united kingdom. when the acts of the union were passed, the role of the state was limited to things like defense, taxes, and property rights. since then, the state has transformed beyond recognition and our institutions have grown together, like the roots of great trees, fusing together under the foundations of our daily lives. you don't need a customs check when you travel over the border, you don't have to get out your passport out at carlisle, you don't have to deal with totally different tax systems and regulations when you trade and you don't have to trade in different currencies. our human connections -- our friendships, relationships, business partnerships -- they are underpinned because we are all in the same united kingdom and that is reason number 1 we are stronger together. the second is our prosperity. some people look at the united kingdom only in terms of debit and credit columns, tax and spend and how that gets split

between our four nations. but that completely misses the bigger picture. this is a world that has been through massive economic storms where economic competition is heating up as never before, where we have to work harder than ever just to make a living. and in that world of uncertainty, we are quite simply stronger as a bigger entity -- an open economy of 63 million people with the oldest and most successful single market in the world with one of the oldest and most successful currencies in the world. that stability is hugely attractive for investors. last year we were the top destination for foreign direct investment in europe. that is a stamp of approval on our stability -- and i would not want to jeopardize that. but let me be clear -- the central part of my economic argument for the u.k. is not about what we'd lose if we

pulled apart, but what we could gain in this world if we stay together. this government has set out a long-term economic plan for britain -- getting behind enterprise, dealing with our debts, a plan to give the people of this country peace of mind and security for the future. and this isn't just a plan, it's a vision. the u.k. as the big european success story of this century moving from an island sinking under too much debt, too much borrowing, and too much taxation to a country that's dynamic, exporting, innovating, creating. scotland is right at the heart of that vision. why? i could give you a list of the scottish strengths -- their historic universities like edinburgh, aberdeen, glasgow and st. andrews, great industries -- from food processing to financial services, from ship-building to science. but it's not about scotland's strengths as some sort of bolt-on extra. it's about what we, the

constituent parts of the u.k, can achieve together. a power of collaboration. it's there in our past when the scottish enlightenment met the industrial revolution -- intellectual endeavor and commercial might combining to shape global economic ideas. and that power of collaboration is there today. together we're stronger at getting out there and selling our products to the world. take scotch whisky. whether i'm in india or china, there's barely a meeting where i don't bang the drum for whisky abroad. of course, the first minister fights hard for those deals too but the clout we have as a united kingdom gives us a much better chance of getting around the right tables, bashing down trade barriers, getting deals signed. the result -- scotch whisky adds

135 pounds to the uk's balance of payments every single second. and together we're stronger to lead in the industries of the future. take green energy. we have the wind and the waves of scotland, decades of north sea experience in aberdeen and with the rest of the u.k., a domestic energy market of tens of millions of people to drive and support these new industries. two years ago we set up the green investment bank. based in edinburgh, it's invested across the u.k, helping a scottish distillery to fit sustainable biomass boilers, financing a new energy center at addenbrooke's hospital in cambridge. this is what happens when we collaborate. we've come through the great recession together. our deficit down by a third. our economy growing. our exports to china doubled. and i believe we stand a much, much better chance of building a more prosperous future together. the third reason we're stronger

together is our place in the world. together, we get a seat at the u.n. security council, real clout in nato and europe, the prestige to host events like the g8. together we've got the finest armed forces on the planet. i think of the fighter pilots originally operating from raf lossiemouth who flew sorties over libya, the legendary scottish titles now part of the royal regiment of scotland, like the black watch and the highlanders. i think of the shipyards on the forth and the clyde, where alongside shipyards across the u.k. they are building the queen elizabeth aircraft carrier launching this year to secure the seas and keep us safe. now to some, all this might sound like national vanity. it's the view that if the u.k. split up and our role in the world shrank, it wouldn't matter so much. but this is a country that earns

its living through its international ties with millions of our citizens living abroad. when ships are ambushed on lawless seas, that hits our trade. when the middle class in china is set to grow by millions a year, that presents huge opportunities for jobs back home here in the u.k. this world shapes us, so our place in the world really matters. and make no mistake -- we matter more as a united kingdom -- politically, militarily, diplomatically, and culturally, too. our reach is about much more than military might. it's about our music, film, tv, fashion. the u.k. is the soft power superpower. you get teenagers in tokyo and sydney listening to emeli sandé. people in kazakhstan and taiwan

watching bbc exports like "sherlock," written by a scot a hundred years ago, played by an englishman today, and created for tv by a scotsman. the world service -- transmitting to hundreds of millions. famously aung san suu kyi has said it helped her through her long years of detention, saying "everywhere i have been, the bbc has been with me." and the bbc itself -- founded by a scotsman. my wife is an ambassador for the british fashion council, and she sees and raves about the international impact of our fashion, helped along massively by scottish designers like christopher kane and jonathan saunders. sometimes we can forget just how big our reputation is that the world over the letters "u.k." stand for unique, brilliant, creative, eccentric, ingenious. we come as a brand -- a powerful brand. separating scotland out of that brand would be like separating

the waters of the river tweed and the north sea. if we lost scotland, if the u.k. changed, we would rip the rug from our own reputation. the fact is we matter more in the world if we stay together. these are all compelling practical reasons for the u.k. to stick together. institutional questions, that's not what it's really about, for me. it's about the slave who escaped his master after the american revolution because he was offered liberty and land by the british crown. in gratitude, he named himself this -- british freedom. it's about lord lovat on the beach on d-day, the bagpipes playing as his brigade landed ashore. it's about hms sheffield, hms glasgow, hms antrim, hms glamorgan, grey ships plowing

through grey seas for 8,000 miles to the falkland islands, and for what? for freedom. because this is a country that has never been cowed by bullies and dictators. this is a country that stands for something. and this, really, is why i'm standing here today -- our shared values. freedom. solidarity. compassion. not just overseas, but at home. in this country, we don't walk on by when people are sick when people lose work, when people get old. when you talk about an englishman, a welshman, a scotsman, a northern irishman it might sound like the beginning of a bad joke, but here it's how we started our nhs, our welfare system, our state pension system. and these values aren't trapped in the pages of a history book. they are alive. when the people of benghazi were crying out for help, when a girl in pakistan was shot for wanting an education, when children

around the world are desperate for food, we don't walk on by. and let's be clear. our values are not just a source of pride for us, they are a source of hope for the world. in 1964, nelson mandela stood in the dock in the pretoria supreme court. he was making the case for his life, against apartheid, and in that speech he invoked the example of britain. he said, "i have great respect for british political institutions, and for the country's system of justice. i regard the british parliament as the most democratic institution in the world." our parliament, our laws, our way of life -- so often, down the centuries, the u.k. has given people hope. we've shown that democracy and prosperity can go hand in hand, that resolution is found not

through the bullet, but the ballot box. our values are of value to the world. in the darkest times in human history there has been in the north sea a light that never goes out. and if this family of nations broke up, something very powerful and precious would go out forever. so there is a moral, economic, geopolitical, diplomatic, and, yes -- let's say it proudly -- an emotional case for keeping the united kingdom together. but still, however strongly we feel, we can be a reticent nation. it can seem vulgar to fly the flag. some people have advised me to stay out of this issue and not to get too sentimental about the u.k. but frankly, i care far too much to stay out of it. this is personal.

i have an old copy of "our island story," my favorite book as a child, and i want to give it to my 3 children, and i want to be able to teach my youngest when she's old enough to understand that she is part of this great, world-beating story. and i passionately hope that my children will be able to teach their children the same thing, that the stamp on their passport is a mark of pride, that together, these islands really do stand for something more than the sum of our parts, they stand for bigger ideals, nobler causes, greater values. our brilliant united kingdom -- brave, brilliant, buccaneering, generous, tolerant, proud -- this is our country. and we built it together. brick by brick, scotland, england, wales, northern ireland. brick by brick. this is our home, and i could

not bear to see it torn apart. i love this country. i love the united kingdom and all it stands for. and i will fight with all i have to keep us together. and so i want to be clear to everyone listening. there can be no complacency about the result of this referendum. the outcome is still up in the air, and we have just seven months to go. seven months to do all we can to keep our united kingdom as one. seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history. and we must do whatever it takes. so to everyone in england, wales and northern ireland everyone, like me, who cares about the united kingdom, i want to say this -- you don't have a vote, but you do have a voice. those voting are our friends, neighbors, and family. you do have an influence. get on the phone, get together,

email, tweet, speak. let the message ring out from manchester to motherwell, from pembrokeshire to perth, from belfast to bute, from us to the people of scotland -- let the message be this -- we want you to stay. think of what we've done together, what we can do together, what we stand for together. team g.b., the winning team in world history. let us stick together for a winning future, too. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you.

i will take some questions and thets from members in audience. let's see from the lady in blue. topeople have been told leave their homes in the middle of the night because of the floods. why does the government still not have a grip? >> we are doing everything we can. i chaired the issue yesterday evening. into theut extra money defenses. we will start dredging as soon as we can. we got the army helping out, the environment agency, in other parts of the country. i spoke personally to the commander running the operation. all of the things that we can do to help people, whether helping people get out of their homes, help protecting essential

infrastructure, whether in the case yesterday, a question of moving cattle off the land, we will do everything we can to coordinate what is still a very difficult situation. i would like to pay tribute to people from the environment agency,to the police the military, who have been working around-the-clock to do with this issue. we will keep doing whatever it takes, holding those cobras, cord knitting the activity, investing the money, bringing to bear where necessary, everywhere where it needs to be done, it will be toward native and it will be done. over here. i work in fashion and retail in scotland, and scots have la d played and one for role.

do you agree now is the time for scotland incident of arguing amongst themselves we should combine resources and tackling the french and italians and sustaining global competition? >> a very good point about how we are stronger and more prosperous together. fashion is a classic example. there are some brilliant designers whoon make a huge contribution, but we are getting to punch more forcefully if we work together. and as we try to take on the great fashion houses of the hotel unit and french, having the strength of the great written united kingdom brand is a huge source of strength. are, hosted by a university, who has set up a fashion school in london, setting a good example, exactly what you say. gentleman over here. >> prime minister, there is a new fellow drum opened in

glascow. why are you making this speech in london and not in glascow? >> i will be making a number of visits in scotland this year and making points in this debate about the importance of the debate in the country. i wanted to make the speech to hear today, i hope this message resonates in scads -- in scotland, but i am really talking to people in england, wales, northern island, who do not have a vote, if who care passionately about its outcome. i want people in scotland to know that the rest of us in the are not justm walking on by, saying it will be interesting what decision they make. it is important people in scotland understand the rest of the family see this as a very important family decision, and we will feel less about ourselves, about our country, about our family of scotland voted to become separate.

that is what it is important to make this speech here in london. i could have made it in other parts of england or northern ireland, and perhaps i will do that, but i also will be in scotland and be taking the entire cabinet to scotland to make those arguments there, too. one more question. the gentleman in the back. prime minister, the scottish national party is arguing for an end to political union with the united kingdom. what in your opinion are the political institutions that can only be served within the union and what would not work without the union? >> the way you put the question is the way i think sometimes the minister is trying to say there are lots of unions between england and scotland, and really i am trying to make a small change to the political union. that each raise the weakness of

-- that the trace the weakness of his case. if scotland vote to separate itself from the rest of the united kingdom, that is what it will become, separate. i will be tragic. we can go through all the individual institutions and issues, and talking about financial services, what have you. a lot of the attention has been paid to the issue of the currency. it would be extremely difficult to make a current see union work independent, separate scotland and the rest of the united kingdom. all these institution questions --unexamined, the one arguing for separation, and he needs to answer the questions. the white paper did not answer those questions at all. for those of us who believe in the united kingdom, we should be making this positive argument about how these institutions work for all of us together. and we have annexed restraint in

our argument, but for all those utionant further devoll they should vote no because voting no these all the possibilities open for devoluti on. voting yes means the process is at an end. that is important for people to bear in mind. it has been a huge leisure to make this speech which i have wanted to make so passionately, and i hope that comes across. all of us in the united kingdom, whether our blood, maybe scotland, or in england, we do not have a vote, but we care passionately about the outcome, and want people in scotland to do how we feel. if you scratch an englishman or a welshman or northern irishman, underneath the surface, underneath the surface is a deep and passionate pride in our united kingdom. we have felt a tear on that

night in them fellow drum. velodrome, where it was hotter than today. we would be diminished if scotland were due leave our extraordinary, successful, and remarkable family. thank you very much indeed. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] coverage from the atlantic council this afternoon. michael oren will talk about the prospects for a peace agreement. this is running a few minutes to hide. we will give you an update on the house schedule. the house will come in for votes at 6:30 eastern. drought and supporting the ukraine. house republicans will meet at about 5:30 about how to move

forward on the debt ceiling. "the washington post" writes house gop leaders will ask house republicans to pass legislation to extend the government's borrowing authority. speaker boehner will address the leadership's top option, which is to cut military visits with an extension of the borrowing authority. that idea was first pitched last week over the weekend among republicans. this event at the atlantic council is running a little behind, and we wanted to give you a conversation during this break about the medicare advantage program from "washington journal." host: welcome back. our guest is sam baker. thanks for being with us.

morningalking this about the medicare advantage program. explain what that is. isst: the medicare advantage privately administered medicare coverage. instead of the traditional medical program, these are private plans you can buy and they often have a little bit of supplemental coverage in addition to the traditional medicare benefits. they are reimbursed by the federal government. affected is that a by the affordable care act? guest: significantly. this is a program that democrats have always felt overpaid, that it was paying insurance provides more to basically the same service that the government was already providing. cutsdable care act medicare advantage and we saw last year and insurance

companies are afraid we will see this year additional cuts on top of those cuts in the affordable care act. what does that mean for a person involved in this program? guest: we are still figuring that. insurance companies will say there's no way for you to cut the costs without us passing that on to someone else. that will either have to main -- mean plants with fewer benefits or they will have to exclude certain expensive doctors from their network, and people might lose the doctor they like. every cut gets transferred over seniors in some way.

explain to us why these cuts are happening. we have talked about what they are. guest: because the cuts were included for to you reasons. a lot of people felt that program was overpaying. people needed savings. that is what you are looking at ise, an administration that trying to expand coverage and also pay for that expansion and try to cut costs where it came within that health care system. insurers were able last year to turn their proposed pay cut into opaque increase. that does not affect the cuts in the affordable care act. those were going to be layered on top. that is why you are seeing it. no one is having a great time in terms of getting paid to provide health care right now. it is a lien time. first call from

illinois. forer: i called in earlier raising taxes on the rich so we can get our country back in shape again. we had 137 far out billion years -- billionaires last year. medicare, medicare advantage should never be in there. they took it away. brought back into the medicare and get medicare back where it is supposed to be. i do not think people who are making $50,000 should be taxed and everything should be taxed above, not below. right now the poor people are paying all the taxes and the rich are going away tax-free. costs down.ing --you tax them to death,

they do not want to pay the tax. let's get this country back in shape. thank you. guest: you see this debate playing out in congress. do you raise taxes or do you cut? paul ryan wants to cut our entitlement programs like medicare. you'll probably see some balance between them. these were some of the cuts back during the presidential campaign. there was that whole to-do over romney and ryan attacking president obama for some medicare cuts. that includes these medicare advantage cuts. host: next up, ken is on our line for republicans.

caller: sam baker said the government is able to pay for it. i am 64 years old. i have been around. back in the late 1970's -- >> it is a great pleasure to be with you this afternoon. this event marks the beginning of an important new initiative at the council, the introduction , and the first public event around our first ambassador in the branch broke off center at the national security council. there are a lot of reasons why the atlantic council was delighted to have been able to bring on board israel's former ambassador to the u.s., michael

n, starting february 1, so we are getting shortly after he began here at the atlantic council. in the press release circulated in january to my eyes following -- brings us to the council a powerful mix of the highest level diplomat's experience and the best-selling author's skills. i think you will see a taste of all of that in his opening comments and in the questions and answers today. he is a person who not only knows how to promote it -- how diplomacy is done, but in trying to solve some of the problems of the middle east, but also knows the historical context more richly than any master i have ever known. we face a crucial moment in history of the middle east, and as you will hear today, ambassador oren is a creative,

sometimes provocative out of the box thinker. the council during the year ambassador oren will just america's feature role in the middle east as well as cutting -- join me in welcoming ambassador oren. before i turn the podium to him, anotherin thanking person. she was our founding member. to pioneer thes idea of ambassadors and residents to the council, and she has supported two of them. be here today, but she sends her greetings. and finally, thanks to the director of the brent stroke off center.- scowcroft

there are too many people in this audience to call attention to all of them. we have ambassadors, senior officials from the u.s. government, officials from many of the embassies around town. take you for being here. so now to the program, and ambassador oren will kick us off with some opening remarks, then some initial questions, and we will turn to the audience. michael? [applause] thank you. thank you for crediting me with the ability to solve all the middle east's diplomatic problems. good afternoon, everybody. wcroft to the brent sco center, and i'm delighted to be a part of your extraordinary organization. the church are here at the center. -- the director here at

the center. visionary andt asked downing human being. -- and is a great human being. welcome to our colleagues from the diplomatic community. a historian, so i will start with history for you. some of you may know this. the middle east as a geostrategic concept was an american intervention. the term was coined in september by a person who was a former naval officer in the navy, a naval strategist. his concern was moving warships and guarding international see ways, guaranteeing access to trade. in those days trade extended from the near east of greece and

the balkans to the far east, en routeina, siam, and it passed through the swiss canal and onto run the arabian peninsula. areasine this nebulous between the near east and the far east, man devised a new term, the middle east. distinctive characteristic of this area, from the perspective of a geo -- she didn't strategy, was its almost total absence of strategic significance. the only strategic value of the middle east lay in its location. there was an area one had to cross while steaming from one area of importance to another area of importance. and it would take another before before -- decade the british navy, realizing the affordability and abundance of middle east oil, decided to fromrt their entire fleet

coal to oil. it took another 40 years until the height of world war ii for the american navy to look to the middle east to quench its thirst for energy. america's growing postwar interest in middle east oil coincided with the collapse of the british and french empires in the east. the process to which america replaced these former colonial aowers took place over short time. we can trace it from the enunciation of the truman doctrine in 1947 to the suez crisis in 1956, and that time also coincided with the advent of the cold war in the middle east. just as britain and france back in the 1850's joined to stave off russian encroachment in the crimea into the middle east, so if the united states a century later labor to prevent soviet

encroachments in the middle east. but the lines in the middle east cold war were never completely and fully drawn. on one level, there were the pro--american, mostly traditional want factories purses the radical states of egypt, iraq, syria, algeria, yemen, and libya. but at any given time the monarchies were also at loggerheads, and sometimes the theis were at lobbies with people in jordan. arab-israeli conflict also cut across these lines. although in theory it was a proxy war, between the united states and the soviet you're in -- soviet union, at different pro-americanted a israel versus a pro-american jordan, and a pro-american saudi arabia. the lines were never completely drunk. and yet it was the arab-is thatn the war of 1973

enables secretary of state henry kissinger with singular vision and drive to lay the foundations of what we today call in retrospect that pax americana. the keystone to those efforts was egypt. move from the soviet to the american sphere. it signaled the rapid decline of the soviet union and the serious challenger to american hegemony in the middle east. americana officially began with the 1979 peace treaty between egypt and israel. this treaty established the precedent for lady peace treaties between israel and jordan, as well as the 1993 oslo accords between israel and the palestine liberation organization. cedento said the pre for later peace conferences, whether in madrid or annapolis.

the people in the middle east became accustomed to the essential that only the united states could play the role of effective mediator, and even pro-soviet states like syria would host over 30 visits by secretary of state warren christopher in the 1990's. extraordinary. union soviet disintegrated, so too did its military presence in the middle east. remember that great blue water fleet of the soviet union back in 1973, that went eyeball to eyeball with the american fleet? that virtually is appeared between the sixth week in the eastern that it and in the fifth leak in the persian gulf, american military power went virtually unchallenged. with the exception of that ubiquitous kalashnikov rifle, gradually replace soviet arms throughout the middle east, and american investment predominated. although theally,

ushered inna the president influence, it was not very much of a pax. it inaugurated decades of american military conflict in the middle east, something of what you can call a 30-year war beginning in 1979 with a takeover of the u.s. embassy in tehran, and continued with the pill-fated american intervention possumnon in the 1980 and rating administration's armed confrontations with both libya and iran, terrorist attacks against american targets, kidnapping of american nationals, american missile attacks on iraqi in the sudan, a proxy war in afghanistan followed by a real war in afghanistan, which is en route to becoming america's longest conflict in the region after the barbary wars of the early 19th century.

this is all a part from which the united states had varying degrees of involvement, including israel in 1982, and the iraq-iran war. pax americana, indeed. these conflicts exacted an immense price both in terms of more row and materiel from the united states, and much like the british and the french before them, americans began to lose their stomach for maintaining their middle east hegemony. middle east enemies were hardly passive. 9/11, middle eastern terrorists have tried to carry out some 16 major terrorist attacks on american soil, one of them not far from here at that café milano, and of course there was 9/11 itself, which you can make a case could be the most effective in terms of this cost benefits, the most

effective military operation in modern military history. with little training and four hijacked planes, 19 terrorists from the middle east 3000eded in killing over americans and cost over $1 trillion and left the american people for weary. a case could also be made for citing 9/11 as the high water mark of the pax americana. a year later, as the bush created the quartet, comprised of the united states, the u.n., union, and the european the quartet, which effectively ended america's 30-year monopoly over middle east peacemaking. torica's repeated inability achieve peace between israel and the palestinians, first underbrush and later under the

obama administration, was both a symptom and a cause of the winning of the pax americana. b other milestone -- the other milestone in the two-tier aeration of america's reemergence in the region are well known. it began with a retreat from iraq, the looming withdrawal from afghanistan, the reluctance to aid syrian rebels trying to inability thushe far to remove chemical weapons from syria, about 94% of those weapons remain in place, the zigzagging of american policy toward egypt, hastening and then celebrating the downfall of mubarak. the perceived embrace in the region of morsi and egyptian brotherhood followed by a recall by al-sisi. the eagerness of the obama administration to retreat in

negotiated solution to the iranian nuclear issue. the effects of sequestration in america possibility to project power in the middle east, the withdrawal of the uss truman from the area. the coldness toward traditional allies such as by rain --- bahrain and a willingness to show distance with saudi arabia while flouting america possibly america'spendence -- newfound independence of oil sources in the middle east. also in repelling al qaeda's allies. the fading of president obama's intensely close relationship with turkish prime minister e rduan. geopolitics of force and factor in, and the middle east power left by america's

wake been filled or has been try to be filled by other countries. the cornerstone of the left pax na, i will tell you the cornerstone was the u.s. egyptian relationship. been hostings now military delegations from the russians. the chinese solicitations have been circulated around the middle east. vacuum.since there is a the french have stepped up to what they see is a vacant home plate in the middle east. impressions in the middle east are absolutely cardinal, and that peoples of the region's, if them, wouldoll not agree on anything, but if you were to ask sunnis, shiites, , they woulduzes

agree with the proposition that america's power in the middle east is on the wane and that the age of american preeminence is over. the house that henry built is tottering. but can we distinguish then between an impression and the reality? is america's sun in the middle east indeed setting? here the answer has to be far more nuanced. the key to the future is technology. i apologize for the tautology, but it is true. with all due respect, to russia and china and france, american technology remains regnent throughout the middle east. ofsia can sell a couple destroyers, but their presence pales. isretary of state kerry mediating between israelis and palestinians and taking the

diplomatic lead. keeping in mind that the pax americana was always heavy on x, little, light on pa has changed in the middle east except for the fact that today more middle easterners are killing more of each other and killing fewer americans. in fact, with fewer boots on the ground or even ships at sea, the u.s. is killing numbers of middle easterners by remote means, which you know. and for all of their war weariness, it would be a big mistake i believe for any party in the middle east to begin to target americans. in short, it is surely premature to speak of a pox americana -- in thex americana middle east, but it is not too early to speak of a post-middle east america, distinguished

between the two. an america that was into streamlined its commitment to the region, to revisit old alliances while seeking new ones, and america that will balk at acting at the middle east as or middle east's exclusive policeman or fireman. that much has changed. wait. have to that judgment also may prove premature. those of us with a certain generation -- of a certain remembern, fred, may 1975 and the american withdrawal from vietnam and the economic image of those the copters being pushed off into the sea. couldn 1975, america withdraw and be confident that the vietcong were not going to follow americans down to l str eet in washington, d.c. there were people who i counter who i encountered who said

that america could pivot away from the middle east. it may prove illusory, because the middle east is not like vietnam and the middle east can follow america to here, and i do not believe disengagement and hurley is's -- entirely is possible. pax americana. fred? >> thank you. [applause] >> wonderful introductory remarks. dig into and to follow up on. i will, back to post-pax americana and post-middle east america. before i do that, however, as much as you have gone into history in your remarks, some people in the audience i do not

know that you have gone even further back than history of the united states in the middle east, going back to 1776. ministryde in your recent book a few of the u.s. involvement in the middle middle east. i wonder if you can go into that in sort of a cliff notes version here -- that is why i asked for the cliff notes version. this comparative analysis between middle east and the founding of the united states and how the u.s. development has influenced the middle east development and at some point i think we'll all also get into what that has to do with the civil war and the statue of liberty. let's start with the overview. the middleview is east has had profound impacts in shaping one another.

the middle east was theamentally involved in founding of the american constitution. i knew that would get you. it is simple. i mentioned the barbary wars. they were the first foreign wars america fought after the american revolution, against the pirates of marco and algeria, and america did not have a navy and they could not have one until they collected taxes. the question of how to fight the parts became integral about whether or not to have a constitution. if you go into the debates, in every state and armory wars are there. barbary wars are there. the middle east fired the imagination of authors like herman melville and mark twain,

freedom fighters like frederick douglass and john f. kennedy. on thea huge influence middle east well before the advent of middle eastern oil. during the night the century america was the main exporter of oil to the middle east. was in the form of kerosene. had a nod states also less transformative impact on the middle east. mostly not through macroeconomics, but through education. america built the university in beirut, in cairo amman universities in turkey through which american educators imparted american ideas. the most influential idea was the idea of nationalism. those ideas percolated through educated classes, first through middle eastern christians,

then into the military, to understand there is a erect link between america loss educational involvement in the middle east and the movement of an arab nationalist idea, the arab awakening, and the use a term, in the struggle for arab state dependence throughout the course of the 20th century. nasserism which had a huge arab-israeli situation. it must be traced back to america's involvement in the middle east, and i believe it is underappreciated. >> we have a fascinating conversation before we came in a greatmine because i'm lover of historical and attempts, you really have to share two of them with this audience, if you would. first of all, the impact of the civil war on the history of egypt. after that, perhaps the

influence of egypt on the statue of liberty. >> at the risk of sounding reductive, the middle east would not look like it does today without the american civil war. the north blockaded the south, and the southern continent, which was final to the economies of britain, work cut off. the only other place that had cotton of a similar quality was easy. egyptians made a lot of money. they started to build a thing called the suez canal. in 1859, southern cotton came back and the egyptian economy went back wrapped. he went into arrears, and it led to the british application of egypt in 1882. which ended in 1956 with the suez crisis. as the greats here, so much so that nine years later he tries to take on israel

in the 1967 war, and we are still dealing with the outcome of that war, whether the final disposition of the west bank, gaza, jerusalem, all of this can be traced back to the civil war. as toarallel of that hga do with a oteri delegation sent -- with a military delegation, egypt wanted to modernize is on armies and break away from the ottoman empire. they turned to the united states. sherman said a group of his buddies, some of who have been former confederate officers, to egypt, because they needed a job. they modernize the egyptian army. they created schools. in the schools they imparted american ideas, nationalism, patriotism, democracy, to egyptian officers. not by accident that the people who led the first great revolt

against the british were the egyptian military. they are still doing it today. i back torace al-sis american involvement in the late 1860;s. 1860's/ egypt had planned to put a beautiful statue at its entrance of the suez canal, and that showed a failed arab woman holding a torch. it,can see the designs for they took on a brilliant french sculptor to do it, and then they ran out of money. design to ald the frenchman, and they brought it to new york to an island at the entrance of new york harbor, but did not have anybody to put it together. it was built by eiffel.

bartholdi brought these putcers back from egypt to up the statue of liberty. the statue of liberty's concept and construction were both 'svolved in america involvement in the middle east. >> i wanted to give you a taste to what we have opened up the atlantic council in terms of -- >> and now i can talk about my own book. i am sure the amazon numbers are going up as we speak. fast forwarding now to your comments on post-middle east america. ,nd i have a couple questions and i will go to the audience and we will go back and forth between the audience and myself a little bit. you talked some about energy,

but perhaps you can go a little oil deeply in the role of and energy in the picture you are painting of pax americana in the middle east, but also now the impact or the potential impact as you see it of the u.s. energy revolution. wasou said, the u.s. exporting to the region. we are now facing another change in terms of our energy relationship with the region. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how this might influence the issue you were talking about. >> if you look at the history of presidential doctrines about the inordinate, an percentage of all presidential doctrines issued since truman have to do with the middle east. to the carter doctrine, how to deal with protecting the free flow of energy and oil from the middle east. specifically from the persian gulf region. whether each the -- whether it

be from the threat of soviet encroachments, later from iran, and even some of america's military engagements, people forget the flagging operations of the latter part of the reagan administration where american warships were actually firing on anian boats andir postal installations. this had to do with protecting of american energy sources. over the course of the subsequent decades, you can trace it, the percentage of america possible consumption that was imported from the middle east decreased. by the time i came on my job in 2009 as a master it was down to 11%, very small. today it is almost negligible. the notion that america my have to exert force to protect the free flow of energy out of the persian gulf area today would be a far more remote assumption that it would be in

the 1970's and 1980's. that does not mean that middle eastern energy or oil is not vital to other countries in the middle east, including a country like china. and that america's economy is inextricably tied up with that of china. indirectly, the american economy remains deeply attached to middle eastern oil even though they are not importing it. step anot be the first strategic issue, but it is certainly a supreme financial interest. >> you do not see the energy boom in the united states will result in a significant shifted u.s. approach to the middle east? >> i think it will shifted less of a strategic interest and more of a financial interest. >> president obama in his state

of the union when talking about talkiddle east did not much about the transitions that we were all focused on before the arab awakening, talk more about nuclear iran, the israeli-palestinian peacehe spo. what is your view of how policy has evolved during the obama it administration? do you see an underlying strategy behind the shift? >> i think the obama administration came out of the robust and9 with a specific outreach to the middle east. speech, which was the foundational doctrine, it was perhaps the most generous

document and the history of american policy. he addressed the adherents of a world faith. himcannot imagine addressing the world's methodist or catholics. but he spoke with the muslim world. he was addressing a muslim world and not adjusting the citizens of muslim state. that inadvertently conformed to an islamist notion of states being legitimate, and there is only one legitimate state which is a universally muslim state. root lesseach has successful -- proved less successful. es ofo not see many echo

it. it outstrip the ability of anybody to formulate a cookie-cutter, one policy fits all situation. the events transpired so rapidly and so radically, and so differently, whether it be egypt or syria, and we talked about libya, i would challenge anybody to try to come up with a single policy that would address all of these. could said that, you criticize various aspects of the policies. ofretrospect, in terms america's image in the middle east, there probably should have deeper he per -- a breath taken.

love their weather today if there is thinking back, well, if america had been involved with jihadistrhaps the influx would have been preempted. that is all moay morning quarterbacking. is monday, and we are looking to saturday. let's look ahead. , and after this question i will turn to the audience and find out what the mind -- has on their bin what is at stake with the negotiations with iran? i know it is a big and broad question. i will let you narrow it down. i'm wondering, from your standpoint, what is at stake? >> everything.

everything. it is the future of the middle east. are we at the tectonic shift , where we are in a post pax americana mode? is there a certain role for iran in the region? what would that hegemonic role from the israeli perspective and the perspective of the gulf countries? today there's a greater confluence between israel and these gulf countries. egypt or the fundamentals of the peace process.

hope most of all that they agree iranian threat. tot maintaining the ability have a nuclear weapon is a unsustainable threat. it is a threat that is multifaceted. it is not just a threat of being of to put a nuclear warhead atop of the capital or any region and the city. i just watched a video clip of iranians that- they put out. they show striking american allies in the region. threats come in the form of providing nuclear umbrellas to terrorist organizations that could attack

israel or other countries in the region with relative impunity. they will have to think, if we strike back, with that .recipitate an iranian breakout that is an immense break on latitude. beyond terrorist getting access to nuclear capabilities -- you do not have to worry about rockets. you have don't worry about it traced or going through trucks. that is at stake for israel and other countries in the region. the big litmus test is going to come at the end of the six months of the negotiating. time. the united states it's a big

country far away from the middle east which has immense capabilities that nobody in the region has, not even the state of israel. if the united states can strike an agreement with the radiance, israel and the gulf countries are going to have to ask -- ukrainians, israel iranians are goingri to have to ask themselves if it is worth it? >> what are they going to have the measure if things move forward? a could not just be a nuclear .eal but it could be motivation

interestingly, one of the things you will do at the olympic council is work on the relationship between israel and the regional countries. how is it shifted already? the relationship between israel ?nd the gulf can there be a step change in those relations? so.ne would hope confluencet translates into a more open relationship remains to be seen. israel has had relations of one type or another with several gulf states. most of them are quietly pursued. there's been a much colder distance. the great example is saudi arabia, where there has not been any formal contact.

it is something that i think would be the interest of all of these countries to pursue and hope that it can happen in the future. are saying, deciding whether or not they can live .ith whatever avenues with iran what are the factors they would have to measure, if you are gulf and are there differences in the factors, or are they pretty similar? >> you would need to see material dismantling of the ira nian nuclear program. israel and iranians agreed on an aspect of the nuclear program. both of the spokespeople came out and said that president obama's claim that part of the nuclear program had been dismantled in the interim agreement was not true.

.hey agreed on that you'd be hard-pressed to see what parts were dismantled. in whichtockpile materials were oxidized. that is only 185 kilograms of material they had. 6000 of the other materials. there are no facilities being dismantled. there are no inspections of the major military sites. now they are having inspections of the detonator sites. military baset remains beyond the access of inspectors. you have to see material dismantling of centrifuges. you have to see a shifting abroad of a large segment.

the 3.5% and five percent stop oil -- stockpile. the cessation of work on the water facility. there would have to be concrete iranian that the nuclear program has been de facto -- defanged. >> lots of questions. let me go straight out here. i will try to get everybody in order that i see them. >> i am from the energy policy research foundation. i have a couple of questions. if you look at what is happening in north america, we can easily

get to 2025 and the excess capacity. there's a real problem between iraq, iran, and saudi arabia, and how they divide that up. it is going to be very interesting. the realityoint is of u.s. strategic interest in the persian gulf because it is true that the western hemisphere is likely to disconnect from the crude flows. isis also true that the gulf still important. it there is a major event or disruption, prices will go up, even in the united states. as of the nature of the oil market, most of the a judgment adjustment has to take place in the u.s. one question i have for you, as manage the how do we

appearance versus the reality because within the congress within the american political structure we are going to hear we are disconnected. how you manage that politically is of great interest. >> i have i short answer. i agree. probably the shortest answer i've given in weeks. about the impression that you can go home. i think that is an illusion. but there is also an allusion that the security and strategic aspects will not impact , even thoughocracy

it is a long way. thank you, ambassador. jeff steinberg. i would like to suggest a slightly different narrative as to what is going on with the united states policy in the middle east and get your thoughts on it. how we possibly come to the upnt where we have to face to a number of strategic errors that were made in shaping u.s. policy? did we fail to see the long-term dangers of the spread of this in a non-terrorist form? did we have an overly optimistic and false notion of the role that the muslim brotherhood would play as a reform faction within political islam?

some kind of possible reaping about the actual viability of being able to achieve third tip emetic diplomatic means h room solution. solution. dangers.ed about the and warned about losing leverage. is united states possibly going ofough a kind of correction some deep and fundamental misjudgment that forms u.s. time? over a period of ,> the first part of that perhaps you could take a crack

at future political islam. we are seeing a difference in wonder if you have some sort of historian's view. hours to i had 1.5 respond to this. of course, america made some mistakes. there been mistakes in the middle east. the biggest problem is being able to view the middle east clearly. those a great civil war general who travel the middle east in 1872 and came back. his remark was, if we don't judge it i its own terms but continue to judge it by american terms, we will be condemned to

misjudge the region. i want respond on several levels. 1948 made aall number predictions about the future american role in what was then known as the palestine conflict. one of them was the united states would have to see 3000 -- 300,000 soldiers to defend the jewish state because they were incapable of defending themselves, and that the jewish state would emerge. all three of those predictions were wrong to start. you could make a strong case that rather than diminishing american influence in the middle that america is involved in the arab-israeli conflict has enhanced us.

only the united states can mediate their. it will scan. that turned the argument on its head. the united states underestimate the impact of political islam? yes. it is not just america. there's a strong tendency among the american press to downplay the emotional and intellectual power of islam, according to the basics of journalistic narrative that people turn to islam out of , and not that they turned to islam because it imparts positive values. that, every administration comes into office with their own worldview. the obama administration came in -- i go back to the cairo speech . president obama is addressing

the muslim world and saying, you can be authentically muslim, but if you are muslim and observe democratic norms than we have a basis for strong alliance. look at the middle eastern leaders to whom the president reached out in a significant way. who are these people? these people had authentic islamic roots. they were elected democratically. they conformed to the image of the speech. was it a good decision? maybe too early to tell. it is like the french revolution. too early to know whether it was successful. i think the administration's reaction was significant in that way. i can go on about this. i will conclude with one anecdote.

you are asked the same questions in any audience. jerusalem policy. israel's policy on iran. someone asked a question i had never heard. what is more difficult, explaining americans to israelis or really -- israelis to americans? any israeli diplomat will have the same answer. it is much more difficult to explain americans to israelis. americans basically get israel, questions.difficult countries defending itself they get it. and not just israelis, many people who work in the middle east and look at america, andlook at the faith-based value-based foreign policy and scratch their heads. they will look at a piece of

legislation. congress passed abuse of legislation that said that the united states cannot support a regime or a regime that is overthrown a democratically elected government. was a government that doesn't will democratically? they don't get that. then you have explained that this is america. and that during one of the most to focal times was when third nter 2011. surrounding the arab spring and saying, do you know where this is going to lead? democrats, republicans, cnn, fox, everybody was wildly enthusiastic about what was going on. it was my job, as difficult as it was to explain to palsy makers that one million people

-- policy makers that one million people out there demanding this wasn't resonating with the american narrative. and there was no way that americans would not get excited about that. america is what america is. that is something that is hardwired. i happen to think it is a beautiful thing, but it is not always readily understandable to people living in the middle east. >> thank you. atm in diplomatic relations chapel hill. the united states has unlimited resources in terms of money, time, and attention. can you identify if there is a core conflict that the united states would focus on most importantly to bring security to the middle east. the reigning conflict. egypt? what should the united states focus on as a top agenda point?

>> how would you tell the president to set his priorities, is that what you are saying? >> the middle east is in three cyclones of instability. ethnic cyclone. modernity versus tradition. and the breakdown of the arab spring. look,ing on where you different cyclones are hitting. ria, you have all three going on at the same time. that makes were violent situation. american policymakers, and i say this with all humility, is that they have to take a strong look at which of these storms they can actually grapple with, make an impact on, lessen the damage of.

in the case of syria, right now i don't know much more that the united states can do then to further extend humanity and lessen the suffering of people. in the case of egypt, where the main structure their is between modernity and tradition, i think that require some deeper thought. if the united states can impact that situation, well. paramountngly, the question and threat to the region is iran and the nuclear program, and whether -- and i'm going to reiterate what i said earlier -- whether any deal can be reached. anians need this program. they have hegemonic aspirations.

one is the u.s. military and the iranian military. they have lots of aspirations. they saw what happened in libya. they sell what didn't happen in north korea. they drew conclusions from that. adding them to give up the program is very difficult, especially in the absence of a credible military threat, which doesn't exist right now? if an agreement can be reached with the iranians, the countries of the middle east are going to have to determine whether they can live with that are not, and what would happen if they don't. that is going to be, i think, the paramount strategic interest of the united states. >> thank you for the clear answer. it is great to have you with us today, sir. .> thank you, ambassador

thank you, michael. there is an op-ed today that takes up on some of the questions of u.s. leadership in the middle east and elsewhere. to which the administration response, well, look at all the things we're doing in the middle east and in syria and in and withons with iran secretary kerry the middle east process. the conventional thesis of the author is that if you're not willing to project power than your diplomatic efforts will not be taken seriously. if you look at it from a historical perspective, of course, as you did, you can find ancrete reasons and more of after two costly wars. but if you gauge it from it a

thisrical perspective, is more -- isolationist is too big of a term, but more inward looking. on more external projection of power. correctly,tood it you hit a little bit at the last chapter. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is true. it is too early to tell. we know in the aftermath of traumatic wars, america goes to times of isolationism. 1920'ss the case in the and 1970's. we do not know if this is a permanent alteration. we don't know. what we do know, in berkeley, is that there is a direct connection for america to project power, particularly in

the middle east, where their , and for thepower united states to wield diplomatic influence. it used to be a criticism of the bush policies, certainly after the invasion of iran. but in december 2007, on very notice, 40 nations sent their top leaders together, really in a matter of weeks. i ask myself whether they would do that today, to that extent, and with that level of precipitation -- participation. there is any number of criticisms on bush policy. that the winning of the pax americana is attributed to obama, i trace it

back to where america unilaterally gave up over middle eastern peacemaking. that began in the bush administration. the fact was that bush was willing to use power. that gave him a certain degree of leverage, which i don't know if it exists today. certainly the most emphatic example i can give you is what transpired or didn't transpire regarding the arsenal. they said it was going to be a small use of force. then he went back to congress. abouthey were saying what congressional support. against.as 500-1 that was a clear message to the middle east that even a limited assile strike to enforce

presidentially declared redline was not going to happen. did think you can wield the same amount of diplomatic weight after that type of experience i think would be a mistake. >> thank you. >> no one said anything about the palestinian issue. we will come back. it is fascinating that you went through the whole discourse without mentioning much about the israeli conflict, even a minute the only part of the u.s. policy that is intensely engaged in the middle east at this time with negotiations over palestine and israel. now that you are out of office and free to speak your mind, you

have done some of that, and i noticed. >> you can see all this later in our schedule on the website. sted or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

>> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2431, the national integrated drought information systems act of 2013 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 258, h.r. 2341, a bill to re-authorize the national integrated drought information system. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. hall,

and the gentlewoman from texas, ms. eddie bernice johnson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i ask unanimous consent to all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2431, the bill now under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hall: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2431, a bill to re-authorize the national integrated drought information system. i want to thank chairman smith for his good work in bringing this bill to the house floor and for his bipartisan support. also i want to thank you and representative ben lujan of new mexico for ginning -- joining me as an original sponsor in 199 , congress passed the national drought policy act establishing a commission to pr -- provide recommendations on federal drought policies. the concept of creating a

national drought monitoring and information system was proposed by the commission in its 2000 report and promoted by various stake holders, including the western governors association in a 2004 report, quote, creating a drought early warning system for the 1st century, unquote. i was pleased to become involved in this effort with former congressman, now senator, mark udall and introduce the nidis act of 2006 which congress passed and became public law. nidis is administered in the national atmospheric and oceanic administration. it has established the drought portal which has become an important resource for governors and for farmers, businessmen and individuals this website provide current data for weather observations, early warnings about droughts and support services for managing droughts. the website includes the u.s.

drowlingt monitor map, another value usual feature that's updated weekly. for example, according to the most recent drought monitor map, about 21% of the u.s. is experiencing severe to exceptional drought conditions and more than 56% of the country is abnormally dry to exceptional drought conditions. nitis is an example of a program working effectively that has broad support, rather than creating a government bureaucracy, it represents a collaborative framework between federal, state, and academic partners. nitiis re-authorization will improve interagency coordination, early warning, critical data sharing and decision basis related to drought. it encouraging further research, monitoring, and forecasting along with further development of regional early warning systems.

madam speaker, re-authorizing nitis will strengthen this important program, it will help our state and help local and federal officials, farmers, and water managers better prepare for and respond to drought. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: madam speaker, i ise in support of h.r. 2431. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 2431, the national integrated drought information system re-authorization act of 2013. this vital program, known as nitis, was -- known as nidis was

developed in 2006. it provides critical drought information to communities all across our nation. over the past three decades it's estimated that droughts have cost our country hundreds of millions of dollars in economic impacts. loss estimates from the 2012 drought alone run upwards of $70 billion. moreover, the effects of climate change are anticipated to exacerbate this problem in many parts of the country, including my home state of texas. right now, california is experiencing its driest period in recorded history. 67% of the state of california is experiencing extreme or exceptional drought conditions. we all know that farmers and ranchers bear the brunt of these rought conditions. that hits the pocketbooks of every american as food prices go

up. but the damage is not limited to agriculture. for example, the west, conditions are again ripe for extreme wildfires. they scarred more than nine million acres last year, putting omes and property in jeopardy. water levels in lakes and rivers plummet and snowpacks children in, leaving botes in the garage and skis in the attics. power plants and grid operators are taking a serious look at emergency plans should water for cooling towers in hydroelectric dams fall short. if you look at the top five most expensive disasters in the united states since 1980, three of those are due to drought. the nidis program is intended to help acleevet -- alleviate some of the economic impacts of drought, notably, one of the programs -- program's goals is

to improve drought early warning. advance warning of impending droughts would allow states, localities and farmers to better plan their activities so that the economic costs associated with droughts could be reduced or mitigated. in light of the scope of the economic impact of drought and the potential of the nidis program to lessen these impacts, i remain concerned about the authorization levels in h.r. 2431. my democratic colleagues and i tried to modestly increase the authorization levels during committee consideration of the bill but we were not successful. every witness who ever testified or spoken to our committee about this program has highlighted the need to improve the program's early warning capability. this isn't a goal that can be accomplished for free. it will take a sustained investment of additional funds to achieve results we

desperately need. while i wish the authorization numbers in the bill before us today were higher, they are much better than the numbers in the senate bill which locks the camp and to a funding is below current spending for the next five years. when the federal government is spending tens of billions of dollars a year to mitigate the effects of drought, i think it makes sense to spend a couple million extra dollars to try to reduce those massive costs to our taxpayers and our communities. it's pretty clear that in this instance, an ounce of prevention will get us a pound of cure. in spite of these concerns, however, i support h.r. 2431 and the re-authorization of nidis, a program which provides crucial information to help our farmers and communities prepare for and mitigation the impacts of drought. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hall: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the full committee, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i want to thank the former chairman of the science, space, and technology committee for yielding me time. h.r. 2431, the national integrated drought information system, nidis, re-authorize act of 2013 makes minor improvements to the nidis program and helps establish better drought forecasting and coordination. i'm glad that the spines, space, and technology committee's chairman emeritus, congressman ralph hall of texas is the lead sponsor of this bill and original author of the nidis in 2006. i thank the gentleman for his persistent leadership over the years on this issue. recent droughts in texas and around the country have been severe and the nidis program has helped states and local governments and farmers and

ranchers and others monitor and predict drought conditions. more than a third of the united states is currently experiencing moderate to severe drought conditions. by some estimates the historic drought in 2012 cost our national economy as much as $70 billion. . we need to re-authorize in this difficult fiscal environment. as a success story, the nidis program currently operates the u.s. drought portal, a website that features a range of services related to drought. this includes historical data on past droughts, current data from climate observations, early warnings about emerging and potential droughts, decision support services for managing droughts and a forum for stakeholders to discuss drought-related issues. these services have been vital to our efforts to better forecast drought as well as understand the conditions that lead to drought. this bill re-authorizes an important program that provides early warnings about potential

droughts. it also supports services for local and state decisionmakers to better manage and prepare for drought conditions. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and yield back the balance of my time, and on the way to doing so want to thank the chairman emeritus on the science, space and technology committee for the leadership he's taken on this bill and on this issue he has for many, many years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. mr. johnson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady re-- ms. johnson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. three minutes ld to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. schweikert: i feel like i'm surrounded by texans in this particular discussion. i'm from arizona. i'm from the desert part of arizona, from the desert southwest. so why is a bill such as h.r.

2431 so important to us? the data collection and the management of the data models for those of us who are in an aired region of the country is really, really -- arid region of the country is really, really important to us. we've gone so far in the past couple of decades. the ability of our water management authority and our reservoirs and what's happening in the snowpacks and on this side of the continental divide, knowing whether we're moving nina or el nino year, this is important to us because we're getting better and better at forecasting even a year out in our expectations. and so i have great appreciation to the gentlewoman from texas and the chairman emeritus and my other actual chairman from texas, one more time, remember aztecsans you're easterners to those of us in

arizona. this bill is appreciated. i know there's always a discussion about funding, but one of my great interests in this is the continued movement of the data sharing as our universities across the country, particularly in the southwest, build better and better and healthier and more robust models and the ability for that data to help states like mine manage our water resources into the future. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: madam speaker, i have no further requests for time. i simply would urge the support for 2431 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is is recognized. mr. hall: madam speaker, i have no further requests for time, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2431.

mr. hall: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman will suspend. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2431, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. mr. hall: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas requests the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.res. 447 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 447, resolution supporting the

democratic and european aspirations of the people of ukraine and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. smith: i thank the chair, and i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and introduce extraneous materials on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, elion engel, for introducing this bipartisan -- eliot engel, for introducing this bipartisan measure. it is a timely appeal to the government of ukraine to stand down and to avoid all further

violence, to exercise the utmost restraint and avoid confrontation. a call on the government to bring to those justice those responsible and to release and drop any criminal charges against those detained for peacefully exercising their democratic rights. at this point, the government's crackdown has led to the deaths of at least four protestors, perhaps more, and throughout ukraine to numerous beatings, arrests, ditensions, abductions, including some from -- detentions, abductions, including some from hospitals, the activists of journalists, medics and pro-democracy n.g.o.'s. on the kiev square, alone, more than 1,800 individuals, mostly protestors but also some riot police, have been injured. 36 persons are confirmed missing. 49 people remain in detention. and 26 are under house arrest.

at least 30 medics and working to aid the injured have been attacked. 136 journalists have been attacked on the square including investigative journalist tatiana, brutally beaten on christmas day. when investors rather incredibly claim was a victim of road rage. one of the most outrageous xamples has been the case of activist demetri who has -- was abducted for eight deas before being left in a city outside of kiev during which he was tortured by his can'tors who tried to force him to say he was an american spy. the heroism, madam speaker, of the ukrainian people persistently demonstrating struggling, risking themselves for justice and dignity, is deeply inspiring. he witness of so many clergy

is a powerful reminder of the spiritual values that are at stake. just last thursday i had the high honor and privilege of meeting in my office with patriarch of the ukrainian orthodox church and another patery ack of the ukrainian catholic church. these brave and holy religious leaders are deeply concerned for the faithful and for the whole ukrainian nation and alarmed by the potential for even worse violence, perhaps even civil conflict. one patriarch said recently, and i quote him, i ask them to stop the violence and to come to the negotiating table. all of are responsible for god for your earthly doings, he said. at the vatican pope francis said i am close to the ukraine prayer and particular to those

who have lost their lives in recent days and to their families. i hope that a constructive dialogue between the institutions of civil society can take place, that any resort to violence is avoided and that the spirit of peace and a search for common ground is in the hearts of all. cardinal timly goldman of new york expressed strong support for anti-protestors in ukraine. he said on his blog, that government thugs, bledgeoning the hundreds of thousands of ukrainians and described the ukrainian greek catholic church is a, quote, church that has been starved, imprisoned, tortured, martyred by hitler, stalin and company. that said, madam speaker, i do want to know there is a paradox here. i know there are many outstanding people working in and for the ukrainian government who love their country and have its best

interests at heart. last year, for example, i met many times with ukrainian ministers, high-level officials and the ambassador, including meetings in kiev. this was because the 2013 ukrainian foreign minister chaired the organization for security and cooperation in europe and made the fight against human trafficking a top priority for the organization. in june, it held a high-level conference in kiev to investigate and promulgate best practices in ways that the 57 o.s.e. countries can better coordinate anti-trafficking efforts, including through trading, transportation and hospitality industry employees and victim identification. the kiev call to action was serious and successful. i know because i was there, and what came out of that was a new o.s.e. plan of action to combat human trafficking. madam speaker, i do want to point out this resolution does

not take any position on whether ukraine should sign an association agreement with the european union. that is a decision for the ukrainians to make themselves. at the committee markup we decided to make that point clear and the message should be clear, this is not about politics. this is about human rights. congress is supporting the ukrainian people in their defense of universal human rights and not inserting itself into the question of what ukraine does vis-a-vis the european union. madam speaker, the ukrainian people have endured suffering over the last century and this is what gives their peaceful resistant such power. two world wars were fought on their soil. in the 1930's, stalin inflicted a genocidal famine, as we know, on them which resulted in the deaths of millions of men, women and children. to say nothing of 70 years is a can'tive nation in the soviet

union. in the 1980's, many of us in this chamber and on the helsinki commission spoke out against human rights activists imprisoned in the gulag, called for the legalization of the then repressed ukrainian greek catholic church and held hearings, several of them, on the chernobyl disaster. with ukrainians long awaited independence when it came in 1991, and new-found freedoms, also were -- then became a reality, or we thought. but since 2010, with the election of viktor yanukovych, human rights rule of law and democracy have been on relentless attack. symbolized of the continued just imprisonment of one whose daughter testified at a hearing i held in may of 2012 and on whose behalf i and my colleagues introduced a resolution. it is the ukrainian's people

dissatisfaction with yanukovych, his rollback of democracy, that drives the protest movement. the long-suffering ukrainian people deserve a government that treats them with dignity and treats them with respect. i am confident they will prevail in their heroic struggle. i strongly support this resolution and, again, thank my friend from new york, for authoring it. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve is -- reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i request such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i rise in support of res. 447, a resolution i authored supporting the people of the ukraine. i would like to thank my original co-sponsors, chairman