short on time. caller: ok, brian, no one has ever questioned this, but they are always sending so many troops -- these thousands of numbers, and howthese fit in thy are sending them? i do not buy it. i do not buy the numbers they are calling out. i am glad to see the military base closings. we are fine here. let's bring in the scientists. let's focus on climate change. that is our worst problem. guest: we do know who they are and where they are. what we also know is that many of the bases did grow during the period of 2005 through 2011. we are on a different glidepath at this point.

about going to take 100,000 out of the force structure. the air force had made it clear that they would like to close bases under the brac process. we are looking at a situation in which the structure is likely to decline unless we make a decision to reverse that. host: is it easier to close a branch base? don't think so. i think what is challenging as relocating the unit. if it is a research unit that has very sensitive research equipment, that has to be handled carefully. it depends on what the nature is. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what isious as to

really going to happen with guantanamo bay. to know if guantanamo bay is on the list foreclosures -- four closures. there has been so much talk in the media. as far as being in a hot zone -- can you comment on that? guantanamo bay is in an overseas location, in cuba. it is not covered by the brac process. it is only focused on u.s. domestic installations. lepore, thank you for your time. the atlantic council is where we will take you next. it is an event with marietje schaake. that event will take place shortly.

>> we are alive at the atlantic council. last year, marietje schaake travel to iran. she will talk about her impressions as well as the nuclear program. barbara slaven will interview her. this is expected to start in a

moment. live coverage here on c-span. >> good morning. thank you for coming. we have a treat. we are lucky to have a member of european parliament who had an interesting trip to iran. thank you from our sponsor that sponsors the iran task force.

we focus on every aspect of iran that you can imagine. the issue of internet freedom is important. it is something that is frequently in the news. weekend, thet turkey prime minister has tried and failed to eliminate twitter. we are looking to hear more about how iran is managing the internet. we have with us marietje schaake. she is with the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe political group. she serves on the committee of where shefairs focuses on neighborhood policy, turkey, human rights, with a specific focus on freedom of expression and iran. digital agendae and the role of culture in the media in the european union's external actions. intellectualn

property rights, the free flow of information, and the relation between trade and foreign affairs. she worked as an independent advisor to governments, on issues of transatlantic communications, diversity, civil rights, and integration. welcome to the atlantic council. i am very glad you were able to be with us today. we only have an hour. i'm going to ask you to talk about the trip you took with the european parliament to iran. the first such trip by a european parliament delegation in several years. tell us what you found when it comes to the internet in iran. >> thank you for hosting me. it is a pleasure to exchange with you my observations in our work in the european parliament.

it is often different from how it is perceived in the united states. the bestto obtain results, we should be working ,ogether in a complementary way but in an independent way. thank you for making this meeting possible. i am in washington with the u.s. delegation on which i serve as well. we have meetings with members of congress starting this evening. they will be going till wednesday. the other delegation i serve on is the delegation for relations with iran. those typically focus on the parliaments in respective countries. it has been difficult for us to organize any kind of contact or delegation visits for a period of seven years. involved with three attempts over the past five years to visit iran, which failed at the last minute because of the difficult relations that were there

politically. after rouhani became the president, i am sure you have been following this new sense of opening and momentum. it allowed us to travel to tehran and i was able to stay as a tourist. it was a good combination of seeing the country outside of meeting rooms and outside of protocol and the official meetings were enlightening. we were a five-member delegation. were women. i think that gave a strong signal without intending so. we were there to explore what openings were there beyond what has been agreed in the interim nuclear agreement. i want to share a few observations and kickoff discussion with you. it was remarkable how much energy and how much of a sense of hope and optimism one got

from the streets. i have never felt so welcomed in any country that i have visited. it was very clear that i was a visitor. there are not that many people from the outside. i look a little bit different, even with the headscarf that i was unfortunately forced to wear. everyone who caught my eyes said welcome to iran, where are you from? often ine way, excellent english. there was an awareness of the political situation. you mentioned restrictions to the internet. it is clear that most people know ways around these restrictions. we met a number of people walking down the street -- people were on a date who had met through facebook. word of ourad heard delegation on the internet. -- of hours of at rival arrival, i was advised how to use a vpn to go around the

censorship. when governments think they can restrict the liberties of their people, it perhaps only makes them smarter. soon as twitter was blocked, more people started taking to twitter in various ways. the sense of hope and optimism from ordinary iranians was remarkable. in the official meetings, it struck me how critical everybody was and how openly critical everybody was. that -- hadsense wrecked the economy, destroyed the country. very strong words were used. stronger than i had anticipated. it was remarkable that in each and every meeting we had, we were criticized as europeans

because there are some members of our parliament who meets with o and it was a clearly sensitive issue. no members of our delegation believed this group is a serious representative one way or another, there was real concern on the iranian about such meetings taking place. it became clear -- and we were mostly interacting with the parliament of iran -- the hardliners are quite comfortable. they are self-confident and often very critical. if you heard their words the -visy the president -- vis-a the president.

it shows the fight between the hardliners. we had the honor and pleasure to meet --. ands a human rights lawyer a lot of people we saw believe she is a modern-day hero for continuing to defend juveniles on death row and others in difficult circumstances, despite the great price this had for her, costing her years of her anddom, being imprisoned all of the restrictions, such as from performing her profession for 20 years. we met her in the greek embassy. it was a very short and sensitive meeting. we did not speak about -- it was off of the official radar -- we

nominatedd her -- i her for the most important prize that the european parliament handout. it was a great opportunity to meet her. she had not been able to visit europe to take the prize. immediately, within hours after the meeting, hard-line media started quoting from the media. a huge discussion interrupted that would last for two weeks in the media. wasas about whose fault it that our delegation had had this meeting with this person. was it the parliament's responsibility, the ministry of foreign affairs' res ponsibility. it is a discussion we have seen when catherine ashton visited iran and she met human rights

defenders. it is a similar kind of discussion in the media about who is risk -- whose responsibility this was. it underlines the sensitivity of the topic of human rights. andn rights are a priority should remain a priority. we should be careful that there um not some sort of zero-s equation only focusing on the nuclear issue and forgetting about the people that live in systematic and difficult severeion, with the most cases being the large number of executions that take place despite the fact that there is a new president who speaks with much more openness and reform. with people, it was clear that the hardliners, who are appointed, still hold a strong voice and a strong

position in iran and use this to disrupt the efforts. one of the other topics where this became very clear was about syria ande in hezbollah. we looked at the new security conference where for ministers were asked about human rights. it shows which responsibilit ies are with the government.

that was the topic we discussed, but which was not as easy to get any kind of agreement or steps forward. something thats we want to pick up on, after the visit took place, what will happen with regards to iran and the role of europe after this year in afghanistan. there is concern among the iran ian establishment about the rise of sunni terrorism in the middle east, but also questions about what will happen to afghanistan, how it may destabilize again, with millions of afghani refugees living in iran and the problem of drug trafficking through iran with the destination of europe and other regions. many issues where we have mutual concern that we could look at.

one of the opportunities may be in working together on finding this illicit drug trade while addressing the fact that most people who were executed in iran are executed for drug related charges. the ee you will not and cannot peoplete in arresting that would result in them receiving the death penalty. is thinking among me iran ian establishment about abolishing the penalty of death for drug-related crimes. it presents a concrete and tangible opportunity for further discussion about changing that. home with up, we went

a few concrete points on our agenda. we want to try to open up a human rights dialogue with a special representative. hopefully, being able to visit iran soon. -- there ismmended an invitation to go to iran, but there is a bit of tension. the question is how that can be resolved. for us, putting human rights on the official agenda, continuing a discussion and not letting it be snowed under the political focus for the nuclear deal is essential. it is essential that iran stays involved in finding solutions to the veranda this and grew some more in syria. -- to the karen this -- inrendous and gruesome war

syria. there has been a discussion that has been going on for quite a while. there will be resources that need to be made available, but ambassadorsferent on the ground were in agreement can act ee you -- e.u. more in unity as one voice instead of 28 different voices. a keythat we play such role in the nuclear negotiations and when it comes to the region and cultural ties, the many exchange students that we have, there are many issues that we and can better address as a european union as a whole. act moreshould independently. we often see members being quite divided.

sensitivities as a result of trade relations or other concerns. the european parliament increasingly taking an autonomous and forceful voice in the discussion. i hope we will continue that. have extended an invitation to the members of parliament of iran and hope they will visit us mid april and potentially we can further push open the very fragile window of opportunity. those of us that believe reforms will benefit the iranian people, we need to try to do everything we can to make that happen. we realize those who seek reform are not the only ones in power in iran and that it is an uphill battle, but one that is worth pursuing. >> thank you. i neglected to thank the american iranian-

council, so let me do that. let me ask one question to get things going and we will open it up. specialioned the u.n. rapporteur for human rights. he came out another report where andalks about some pluses the political prisoners that were released last fall. there are still something like 600 or more political prisoners in iran. so allergiciranians to allowing him go? a canadian visit by special rapid tour -- is it just him or another person in that position, do you think they would allow a visit and can the e.u. be a bridge in that area?

uses vpn, butan did you ask officials why they use all of these filters when people find a way around it, when the foreign minister has his own twitter account, when the supreme leader has his own twitter account? find it ridiculous from blocking people who use it easily? of thehe position sensitivity, i think for iran politicalatter what side they are or whether they are old or young, whether they are students or politicians, the notion of the double standard being applied to their country is very widely shared. there's a sense that the west is meetingn almost every

there was a reference to other countries where women cannot drive. human rightsthat are not only a problem in iran, but we care about the situation of the iranians, so when we are in iran, we address those. -- that is rapi the sensitivity. i do believe that the eu can play an important role in bridging that gap. i hope iranian officials will take us up on the suggestion to send the ee use special rapporteur to make initial contact. opening for a dialogue, but the question from

side, mostly coming from hard-liners, was that we do not apply preconditions that it is an open discussion and we should respect the difference in culture and in the constitution. that makes some topics, like the flight of -- very difficult. when it comes to censorship and filtering the internet, it was part of the discussion. at one point, i wanted to point out the fact that i had asked palm and terry -- parliamentary questions and the problems that sanctions cause iranians. i had hoped to show my counterpart these questions, but my website is blocked in iran. that was a bit of a painful moment because i was confronted with the fact that my website was blocked.

the website of the chair of the iran litigation was not. there seems to be some reason for that that i do not know. i asked about this paradox, or tension between the supreme theer, be president, foreign minister, and officials tweeting, sometimes officially -- sometimes very affectively about their ideas and wishes and many iranians being unable to seen that -- see that. it is a lively debate in iran. andorship is not necessary in these discussions about use of sociale media, there were differences of opinion.

being engaged on social media also lets the genie out of the bottle. it is unsustainable if leaders go on these platforms to not allow the population, one day or another. we saw the most remarkable use of social media by the president when the struggle between hardliners and reformists came to the surface at the moment where he was about to address the nation on national television. this broadcasting was delayed for about an hour. probably to hamper his efforts in one way or another. in any case, the president himself took to twitter to say i do not know why, but i am being delayed in addressing the nation. in that case, it is clear that his audience was a national one. it is national tv that was delayed. he wanted to address the situation. after he tweeted this, the delays were solved and he was able to give his address.

what is important in this example, and another of other issues is that we need to remember that not everything that happens in iran immediately meets the eye. it is not immediately obvious or explicit. there are changes gradually happening below the surface. i believe that the population of iran, highly educated, tech savvy in many ways, many trained engineers and tech savvy after having lived on censorship and monitoring for such a long time, they will be an important force in making that change go forward. >> thank you. let me open it up. wait for the microphone and introduce yourself. i see we have a card up. that is a great way to get my attention. lease. -- please. >> thank you for your insights. my questions relate to trying to

tie together crimean and the nuclear negotiations. if i had to wishes, one would be that we approve key tip, but harry reid is not listening. we probably have more problems here than we do elsewhere. the nuclear agreements. and haveu see t-tip. you see crimea enhancing we stand on the nuclear issue. >> thank you. i am the spokesperson for my political group.

ttip is the partnership where we are seeking to take away barriers in trade and look for more common standards. i think you are right to relate these issues. ttip has the potential to redefine the transatlantic relationship for the next generation. we should not forget that this relationship mostly leans on the shoulders of the world war ii generation. my parents were born in world war ii. the death of the notion that americans were liberators is almost in explicit but very substantial. ask a younger generation, the average 20-year-old of today, liberator is not necessarily the word that comes to mind when they think of the

united states. this generational change will be very significant and is often not a part of the discussions and i believe it should be. u.s. and between the the eu and the public and how they see the u.s. has been damaged by the awareness of what the nsa has been doing and the fact that being an ally does not matter in terms of being a citizen and being under surveillance. that trust has been damaged. i believe there are quite a few circlesn foreign-policy who wish that crimea and the crisis there will bring together the u.s. and eu to make them overcome these issues of trust. believe this crisis forces

americans and europeans to work together. it forces europeans to work together more effectively than they have. hasrly, the euro crisis overshadowed another crisis -- europe's position in the world. that is coming to the surface. what is the overarching issue when you look at the nuclear deal in crimea? the role of russia. russia has already announced it may reconsider its own role vis -a-vis the nuclear deal. the pragmatic and cynical approach that russia takes prompts the u.s. and eu to take leadership role. turkey,tionship to which is also facing a huge

crisis, to the forefront. this will turn out to be an opportunity to redefine the transatlantic relation in terms of crisis management and in a more substantial, meaningful way. also in terms of what it means to be a democracy. i think that is something that here in the city and country first and foremost. it does affect our position of leadership. how can the u.s. be -- how critical can the u.s. be about internet? it has hurt the credibility of the united states. the first question is capacity. we see budget cuts in terms of defense spending in every eu member state.

we see a lack of coordination to be strategic and effective. crimea is a wake-up call and should be a wake-up call to make them more efficient. gave aretary-general talk at the brussels forum. emphasized this. he used a very strong words towards russia. thehould stick within boundaries of international law and try not to go further in its aggression towards nato. they had two days of meetings last week in vienna which went well. they made more progress. the concern is more on the sanctions front, whether the russians will be as scrupulous and continuing to apply the sanctions while this process goes forward. thehey have to renew

interim agreement for another six months, will the russians keep the pressure on iran while this process goes forward? in terms of the deal that they are trying to reach, the russian said they had some ideas about can modifynians their heavywater reactor so it will not be so proliferation-prone. they behaved very professionally. no difference whatsoever in the behavior in these talks. fingers crossed that it will not jeopardize the nuclear negotiations with iran. i want to address the broadening of the agenda issue. for a number of years, some of us have advocated broadening the agenda beyond the nuclear issue, whether it be human rights, border issues, exchanges, so

forth. over, -- ni took washington isin that at the nuclear deal falls through, we are in deep trouble. reliefon rouhani the of activities is going to cause problems with conservatives. we would like to see the agenda broadened, but the last thing we want to see happen is the negotiations fall through. i think they're going to have deep trouble dealing with the conservatives without loading on all of these other issues which are obviously important, but i do not think the time is right. >> it only becomes problematic if you try to make them an interval part of the same deal.

the difference between deq and the united states is clear. we have had thousands of exchange students, successfully participating in academic programs in university programs -- in a european programs. across the board, these are programs that are not contested or controversial. they are welcomed. there is openness on the part of the hard-liners to look for more , people to people exchanges. i do not think it has the same sensitivity as the nuclear deal. city, these few of iran has been almost turned into a domestic issue. it is very difficult after decades of strained relations, of very little official contact

to have a sense of what is happening in the country. i can speak for myself. i have studied iran for the past five years as a member of european parliament. going there was still an eye-opener. to get a sense that it is much more modern, despite the pain of sanctions, the shops are full. it is more like istanbul then cairo. people speaking bush so well, how young and well-educated depopulation -- people speak english so well, how young and well-educated the population is. there are people living in the united states that can play very important roles. they've restrictions that these -- the restrictions that these people feel have changed their view of relationships. it makes it more difficult for people to people contact.

iraniant easy for -americans to go back to iran. missing myyou are point. we have 7000 irani and students right here. most of them are graduate students. my organization has sponsored exchanges involving more than a thousand people. i am not talking about exchanges. and talk about human rights. how can you put the human rights liberals in iran and take away their credibility on the nuclear issue? even in the exchange business, we have problems right now. a variety of internal program -- problems. it was not talking about exchange. we are not going to try to

expand right now, for sure. every visa we have to argue for. it is not a trivial issue. i was talking primarily about human rights and the more explosive border issues, the drug smuggling, the big-time issues. >> thank you for the clarification. it is complicating to put the human rights burden only on the foreign minister and the president or at least the government. from their side, it is clear that is not in their hands. i am pointing to the ministers notent where he said it is his priority or something he can talk about. it is clear that judiciary plays a strong role in the human rights situation in iran. believe -- what i hope to

bring across is that we should not make the nuclear deal as some kind of zero-sum. to make any kind of contact with iranians conditional with the next steps in the nuclear deal, for example. i am hoping that this momentum where there is more focus on it , we can look at human rights on the top of the agenda. we look for opportunities to address common threats, like the rise of extremism. that is a conversation starter. the drug smuggling, i mentioned. the agenda is much broader and we should look for a diverse set of -- and make it clear to domestic audiences who is

responsible for what develops in iran. and theliners in iran high numbers of executions are very much intended to undermine the efforts of the reformists. it is understood how sensitive human rights and the high level of executions are in europe and the united states alike. ishurts the president, who considered to be ultimately responsible for all of these events taking place. >> the free leader is. he made some very unpleasant remarks on the holocaust last week. with all due respect, the image of it ron in -- iran in the world is important. ,hether we get a nuclear deal we cannot avoid the issues of human rights, even if we wanted to. it is not an accident that 80

political prisoners were released just before rouhani came to the general assembly last year. they are very well aware of how this plays in the international system. they have every right to defend their system and talk about double standards and talk about the number of prisoners in the united states. it is a conversation that has to be had. addition, similarly, how effective the representative can be. andmuch of an emphasis risky if she was willing to take. how much leadership she was willing to show when it comes to issues like human rights. it is and should be her priority to keep the space for these negotiations healthy.

risky endeavor and one that she was limited in the political space that she sought to address the broader issues. it is on us to continue to address that agenda. you have questions and one of those cards, just pick it up. i am jeffrey harris. we have a small european palm and office -- parliament office with the u.s.. iran, the good guys, the bad guys, the reformers, the hardliners -- are they assuming that the long-term agreement on program is very

likely or is it very very shaky that is being dealt with? everybodyy sure that concerned is aware of the political cycle and circumstance in the countries they are dealing with. they are aware of the opposition in the united states that considers the u.s. president rather weak. all the problems on the ukraine package and the criticisms from democrats over the agreement on -- with iran. is this taken for granted that this is going to happen? within the congress, such delegations as the one that -- is taking part in is viewed somewhat negatively or with a lack of complete understanding or appreciation within the congress. model example of

how the european parliament goes about this. it will go to delegation and iran, but on the condition that such meetings would take place. the same applies to china, cuba, north korea, whatever. thes clear that parliamentarians are not going to forget about human rights. is not the way i would like to see it. it is clear by self identification how politicians see themselves as either more categoriese or and that are self identified. when we asked about the perspective of --.

the signal was unfortunate. it was answered by saying we are sticking to our commitments. we do not think the west is. the west isant that going to be decoupled. and the u.s. policy and we each play our role in order to be effective and to partnershipe in the that we do have and in the common interest that we have. important to talk about the role of the u.s. congress, how it is perceived in iran. that is why i appreciate way have -- that we have this opportunity. we look at this differently in congress. powers are different. that leads us to be in a very different role.

the european parliament cannot apply sanctions itself. the way in which we went about it is to address the issues that we thought were important. we believe the u.s. is committed to its agreement in the interim nuclear deal and we highlighted that. iran when single out addressing human rights. we do this to every country, including the united states. sense forhave a people that there will be a comprehensive deal. in december, when you were there, we did not have an agreement on the implementation of the interim agreement. were you able to sense that there was a great deal of opera -- optimism and then they would move on to a long-term deal with it is he focusing -- or were they busy focusing on the fact

that new names were added on to the old sanctions in the u.s.? >> they made it clear that they -- on the interim deal. it is difficult to project too far into the future. we are willing to -- we are aspiring to achieve a comprehensive deal, but it depends on the commitments. the implementation by all at the table. this is something that you will washington,in tehran, and brussels. the provisions of the interim agreement was that they were going to facilitate financial channels for humanitarian transactions, food, medicine, student exchanges. i am hearing contradictory reports about this. has there been steps taken? -- there european drinks banks dealing with and processing these transactions so

that iranians can get food, etc. >> the secondary impact of the u.s. sanctions impedes european policy space. that restricts us in making our own policies because u.s. sanctions over role eu sanctions and restrict companies in doing business or create such risks for them that they are unwilling to take it. this is a topic that is difficult to discuss with the business community. it is my understanding that most banks are hesitant as to facilitate these financial transactions. that is a mistake. goesing to our agreements for ourselves as well. if we lift sanctions, we have to make it implementable. bere are ways that can

found, even if they cannot be done through commercial institutions, we could do it otherwise to make sure that we meet our part of the commitment. in particular, food and medicine people shouldan be noncontroversial. i am happy that thie eu has sought to consider the impact on the iranian population. that is not responsible for the nuclear program. freely and even fairly elected leaders that may well be. we have to keep them in mind, first and foremost, when we look at the impact of the sanctions, especially access to medicine -- he continues to be a big problem. ofhave to be very careful what we do, how what we do at

the drawing table and lyrical discussions impacts people on the ground. >> would you like to say a few words? also, a few words about congress if you would like. wait for the microphone and introduce yourself. >> i want to applaud your efforts. this is so critical to have parliamentarians and officials visiting iran and expanding that dialogue. -- it is almost .riminalized to engage iran this is an important element of the entire discussion that we are having. as far as addressing the human rights issue, i would be curious as to your insights. how can your efforts and other efforts bolster those in iran who seek to improve the human rights situation?

president rouhani campaign on the promise of ending the environment in iran and addressing the social issues. see ansame time, we incentive structure where hardliners, who seek to sabotage constructive engagement with the west, are almost incentivized to exploit human rights and commit these violations in an attempt to cut off these relations. thinking been some strategically about how to bolster those who seek to improve the human rights situation? this does tie to the medicine issue. is there a way to demonstrate that dialogue, compromise, engagement can beget benefits for the iranian people. toefits from a reformists incentiveuit this structure for hardliners.

this is an example of the west using the nuclear negotiations to put more pressure on us -- is there a way to open up the humanitariane, the tray, ease the sanctions in a way that demonstrates, no, the policies of engagement are benefiting the iranian people. the question is -- what are viable incentives for the hardliners? i am not sure the well-being of the iranian people is. there are too many people benefiting from an economy that is flourishing in sanctions. it is not a clear-cut measure

that has only one impact. it creates a great economy that is doing very well. another aspect of the aspect to .edicine is the redistribution it is not only the result of western sanctions that people have problem getting access to medicine. it has to be precise in how look at the issues. when you look at your question of empowering people and wrong, that is the key issue. i believe we should be focused. a private sector could be helpful in counterbalancing the very few at the top who hold so many resources. to make it more of a distributed economy. when it comes to the promises to end of the securitized environment, the real challenge it is not always the

letter of the law that matters, it is the implementation of the law. people gave me a great sense of less tangible securitized environment. the police that deals with closing is less present, the atmosphere in the street is much lighter than it used to be. without laws being changed, that can between within a second. with so many things forbidden, anything from having a satellite on your roof to using the internet to consuming our call to the way you wear your headscarf -- if you want to target an individual, there is something that you can find on him or her. that insecurity, using these by judiciary government police, law enforcement, revolutionary guards, makes them a powerful and people so uncertain about where they stand.

that is difficult for them. -- they speak for themselves about the impact it a discussiong about human rights in the the head ofeven let the european affairs committee say, what are we talking about? she is a free woman. why should we have this discussion? sometimes what seems controversial and a difficult -- there are a number of serious problems. role ine we can play a bringing those discussions to the surface and helping those in iran to find a way to address

these issues. if i can ask -- she will not go to iran because she does not want to wear a headscarf. is that true? >> i have not heard about the headscarf. it is not pleasant to have no choice in whether to wear it or not. it gave me a lot of criticism at home. it is not easy being photographed in that position for -- explaining to my own constituents -- i do think the value of traveling was much me a muchd it gave deeper understanding of the position of women in iran who do not have this choice i daily basis. she wantsnow whether to wear a headscarf or not. what i suspect is the main reason that she does not want to undermine -- by going.

>> it is a convenient excuse. -- there little bit are 895 prisoners of consciousness -- conscience. this includes nearly 400 political activists, 300 people who were there because of their thanious activities, more 90 human rights defenders, 71 civic activist 37 journalists and a 24 student activists. this is a large number. at leastof executions, 624 individuals were executed for213 who were executed possession of drugs or four drug trafficking. drug trafficking.

if they're going to change their laws on capital punishment for a possession of a small amount of drugs, that would be a major step. to look at what is official and not official. ask -- when we ask, they what do they say?olitical >> some people said that they personally hoped they would be released soon. >> personally hoped? >> yes. >> and it has been 4 years. do we have any other questions from the assembled audience? if ilet me ask one more may. you said someone you were

assigned to told you how to get around the restrictions. in my own experience if you are in a hotel in iran there are certain sites that are blocked and others that are not. as i recall, facebook, twitter, was blocked. the washington post was not, but the new york times was. government hase an event they want to publicize, if they have a media center set up for the international press, sites to unlock these allow people to tweet and publicize the events in real-time. i do not know if you tried your devices and various places? i brought onel, clean device that had never been used or connected to my main accounts because i did not want to give an open invitation to the authorities to access all of

those. i think that is the main problem. i think censorship he is a serious problem. it became very clear to me. even being there for 10 days, i've felt very disconnected from global events. if you can imagine what it means livehe average iranian, to in a country with news that is systematically framed a certain way, you know, with all kinds of viewsracies and limited on the world, no access for information others have, it is almost impossible to remain depth of impact. the new york times and the washington post are news outlets, but what is available to the average iranian is really important. monitoring through the internet is what really puts people's lives in danger, the fact that there is such a centralized almost everything

can be observed and devices can be accessed through the back doors in the technology by the authorities at any given moment. we know this is well documented. at risk.eople's lives we as europeans and americans should look at what we can do there. there are still, of course, there are sanctions so heavy that almost nothing can be exported. >> electronic devices of this sort and hardware of this sort can be exported? >> to facilitate access. some sanctions have been lifted. i think that is a good move. but not only in iran, but in we are tracking devices. it is an illusion to think that these technologies do not where trade is still

available. such technologies end up in the do notf iranians and you have a monopoly on developing that more and more. it is coming from asia where no our inns that we apply their space. there's a lot of work to be done in these roles, technologies censorship and monitoring as people. i learned a lot from the case of iran after the presidential elections, but also these solutions the iranian people have gone around. it proves how important these devices are to connect to each other, to connect to information. it is very important. >> a quick question. how many european ambassadors, if any, are resident in tehran?

>> many. >> resident? >> i do not know what you mean. >> 20? >> 20 ambassadors, maybe outposts. are there any ambassadors who spend most of their time in tehran. >> absolutely. dutch.ow the >> the germans, the austrians, the polls, the spaniards, the portuguese. i think i met over 20 ambassadors. i do not know the exact number. i am happy to look that up for you. >> and to the united states and iran? >> many. a task force of ambassadors to brief and debrief us. i wish i had the picture with me. >> [indiscernible] no, that is not my stance.

the dutch have served consistently for years. it was not easy, but they did. >> and i asked actually about the european point of view? fullritish just restored diplomatic relations, even though they have not sent an ambassador back. i think that they are still -- which was trashed by the regime, i think, a few years back. is this real? are they worried about whether rouhani will be able to deliver? >> yes, i think all of the above. i think they see that things are changing. clearly. even the inter-nuclear deal was a major hurdle without which we cannot reach the finish line, however far ahead it may be. these first steps are very important. again the broader agenda of exchanges, human rights -- there

are many topics that these ambassadors and other diplomats work on very actively. i think that they will come our to talk well, our visit officials and citizens alike. that they saw it had a major impact and it helps them to continue their work. but they are of course so close to the fire, they are not naïve. neither are we. these are very difficult challenges. without addressing them and trying, you can never -- that is what i hope i can convey to people here in washington and what i hope there can be more openness as well. is a perfectat note on which to end our discussion. destroy joine -- me in thanking rachel for her discussion on her interesting

trip to iran. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> as those discussions comes to a close, if you missed any of it, go to our online library, www.c-span.org. the house and the senate back in

business, the house gaveling and 0 to decide on 2:3 whether to officially decide on ukraine aid legislation and guarantee the imf has resources to assist ukraine. live coverage on our companion network c-span2. 2:00,use also is in a enable people to make chervil donations to help the philippines with beats iphone -- typhoon. more on this week in congress we spoke to a capitol hill reporter today. >> we set up the legislative efforts. joining us on the phone, christina bellantoni, with roll call. she is there editor in chief.

good morning. good morning. host: you are exactly right that there are competing versions of this ukraine legislation. procedural vote on a large aid package. we are talking a $1 billion loan guarantee to the country and then $150 million of direct assistance that you mentioned. you will remember the president late last week imposed these are the tough sanctions not just on vladimir putin but his allies. talking overkers the weekend about imposing additional sanctions against russians and ukrainians responsible for this violence. they will have a test vote. intoouse does not go right

legislation because it includes money for the international monetary fund. host: what is the issue with that? guest: it is political, of course. you hear john boehner and other republicans saying that this does not have anything to do with ukraine and the senate is just trying to lump this in. see two votes in the house, a vote on the imf money and a vote to give aid to ukraine. but it is not a straight republican-democratic issue. passed on aion bipartisan basis 14-3 before recess. the legislators out on the sunday shows. at its address that they are up for the game on the bilateral vote. guest: they will be able to talk

about it, be informed on the issue, and that is something that is just an interesting dynamic when it comes to the politics on capitol hill the last few months, because you are really seeing people not necessarily challenging the president on foreign policy. they are saying that they stand with -- besides these votes on ukraine, is there anything else significant plant as far as legislative action this week? call: absolutely on roll -- a little plug for our paper, too -- we have a front page story about what will be done with unemployment insurance and the senate. the senate well push forward with this even though it has a very unlikely chance of passing in the house. we have noticed we are getting a lot of readership online from

people doing google searches about unemployment insurance. this is something the nation is really closely following. people are very concerned about these issues -- this issue. it is an afterthought. it is more of a political football, but when you come to the actual people, it is very, very concerning to them. the senate is going to have a vote to extend unemployment insurance benefits and that more and likely will not go anywhere in the house. that is probably where you will see this week. ninewill come back to other issues to focus on as they start talking to their party caucuses. are having the first primaries ramp up and you're really getting the sense that this is a midterm election year, everything that we do from here on out through november should be decided by those midterm elections. >> when are they scheduled to take off again?

have two weeks for easter recess in april and of course there will be a memorial day recess. there will be plenty of time where they are not here. you are going to see paul ryan percent of budget in the house democrats are not going to do a budget. they're just went to take the budget released a couple weeks ago. that will keep them busy for the next few weeks, but i do not expect anything major and they -- must do much items, although a lot are considering the ukraine a must to do item. ist: christina bellantoni the editor-in-chief for roll call. good week. a >> kentucky senator rand paul spoke last week at the university of california berkeley on government surveillance issues and called of ane creation

independent committee in the wake of allegations by the senate committee chair dianne feinstein that the cia may have surged to computers used by her committee. senator paul took questions on this and other topics. this is about 40 minutes. we will show you as much of this as we can until the house gavels in at noon eastern. >> great to be here, berkeley. thank you to the berkeley forum for inviting me. you may be a republican or democrat or libertarian. i am not here to tell you what to be. i am here to tell you though, that your rights, especially a right to privacy, is under assault. i'm here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you are under surveillance. i am here to tell you that the nsa believes that equal protection means that americans should be spied upon equally,

including congress. instead of equal protection to them, it is equal disdain. they don't care if you are white or black or brown, they care only that everyone must submit to the state. senator sanders and i don't agree on everything. he is an independent from vermont, but he asked the nsa, are you collecting records on congress? in characteristic arrogance, you know the nsa said? they said congress is getting the same treatment everybody else is. in other words, yes, and again yes, they're spying on congress. they're collecting our data as well. digest exactly what that means. if congress is spied upon without their permission, who exactly is in charge of the government? last week, we learned something new. there are senators in the middle of this. we learned that the cia is illegally searching the

computers of the senate intelligence agency. those are the ones who are supposed to be overseeing the cia. i do not know about you, but that worries me. if the cia is spying on congress, who will stop them? i look into the eyes of senators, and i think i see real fear. maybe it is just my imagination, but i think i perceived fear of an intelligence community that is drunk with power, not inclined to relinquish power. i am worried about who is truly in charge. most of you have read the dystopian novels, and maybe you are like me and say, that could never happen in america, and yet, if you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. the nsa uses an automated system called turbine. they hacked into million of computers. the nsa has even been posing to

affect issues. -- has even been posing as a fake facebook server. the government collects information from every one of your phone calls. that is what they are maintaining. remember the war and that snowden revealed? every phone call from verizon was on the list there is your government stores your e-mails and can access it without a warrant. your government claims the right to look at your every purchase online. your government actually claims that none of your digital records are protected. by the fourth amendment. listen very carefully to that. they say they will protect them, but they say none of your records are protected by the fourth amendment. this is something we're going to fight in court. if you own a cell phone, you are under surveillance. i believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.

[applause] in the opening pages of "fahrenheit 451," the protagonist guy montag asks, wasn't there a time when firemen used to put out fires? they laughed and say, everyone knows that firemen start fires. it had been his duty for many years to burn books. he knew it was his duty, but this time it would be different. montag arrived on the scene to do his job, and they piled the books up, but she will not leave. undeterred, they douse her books with kerosene.

the woman shouts out and goads them. she is indignant that they would touch her books. she refuses to leave. she says, play the man, master ridley. today, we will light such a candle by god's grace in england that it will not be soon forgotten. they keep dousing her with kerosene, and she keeps saying, play the man, master ridley. we will light such a candle. in the book, the reference is lost on the firemen as they simply do their job. the reference is to the 16th century figure hugh latimer who literally became a human candle burned at the stake for heresy. , his crime, he wanted to promote the idea that the bible could be translated into english. and in the u.s., we are not yet burning people at the stake. nor are we burning books, yet, but your government is interested in what you are reading. they are interested in what you say in your phone calls and what you write in your e-mails, and even if they say you are not interested, they say the fourth

amendment does not protect any of these records. the nsa is collecting the records of every american. before snowden had his leaks, i have heard this was happening. i had talked to people and seen some of the releases, and they had been collecting an unprecedented amount of records, but i was not able to reveal the number because they say it was a secret. why the number is a secret, i do not know, because there are gazillions of records being collected. they cannot put me in jail for making up a number, but i wanted to emphasize by using this fictitious number. i want the american public to know that the actual number of communications being collected by the federal government was almost beyond comprehension. senator wyden from oregon has

been trying to shed a light on this invasion of privacy. it is an example of how someone from the left and some from the right come together for something that is good, for the protection of your privacy. he is on the intelligence committee and is privy to information that very few congressmen or senators have access to. before snowden's revelations, the senator talked about this but was constrained. by the secrecy laws. finally, a few months before the snowden leaks, the senator called the office of james clapper and said, i am going to ask you if you're collecting millions of american records without a warrant? despite this warning, clapper comes to congress and lies. that is punishable to up to five years, and when this secret surveillance of americans finally became public though, no one on the intelligence community was involved. -- was even contrite. their only regret was that the program was no longer secret.

in an almost surreal exchange, a congressman asked the nsa, did you think of program of this magnitude could be kept secret from the american people? the official replied with a slight smile "well, we tried." the sheer arrogance. they are only sorry that they got caught very at without the snowden leaks, they would still be doing whatever they please. what is your beef? what they rarely mention is they do not think any of your records have any fourth amendment protection. it is only boring, old business records. think about the information on your visa bill. from your bill the government can tell whether you drink, or the smoke, whether you gamble, what books you read, what magazines you read whether you,

see a psychiatrist, what medications you take. there was a recent study by two stanford graduates -- are we allowed to mention stanford here? [laughter] look it up in the last week or two. they were showing exactly what could be figured out from your boring, old phone records. i oppose this abuse of power with every ounce of energy i have. i believe you have a right to privacy, and it should be protected. [applause] i believe no government should ever access your records without a judge's warrant. i believe the majority of americans agree with me, whether republicans, democrats, and i think most people are offended by this program. edward snowden, the leaker of classified information, it did break the law, but so did james clapper. i do not think there has been another criticism of clapper.

-- and criticism of clapper. -- enough criticism of clapper. he said it was ok to lie to congress and the american people in the name of security. snowden proposed it was ok to meet classified information in -- to leak classified information in the name of liberty. there are laws against both of those, leaking and lying. history sometimes excepts one or both as laudable. the government official leaks to expose government malfeasance, we sometimes call it a whistleblower. if an enemy asks for secret information, we would expect our intelligence director to lie. but no matter who is testifying in congress, lying to congress is still a crime. lying to congress also damages credibility. when the intelligence director lies, it makes it difficult for us to believe him when he comes to say, oh, yes, we are collecting all of your information, but we promise not to look at it. it is hard to believe them when they do not tell the truth when they testify. they also come to us and say, terrorists cannot be apprehended

in a fashion consistent with the bill of rights. under cross-examination, that turns out not to be true. who knows what to believe anymore? even if no abuse of phone records has occurred so far, we must limit government power to prevent abuse in the future. the intelligence director maintains he lied in the open hearing because it was open to the public, and the information was classified. he tells us he testified in the least untruthful way. anybody accept that? the least untruthful way. as americans, we do not deserve the least untruthful way or the -- from the people we pay for who work for us. we have a right to the truth. we deserve the truth, and we demand the truth from our officials. [applause] the people who are not clapping, are you from the intelligence community?

i have asked repeatedly, is snowden a hero or a villain? [laughter] [applause] i am sort of of mixed minds. i know some of you have decided this. there is no doubt that his legacy will be clouded by his perch in russia. no great were prosecutorial of civil liberties. snowden will in all likelihood face punishment when he returns but i do not agree with those , who say he should be hanged or shot on sight. snowden's leaks should not be seen as civil disobedience because he did not stick around for punishment. and i am not going to argue degrees of bravery and whether you would stick around or not. thoreau faced a day in jail, and

was considered to be civil disobedient. or life ines death prison. requiresbelieve it martyrdom. history will decide if he is a hero, who is hero and who is villain. clapper lied in the name of security, and snowden told the truth in the name of privacy. the debate should not be caught up just in personalities. this should not make us lose track of the real issue. how does the fourth amendment apply in the digital age? to me, this is a profound constitutional question. could a single warrant the apply to millions of american phone records, e-mails, credit card statements? when you sign a privacy agreement with your internet company or your phone company, don't you retain a privacy interest in those records? the fourth amendment is very clear.

warrants must be issued by a judge. warrants must be specific to an individual. it must have your name on it if they want your number, and a single warrant for millions of american records hardly seems specific to the individual. warrants are supposed to be based on evidence with probable cause. i am not up here arguing against people searching you. if a judge says there is probable cause that you committed a crime. i'm fine with that. i am not against the nsa per se. but i am for the process, the due process of law, that protects your rights. generalized warrants that do not name an individual and seek to get millions of records, it goes against the very fabric of the fourth amendment. some say the protest against best james otis, his protest against generalized warrants was really the spark that got things going. i find it ironic that the first

african-american president has without compunction about this vast exercise of raw power by -- the nsa. certainly, j edgar hoover's illegal spying on martin luther king and others in the civil rights movement should give us all pause. now, if president obama were here he would say he is not j edgar hoover, which is certainly true, but power must be restrained, because no one knows who will next hold that power. as madison put it, if government were always comprised of angels, we would not need restraint, but as we know, government is often not comprised of angels. the government says the nsa program has been approved by 15 judges. right. 15 judges, most of them ruling in secret, where no one had a lawyer on both sides of the equation, and they get no attorney. the debate is shrouded in secrecy, and the nsa could say whatever they want, and they are not cross examined.

a secret court is not a real court. we must take a stand and demand an end to secret courts. [applause] this battle for your rights must take place in the light of day. as we speak, my attorneys are battling for an open hearing in court in washington, d.c. we have a lawsuit. only the supreme court can legitimately decide if government can access all of your phone records with a single warrant without suspicion. everyone in this room owns a cell phone, so i am not fighting for just me or just one political party. i would do the same whether it was a republican president or a democrat president. this is an important issue that goes beyond party politics. i say what you read or what you

send in your e-mail or your text messages is none of their damn business. [applause] now, they say they are not listening to your phone calls. maybe they are. maybe they are not. but last week, we found the cia illegally searched senate computers. dianne feinstein, in charge of the committee, she gave a speech, saying they are illegally taking our work product, and they are now taking stuff off of the computers that could be information to the american people. i am going to fight them on this. i told her and complemented her. she is from another party. i went up to her to say, great speech, everyone is talking about it, because i do not see this as a partisan issue.

i hope she will stand up, not let the cia or nsa push her around. i am going to fight them on this. no one should be allowed to invade your privacy. that is why i am announcing today that when i returned to washington, i will push for a select committee, styled after the church committee that investigated the abuses of power by the intelligence community in the 1970's. it should be independent and bipartisan and wide reaching. it should have full power to investigate those who spy on us in the name of protecting us. it should watch the watchers. our liberties are slipping away from us. when hugh latimer said let this be an episode that will not be soon forgotten, he became the human candle against tyranny and intolerance. americans still have a torture that is burning, figuratively or not in the harbor. we should never let that flame of liberty go out.

on occasion, we have let our guard down, particularly in times of war or times of fear. we have succumbed. we have, as roger waters put it, traded our heroes for ghosts, exchanging freedom for a lead role in a cage, or as franklin said, traded our liberty for security. i think we have been too lax in guarding our security. -- our privacy. look at how we travel now. look at the personal privacy and dignity we have lost. when you slog through the airport, ask yourself who is winning? a harvard law school professor asked the question in a very visual way. he said the next time you go to airport security, the next time they tell you to put your hands over your head, ask yourself if this is the posture of a free man? the question before us is will , we live as men and women, the

will we cower and give up on our liberty? i believe your rights are inalienable, and i will fight for the right of every american to be left alone. i hope you will stand with me and take a stand for liberty. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> thank you, senator paul, for coming. let's give him another quick round of applause. [applause]

the senator has agreed to participate in an interview with one of our members of the forum. i would like to announce -- introduced to the stage matthew freeman from the berkeley for him, who will be our moderator. thank you. [applause] >> so you have been very vocal about your recent lawsuit against president obama and the nsa, but a conservative activist and the aclu have also filed similar lawsuits against the nsa, and those have either resulted in a negative or stayed ruling. what makes you think you have any more success than these groups? >> i am supportive of all the

other lawsuits. it is not exclusive that mine is the best, but it is slightly different. the aclu lawsuit was ruled against. the judge either threw it out or said it was constitutional. the other lawsuit is in the same court that mine will go to, and ruled as previously unconstitutional. courts going to the same because it has a slightly different subject. we think for some legal reasons it may have a chance of going all the way to the supreme court. currently many people believe the fourth agreement -- fourth amendment does not apply to all. they reason -- they believe the reason you can give a single warrant to verizon as we do not jointly hold those records.

think about it. it is a lot different from 1975. it is also different, it was about one suspect's phone tap and we are now to about 300 million americans. it is different. i am hoping will get all the way to the supreme court. >> earlier, you condemned director of nsa for allegedly lying in front of congress and you said he is very explicitly have broken the law. does that mean you think he should be sent to prison? >> you do not get sent to prison until you are proven guilty. he deserves a trial. the interesting thing is i am

not an outlier on this in the sense that seven members of the intelligence committee or judiciary committee have signed a letter saying the same thing. i think it hurts us because we do have to rely on something's being a secret. the power to capture people and incarcerate and even a power to kill people. that power needs to be overseen and they have to be honest with us. if the people in charge are not honest to congress and they are spying on congress, i have grave doubts about everything they are telling me. i think it is important. one of the reasons i bring it up is, they want to throw the book at a snowden and i have mixed feelings. you cannot reveal six all the time because it would lead to chaos but he wanted to reveal something he thought was unconstitutional. for all the people who want to throw the book at snowden, i like to contrast.

not a people out of them for clapper. you want to throw the book at snowden but not clapper. they both broke the law technically you want to decide what justice is. clapper should be tried for perjury. [applause] >> you say this all the time but how would you classify edward snowden, on the one hand, a hero or traitor? if there was another edward snowden out there, would you encourage them to speak up? >> i think the ultimate decision of hero or villain history will , sort it out. i know people have strong feelings about it. i think his intentions were good. here is the problem. we have 400 or 500 people here and we are talking to new recruits from the cia, should i

tell all of them or decide when it is unconstitutional and reveal secrets any time? you could see how it would lead to chaos. at the same time, i am upset about what our intelligence community is doing. we may not have known if snowden did not reveal it. some say snowden should have tried to be a whistleblower. i do not know if he did or what happened. on the one hand, you have chaos. bradley manning, he was 20 million pages. there's a chance people could die from that. there's a chance intelligence could endanger our agents. i am not against spying. we have people gathering intelligence around the world and i think -- and i do not think we can allow willy-nilly indiscriminate release of documents. i think it's a row problem. i have mixed feelings. that is the bottom line. >> you posed a very interesting

question during your address. you asked about potential cia spying on senate computers. to quote you "if the cia is spying on congress, who can or will stop them?" what would be your answer? >> the interesting thing is, this is what senator feinstein said in her speech, they came across something. they were given access by the cia. the search engine was created by the cia. they say and i am going for what they are telling me, they said they found a report called the panetta review which looked into previous activities of the cia, interrogation and detention and they got it through the search engine. if that is true, the cia may have said, oops, we do not want you to read that. think about that. if it was a mistake, you can say that, but why should the cia be

able to withhold an internal review from the people overseeing the cia? that is the arrogance they think they are in charge and it is too important to let members of congress know about. if members do not know, the people you have interaction with, who is in charge? you cannot have people not elected in charge of your government. that's a very definition of tyranny. it is very important thing and also want to make the point that i am not saying any of these people are equal or they have bad motives. -- are necessarily evil or have bad motives. i think a lot of them have good intentions and maybe they are not abusing their power at all. the danger is allowing that much power to go unchecked and not be reviewed by congress. >> we obviously do not have all of the information about the recent scandal but cia hacking into senate computers it do prove to be true, then who do you think should be held responsible? would it be just the cia

director john brennan or an official higher up? >> a good question. i am not sure if i know the answer. brennan was approved about a year ago. i did the filibuster. he said it did not happen. here is the direct question. at the media is here. you all need to ask. ask brennan what about the panetta review? why can't congress read it? if i am not allowed to look at it as something we have to realize, much of what goes on in the intelligence community, i am not allowed to read. ok? the intelligence community is allowed to read things i cannot. and the head of intelligence is allowed to read things that others cannot.

things have come forward that would not have come order -- come forward and the next day the cia call up senator feinstein and says, we have been collecting e-mails for the past 10 years and they will be revealed tomorrow. we are not in the loop on this stuff and we are not overseeing it. they are doing what they want. when they get caught, they say it is not oversight. it is incredibly important not just because of abuse that may be occurring but abuse that could happen if somebody took the reins of power and really wanted to use it for malevolent purposes. set but we have time for one more question for this interview. this is on a different topic. there's been pretty extensive media coverage of your recent visit to places that do not usually vote republican like students at howard university and berkeley. [laughter] >> berkeley? >> and uc berkeley. [applause] there has been quite a lot of

speculation that these efforts constitute an attempt on your part to broaden your personal appeal in anticipation of a 2016 presidential run. how do you respond to these claims? [applause] >> maybe. part of it might be that the republican party must evolve or adapt or die. you know, it is a pretty harsh thing. i was telling somebody, remember domino's admitted they had bad crust? [laughter] i think the republican party admitted it, a bad crust. we need a different kind of party. [applause] one of the things that really upset me was we passed

legislation really done by republicans and democrats that allows an american citizen to be indefinitely detained without a trial and i had a conversation with another senator and i said, does it mean a citizen can be sent to guantánamo bay with no trial? he said yes, they are dangerous. it kind of begs the question, doesn't it? who gets to decide if you are dangerous or not? many libertarians, libertine he and -- libertarian leaning republicans, this this really bothers us. it is a bigger audience than that. think about it. if you are african american, japanese american, jewish american, hispanic, have there been times when the government did not treat you fairly? have there been times when you said the war on drugs has had a racial outcome?

based -- 300 of 400 people in prison are brown or black. the law should not have a racial outcome. maybe then people will say i always hated those republicans, and their crust sucks. maybe there are new republicans. maybe a new gop. we will see. thank you. [applause] >> we have questions from the audience. >> oh, god. [applause] >> we passed out notecards. i will read some of them. do you think the issue of privacy could bridge the partisan divide in congress? >> yes, there is a right/left

nexus on this. one of the persons i work most closely with on nsa, spying abuse is ron wyden. we do not agree on economic liberty issues. he is not so much for low taxes. or less regulations. but on this, we're almost at 100% agreement on intelligence issues. i think this a way you can get things done that compromises as splitting the difference but compromise means your party label is not as important as the issue is. to me i honestly would tell you , if it was a republic or a democratic president, i would give the same speech. i think a ron wyden would, too. i think he is an honest progressive. what happened to the good liberals around here? you can, i think, even somebody was not progressive, they are honestly good or good on civil liberties. the president was when he was in senate. he was much better on civil liberties than he is now.

>> next question from the audience. [laughter] if elected president, how would you respond to the recent increase of executive power? >> one of the biggest problems in the last 100 years, not for public or democrat, has been democrat,ublican, not but the last 100 years has been the increased power of the executive. we have thousands of orders written by the executive. montesquieu wrote and was big on the separation of power and checks and balances as said when the executives begin to legislate, that it becomes a part of tyranny. the check and balance is the president not allowed to legislate and only a legislature can. it's a messy process. everybody has to come to grips and it is not easy. that's what you convince people of the other side of the aisle to vote for your stuff. that's why we have so much contention over health care. not one republican voted for it. if there had been where the

democrats came closer to our side, we would not be having this big war on the country. the way i look at issues is, you do not have to agree with everything. we are a mixture of people from parties and all walks of life. let's say we take 10 issues. we will not agree on all 10. maybe three out of 10. why not work on the three out of 10 instead the seven out of 10? [applause] >> next question from the audience. you have voiced support for a flat tax, are you worried about inequailty resulting? >> some of the wealthy paid no taxes. some of the wealthy corporations pay no taxes under the current system. another interesting fact over

the last five years, income equality has gotten worse in the -- even though we raised tax rates. you have to think it through as to how we make it better. i am of the opinion that in way you stimulate the economy and the way you create jobs is by leaving more money in the economy. you may say it sounds incredibly simplistic but it is true. the private economy creates jobs. we have to have a certain amount of government but we should minimize it. it is not too good at that. [applause] i often say it is not in the government is inherently stupid, although it is a debatable point, it is they do not get the same signals. we need to have a national defense and it cannot be done privately and the same with the judiciary and roads and

education and things where the government will be involved. and so, you can argue it should occur. we should not extend it to all walks of life. does the government need to sell pizza? does the government need to deliver the mail? that is a problem. they are not good at that. we should minimize what the government does and try to maximize the private sector and that is where jobs are created. it is getting beyond the hurdle. i can go to a poor community in the mountains of kentucky and i say bring me the 10 richest people because i want to reduce your taxes and you may be horrified. you may be horrified and say, oh, he only cares about rich people. no we all work for rich people. , the man who employs 100 people probably is the richest man in town. how will like it him or her to hire 110 people? we have to get over this that the rich are bad.

the top one percent pay 40% of the income tax. there are exceptions to the rule and we should fix them. are not are some who paying taxes, they should. in some ways a flat tax includes more of those people and less of the people by having less and -- deductions. i am for reducing everybody's taxes. not just the middle class. everybody felt taxes. [applause] >> and this is going to be here very last question. we are here at the number one public university in the world. something we tell ourselves a lot. >> you are not at all biased, right? >> of course not. this relates to that, do you believe the federal government should play a role in supporting higher education? if so, describe. >> i believe in general that the

more local control of education, the better. you are not at the federal university of california berkeley but the university of berkeley. -- the university of california at berkeley. you are a state school. and so, education is primarily been at the state level. there is federal influence like pell grants. i decide to leave those alone when i create budgets. a lot of people are dependent on them. we have to figure a way forward. the big problem is that getting an education. we have plenty of grants. people are getting into school. that is not the problem. the problem you need to think through is not getting a grant and getting and school but getting a job but when you get out and how you'll pay your loans back. what is happening is, the loans are so big and the income not as large, a lot of people are making something inadequate. one of the ways we can fix and help students is maybe give tax credits to students as they get out. and not forgive your loans but reduce your taxes because most people will be working.

let you reduce your tax burden some as a way to pay off your student loans. >> thank you, everybody. [applause] >> this is the conference report, oh 1053 pages weighing 14 pounds. [laughter] and this, a reconciliation bill, six months late. that was 1186 pages long, weighing 15 pounds. and the long-term continuing resolution -- [laughter] [applause]

this one was two months late, and it is 1050 seven pages long, weighing 14 pounds. -- 1057 pages long, weighing 14 pounds. that was a total of 43 pounds of paper and ink. you had three hours. yes, three hours to consider each, and it took 300 people, my office of management and budget, just to read the bills so the government would not shut down. congress should not send another one of these. [applause]

no, and if you do, i will not sign it. [applause] >> find more highlights on 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a service of your local cable or satellite provider. have you ever heard of -- [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> what? the order of the environmental reduction agency due to hydraulic rack cheering.

-- fracturing. delayed announced a study for 2016. can we really wait that long, congress? >> we have announced the winners of this year's student cam video competition on what is the most important issue congress should address this year? 0 a.m.ng april 21 at 6:5 eastern on c-span. see all the winning entries onstudentcam.org. we preparetures as to bring you committed live coverage of the u.s. house. members gaveling in just a moment for general speeches. legislative business will get underway at, including one along taxpayers to make text file donation through

april 15 this year to help in the philippines recovery and reconstruction from typhoon-, and deduct those donations from their 2013 tax bill. both scheduled for after 6:30 p.m. eastern. we also have the senate gaveling begina vote on whether to debate on ukraine aid legislation. it would define $150 million in assistance. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 24, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable fred upton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: