to appoint mayors, gets to appoint police chiefs, appoints the highest level of teachers, appoints many of the a slate of the part

of the legislator, has tremendous powers of the purse, and you wonder why that country is about to fall as soon as we pull out? when we were complicit in a constitution that on its face should have told people, this government thunderstorm constitution is doomed to -- under this constitution is doomed to fail and to fall back into taliban hands and that's exactly what's about to happen. we should have known better than to help afghanistan and be complicit in a constitution that does what our founders says should never be done for a federal government. but when we have lost the lessons of our founding, such to congress allows power be totally usurped by the supreme court or by an executive branch, and the

american people do not rise up and condemn the comments by a leader in the senate who says, what right does the house have to say how the money is spent? that ought to be enough to have a recall election, if a leader in the senate doesn't even know why the house of representatives is supposed to have an extremely loud voice in how the money is spent, and in fact any bill that raises revenue must start in the house. which, same senate leaders did not -- which the same senate leaders did not understand or perhaps they understood and tried to tap dance around, but since the supreme court and chief justice roberts rewrote the obamacare, the unaffordable care act, because it's certainly not affordable, it's

costing so many people in my district, republicans, democrats, independents, party doesn't matter when it comes to obamacare, seniors that i visit with, in retirement homes and communities, are scared because they are realizing and they're finding out, gee, obamacare cuts $716 billion from reimbursing health care providers for care we were going to get. and they're starting to figure out that even though they were assured, oh, you don't have to worry, you're not going to be affected, you're not going to lose any health care because this is only cutting what we reimburse health care providers , seniors are smart folks. they've been around a while. and they're figuring out, wait a minute, you cut $700 billion out of reimbursement for our health care providers with obamacare, really? and you think we're not going to figure out that that means

we're not going to get the treatment we need, we're going to be told we can't have the knee replacement we need or the hip replacement we need because we're too old? or we got put on some list for an exorbitant amount of time which means you're hoping we'll die before we get the treatment or help we need, as often happens in england and canada and other places with totally government-run health care. this single-payer, that is such a misnomer. it is government-run private lives instead of single-payer, it is government, it is the g.r.e., government running everything. because when the government can tell you what care you can have and not have, they control your life and they control how quickly your life will come to an end. t is wrong, it is so against the foundation, the principles

pon which we were founded. our brilliant friend says, what was to be a relatively innocuous federal government, i just want to re-emphasize this, operating from a defined imnume ration of specific agencies -- agents of power has become an ever present and unaccountable force. i want to reiterate that because the problem that we see repeatedly now is when someone presides over death of people entrusted to their care and protection, they can stand up and say, what difference at this point does it make? so they died. what difference does it make? -- make why they died, how they died? a libyan acquaintance a few weeks ago said, you guys in the united states, congress,

washington, are asking the rong question. who killed ambassador chris stevens, sean smith and our two former navy seals, who killed them? who killed glen daugherty, who killed ty woods? who blew off much of the leg of david? i think it's a legitimate question. ut this libyan man i met said, you keep asking in america who killed these people, you ought to be asking why they were killed. that's certainly an important question. and i know our former secretary of state said, what difference at this point does it make, but i think this libyan man's right. we need to be asking why were they killed.

and it certainly wasn't about a video and i know we've got some newspapers that are losing viewership so -- or readership so they're trying as best they can before people completely quit reading it to help their next candidate for president. i get that. i understand. but the fact is these were radical islamists, al qaeda-related people in the group, there was never a demonstration, it was an attack from the very beginning, just as chris stevens called it and greg hicks pointed out, we're under attack. there was no indication of a demonstration about some stupid video. they were under attack. and it was predicted, it was talked about. some in egypt were saying, if blind 't release the sheik who was complicit and in prison for the murder of new

yorkers as they tried in 1993 to bring down the world trade centers, they were saying, you got to start with releasing the blind sheik. there's going to be violence. it wasn't about a video, for oodness sakes. when the government consumes 25% of everything produced in america, the government is too big, it needs to be reduced in size, powers need to be returned to the states from which they were usurped. we need to give more power and control back to the local government. we got people screaming about minimum wage. it is outrageous for people in in town to tell somebody texas what they have to pay,

that they have to go to $10 or $15 for minimum wage. it's outrageous. some places in the country, that may not be enough as the bottom line and isn't and people are being paid more than that. but for teenagers like i was when i started working, actually before i was a teenager, started working, but started paying into social security i guess when i was 13 is a but a minimum wage great place to start. when i went to work as an assistant district attorney for the counties i was getting paid $700 a month. that's what they could afford. and i was able to live at home and work for that. helped those counties.

the closer to the facts on the ground is the control of a government, then the better the government. when the federal government here in washington dictates school programs, school tests, it's just wrong. and this isn't an issue of republican or democrat, i had this discussion with president bush's secretary of education, because she was violating the constitution, because education is not a power within the constitution. therefore under the 10th amendment, it's reserved to the states and people. she said, well, if you liked what i was doing in austin, you ought to love what i'm doing in washington. i said, no, when you were in austin you were doing -- you were acting within the confines of the constitution. and now that you're here in

washington, you're acting beyond the constitution. and you're mandating people teach to a test. ought to go to glade -- you ought to go to glade water, texas, with me and go to a special needs school there where they got over 120 precious lives. and when one of them for a good day can touch something, point to something, shine -- point to something shiny, to have a federal bureaucrat dictate the kind of test that needs to be given or in tyler at the st. louis school where i met a young man, special needs young man, and their goal for the end of the year was if he could put his fork in a piece of food and get it to his mouth. but because the federal government intervened, because they didn't know that special

needs young man, and because they didn't know the kids there in glade water at that precious school, they dictate. the secretary of education said, you can get an alternative test. yeah, and you know what kind of alternative test? got to prove for that young man that we're trying to teach to be himself, they wouldn't able to approve him feeding himself, but they could approve if he pointed to a picture with food on it, he could pass his test. thank you so much, federal government. and that's what we've had with so many of these programs that were intended well. you want to help a single mom, i want to help a single mom with a dead beat dad, not helping at all. but the best way to do it is not to lure them into a rut from which they cannot extricate themselves. the better policy is to help

them get a high school paloma. they're better off with daycare than with a handout that encourages them to have more and more children out of wedlock. i'm not blaming the single moms, i'm blaming the federal government for creating a has that after 50 years taken our nuclear homes that were the backbone of this between nd gone from 6% and 7% of children being born to a single mom in the 1960's and because of this government's well-intentioned ut ridiculously stupid program , we now have over 40% of children being born to single oms, heading toward 50%.

it's wrong-headed when a government does not help. i spent some precious time out at texas college in tyler. one of the oldest colleges in texas. and it was started as an african-american college. and i used to wonder, you know, i'm looking forward -- martin luther king jr. said to the day, when people are judged by the content, the character, not the color of their skin. i'm looking forward to the day when race is not on a form anybody feels out cause it doesn't matter. it doesn't make any difference. i'm looking forward to that day. but i've learned a lot from texas college, because i've en young african-americans

repeatedly, i've met african-americans who are the first in their family to go to college. it's a great step. it's a great place to start, to break through that ceiling that has kept people in poverty. with t with and visited a combined sociology class sometime ago and talked about this issue of the federal government wanting to help but instead luring young single moms into holes they can't get out of. many do but many can't. and i asked them for advice, and there were single moms there and i was shocked with some of the suggestions they said. they said, you need to have a

aid for dependent children. you need to have a drug test on any kind of welfare. you need to have a work requirement on any kind of welfare. that was a tough group. they said you're not doing enough to push people to reach their potential. and then when you meet and talk with single moms, african-americans that got lured into a rut, and by the grace of god they are trying to get out of that. they're trying to get some college and improve themselves and reach their potential, but they feel like the government lured them into a rut. now they're trying desperately to get out of. we owe them better. we owe them a system that doesn't lure them into holes but helps them reach for the sky. so maybe it would have been better in the 1960's to help with daycare if somebody has a child, single mom has a child

because we know from study after study you got a better chance of having a successful life if you finish high school. so why not have that as a goal instead of luring people into having more and more children? he people that i had to face for felony welfare fraud, some may think is a racial issue. what i say wasn't at all. , every color people got lured into this. the government should not have ystems that do that. there's another profound den has that markle in this book.

and he points out, and i'm quoting. the individual's liberty exi can trickably linked to his -- inextricably linked to his property is a government that's aggregating authority and mploding simultaneously. answer?n is the ain, alexus looks to guidance. the constitutional convention some 50 years afterward, it's new in the history of society -- and this is a quote -- it's new in history of society to see a great people turn a calm and scrutinizing eye poff itself when apprised by the legislature that the wheels of its government are stopped to see it carefully examine the extent of the evil and

patiently wait two whole years into a remedy is discovered to which it voluntarily submitted without it costing a tear or a drop of blood from mankind. hat's a profound book. levin quotes madison in federalist 14. in the first place, it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects which concern all the members of the republic but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. unquote. then in federalist 45, he insists, quote, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are

numerous and indefinite. in federalist 45, madison asserted that, quote, the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formedible to those reserved to the -- formidable to those reserved to the individual states as necessary to accomplish the purposes of the union. and all those alarms which have been sounded of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the state governments must -- on the most favorable interpretation be ascribed to the fears of the authors of them. this is a great book. there's just so much wonderful history from our united states istory that deserves further looking. library should have the book if eople want to read it.

because we're not thinking and there this town are negotiations ongoing with ran about nuclear weapons, whose leaders have called us the great satan that need to be destroyed, called israel the little satan that needs to be destroyed and they have missiles that can put nuclear weapons on top of israel for its destruction, creating a new holocaust. millions of lives could be lost, but as our friend, prime minister netanyahu points out, they're building and they've created intercontinental ballistic missiles. he's trying to wake the united states up, netanyahu is, and he's saying, they don't need those to take out israel. they got missiles to take us

out. these intercontinental ballistic missiles are for the united states, they call the great satan, and its leaders believe that under their interpretation of prophecy from imman an that the 12th can emerge or will emerge from chaos and they believe it can be nuclear chaos and so by creating nuclear bombs and setting them off israel, the united states, little satan, great satan, they can hasten the return of the 12th emadam to rule over the global -- imman to rule over the global caliphate and when someone thinks those thoughts, we need to take out anywhere they're producing nukes. we have the power and ability to do it and everybody, including russia and china needs to understand if we don't take them out they could be

launched at russia and china because they're led by infidels, iran's way of thinking, just like the u.s. and israel are to their way of thinking. and so january 7, an article in "the blaze," sharona schwartz says, an iranian official says his country needs a nuclear bomb in order to, quote, put israel in its place, unquote. quote, we don't aspire to obtain a nuclear bomb but it is necessary so we can put israel in its place, unquote. of course, there are plenty of quotes from their leaders that the proper place for israel is wiped off the map. after arriving in new york, the article points out, rouhani,

the new president, was contacted by an unspecified white house official. and this is from the parliament member in iran, muhammed nabavian. quote, i assembled the delegation accompanying me and we decided not to meet with obama. on tuesday afternoon after the press conference, they said to me, why did you humiliate obama in america? and i said, there was no humiliation. here i recall the words of khomeini is one must humiliate the infidel leaders, recalling his description of the events. it is very important that the leaders in this country, cluding our president, realize that to these religious fanatic nuts, he is an infidel leader, we are infidel leaders

and we're worthy of being humiliated and as the leaders of the great satan we're worthy of being destroyed. that must be understood. and what has come about as radical islamic -- and i'm very careful about that despite some of the -- more ignorant in the left wing would say and the left-wing media, we don't have to fear moderate muslims. and i'm talking about the kind of moderate muslims i've befriended in egypt and afghan who are the enemy of my enemy, who are the enemy of the united states' enemy, who are the enemy of israel, our ally. we can work with them. just as is happening in egypt right now where moderate muslims were sickened by the

muslim brotherhood's burning of churches, killing of christians, persecution of christians. that's something that former president morsi's on trial for and the interim president right now is a former judge that we had some things in common as we spoke not long ago there in egypt. and yet as the odds are getting stacked farther and higher against israel's existence and as we are demanding israel give away more of its land as palestinianian leaders continue to say -- palestinian leaders continue to say they're not agreeing to anything, they're not agreeing for israel's right to exist as a jewish nation, as a place where the jews can avoid another holocaust like in world war ii, they are not even willing to recognize that.

how can there ever be peace? as i said personally to the palestinians' former prime minister, how can you expect peace when you won't even recognize israel's right to xist as a jewish nation? so they want israel to keep giving away more and more land and every time -- going back to , e very inception of israel 1,000, 1600, 1,800 years before the founding of israel, going back that early, anytime they have given away land to buy peace, that land is used as a staging land in which to attack it. and i hope they're about thrown that lesson. so what do we have going on here in the united states now? well, carolyn glick has a great column, column left, "the left

against zion." she talks -- and this is from december 19. she says this week has been a win, a big one for the anti-israel movement. n the space of two days, two quasi--academic associations, the native american and indigenous studies association have launched boycotts against israeli universities. their boycotts follow a similar one announced in april by the asian studies association. these acts -- the groups' actions have not taken place in isolation. they are at peace for ever-escalating acts of anti-israel agitation in college campuses throughout the united states. and i would interject, it is sickening and incredible to me to see anti-semitism growing just the way it did before the 1930's and 1940's when over six

llion jews were mercilessly, brutally killed and we're seeing it arise. when i learned about the holocaust and when i've been to germany, i've learned and read and seen, i could never imagine -- thank god we could never have that happen during my lifetime and now i'm seeing anti-semitism, anti-israel, of people wanting to wipe them off the map, of those who are proposing another holocaust and then we have pseudo intellectual wannabes at universities where they no longer allow true die versity of thought and -- diversity of thought and discussion that made them originally great, which allowed them originally to have liberals there get in arge and now they cut off so often conservative speech.

. it used to be at universities, even as conservative as texas a&m was when i was there, we had many liberal speakers. and i enjoyed meeting and debating with some of them. some of the greats in the country. and now even at texas a&m, they're careful not to invite people that are too conservative because you don't want to tick off the faculty senate. like most universities, have gotten very, very liberal. but in this article, every week brings a wealth of stories about new cases of aggressive anti-israel activism. at the university of michigan last week, thousands of students were sent fake eviction notices from the university's housing office. a pro-palestinian group distributed them in dorms across campus to disseminate the blood liable that israel is carrying out mass expulsions of palestinians. a leftist anti-israel jewish

students who control hillel are insisting on using the good offices to disseminate and legitimate anti-israel slanders nd the left's instistence that israel is the root of all evil is not limited to campuses. 92nd street y, a man was booed and hised by the audience for trying to explain why the a.s.a.'s just announced boycott of israel was an be a seen act of bigotry. it's a great arlt. don't have time to read it all. but she points out that this week harvard law professor retired after 50 years on the law faculty. his exit, the same week as the a.s.a. and the naisa, announced their boycotts of israeli universities symbolized the marginalization of the pro-israel left that the man

represented. for years he has been a nonentity and left -- in leftist circles. his place at the table was .surped by anti-israel jews the progression is unmistakable. and people need to wake up and understand, this kind of thing has all happened before. and when people don't recognize it, it happens again in history. and god help us that it doesn't happen while our generation is in charge. but as these growing acts of anti-semitism, anti-israel continue to progress by so it d progressives, making

seem as if this is another apartheid like in south africa, that was so unfair, racially so wrong in south africa, it got corrected. this is not the same thing. at all. this is a group of people who have been persecuted throughout heir history, having a country where they have a longer history of right to that area than any other people existing today. and yet as universities, the so-called left, become more loud and more vocal in their , tred and anger, i wondered if iran dropped a nuke on jerusalem or tel aviv, if iran illed a million jews in israel

, have those leftists, those anti-semitic, anti-israel folks at universities, have they gotten so far from decency that they would applaud israelis, jews being killed by the millions in israel? i wonder. i wonder if there would be a reaction like there has been in history, like there was in germany when jews were being killed. well, they deserve it, they were the problem in this country. rationalization is a great thing and it's a dangerous thing. people who were in germany, who lived through the holocaust don't want to talk about if --

it because they cannot believe that they got sucked in to that group dynamic that allowed them to be so inhuman and so calloused that they didn't care about the extinction of jews in germany. and i really don't know the nswer, if these anti-israeli groups in universities that like to think they're diverse, nd yet they come after and destroy anybody that attempts to debate them, would they cheer if jews and israelis were killed? by iran? i hope they'll wake up to what's happening at these universities. but here again, love of money can be the root of all evil and we see universities across this country getting more and more money from middle eastern countries that say, hey, and by the way, you need to teach a

course on islamaphobia or at least have a seminar, talking about anybody that raises issues about radical islam, you in "the e author washington times of," hussein, that just lied completely about things i'd said. just lied. made stuff up. didn't do his homework. and yet those kind of things are being talked about and taught at universities. we got to get back to having real debate. some people think when i get upset, you know, it means i hate somebody. i don't. i come from a family where we fuss at each other tooth and nail. we still love each other. stand by each other. but as pastor, and i heard it was attributed to johnson as president, but we had a pastor in mount pleasant, texas, in

1953 that said to my parents, if two people agree on everything, one of them's unnecessary. same's true here in congress. if we all grea on everything, then -- agree on everything, then all but one's unnecessary. we don't need a congress. we don't need advisors. one people knows everything, then just let them make all the decisions. but that's not the case in this fallen world. we need to hear from everybody. debate's a good thing. and it used to be on universities and can be again if they'll allow all voices to be heard. one other story here from cns news, afghanistan will resume being a terrorist haven when u.s. troops depart. that is going to happen. i've been talking about that for a number of years. and it doesn't have to happen. if we would simply grant the people of afghanistan what the

founders originally gave us, we've messed it up but they originally gauve us -- gave us a government where the states were the most powerful entity. and as my moderate muslim friends in afghanistan have said, former vice president massoud, as he has said, others , if you'll just help us push karzai, to let us have an amendment in our constitution that allows us to elect our governors, elect our mayors, get our own police chiefs, govern our own regions, our own state areas, if you'll let us do that, we can keep the taliban out. and i mentioned before, but when i asked, well, what makes you think we can exert that kind of pressure? they informed me that out of about a $12.5 billion government budget in afghanistan, the afghans only provide about $1.5 billion, the

rest is provided by foreign countries and most of that's the united states and the day this president says, you either let the states elect their own governors and mayors, pick their own police chiefs, that's the day, or we will cut off every dime coming to afghanistan, i bet that's the day they get started and they get an amendment to their constitution and they become more of a democratic republic like we started out as. perhaps even than we are now. but we need to do that for them. we don't need to let more american lives be killed and be taken in afghanistan. that doesn't have to happen. it doesn't have to happen. and even though secretary gates said that he didn't believe the president was really convinced the surge was a good idea in afghanistan, he still sent more troops and what people haven't been talking about for a long time, 75% of the people of the

american solders who have been killed in -- soldiers who have been killed in afghanistan, soldiers, sailors, marines, all of those airmen, 75% of all the those killed in afghanistan have been killed while president obama was commander in chief. i did not think president bush did the right thing in sending tens of thousands of american troops in after taliban was defeated. with less than 500 americans in supporting the northern alliance. but we became occupiers, it was a mistake by the bush administration, i believe, and then a mistake that president obama inherited and it got worse. we don't have to leave and have the blood of our soldiers, our military, cry out as we leave afghanistan and the taliban take back over. let us, madam speaker, help

afghanistan to root out the evil in its own country. let's help them get a constitution that lets them root it out for themselves. that's how we should be doing foreign policy. and may god awaken the universities that were once so diverse and so great, to understanding they should not, cannot, hope and pray, do not continue to foster this anti-semitism, this anti-israeli sentiment that's growing, that might someday cheer when israelis are nuked. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker.

congress has a lot on its plate and it's trying its best to pursue it. i'm pleased to hear that we may be close to an agreement on the budget. but with all we have to do with respect to the economy, the nvironment, income inequality, unemployment insurance, i think would be concerned when the congress goes off course and no longer involves itself only in the nation's siness but interferes in the business of local jurisdictions. one of the cardinal principles , our nation is of course what's local is local and not for the federal government. this afternoon i want to speak

about three issues, where the nation has been drawn into local affairs by the congress, much against the bipartisan principles on both sides of this chamber and the other one as well. one involved the shutdown of a local government, another involved something perhaps even more sacred, the autonomy every local government demands over its local funds and only esterday the near sacred autonomy over the local laws of a local jurisdiction. yesterday there was a hearing, i would not have objected to the hearing, despite a very controversial subject, i happen to be on the other side of the majority, but it is a subject that divides the nation and it deserves to be aired. it had to do with what looked to be recodifying and perhaps

also adding to many provisions on reproductive choice, by members of the majority who oppose abortion in its all of its forms -- in all of its forms, as do many of the american people. of course we have a supreme court decision that rules on this case. nevertheless there continues to be legislation and interest in this issue here. . this hearing was a little curious because for the most part the issues have long been recognized by the congress in appropriation bills. nobody even talks about the so-called hyde amendment anymore because that has to do with access, federal funds to access of abortion and that's no longer contested. there is a so-called helms amendment which denies access to safe abortion care with

u.s.-paid funds in other parts of the world, codifying that. and there were add-ons you might typically expect from the affordable care act to make sure that the civil servants of our nation, military did not have access to abortion. i went to the hearing. frankly, i found it very interesting. but i'm thinking about this hearing because the press was interested in only -- as i read this morning, largely interested in only one matter and that had to do with my request to testify on what was really a minor section of this bill. very important to us but very minor in the bill is a section

would codify something again that the appropriators already do and that's to keep us from spending our own local funds on abortion for low-income women. remember i said the hyde amendment keeps us from spending federal funds. note that i'm talking about local funds. in case you think we're an outliar here, 17 states provide local funds for abortions for their poor women. and we only want what they have. those 17 states, by the way, include alaska, arizona, montana, and i won't go on, but you can see that they may be states of various -- of various political views. that simply don't want low-income women to be left out of the reproductive choice guaranteed by the supreme court's decision regarding abortion. the press was most interested

in the fact that chairman franks included the d.c. portion in his bill, a portion that says though there are local funds, $8 billion of it, we're proud to say, raised by local taxpayers, our businesses, our residents, 100% of it local funds that we asand we alone in the united states must accept a dictations from the congress of the united states about where we may spend our own local funds when some of its members disagree, as i'm sure they would disagree with the 17 states who spend their local funds in the very same way. well, since my own district was the only district mentioned in the bill, i did what any red-blooded member of congress would do and i wrote a respectful letter saying, as a

courtesy from one member to another, may i ask to testify for a few minutes with respect fought d.c. provision? -- respect to the d.c. provision? the moment letter this matter would come forward. it was hand delivered to chairman frank's office and i heard no response. my counsel called repeatedly during the day. frankly, i never heard the response. we called the ranking member, jerry nadler, who did tell us that he heard a response and that i was to be denied the right to testify on a provision involving my own district. that is what has captured the press, not the many underlying issues some of which i just reiterated of the bill itself, because one thing that will capture the public imagination

is discourtesy here in this congress. i didn't see a courtesy of a reply and i didn't receive the courtesy of testifying with respect to a provision affecting my district. do understand that members are routinely offered the right to testify usually before the named witnesses, just as a courtesy, even though you see us go at one another on this floor, if we are discourteous on this floor they'll take down our words and we'll have to come to the well of the house and explain ourselves. that's how important courtesy is. you can't have 440 members without that kind of courtesy. i don't even know chairman franks. i don't think he meant any personal discourtesy to me.

i'm sure as i sat in the hearing and he explained himself and welcomed me to the hearing, it was clear he didn't mean any personal discourtesy. what he did, however, was to exercise discourtesy from one ember to another member. and he did so on a matter of some importance. here is no member of this body who would sanction an attack on their local jurisdiction without getting up to protest it. i may not be able to vote on this bill when it comes to the floor, but should i not be able ? speak on the matter d.c. matters come to the floor time and again and all i can do

is talk. if there's any decency in this body, surely nobody would shut me up. there is no member of the senate of the united states who represents the 640,000 people who pay taxes to their government and have gone to war each and every time since the nation was created. there's only one member. she is a delegate. she has no vote on this floor. she only can vote in committee. all she can do is speak. in a democracy, in our democracy, who would want to , do not even speak? well, that's what happened yesterday and as a result an pornt issues, certainly important to the committee regard -- important issues, certainly important to the committee regarding abortion was not focus of the media

attention, just flew off the attention span because of the notion of denying a member the right to speak on a provision that affected only her jurisdiction. now, i am clear on where i stand on reproductive freedom, and i oppose that bill in its entirety and every member of this house knows that bill will never see the light of day on the other side of the congress and the senate will never become law. it's a message bill. that's all right. both sides when they capture the congress participate in message bills. problem with the majority in the house is that it only does message bills. that's why this house has now gone down in history as -- or this congress -- forgive me --

as the congress that was the least productive in american history. because all it has had is message bills. well, it's one thing to have a message bill on the united states of america, it's another thing to have a message bill that involves a message person take to a local jurisdiction where the local jurisdiction has no voice, no votes, no voice. the bill managed to be an affront on two counts in the same bill. it denies our low-income women the right to reproductive choice that we would grant them by paying for their reproductive choices as my colleagues in 17 different states do. and it violated the very

principle of local government which was at the root of the american revolution. in one of the great contortions in legislation, the bill seems to have recognized that you cannot really legislate for a local jurisdiction. so it redefines the district of of the as a part federal government for purposes of abortion. imagine having your city and your council, your county redefined as now a part of the district of the united states government in order to pass the bill you want to have passed. that was a concession that they shouldn't have passing -- shouldn't have us in the bill, they had to redefine us out of

who we are into who this nation is. hat kind of contortion undercuts any possible .egitimacy for the bill this is the kind of thing that led to the war on women last congress, and you see what effect that had. the republicans want to start out again with the member who cannot fight back in the way they do because she doesn't , by a vote on this floor denying her even the right to speak on a bill affecting her jurisdiction, go at it. we will not let it rest.

we saw this local jurisdiction, this same local jurisdiction, now one of the most successful local jurisdictions in the united states, we raised $8 billion on our own. we are building everywhere. we added 50,000 people in the last census. this jurisdiction faced shutdown in the just-passed infamous shutdown of the federal government. well, the public will say that can't be. they shut down the federal government. well, as a matter of fact, the congress makes the district of columbia bring its $8 billion budget right here, signing off on it before we can spend our

own local funds. you are hearing the very definition of autocracy, not democracy. when money that the congress has nothing to do with, has to come before this chamber in any form or fashion, that can lead to catastrophe and it almost did because the congress has goten to -- gotten to not one of the one bit of business it has to do every single year and that is pass on bills for the appropriations for its own government. hasn't done one. well, among those tucked into one of its bills was the independent jurisdiction of the district of columbia. the mayor was put to using

contingency funds to keep the city opened during those 16 . ys normally he has to do the same eparation that o.p.m. has, the department of education, the department of transportation do. instead, he used his contingency funds. the problem was he was running ut of his contingency funds. there were members of this body hat helped me finally in negotiations with the administration, with our republican colleagues and of course with the democrats in the senate. i thank chairman darrell issa ho chairs the government

reform committee with jurisdiction, among other things, over the district of columbia. i thank eric cantor, a member of this regional delegation for his efforts as well. . there were just as many republicans and democrats in the senate who were helpful here but it took a three-way negotiation to get us out of that -- so that -- and the reason that negotiation was important is that we are waiting, as i speak, to see whether or not there's going to be another government shutdown. i'm hopeful about that because we're told that we may have a delay for a few days, but the prospect is there wouldn't be enough to shut down. but we didn't know that. so i had to negotiate for something that the federal agencies do not yet have. they are now being run on what is called a continuing

resolution, based on last year's appropriation 2013 funds. imagine if we had had to do that. run a big city on funds from last year, although you have appropriated funds for this year. you know, it could result in a violation of contracts, all kinds of upheavals in your city. a bill e to negotiate hat would keep us open until for the rest of the year, the fiscal year. the federal government still hases to do that for its own -- still has to do that for its own agencies. why in the world would anybody want any local jurisdiction to be caught up in that mess? fortunately there is no

disagreement on this. i do not want to leave the impression that this is a matter of great contention. the senate has what we call shutdown avoids a apps -- aid -- avoidance language for the capitol. my own colleagues here, mr. is for r example, antishutdown language. the appropriators have indicated the very same. i am hoping that as this bill passes, sorry, comes to the floor, it will have that shutdown avoidance language in it. indeed, i am hoping it will have budget autonomy in it. the president's budget had budget autonomy language.

the senate appropriation committee -- appropriations now has budget autonomy in it. hasn't the time come to say to the nation's capitol, the residents who raise their own money here in the district of columbia, that if you raise it, you can spend it? nd we do not have to be a pass through for you? suspect it time to say since wall street charges us a penalty, because after we pass our own balanced budget we have to come to the congress which passes no balanced budget. so, we have to pay for that. any time somebody else has to look at your budget, there is an additional layer and you pay for a layer. that should not be there and is not there for any other jurisdiction. if all of this seems strange

and against the american tradition, imagine legislative language coming here. kafka-esque in the extreme. the district of columbia passes a bill, it's supposed to lay over here for 30 legislative days, sometimes 60 if it's criminal matters, except our legislative days are far in between. so, bills have to lay over here long past the 30-day period. sometimes -- usually for at least three calendar months. now you're running a big city. let me give you one of the more that is not ples atypical but i give it to you

so you can see that it's the kind of subject matter that would never interest the congress. the congressional review period for the change that the district made in its legislation to change the word handicap to disability, that took nine months it. took nine months because in order to -- months. it took nine months because in order to keep legislation from lapsing, the district had to pass temporary legislation and then another kind of legislation and it had to keep passing various kinds of temporary bills of its final bills until it finally gets through these calendar days. the council estimates that about 65%, up to 65% of the bills it passes could be eliminated were it not for this

eriod, that it has to keep track of. this isn't painless. the council says it takes 5,000 employee hours per year and 160 sheets of paper and you better be precise because if you miss one of these periods, and there are usually three different periods during which these bills pass, until you get to the 30 calendar days, or the bill could lapse and would you have to start all over again. that would be bad enough, if congress had a reason for requiring these bills to come here. congress never looks at these bills. if there is something that the council of the district of columbia does that the congress thinks it shouldn't do, it knows exactly what to do. at least in its own view.

why bother with introducing a bill here, having it come to the floor, doing the same thing in the congress, why not simply try to attach it to something else? so, the congress simply uses the appropriations bills and attaches whatever it wants to overturn to that. at the moment there's only one such matter and that's the appropriation -- the abortion -- excuse me, the abortion rider. it tucks that into another bill . only three occasions, on only three occasions has the congress ever used the review or layover period. 1979, 1981 and 1991. and two of those directly involve federal interests, so

congress was within its rights. in fact, if the truth be told, all of three of them did. -- all three of them did. and the district was not trying to defy the federal government. in fact, i would have been with the congress on this because federal interests were involved . all three of them did, because the district mistook, was mistaken in the extent to which there was a federal interest involved. so those were not even attempts to try to challenge the federal government. those were mistakes, had i been there, been here at the time, i would have tried to correct them before they got very far, by going to the congress before they ever got here. in any case, you have a process, keep rolling up this bill, keep spending all that money, keep exerting all those employee hours, and this is a process the congress has long abandoned and pays no attention to.

my bill says to the congress, which regularly passes paperwork reduction bills, this is a classic example of where it is needed. i do not believe there is a slightest opposition here. this is a matter of inergsa. i'm trying to make it -- ineartha. i'm trying to make it rise above the ground where it has laid since i've been introducing this bill. i don't believe for a moment that there is a single member the s body that wishes district or any other jurisdiction or any part of this government to engage in a labor-intensive, costly process , even if it had an outcome. but particularly one that the congress itself abandoned and

abandoned into disuse. so, madam speaker, i brought these matters of local concern to the floor today because they are, i think, every last one of them members about which most members are unaware and for good reason. members are dealing with their own districts and with the nation's business. they really don't have any reason to care about whether or not the district spends its local money one way or the other, about what laws it's passed and if it's shut down. , it has e out of 4,500 abandoned one of these processes altogether. the district has a budget autonomy referendum that has passed the house and that technically is law.

it is in some danger so i'm trying still to get budget autonomy through and to have the president and the senate -- and i cannot believe that with many conservative members of this house who believe in local mat, for local folks, that i would not -- matters for local folks, that i would not have support here. i recognize that abortion is a controversial issue and i have the deepest respect for those who disagree with me on those issues. on that issue. but i think most members would agree that that is a matter for local jurisdictions to decide. wherever we stand on the nation's business, we are at one on local principles. local matters are for local jurisdictions. that cannot be your principle, for every jurisdiction in the united states except the district of columbia. and the matter of democracy which we have tried to spread throughout the world cannot be

a matter for every nation on the face of the earth except the nation's capital. i thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentlelady have a motion? to adjourn? ms. norton: i do hereby move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until noon on monday billday the house passed a . the obama administration has decided to jettison cgi

federal. "the post" writes officials are preparing to write a contract early next week with a different company, accenture, after has not beeni effective enough in fixing the computer systems underpinning healthcare.gov. members will debate a temporary spending bill next week. current spending authority runs out wednesday, january 15. the house returns monday, live coverage on c-span. the deadline is approaching for the student cam video competition. what ing the question, is the most important issue congress should address in 2014?

$100,000 in total prizes. get more info at studentcam.org. employers added 74,000 ins in december, the fewest three years. the labor department says the unemployment rate fell to 6.7%. the drop occurred because more americans stopped looking for work. the government counts people as unemployed if they are only actively searching for work. >> i think there is a way in which we have set up this sort of impossible series of expectations, especially for our presidents, but for elected officials as well, that they are ready to come in, saved the day, and when it does not happen we 9% approvals a

rating. that is part of what is amazing about the american founding. founderss not that the themselves said look, do not expect much from government. tois government is not going be the main driver of our liberty. it is going to be civil society. the federal government exists to do certain things, and it better do them well. if it does not do them well, nothing else will be properly situated. the main area of activity is going to be in the private sphere, in the civil society. and in the election of local offices and the carrying out of duties at the local and state levels. there is a measure of modesty, of recognizing it is not possible for people from washington, d.c. to run a nation of 310 million people. "humility,"b on sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's

"q&a." >> nancy reagan was the first inning are slated to address the united nations and the first to address the nation in a white appearance with the president. >> to my young friends out there, life can be great, but not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life, see it in the vivid colors that god gave us as a precious gift to his children to enjoy life to the fullest, and to make it count. say yes to your life, and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. -- onst lady nancy reagan our original series "first ladies" monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on season radio and www.c- span.org. >> reported sexual assault at the military academies were down last school year. of those, almost a two thirds wet the air force academy.

he defense department report issued today notes that alcohol is often a factor, and urges military leaders to do more to restrict and monitor drinking. members of the sexual assault prevention and response office spoke to reporters for half an hour. >> the new director of the sexual assault prevention or a response office, he has been on the job all up five days. the fabined today by road deputy director, and dr. elizabeth rip van winkle. general snow is going to make some brief opening remarks. u --metzler and dr. dover dr. van winkle is the expert to conducted the focus groups and they will be happy to answer your questions. please a state your name and your media organization before asking the question and we still have 30 minutes.

>> thank you, kathy. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. as kathy indicated, i am at major general jeff snow and i am the director of the department defense sexual assault prevention, and i feel very fortunate to be joined by my esteemed colleagues here. today we publicly release the department of defense annual report on sexual harassment and violence at the military academies for academic program year 2012 to 2013. i'm going to take a few minutes to share highlights of that report and then open it up to questions from you. this report provides an assessment of the effectiveness of the academy's programs, statistical data, and results of focus groups of government -- cadets, midshipmen, faculty and staff elected by the defense manpower data center. before i get into the specifics of the report, i want to make one point clear -- sexual assault is a crime and has no

place at the academies just as it has no place in our armed forces. the academies are where we developing future leaders of the military. that is why it is essential that the department in still in its future leaders a commitment to fostering a climate of dignity and respect. where cadets in midshipmen are empowered and possessed the social courage to take action when faced with situations at risk for sexual assault, sexual harassment, and inappropriate behavior of any kind. the department was the assessment found that each of the three military service academies are compliant with our policies regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault for the school year that started mayune 2012 and ended in 2013. the academies instituted new initiatives to enhance training, improve awareness, and promote a safe environment for alternate

cadets inl midshipmen. we will address the specifics if you have follow-up questions. during this academic year, reports of sexual assault at two of the three academies. with an overall total of 70 reports involving at least one military victim and military subject. of those 70 reports, 53 were midshipmenets and for events they experienced while they were in military service. because there is no prevailing rates available for the past school year, the department cannot determine whether the decrease in reporting this year at the service academies was due orfewer assaults occurring due to fewer victims opting to report. rates of unwanted sexual contact and harassment will be updated via survey conducted later this year. ,s part of our assessment

faculty and staff participated in focus groups along with cadets and midshipmen at each of academies. participants believe that reports of sexual harassment or sexual assault would be taken seriously by academy leadership and dealt with appropriately. that is good. cadets and midshipmen also identified peer pressure as a barrier to report it. that is not good. in both the academic year which concluded this past may in the intervening period we have seen considerable energy in emphasis placed on the service academies sexual assault prevention and response programs. still, there is more work to be done. the continued advancement of cadet and midshipmen culture that embraces dignity and respect for all is critical to the success of this -- of these ongoing efforts. to continue this important work, secretary hagel has directed the

academy superintendent's to implement the following initiatives. first, to ensure unity of effort and purpose, the service academies superintendents will implement sexual assault and sexual harassment prevention and plans thatrategic are aligned with their respective service strategic plans. second, to improve the effectiveness of policies and programs, superintendents will involve cadets and midshipmen climate assessment and provide tools to valuate and regularly report progress and prevention and response. victimto increase confidence associated with reporting, the superintendents implementop and solutions to encourage -- engage

with leaders and supervisors of teams, clubs, and other midshipmen organizations, and divided cadet and midshipmen influencers with the skills and knowledge to strengthen their ongoing mentorship programs. increaseo further understanding of disrespectful and criminal behaviors, the superintendents will incorporate learning objectives and related losses within the academic curriculum. to improve the safety of cadets and midshipmen and reduce the effects of alcohol, the superintendents will overview and expand institutional alcohol policies to address risk factors beyond individual use about all, including availability of andhol, training providers, community outreach. the academies will reports their

plans to the secretary of defense by the first of march, 2014. in closing, the department and its leadership remain committed to strengthening the professional climate across the arms forces with cultural imperatives of mutual respect andtrust, tame committed, professional values are reinforced to create an environment in which sexist ,ehaviors, sexual harassment and sexual assaults are not condoned, tolerated, or ignored. that is our objective across the total force, it is my mission at these the department's new ourctor of sapro, and it is objective at the military service committees. with that, thank you, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> please. >> a thank you for your time today. you mentioned the numbers were down at the two of the three academies. can you give us academy by academy numbers?

also, can you tell us if it is possible -- the reported incidents -- where the student on student, or some of them faculty or supervisor on student? >> yes, thank you. let me take the first part of the question. reports, theo the breakdown by academy, in the case of the united states military academy, they decreased from five, so there were 15 in academic program year 2011, 2012, and i went to 10 in academic program .12-2013. in the case of the naval academy, they increased i too. so they went from 13 in 2011- -- ino 15 in toys 12 2012-2013. if you could talk to the second part of that question?

>> yes, sir. the vast majority of the 58 reports that we had all total cadets onve cadets, midshipmen, we had only one instance of a faculty member involved in a case of abuses, sexual content -- contact at the naval academy, and for detail, i would refer you to the naval academy. -- do you haves any data for the naval academy, because their numbers one up, whether there was any kind of similar increase in female midshipmen? is the percentage up as well for marissa won -- four memories of women? members of women? and sexual assault, are you defining it is more than actual rates, is there a specific category? knowe first answer is we

-- first of all, sexual assault, underreportedan problem, and one of those priorities is to increase the reporting. i will let nate talk to the specifics. >> the numbers of women at the naval academy are about the same if they were in years prior, but to be completely accurate, i would encourage you to check with the public affairs officer therefore exact numbers. as far as the second part of your question, -- >> if you could give us how you are defining sexual assault -- >> sexual assault in the deferment of defense -- department of defense purposes a range of crimes between adults, in that range involves illegal sexual touching, non-penetrating crimes like groping all the way up through penetrating crimes like rape. >> a design clue sexual harassment -- it does not include sexual harassment.

>> that is great. >> is there anything in the reports why the air force has the most incidents? i believe the previous year they had the most incidents as well. dr. van winkle, is there anything to suggest from your focus group why this is so. >> the air force reporting climate is for a positive, and that is what we have heard in numerous visits. participatedeath in can give uses of examples. one of the things the air force academy doesn't well if they have a sexual assault response coordinator who is very well known throughout the -- does very well is they have a sexual assault response or nader who is very well-known throughout the academy. she and her team -- as an example of my experience with them, asking and academy cadet at the air force if you need to report a sexual assault, what would you do? almost every single one of them in my experience says oh, i would call 333-sarc.

that is her number. they all knew her by name, and because she gets in front of them within the first weeks they are there. >> we did not ask specifically hoout numbers, but to ecj what dr. galbreath said, they are familiar with it, they are more comfortable with her. that is something we heard that it not speak specifically. >> teresa beasley. >> i will say this -- one of the benefits of a report, and when you are looking across the surface that -- service academies, you can take this -- we have identified at a best actress and recommend it and apply it across the other academies. >> that is very true, sir. all the academies have very strong people into their sarc offices, and we have all that out, and we do appreciate all the hard work that is going on everywhere.

it is just that over time that mrs. be the -- mrs. beasley has been in the longest that she has a very good institutional history with the air force academy. quite i'm from "the hill." -- you talk more about these are there trends, is a mostly male on female, and secondly, what are some examples of sexist behaviors and how will these be addressed? >> i am going to tell you that yes, it is more a case of man on woman, but i will refer to dr. galbreath again. >> it is male and female largely . we only had i believe two instances of male on male violence. essentially, these are folks that her peers or near peers, and it wants every single one of the cases that we had were cadet on cadet. >> in terms of the sexist

behavior, the survey which we conducted in 2012 has a few measures, sexual harassment being one of them, and that involves crude and offensive behavior, unwanted sexual attention and sexual courses. we also ask about sexist behavior. these can be verbal and nonverbal behaviors that would be insulting or offensive based on someone's gender. women do not belong on the academy or similar type comments. the rates for crude and behavior offensive, and sexist behavior, on a survey for 2012, those were high, about 80% or 90% of women indicated they had experienced that in the last 12 months. so when we did go out to do the focus groups, we asked a bit more about whether those rates seemed about right, any feedback we got with that yes, they seemed about right and in fact, surprise it is

not higher. that is where we start to see the culture that we have been discussing. >> i would like to follow-up on that, as i listened zach am i want to make it clear that no one should believe they must tolerate this behavior is part of their education. especially as part of their learning to be an officer in the u.s. forces. >> and just to underscore that, wemake it clear -- why do look at this experience of sexual harassment and sexist behavior? of course, those behaviors are intolerable, and we do not want that to occur there, but there is a strong positive correlation between the experience of sexual harassment and the eventual sex assault of people in military units. of --nk that the cousin because these two problems are the same continuum, getting at the sexual harassment, crude and sexist behavior, is part of the invention work that goes into sexual assault. >> how do you think you can

attack -- crackdown on the crude behavior? >> that is something that the secretary has directed the superintendents to take a look at. nobody knows their academies better than their superintendent, and so we are going to stand behind -- we are therefore confrontational purposes, but the secretary will be directing the superintendents to take a look at that. with the american voices, the institute is generational change , i mean, harry truman integrated the armed forces in 1948, there are people who would say we are still in the process of that 70 years later. i'm just wondering if you would comment on that, and the second thing i would ask you to comment on is are these cadets and midshipmen coming in from the civilian world? what effect does the civilian society have on these kids?

all, this is a complex problem. it is going to require a complex set of initiatives, solutions, innovations -- i mean, it is a tough thing and it is going to take time. in terms of the cadets themselves, i think the really key issue is from day one to impart them with the appropriate values. academies, you are talking that the best and brightest. very competitive to get in there, yet i think the key is from day one, what are those that we try and impart upon them so that they get off on the right foot? i will open up to the panel. >> the department's approach to solving sexual assault -- we do aspire to be a national leader,

to lead generational change just like we did with integrating law enforcement. we have done it with ending the discrimination, we have done it with the repeal of don't ask don't tell. and we intend to import a set of values and expectations and standard of behavior, and that is how we have lead change in these other cultural issues and that is how we intend to lead change here. we recognize the continuum of harm that galbreath referenced. the crude and offensive behavior happens and the environments in which assaults occur, we have to start on the low end of that continuing of harm, create that non-permissive environments, conduct please in full investigations, and then hold the offenders appropriately accountable. for the department to achieve, to prevent the crime by salvaging the cultural imperative, team the memo, professional bodies, dignity and respect across the force and

then at the service academies specifically, leading in peers is probably the hardest thing you have to do, and sticking your neck out and telling someone to knock it off is a difficult thing because it creates a social retaliation. that is what we heard in the focus groups, and we want to officers that have to leave from day one that have to do it in the service academies, they need to do it in the armed forces as well. yourom politico, this is first press briefing since he moved over, and can you talk a little bit broader about come inting the changes for colonel metzler as well, what are you doing to implement, and then you have a december deadline to make significant changes, this president said, what are your benchmarks? >> buried in question. i will defer it to alan on this there'ver question,

been a number, as you indicated, of directives that have been put in place, so the first thing i am doing is making sure i fully understand that we at the department have taken the appropriate steps to implement them. i will say that about that. you alluded to the report, and with regard to that, what we are doing there is we're making sure the winterson with the requirements of that are and then working with the white house on ensuring that we have a clear plan forward to make sure that requirement. wife we taken the strategic approach, as you know, we publish a strategy last year, the secretary require each of ,he services have a strategy consistence with the guidelines we publish. in our 80, 90 tasks

strategic plan. what we do is we get external findings, external suggestions, and we have the authority to act , the secretary is acting and we are implementing policy. we take the national defense authorization act initiatives. we apply them in the lines of andrt to prevention investigation accountability, assistance, over sightlines and effort. we have a very robust oversight structure that includes weekly meetings with the secretary of defense. he calls them his accountability meeting because he is holding the entire department accountable. we hold joint executive councils for chiefs come in general snow chairs a bimonthly integrated .roduct team we've had 60 provisions in the last three years, they are all aggressively implemented. we report goes out through metrics, and we are working with the white house on metrics. dr. galbreath can talk more about the direction we're going with our metrics. >> we have prepared the first

set of six metrics of both the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense. we will be rewriting most of the white house here within the next week, and over the next few months, we will be developing a number of -- a secondary set of metrics i get more ad prevalence and culture change. loathing,? -- closing comments? like i do. intendion is clear, we to reduce sexual assault in the military. it is a daunting task pulls up i lost a lot of sleep on my first week on the job, but i'm committed to a combo she may mission. as you can see by the folks us on this table, the good news is that i'm supported by a dedicated team, a group of professionals both inside and outside of the departments that want to do the same thing. -- there will be

be days when we present bad news to you, there will be others when we are able to demonstrate progress on the problem. either way, i'm committed to committee getting our findings, results, and progress in a candid and transparent manner. the department will continue to assess the effectiveness of our programs. indicated, in terms of preventing sexual assault, investigated the crime, providing effective assistance to support the victims come in and holding our military accountable for progress on this issue at the service academies and throughout the entire department. it is clear from this report that we must expand and improve the prevention efforts that are having a positive impact in each of the academies and armed services. we will continue to implement programs and initiatives that make a difference in addressing how victims are treated. lastly, those of you who have been a victim of this crime, i want you to know that we are

working very hard to establish a climate where these assaults do not happen. if you have been a victim, please consider reaching out to your local sarc, victim advocate, a health care professional, or the dod safe helpline. i assure you -- you will be treated with the privacy you desire, the sensitivity you deserve, and the seriousness that this crime demands. thank you very much. >> also today in washington, the labor department reported u.s. employers added 74,000 jobs in december, the fewest in three years. the employment rate fell to 17%

in november to a sick -- fell 6.7%.% in november to here's a portion -- >> thank you, commissioner. as you know, the unemployment rate fell pretty dramatically. do you see this -- would you describe it as an encouraging sign of a sustainable recovery? >> this is one month's number, but most of the changes due to labor force participation -- >> people simply giving up on the market, the workforce -- >> the interesting thing is, we looked at flows, it looks like

most of the flows into nonparticipation were from employment rather than from unemployment. speaking, it is as if theust a sign fall and unemployment had come from the creation of a lot of stuff. >> do you think that drop in the reason for it is the troubling indicator, a concerning indicator? um, well, i guess it depends on the question you're asking. it is certainly not a sign of strength. >> house speaker john boehner released the following statement about today's job numbers >> he called on democrats to support republican bills that he said would create jobs. >> it is disappointing to all of

us to see the deterioration of the security inside of iraq. i spent a lot of my life over there. from 2006 into september 2000 2010, i was there is we left within a place where he was able to move forward. we've now seen it as several political issues internal for iraq, that security situation has now devolved into something that is in my mind concerning. but this is not just about iraq. it is something we have to be cognizant of as you look across the middle east, what is going on in syria, what is going on in lebanon, what is going on inside of iraq, and it is this sectarian potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni nonstate and then the actors such as al qaeda and

other organizations who try to take advantage of this. i is we can on c-span, army chief of staff general ray odierno looks at the security situation in the mideast in the future of the u.s. army saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. life saturday on c-span2, political strategist mary matalin and james carville on their "love and war" relationship. americanspan3's prohibition tv, the rise of the gangster sunday morning bright past 10:00 eastern. >> c-span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house -- all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span -- created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. watch is in hd, like us on

facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> at stoxx if i run continue, continue, anf iran event yesterday was hosted by the u.s. institute of peace and the woodrow wilson center. >> we are very pleased to have two people who have written books about iran. there was going to be covers of two books that are represented by authors here, and they have also just returned from iran, so what we thought would be very interesting for you and for us is to get a picture, a sense of what is going on inside, for all the reasons we all know, this is a time that we try to understand what is going on. maybe there are changes there, and that is what i hope we will get from the discussion. without anything further, robin

is going to make some observations about her trip, david is going to make some observations about his trip, we will have a conversation open to you very quickly, and i look forward to your questions. this will be an interactive, easy discussion here. >> at thank you, bill, very much. four headline of an old journalist, four things that i think are particularly interesting. one is the fact that david and i were allowed to go at all. grand i total of one of only 12 in the world and i said what has changed, and he said the fact that you are here. this was the first interview he'd been allowed in five years and he's a grand ayatollah. that was striking. when i went to a former member of parliament, whose brother was president of iran, i said what's new and he said i'm less afraid than i was before the election and this was a man very much a part of the system.

we all know about the bad news of president ahmadinejad but it's interesting to hear from it from people who were powerful players. what's really interesting is that there's a new category on the political spectrum. we've gone through the era of the hard liners with president ahmadinejad and what we're seeing is a new category today of what i call the realists who are not out to, like the green movement was, to transform iran, to challenge the powers of the supreme leader. they're willing to work within the system but they do want to open up political space and a lot of it in very different ways. very interesting, the president rouhani last night met with an array of artists, film directors, actresses, actors and so forth and said that art

without freedom was meaningless. the tenor has changed but lehr we're looking at people whore realistic in terms of what the various goals are. secondly, i think in terms of our interests, what's really important to understand is that iran is going through what i call a strategic recalculation or recalibration. this does not mean some kind of overhaul but it does mean that they are responding in real time to what is going on in the region. a decade ago when the u.s. intervened in iraq and got rid of saddam hussein in afghanistan and got rid of the taliban, the king abdullah of jordan started worrying about the crescent, the arc radiating from damascus and into lebanon and the rise of the shiites and iran was sitting pretty as the kind of strategic

winner. what's interesting today is that with the rise of the al qaeda franchises, with the u.s. having withdrawn from iraq, having about to withdraw from afghanistan, that iran suddenly finds itself encircled by salafis, by al qaeda militants, encircled by the sunnis, and this has led to an awareness of well, you know, the u.s. might not be such an adversary after all, and that when we look at why iran is at the negotiating table, we often tend to focus on the pressure on economic sanctions when there are much bigger issues that we ignore and that's one of them, this

strategic recalculation. another reason is the psychology of war. the grisliest modern middle east conflicts played out in iran with iraq, and one of the most striking things to me was going to a couple of hospitals in tehran and seeing victims dying of chemical weapons. 30 years after they came under attack. iran now estimates it has close to 70,000 people who are still survivors of chemical weapons and need chronic medical help and will eventually die. the numbers could end up rivaling the death toll in world war i from mustard gas and when

i talk to people about the nuclear deal or president rouhani, what the model in tehran was, the first thing so many people told me was we know we can wake up tomorrow morning and not worry about a bomb falling on tehran, that there really is this deep fear of what a military action might entail, how long it might go on, what it might cost again. those are my initial thoughts. i will conclude with one final thing. i think president rouhani is more popular today than the day he was when he was elected. he's taken many smart moves, whether it was diplomacy with the outside world but he also appointed really experienced technocrats trying to bail them out of the huge mess created by president ahmadinejad. they're all people who are very smart. the budget that was introduced

deals with the huge problems of inflation, the fact that one in four of the young are unemployed. it's trying to make some hard choice that will need to be taken if iran is going to control over what has been a plummeting economy. >> robin, thank you. so strategic recalculation or recalibration -- shiite crescent, now sunni encirclement. we want to come back to these. but a pretty upbeat, pretty positive description, i would say. hang on. we'll come back to this david, your view? you were there approximately the same time and i'd love to hear your story. >> first, thanks to bill and robin and jim marshall and jane harmon. it's really nice to be asked about a subject that really matters.

a lot of times in washington we speak about things that sort of matter. these negotiations and their consequences for our country are really important and i think sessions like this where we try to think through what robin and i have just seen and share it with you and get your feedback are important. i should just note that as a panelist it's a great pleasure for me to see my mom and dad in the audience. [applause] >> all right. >> i have to be especially careful not to give the bland journalistic -- because i'm going to hear about it later and let me start just with a caveat. i wish i knew more about iran. i was there on this trip for four days. everybody needs to understand that i am giving you casual impressions from a very quick trip. we need to know so much more about this country. you do feel the product of 34

years of being cut off and the lack of deep expertise so i hope i'll go back. i hope robin will go back often. here, just a couple of brief starting points in terms of my own sense of the country and the people when i was there. first, there is the appearance of a real debate -- i want to say division -- among senior members of the leadership. at least as seen in my interviews. i interviewed at length and in real detail, i published a full transcript of it if you want to go look, the minister who is the leading western looking face of the regime and he went pretty systematically through the negotiating issues and sometimes i wasn't sure just where the space to make a deal was but

zarif kept asserting that a deal can be made and we'll take care of this and don't worry. so he was obviously believing as he spoke to me that he spoke for president rouhani, and beyond him for the supreme leader. i also saw, as robin did, probably the most visible hardliner associated with the regime, who is supported by the supreme leader of the very conservative newspaper. his name is hussein modarif. i met him on a previous visit to iran. he's very articulate, very outspoken, and when asked do you think compromise with the west on these nuclear issues has advocated aggressively by zarif

and less visibly by rouhani, do you think that's possible? he said flatly no, i don't. i don't believe in compromise. don't believe that the islamic republic should compromise its identity. beyond that, he said he thought that zarif, the foreign minister, had certificate serb -- essentially misrepresented the deal struck in geneva, the interim deal to strike iran's capability. he describes calling rouhani calling him in the middle of the life and rouhani writing a letter and saying this man zarif did not tell the truth about what's in that detail. that's a little chilling. zarif was very open with me about the extent to which he feels under pressure from the revolutionary guard.

he said a public fight -- and these are unusual things in a country like iran. second basic point is about sanctions. we often hear and indeed use the phrase "crippling sanctions" to describe the sanctions that have been applied to iran, and they're pretty intense as economic sanctions go. robin was smiling when i used the phrase "crippling sanctions" and i think i know why. which is that when you go to tehran this doesn't look like a country just hobbling on his knees about to fall over dead, the way you sometimes get the sense reading our accounts of how we've just driven them to negotiations, you know, practically broken their arms. no, i mean, they are a very resourceful people. they're good at suffering, living with suffering and they've found ways to work around these sanctions. you go to north tehran and talk

to a business person, and he'll tell you will exactly, down to the number of percentage points and the additional interest rate premium necessary to get financing for illegal banned, supposedly impossible deals. nothing is impossible, so people should bear that in mind. what the sanctions have done is cripple iran's much future. it's the opportunity costs, the country that iran might be that every iranian i talked to feels, senses this iranian moment is coming where our brain power, our scientists, our business people are ready to dominate the region. they feel it on their fingertips, but that they won't grasp as long as the sanctions stay in place, and i think people know it and i think it's really our biggest leverage. a related point -- i kept hearing, even in this brief

period, intense criticism of the president who just left office, his links with the revolutionary guard and the corrupt way in people's minds of the deals he had made and the way in which iran's oil income, in particular was wasted. three or fewer people talked about the $700 billion that iran earned in oil sales during ahmadinejad's eight years. where had it gone? people asking almost as if it was a criminal indictment. these people close to the revolutionary guard have been involved in stealing money that belongs to you. a final point i'd make is really about process. i think my strongest takeaway,

as i left tehran, was just how hard it's going to be to get this deal that i think is very much in iran's and america's interests. i would close this part of the discussion by saying that if there's some way for the united states and its allies to give the iranian people a taste of what it would be like to cross the threshold into this future where they join the rest of the world. have open contacts. have modern music, performances. i'd like to see what we did in the early detente years where you have rock music or ballets and let the ayatollahs tell people they can't go listen to the music. i don't think they will and i think things like that could make a difference.

so i'll stop there. >> david, excellent. robin, thank you both very much . so you were both there. what i'd like to at least start off with is a sense of what's going on there. you've both given us that part. what surprised you the most? robin, you already addressed this. one of the surprises you heard from them was that you were even there. as you look at the society, you look at the economy, as david described, what surprised you? you've been there for many years on and off. >> 40 years. >> many years. so you've seen it either not change over a long time but you've been back knew and have seen it for nearly two weeks. what's your sense? >> like david, one of the things that really strikes you is how the economy seems to be when you're on the streets, thriving. the grand bazaar is popping, the aisles are packed.

there's a technology mall in north tehran that is just for computers and there are so many apple stories that have the apple brand on it. one of the pictures you saw i took -- you can get an ipad, iphone, ipod. latest variety in any color that porsches sell out before -- almost ordered in advance. that this is not crippled in the sense and we need to be careful about how much we assume sanctions will do anymore. yes, it is complicated business and in the case of the chemical weapons victims, the -- they couldn't get access to a lot of the medicines, not because of sanctions, because the u.s. allows all humanitarian clothing, education materials to be exempt from sanctions but because banks were not willing to be engaged in transactions

that -- even if it was for medicine. so i went to a hospice care facility where one guy is literally dying, may have died since i came back, and they were showing me the inhalers that he needed, american made and that he couldn't get access to because no pharmacy could get anybody to finance the ability to buy these things. in terms of surprises, i've been trying for 34 years to get into the american embassy in tehran. i covered the hostage crisis and the revolution and stood at the steps of the plane in al- jazeeras when the 52 americans disembarked and this time i got in and i had a revolutionary guard take me around the building. it was really -- it was actually, to be honest with you, a little anti-climatic at this point, but it was fascinating. the gold shag carpeting is all matted and filthy and it's kind of crude.

it says on the door -- papers forgery room -- and in the old room where they had diplomatic discussions, the iranians have a big sign, they call it the glassy room, and they have these three mannequins who have cheap suits and dish disheveled wiggs and they obviously don't completely bend because they're sitting straight back and my guard said to me -- and what -- that one is supposed to be ambassador sullivan. he was your last ambassador. he died last month. they actually keep up with this stuff. i think what surprised me was how -- i also went to see the man who masterminded the takeover of the american ambassador. one of three master minds and i found him fascinating.

here he is today, you know, white haired, slightly paunchy but clean-shaven in contrast to so many in iran, advocating not only the resumption of relations between the united states and tehran, but also the reopening of the embassy. you got a sense of -- that we really are as two countries for the first time in 34 years and we marked the 35th anniversary on february 1, we are on the same page. whether we can turn that page is still the big question. but this nuclear deal is important, not just because we all want to prevent a country from getting the world's deadliest weapon. it's also important because every war i went people told me the parliamentary election next year will be decided in terms of who's allowed to run, what the public mood is, how the big guns

see the mood on the street, if there's a nuclear deal. if there's a nuclear deal, there will be more of the realists or even some more reformers allowed to run. i went to see a leading women's rights activists and said if there is a nuclear deal, the president will be all the more empowered to do things on other issues, including rights for women. so they have a sense in iran that they really want this deal and that is, i think, to the advantage of the nuclear team. for all the obstacles they face from the hardliners who still control the judiciary and the legislature, there is a real public mood in favor of a deal. and, i think, to answer bill's question, the amount of it surprised me. >> same page? >> well, a couple of surprises or just things that i was able

to see that might interest you. i got to know a first-rate, from what i could tell, really world- class scientist, molecular biologist. somebody who is doing work dealing with neurodegenerative diseases like what -- my daughter's a young doctor now working on in the labs. here's a person who has very commercial ideas that could be the basis of a biotech company, who's nervous about starting that company in a country that isn't part of the w.t.o. because you can't protect intellectual property. he doesn't want to leave iran. he doesn't know what to do. he's caught. and that's an example of the -- you know, this society waiting to jump into the future and the people who have -- want to play

on the world stage that the united states needs to be speaking to. i think the other thing i would just note -- it touches on the comment robin cited, the famous comment of kissinger's, is iran a nation or a cause. and that's a sort of code for asking has iran turned the corner from its revolution? the iranian revolution in 1979 was the great by stabilizing event in that region whose tremors still affect iran and other countries. it's like the french revolution in europe, i always think. think how long it took europe to absorb all of that destabilizing energy.

and i kept looking for signs that the revolution is over and finding signs that, at least among people at the commanding heights, people with guns, it isn't. i'm sorry to say that, but i think iran's destabilizing role in the region, it's willingness to encourage turmoil in syria, lebanon, bahrain, down the list. i didn't quote this in anything, but zarif basically said that saudi arabia couldn't last and the saudis will come down as our part of the world changes, meaning the saudi world family. there's that basic revolutionary idea. destabilizing idea is still there. i don't know hugh to deal with that. i'd love to have discussion when we get to q&a about that. how should we think about that issue and that side of iran?

how much should we allow them to continue with these activities and where we should we say no, that's not acceptable? >> let me ask one follow question that follows on what both of you said, particularly your last comments and then we'll open it up, so be preparing your questions. robin, you talked about strategic recalibration. david, you said you're worried that the revolution continues. real debate in there. is there a recalculation? what are the implications for the nuclear deal, for syria, for iraq, as you wrote this morning, and then, i agree with you. there are some very smart people in this room who will have views on this as well but if you can each talk about the implications whether or not there's this recalibration and if so what the implications are. >> i think david made a tremendously important point

about the revolution, and it's clear that since 1979, the big debate in iran, whoever was president, but it played out at every election, was is the islamic republic of iran first and foremost islamic or is it first and foremost a republic? and under the reformers, they tried to push it toward the direction of a republic, and under the hardliners to keep it s ideological purity and this is a debate that's far from over. the realists are trying to bridge the two but they're not going to answer this existential question. in terms of the strategic in terms of the strategic recalculation, again, i think david is right, that the -- iran is one of the most nationalist countries in the world. i often tell people that if they want to understand persian nationalism to think of the most chauvinistic texan and then add

5,000 years, and then you begin to understand just how deep those passions go and that they will continue to do anything they -- it takes to protect or promote their national interests. but i also think that the realists have been willing to consider some important steps and on syria, and i talked to -- on the record and off the record to the foreign minister, the chairman of the foreign relations committee in parliament. several m.p.'s, both reformers and hardliners and there is a sense, a recognition that syria may not hold together as long as assad is in power, and that, as a result, what's the best alternative? and they have indicated in some

again, some on the record, some off the record, that they're prepared to lop off the head -- in other words, president assad, to keep the body, to keep the ba'ath party as a part of whatever the next political system is. that is an interesting position. i think they're very worried in iraq about al qaeda or isis reemerging and i think this -- that in a way they much were such a -- anarchy, they understand that getting the sunnis on their side is actually in iran's interests to stabilize that country. and they think of it not just in terms of stability but this is a big economic outlet, border country and -- so, look, they're never going to walk away from hezbollah.

hamas -- i think -- i thought one of the most interesting things is how their reverting to the language on the israeli conflict that the president used in the late 1990's, that if there is a deal between the palestinians and israelis, they're not going to be the ones to say no to it, to try to sabotage it. i think there are so many other big problems that the arab- israeli conflict doesn't have the profile or the priority that it once did. >> david? >> just a couple of thoughts about these big strategic issues that i think are at the center of what u.s. officials need to be thinking about and if they can discussing with the iranians. what is in our interests and i think we need to show is in their interests is a process in

which iran turns towards being a player in -- you know, maybe a leading regional player in some kind of new structure for security in the region and the essence of that deal is that iran understands their limits on its ability to move toward having nuclear weapons. highly destabilizing. in the end dangerous nor them as well as for the region, and also has to semilimits on its covert action in neighboring countries like the ones that i mentioned and what it gets out of that is acceptance that it is going to play this mainly role. it's a little bit like -- major role. it's a little bit like, if you imagine it, returning to the sort of status that iran dreamed of under the shah. so i think laying out that idea for iranians and helping their

elite think about it, get a feel for it, is crucial. i talked at length with zarif about this and he talked about some of his own writings that are in a similar direction. interestingly, i wrote a kind of quasi scholarly article years ago in 2006 looking at some of henry kissinger's writings about how europe was stabilized after the french revolution. iranians gobbled them up and when ahmadinejad came to washington, of all people, two years ago, he wanted to talk about, so the idea intrigues them. second strategic point. one theme of the article i wrote this morning is that iran is incredibly adept at riding several horses at once. negotiating with the united states in the west about a nuclear deal as it continues to run hezbollah, as it backs assad in a bloody civil war.

meanwhile it's got multiple iraqi militias, some competing with each other. all of which is covertly ascending into syria. they're masters at this and it's very skillful policy, i have to say. the united states needs to do, in its way, a little bit of the same. we need to ride multiple horses at once. we're trying to do something important with the iranians in the shiah world. it scares our sunni friends but we aught to be sort of redoubling our engagement with our sunni friends at the same time. it may appear to be contradictory. so what? often good policy has elements of critics. so riding several -- continue decisions -- contra dictions. riding several horses at once is what we ought to do and get better at it. >> david.

thank you. in the audience, there are people listening carefully. this is very, very good advice. let me invite you in the audience to ask questions of these two about any of the things that you've heard so far. if you will raise your hand, and there are mikes on either side and the first question is right up in the balcony here and it might be hard to get the mike to that -- loudly, can you do that? >> i'm from the muslim public affairs counsel and my question is directed towards david. he made a statement something to the effect that the iranis felt saudi arabia will not last. the thing is that -- you thought iran played a destabilizing role in the region, which it does. my question is twofold. one, do you think that the statement meant that iran will play a role in bringing saudi arabia down or was it simply a

statement of fact considering that there are many destructive forces within saudi arabia itself? and two, don't you feel that your statement reflects a bias in terms of -- talking about destabilization in the region. a lot of people feel that you're talking about iran being destabilizing but look at what saudi arabia is doing and it's interesting that you made a comparison between those two and don't you think that reflects a bias that many people feel the u.s. government has? >> it's a good question. well-phrased. i don't mean to be saying that i think the status quo and the status quo powers, as opposed to revolutionary iran in all cases deserve u.s. support. i think -- i hope saudi arabia will address its deep internal problems. i hope saudi arabia will

modernize, adapt, become a more open country, become a prosperous country as it does so so, yes, you're right. saudi arabia has an iran problem. iran does meddle, especially in the eastern province, but saudi arabia's biggest problems are internal and they have to do with issues the saudis have to solve. so i accept the caveat. the sunni world is convinced that iran has its hands at their throats. i mean, if you travel -- i spent a week in abu dhabi and dubai before going to tehran waiting for my visa and had a chance to talk to a lot of gulf arabs and the degree of anxiety about iran as they look at this changing

process that's beginning is important. i think it's important whenever you're in a period of change to reach out to people who are your traditional friends and tell them what you're doing. communicate more. if i would fault one aspect of u.s. policy is in this very turbulent period we have not been communicating enough to the various players, especially our traditional allies. >> thank you, david. right here? question? >> thank you, bill. i'm will emery. to come to a deal, there's got to be a quid pro quo and i think the problems in geneva are that we're going to have to deliver relief of sanctions and having worked on sanctions in the state department, i know there's an incredible web of bilateral, multilateral sanctions out there and they're owned by various groups. i'm really worried about our

ability to be able to deliver on relief sanctions to lure the iranians to give on the n -- nukes. >> so just briefly, it's interesting that iranian economists who are advising the government told me that the new budget for iran assumes that sanctions will continue. in other words, although they desire sanctions relief, they're not writing their budget based on the idea that there'll be a new wind at all. indeed, the -- windfall. the most interesting thing that rouhani is doing through his economic ministers is trying to get the import-export balance in better shape independent of oil exports. they're trying to boost petrochemical scales and a crank

range of things at the same time that they lower unnecessary imports so that they get a balance, the numbers people would share with me would be on the order of $80 million woman coming in that they could pay for with non-oil exports. they're battening down for a sanctions-continuing world. i have to say, looking at how hard the issues are on the table, i you would be surprised if, by the end of this six-month freeze period, they can be negotiated. so, you know, the goal of comprehensive -- settlement and comprehensive relief of sanctions, i just don't see that happening after six months and i think the iranians probably get that. so -- and they understand sanctions will come off slowly.

they've watched the u.s. congress. they know how many intensity there is behind the idea of adding more sanctions. a final thought -- more sanctions will in part have the effect of enfranchising, just as they did in iraq, the most corrupt people who control levers of illegal business and we have to remember that. that much more aggressive sanctions that follow breakdown of negotiations will empower the people we would least like to see on top. >> robin, your thoughts both to the question but also on this question, this issue of sanctions and like to keep it focused on tehran, but as the congressman has already indicated, it leads into washington politics as well. on the sanctions question, what was your observance there? >> one of the important things

we have to understand is that there are sanctions imposed for a lot of different reasons and they're not all related to the nuclear program. support of -- support of extremist groups, a state sponsoring of terror. there are multiple issues and the iranians are looking in the current package to get relief from the sanctions imposed just over a year ago or a year and a half ago that went into effect in the summer of -- last summer is that right? right, last summer. that impose sanctions on any third party that buys iranian oil and that has affected their ability to sell to their six largest trading partners. that's what they're looking for. they're not looking for this nuclear deal to go beyond and deal with issues of the arab- israeli peace process or support for extremist groups. human rights, there are some sanctions imposed because violations and so forth.

those issues it doesn't want to put on the table those sanctions that they know will not be lifted. so it's one narrow section. i will say that the very charismatic foreign minister said, i think, to both of us that if new sanctions are imposed by congress, even if they don't go into effect for six months, the nuclear deal is dead. they have the terms of the interim deal saying no new sanctions in exchange for what is really quite small sanctions relief. it's giving them just over $4.6, i think, billion in cash and a little bit more in other things that it's a token relief, particularly in the fact that they're losing so much more because of sanctions and their inability to sell oil. so, you know, in terms of -- i guess i'm a little bit more optimistic about whether they

could in principal get a deal. -- whether they could in principle get a deal. what i'm more pessimistic about is the fact that i think there's a greater carninge that congress will make what could be an epic miscalculation in passing new sanctions, thinking it will add pressure to iran and bring us closer to a deal when it could actually sabotage it in a way that would ultimately put the military option back on the table. it would basically be a war resolution. >> congresswoman harmon has already given advice to the congress on how to avoid exactly that yes, right here. >> to answer your question, mr. ignatius. david to you, you mentioned you were still very concerned about the revolutionary face of iran. i want to make a quick comment, that you have to remember that this government came into power

with the platform of anti-u.s. and anti-israel so it's really difficult for them at this point to abandon that face because this is basically their constituency that they need to support. but this phase is pretty much fading away and not very attractive to many iranians. about a month ago there was an anniversary of 1979 embassy take over and my daughter, who's a journalist there, reported that there was a march with the young students, elementary school students walking on the streets of iran and marching anti-u.s. slogans. when they were asked why are they here? a bunch of the boys answered we're just lucky and happy that we're not going to school too. so you can imagine that many of these kids don't take these slogans quite seriously. this was about your quick

comment about the concern of the revolutionary face of iran. >> america is a country born in revolution and we celebrate our revolution every year and we celebrate the revolutionary patriots who were our founders and i get that not the idea that we're going to ask iran to abandon this history. that's unrealistic. that said, if i were to express a hope for the way iran will move, i would think of the rise of dung shao ping and people like him in china, who preserved the come analyst party and its authoritarian structure, alas. -- the communist party and its authoritarian structure, alas. it it is a shame that china doesn't have more freedom, but

did turn toward the west. maintained the nominal demand that they would some day take taiwan, which was their rightful possession, but didn't really do anything about it. if you have that kind of outcome here where you had an iranian ping who says our regime, our revolution continues and we embrace it because it's ours. but move the country into a connection with the west recognizing that secured instability come from making things like the nuclear deal, i think that's probably -- for now, that would be fine. i think that is a useful analogy. wouldn't be perfect. i'd still be sad about some of the repressive things in iran but i understand that. >> can i add one little thing? i often try to go to iran on november 4 for the anniversary of the takeover because i covered the original hostage affair and it's very funny because the government has

declared november 4 to be pupils day and they do give everybody a day off school if they show up at the embassy and one year they were handing around little cards, don't do business with any of these brands because they do business with israel. calvin klein and so forth. what makes me laugh -- and i drove off from the commemoration and up the street was this huge billboard for calvin klein. you know, the revolution is full of these great critics. you still see the -- contradictions. you still see the language. the down with america. that was on one of the pictures i showed here. one of the ones covers like a 12-story building and yet the model is very much as if that's of a different time in their history. and oscar, the mastermind of the hostage takeover, or the embassy takeover also said to me, i'm realistic.

i believe that everything has its time and its place and that time is over. and that's from somebody who led it. >> we have -- i see three hands here. let me acknowledge that there are people in the other room. overflow who have also sent in a question. one of which asks about the strategic recalculation. the implications phillip wan asks could the u.s. and iran's mutual opposition to al qaeda and iraq and syria bolster u.s.- iran relations, especially with regard to u.s. nuclear deals? the kind of link ages and is there a real change in the overall approach? david, you want to start? >> i think certainly as al qaeda puts down deep roots in the euphrates valley and syria and iraq both, the united states is

turning to shiah allies who are supported by iran and we are now providing weapons, technology lodgal gear and lots of advice to the maliki government in baghdad, which is, i don't want to see a client of tehran but it's pretty darn close. so you can imagine a situation down the road where the kind of sharing of information that took place after 9/11, if you read ryan crocker's comments on the record in a remarkable article in "the new yorker " several months ago about the head of the kutz force in tehran, rein describes the extent to which he were sharing information with the iranians about the al qaeda threat. again, from what i know, this, unfortunately, is another

example of iran's ability to ride several horses at once. it's clear that iran has liaisoned with al qaeda -- even if it is threatened by al qaeda. the question of what to do in iraq and syria and how to get this very dangerous threat under control and who are the right allies is an absolutely central strategic issue for the administration right now. i'm glad the head of policy planning is sitting in the front row and that he has to sort this out because it's really a hard one. the idea that he would -- we would end up sharing information with iran about mutual adversaries, that's happened in the past within and outside iraq and entirely possible it will happen before too long. >> the thing that concerns me about a military strike against

iran is that, i think some leading saudis would like to see that happen. as much or perhaps even more because of those pesky little shiites across the gulf, as the nuclear question, and my deep concern is that when we look at iran and the nuclear program, we don't often factor in how this would play to the sectarian divide. for me, the greatest threat across that region today is the many different aspects of the sectarian divide and you could make the case that we have -- that it is deeper today than any time since the original schism. 14 centuries ago. it is more extensive. it affects a part of -- so much larger part of the world. it is a global phenomena the way

it plays out in terms of security interests, economy, security. and that we tend to put in a bubble each individual issue and this is one on this very important question. that gets to something much deeper that's happening in the region that could end up -- i did a piece in the "new york times" in september redrawing the map of the middle east. that it affects a lot of the -- much more fundamental basics of that region that would have a tremendous spillover on all of us. >> ok. here i've got at least three but let's start here with -- yes, right back the mike. >> my name is peter and i'm retired from the state department. the comments thus far, if you look at the map above you, have focused on the country's regions

west of iran. i would like our two guests, panelists, to give us some insights into what the iranians are thinking of the area east of iran, specifically afghanistan and pakistan. how worried are they about pakistan's nukes? how worried are they about what happens after the u.s. departs? >> uh, let me take a first crack at that. one of the more interesting comments that was made to me -- the person i won't describe -- said put down your pen. i don't want you to write this. the biggest reason we need to think about having a nuclear weapons program is pakistan. they view pakistan, a near neighbor, as a country that could become much more dangerous to their interests in the future. they worry that -- to the extent the u.s. tried to manage this problem, we haven't done a very good job of it.

so i think that's something on their strategic radar we need to be aware of. i think like everybody in the region they are apprehensive about what happens as the u.s. draws down its troops. they nominally say that they want no american military presence in afghanistan. i'm not sure if they really mean it but other people who are specialists would know better than i. the iranians do seem to be willing to play more in discussions about the future of afghanistan. at least they signal that they least they signal that they would be willing to. hussein masavain who just has gone back to iran. was at princeton. wrote a book that was published last year, very open account of his role working with rouhani and zarif a decade ago but he

says in this book that the iranians made an explicit offer after richard holbrooke's death when mark grossman became our special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, that he'd come to iran for discussions about the mutual interests shared by iran and the united states in dealing with the taliban problem in afghanistan and stabilizing afghanistan. and that the u.s. never responded. so that's an interesting statement on the record by a prominent iranian that says this is an area where we'd be willing to talk to you. >> can i just commend -- i run a website called iranprimer.com and it's now the most comprehensive website in the world in any language on iran. we have every major

pronouncement article, analysis on every aspect. it was originally a book. we put the whole book on the web and we add 12,13 pieces a week of analysis. we have every statement and pronouncement by the u.s. and also on iran. we just ran a four-part series on iran and asia. iran and india. iran and pakistan. i commend that to you. it's on iranprimer.com. >> very good. all right. let's go here. >> thank you. i'm at george mason university. my question is about new technology and social media. more than 50% of iranians have access to internet and rouhani and zarif also on twitter. but a few days ago they have a policy to have more censorship on social media and internet access.

how is it fixed with the realistics' policy of rouhani? >> i'm happy to take that i follow both on their twitter accounts and we just posted tweets from the president's account on his speech about freedom in the arts and one of the problems is that president rouhani doesn't have control over that issue and it's one which he's talked about a lot and again, this goes back to the nuclear deal, that they can't do anything else until they get this nuclear deal and they've proved their creds and the rest of the regime has to bend more because the balance of internal power moves more from rouhani's favor. they also don't want to move too quickly because that's what all the newspapers did with everybody in the power structure that created a backlash. most of the numerous were closed and reporters ended up in jail

and now that place ow a decade later in social media. -- now that plays out a decade later in social media. at i had to go through v.p.n. when i was there, virtual private networks and it wasn't easy but i managed to post pictures and facebook and while i was posting things, i would hear from other iranians who would see things so we would communicate often on social media but the censorship issue is fundamental and one of the fun things was zarif after he opened his facebook page. it was right after he was in new york. i think his plane with you delayed in new york going back to istanbul and he posted something about oh, i'm having trouble with the internet or i'm having trouble posting and someone inside who's in iran said well, now you know what it's like for the rest of us. >> the president doesn't have

responsibility for that aspect. who does? >> this is where -- you know, there's a national security council that is the powerful entity and there are those on it who are from the intelligence, from judiciary, from different branches and they kind of have to come to agreement on a lot of these basic issues. now, the most important name that's probably not known in this country and the person to watch is a man named ali shamkani who will the -- is the national security advisor. he was the former minister of defense during the reform era. he's the only arab in the inner circle. he was one who got up after the green movement and said of the two candidates who have been under house arrest now for more than two and a half years that they should never have been imprisoned and he took some strong stands and it's widely

believed in tehran -- who knows whether it's true -- that he's in that job in part because he is going to slowly move toward trying to get them released. i think the mood is, within many in the inner circle that it's ok to let them go. their fear is that millions would turn out on the streets in support and that would then be seen to be an embarrassment for whether it's the supreme leader or rouhani and the timing is not right on that issue. this is the strange system that iran's constitution is based on belgian and french law but every one of the traditional branches of government has a parallel branch of islamic clerics or scholars that has either veto power or can have a say on things and then you have the various intelligence ministries that also have a say and don't

always fully collaborate with the politicians. so taking steps on things like censorship is not flipping a switch. >> that's well said. >> good. i want to try to go to -- up here, there were -- yes, right here, please. i have the other ones in mind up there. >> thank you. i'm with middle east analysis. just a question, ms. wright, you answered already there question about the internet thing but my concern is have you felt on your visits, that there is some of a grace period and how long will it be? thank you. >> good. robin, you want to start? >> yeah, i -- i think rouhani has kind of six months, eight

months, maybe all of this year to produce something. iran has parliamentary elections next year and everybody is already looking at that and when i went to talk to some of the former reform members of parliament who were subsequently disqualified from running again by one of the islamic council is, the guardian council, they talked about preparing the ground that none of them will try to run again but they are actively now recruiting and for the momentum to move in the favor of rouhani's crowd, to break the hard-line lock on parliament, something has to happen this year and, you know, earlier than the end of the

year, so he doesn't have forever and legislative elections are just as important in iran as they are in this country. let me just say that about 10% of the parliament is reform and the rest of them are either conservative or hard-line. >> yes, sir? >> [indiscernible] >> hi. my name is john lyle. i have two questions, which are kind of different. one is -- how did they view us? it seems to me that they might come to the view that we are tired of war and as a result, a more aggressive approach to us might be in order. the other question goes to in interesting aspect of the run,

iran, the use of drugs and the source of drugs. iran has very high if you straight of heroin, for example. one of the highest in the world. they are increasingly a source for methamphetamine. did you see in the streets or hear from any of the people that you spoke with concern about the use of drugs in iran? >> so how do they view us and rugs. -- drugs. anybody want to answer that? >> the first thing to say is everyone you encounter any row in -- in iran and has got a brother,, somebody in the u.s. that has done spectacularly well. the idea of america is a place where they have prospered is a

very powerful idea and they look at where people go and make money and generally have good lives. i think you can -- looking at u.s. policy, they were probably initially mystified. we have taken down their two biggest adversaries, their biggest national security problem was saddam hussein in iraq. they fought and inconclusive eight year war and we blew in and that was the end of their problem. there are other problem was the rise of the taliban and sunni extremism on their other border, in afghanistan. we have pretty much taken that down. we have often -- also gone after their adversaries and al qaeda. but policymakers must scratch their head and ask themselves, what is this american conspiracy

that appears to be serving the national interest of iran? what is the trick? i think that there is a view any run -- in iran and elsewhere that the u.s. is exhausted. is war weary, is in a kind of retreat from this part of the world and frankly, they are reading the country pretty accurately. there is no arguing with that. somehow, the president has to find policies that have enough public support and we have some staying power for the strategy we choose and the uranium's, the s,audi' ranians, the

everybody else understands that these are policies that we are serious about strategically. if the perception that the u.s. is on its way out takes hold, why would you make a deal today if six months from now you are going to a much better deal. the classic problem of a distressed seller as they say in real estate. >> i would only add one thought, i went up to see the new head of the foreign ministry think tank. ahrani.amed mustafa z he is a very thoughtful guy and he did scratch his head and it was really about in terms of the nuclear deal. he said, sometimes it seems like the americas don't know what they are doing. to get the president who says we celebrated this deal and we are going to honor the terms and then congress turns around and says, says, we are going to have new sanctions. that they cannot make sense of, when you ask about what they

think of us, there is a very distinct division between what they think of the u.s. and what they think of the american people. that is always been true and i remember, i go down to khamenei's tomb, i go to certain landmarks as a barometer on every trip and several years ago i led an american -- i met an american tour group and i said to one of the women, i said, well, what do you think? she said, it is so refreshing been in the country that they like americans. [laughter] and it is true. this time, i went down to his tomb and one of the pictures that was shown were two of the dusters, two guys with their green and yellow dusters, they dusted to. -- dust the tomb.

it took a picture of them and they were -- when i went to the woman security side, they want to make sure i did not have anything. just a normal security check. the woman said, where you from and and i said, the united states and she said, welcome, welcome. this was not north tehran where they have a long history. on your question about drugs, this is a really serious problem for iran, the drug question. they have the highest percentage use of heroin. in the old days, the rule of thumb was, the traffic could move from afghanistan through iran as long as it was not left behind. obviously, particularly beginning with the war years, it wasn't has become a chronic problem. -- it was and it has become a chronic i've seen in the past, problem. i've seen in the past, but this is many years ago, the drug use wandering the streets, begging for money, and then the

iranians opened up facilities for them to deal with this. they recognize the drug problem in the same way that they despite ahmadinejad's comments about there being no days any iran, they are dealing with the hiv problem now. recently, they opened alcoholism centers, so there being a a little bit more regal -- realistic about dealing with some of these growing problems. >> good, thank you. in the middle. so, we have about not quite 20 minutes left. we will try to get as many as we can. >> i'm kate walters. you mentioned early in the talk that rouhani has gained in popularity since he came to power and i was wondering about the backlash from those people that have made a lot of money

and a lot of success from the sanctions. also the revolutionary guard. how much has there been a backlash and how much power do they have? >> you both address that. i can't -- >> he is described as being more powerful for several reasons. i think most iranians hope that his opening to the west succeeds. he ran in the elections last june as the candidate who said we cannot just have friendships with russia and china. we need to have friendships with the west and they are embarrassed to feel so isolated. he is seen by a half-dozen different people that i've talked to, seen as a better manager.

come there to -- compared to i'm in a shot. he was always popping off. rouhani is more efficient and his economic management has helped obviously in the markets are doing better. inflation is down, i believe that nonoil experts are up. other indices of good economic management show that he is doing better. that makes him popular. my feeling is that a year is the right time horizon to how long there is to work on this. even if at the end of that year there is not a granted deal i , don't think that the backlash would necessarily overwhelm him. it might overwhelm his foreign minister, but they are not completely interchangeable.

just mention one more interesting thing about rouhani. when i interviewed him when he came for the general assembly, i have the on the record printed interview that he gave. he had a lot of other sessions that were more background. he said in the course of that, i think we can negotiate a nuclear deal within three months. my jaw dropped. it turned out it was quicker than that. the other thing that was fascinating was that i asked him about something he had said airing the campaign about how the -- is too powerful. irgc is too the powerful. the security agencies in the iran are too powerful and they should pull back. i said, do you still feel this and what can you do about it? he did answered on the record.

he said, i think that they are a wonderful organization in many ways but it just a out of politics and it should not form relationships with other political groups. and i think, you know, in iran's future, other parts of our society need to blossom. that is really interesting. somebody wrote a recent commentary that i'm sure that robin posted noting that he is not doing this directly, not challenging them directly but trying to get the supreme leader to do it for him. i guess that is the space that i would most be watching myself over the next year, the space between rouhani and the revolutionary guard.

is that why do you mean? are there signs that he is trying to reduce their say over some of the files that they control? >> supreme leader has come out more than once and said it is time with the revolutionary guard to go back to their barracks and help the country develop economically. and this place what happens to the iran-iraq war. the economy wasn't irish greats was in dire straits. they decided to up feel people and rally support for the government by opening the floodgates and they imported everything and went into terrible debt. i remember going to the first mercedes-benz franchise and i thought this was fascinating. the two guys that were running it, burly, bearded, stereotypical guard type. this does not match. i asked about their backgrounds.

sure enough, they were vets. what happened was after the iran-iraq war, they wanted to keep those cards. they wanted to keep them on board. they kind of bought them out. they had been buying them out ever since. they are now deeply in to this process that the revolutionary guards, the companies run by the guards at discharge and companies particularly. -- the construction companies particularly, are a huge segment of the economy. one of the more interesting lines was when asked about the leadership of the revolutionary guards, and somebody said at the end of the day, general joffe was to keep his job. -- wants to keep his job. we forget that there are

realities for them as well. they want the system to survive and to do that, they have to be sometimes realistic. >> all the way to the top. yes, sir. >> i'm from iran wire. this message is for robin. going to iran for about 40 years. you have probably had some tea sessions and sat around with women. what was your take, what were their concerns and aspirations, i guess and david can free during his trip. >> it is a good question and i think that the women know that they are in a holding pattern and women's rights are not a top priority right now. at the same time, president often, has talked

tweeted about equal job opportunities, equal pay, giving women the opportunity to be outside of the home and have equal access to education. i think there is a sense that the current government heart is in the right place and it is not likely to be able to do anything dramatic. this is where i saw one of the offsprings. that's the offspring of ayatollah khomeini. she again went back to the nuclear deal and says if you get the nuclear deal, that opens the door for other things to happen. everybody is waiting. waiting. that is why this year is very important because it is not just the nuclear deal. it is everything that the u.s. would like to happen in iran.

it is on the line with the nuclear deal as well. that is the tragedy of the possibility of senate sanctions. that by doing that, the senate thinks that it is doing something that will help achieve american goals when it could be the most counterproductive thing that the u.s. does in terms of its very own goals. >> just a brief comment. if you talk to demographers, they will tell you that one of the most striking developments in the world is the radical decline in birth rates among the women in iran. they have just kind of fallen off a cliff. actually, there are sharp declines in fertility in many other muslim countries as well.

this is one of the unnoted fascinating facts in the world. in iran, when you talk to people, they just say, first, education for women is widespread, i believe a significant majority of those in university are women. these women are taking the career seriously, they are delaying marriage, they are delaying having children so as to have careers. it is really hard for a middle- class family to make ends meet. often, both members of the family work. that has had the effect of reducing birthrates. i find this aspect of life fascinating. it comes through in a marvelous movie, separation. ," which was about

the strains of marriage caused by modern life. so many parts of the world, the changing role of women is probably the most important driver of broader change and i bet that is true in iran. >> i forgot, one of my favorite stories. after the revolution, the leadership called on women to breed an islamic generation and they did. in a decade, their population 64t from 34 million to million. then i call it the government of god plummeted to earth. they realize they cannot feed, clothe, educate, eventually employ and they had reduced the voting age to 15. suddenly all of these young people had the dominant say and today 50% of the population is

post-revolution. the government in the 1990's introduced a family -- family planning program and everything was free. the water tower said that there is a vasectomy clinic. on u.n. population day, the clerks would give talks about limit your family to to and i i actually to a dissecting me clinic with a cleric who was taking two of his guys to have surgery as they figured out a way to reverse it so that it was not necessarily permanent in case of a wife or child dying or something. it did. it brought the average number of children down to under two per woman from six. iran won two awards. one from the united nations for having the most effective noncoercive family planning program. they had women going door-to- door to peach -- to preach the benefits of family planning. the children would have better

health, that the mother would have more of a life. the country's welfare wouldn't be squandered on all of these children but could be more focused and ultimately that more resources could be used for the defense of the nation. it was incredibly effective. the numbers turned around with lightning speed. then they decided to introduce a program to make sure that this became a part of life where every couple getting married would have to get a family planning course, a one-day course with their betrothed. i decided to go to one of these and see what it was like. i have to tell you, i learned some things. [laughter] they are incredibly graphic and there were many couples who were arranged marriages and they just met each other a couple of weeks ago. the bride's brother or father,

there was a chaperone. there was a class of them. they even had a giant phallus and they did the condom thing. i was like, oh, my god. and it was during the horror -- they apologized that they cannot use their musical tape because they don't play music during this month. you have to have that certificate in order to get your marriage license. the interesting thing now, they do not realize that the unintended consequence of the revolution was that a lot of traditional families who not allow their girls to go to school suddenly began to trust the system of education and let them go on. as a result, you do have 64% of the university community that is now female.

they have won the highest award for gender equality. there are more girls in school across the board than there are boys. it is also lead to unusual demographic and now they are realizing that this be generation where you have a decade that is going to work its way through the system. where there were six children per family. they are being supported by two children and it is the same problem of maintaining social security. now, they talked about giving gold coins and other incentives so that families would have more children. the interesting thing is that it is part of the system. two child per family is the accepted norm. they don't have a lot of interest going on. they realize those basics. >> let me ask the last question. where do we go from here?

based on your observations, they have given us some advice on what they should do about the bill. robin has called this morbid. -- the sanctions bill morbid. david has some advice on integrating i ran into a regional structure. iran into aing regional structure. how would you like to conclude, what final thoughts about the way forward? robin, why don't you -- >> what is next? i think a deal is possible. i think that they will compromise more than we think they will to get it. they're really ready to move on. for a lot of reasons, for things that we don't recognize. the environmental problems are

horrific. as david knows the pollution, , you wonder that half the population doesn't have lung disease. three of the four most polluted cities in the world are in iran. they are running out of water. they have a great piece about these environmental challenges. some of the rivers have gone totally dry. this is a reality. we keep thinking about crippling sanctions. there are a lot of much more basic weston's they are really interested in. they want to move on. i'm really worried that 34 years of tension and making them the enemy -- there is a postcard i remember from the time of the hostage takeover that showed an of iran. kicking imap -- a map of iran.

shiites out ofhe iran." there is still that holdover from the hostage crisis that still finds out perceptions of iran. that is so out of date. that is why keep going back and looking at whether it is the anniversaries anniversaries are trying to get into the indices. i'm not sure that we have moved on. i don't know whether the psychology, the fear beyond the fear factor. to do what is ultimately in both nations national interest. >> i think i'm probably a little bit more pessimistic than robin about the ability to get a comprehensive deal over the next year. i certainly think we should try to do it. i don't think we should soften the edges of what we are seeking as to get it. i think it is important that those edges remain clear, we

really are requiring them to reverse elements of their nuclear program, to give up things that they have and try to pretend that that is not so, i think, would be a mistake. i would close by saying that i hope that president obama and his advisers on this policy will continue to be strategic and i say continue to be because i think while i would fault many things the administration has done in foreign policy, on iran, they have done is pretty sensibly. when the president came into office, he said, we need to find a way to engage. we need to open the door to real contact with them so as to talk about the nuclear issue and other issues. then he realized that we need to find a way to organize a coalition of support that will pressure iran to walk through that door. open it and find a way to move

them in the direction of negotiation. he did that and the coalition is powerful. he has kept russia and china as part of it with a lot of hard work. basically, i think the president needs to own this and continue to drive it and continue to make good decisions. i thought he was pretty honest the other week when he said to a gathering sort of like this that he thought there was a 50-50 chance of a deal. he was not blowing smoke. if he sticks to that and continues to empower secretary kerry and all of the other key people, even if you don't get the deal after a year, i think the process itself will be a good one for a iran and will give the iranian people a taste