the hezbollah, which the u.s.government has labeled a foreign terrorist organization, took 57 -- [inaudible] falling a near eight votes from victory. that being said, how solid a hold do the pro western forces have in lebanon's government? host: how strong of a hold? guest: how strong of a hold do which forces have? caller: the pro western force. guest: again, it's a question in terms of parliamentary. obviously they have a preimportant majority. 71 out of 128. that's important. but that's not going to be nearly enough to govern without cooperation of the other groups. in part because of the demographics. again, i go back to the fact that the system set up where, for example, the christians are now a minority in lebanon. but they're assured one-half of the parliamenty seats. we don't know how much of a minority because it's not been a sense since 1932. it's deliberate because they don't want to change the delicate game. the president has to be a marinite christian. the prime minister has to be a sunni muslim. spea

>> there is a difference between us and hezbollah in the sense that hezbollah is committed ideologically to the islamic resolution -- revolution. that is a talking point in the election. hezbollah said he was proud of that and following death. -- and falling that. i think you have seen a weakening of hezbollah's allies. in terms of communications, that is a victory for those as opposed to those in the region. in a way, what was so embarrassing to them was this notion that the islamic republic and ahmadinejad had more of legitimacy, more popular legitimacy, then our government. right now ahmadinejad is on shaky ground the other thing is -- is on shaky ground. the other thing is ahmadinejad and hezbollah are not going to suffer in terms of support. training, weaponry is going to continue. our revolutionary guards controlled these relationships. they are not directly affected. in terms of talking to their own public and palestine and lebanon, in terms of ideology, this is a setback. >> i think that-- >> hezbollah and hamas are completely different entities as far as iran. i would be very in

guest: hezbollah, it is a political party. the reason is successful is the shiite population and in south lebanon on was neglected by the central government for years. hezbollah provides schools and social services and that is the basis for its popularity. it does stand up to israel. it gained a lot of popularity in 2006. israelis went over the border and said they would defang hezbollah. that made them more popular. hezbollah says they will reap liberate jerusalem. there is a game show and the answer questions about the occupation. if the answer right, there is still little map showing them headed toward jerusalem. hezbollah has little chance of liberating jerusalem, but there is an emotional appeal to that region and to muslims, particularly sunni muslims. the to solve the problem, it will take away hezbollah's regional appeal. i think it will become another lebanese party among many. host: one more call. caller: hello. i did work in iran. i work in the school of nursing. i was there from 1959 to 1961. i watched the televisi

particularly hezbollah. and, and how you see that relationship evolving if hezbollah does at all in the lebanese elections coming up if it does even better -- has more power than it currently does. thanks. >> well, we tried to convey in our study is that iran's relationships with these, these nonstate acters are in fact real and lethal and, and substantive. at the same time they are bounded by certain realities in the domestic states, the states where these proxies reside. and i think these groups ultimately follow their own domestic agendas. and iran has a long history of being disappointed and exacerbated by the, the lack of reciprocity that it finds from these proxies t. gives all this aid, it gives all this support, and that doesn't always translate into the desired degree of resprospy. -- respaucity. regarding hes bella, you know, hezbollah, you know, responds to a dmesic constituent. much of their appeal, we found in our field work in lebanon, was due to rising sectarian tensions, the fear that there w

regarding hezbollah i think hezbollah response to a domestic constituents. much of their appeal we found in our field work in lebanon was due to rising sectarian tensions, the fear that there was this sunni empowerment, this growing radicalism -- salafi radicalism and reverting to his bow as the only defense in this arising sunni threat. but i think hezbollah is planned to that domestic constituents seem, regarding the elections i don't want to predict what the relationship obey. i think there could be a strong case that hezbollah will increasingly and as irresponsible political actor inside lebanon on that this increased political power could, in fact, moderated but i think the relationship will still be solid but again it won't translate into direct control and what we tried to convey understanding is it's certainly influences the group's but cannot control them and should not be thought of as automatons. >> okay, in the back over here. one and then the other one behind it. maybe you could both ask a question after the next and will have the responses. >>

speaker, i'd say to the gentleman "the new york times" has pointed out, may 27, hezbollah, the shiite militant group, has talked with the i.m.f. and the european union european union about continued financial support. so is he aware that this money that we are affording the i.m.f. to extend to countries who are in need would include countries where hezbollah would have some impact on the disbursal of those funds? i yield. mr. hoyer: the last time iran got money from the united states of america was 1984. you recall who was president of the united states in 1984, i'm sure. that was the last time iran got money from the united states -- excuse me from the i.m.f. from the i.m.f. with respect to your second observation, the gentleman knows how the i.m.f. works. the gentleman knows the united states is involved as are the other countries in overseeing the distribution of i.m.f. funds. there is no intention and there will be no action, certainly that the united states would support, to give any assistance, i don't know whether they have talked to the i.m.f. or not, the gentleman may have mo

for hezbollah.n i call them back for additional help? evidently, they are doing that in some cases. it has been reported that hamas elements have been called by the regime for suppression inside iran right now. it is no longer question of any particular candidate, it is about the sanctity of the ballot box and sovereignty and the legitimacy of the regime as a whole. the fate of people like mr. mousavi lies, in my opinion, as it clear demarcation from the regime. you cannot on the one hand be a candidate of people demanding justice and peace of the the regime -- demanding justice vis- a-vis the regime and upheld the system. that will be the question of whether or not he has actually peeled away from the system for the people. you cannot have any more. -- cannot hedge any more. you have to pick one of the other. >> i am a member of the national press club and a freelance writer from buffalo, new york. in your earlier answer, you leave open the door for future participation in a democratic iran. can yo

my question is about hezbollah? are there elements of hezbollah in iran? and a second question, what is your opinion of mouse wie -- mousawi? >> well, the regime will have the ability to call on things they set up years ago. speaking of hezbollah, there are elements that are recruiting as far as venezuela and colombia members for them. so it is not just in the region. this can they call them for help? evidently they are in some cases. i don't have any specific information on hezbollah, but it has been reported that hamas elements have been called in to help with repression inside iran right now. as i told you, it is no longer a question of a particular candidate. it is about the contingent sinthity of the ballot box, and the legitimacy of the regime as a whole. the fate of people like him lies in my opinion as a clear demarcation from the regime. you cannot on the one hand be a candidate of the people who are demanding justice and at the same time say you are there to preserve the system. this no longer is tenable. what answer he gives to that question wou

hezbollah upholds iran as a model. imagine -- the impact of the images after the repression in the streets of tehran. they have had defect in beirut. remember, the lebanese had their own version of this popular uprising. no blood, no massive repression, but still, they are wondering what kind of state they want. is that a viable model? another country to watch closely is syria, which is trying to rebuild ties with the west. if well played, this can be opportunity for syria. there's not much texture to the iran-syria relationship. the two societies are not in love. there is not a lot of cultural exchanges. there is some religious pilgrimage, but it is not a profound relationship. the regime we will -- the regime will continue to deal with the same people in iran. what is their assessment of the solidity of the regime? the picture is certainly very complex. as i said earlier, the only merit of the decision to basically throw his weight behind ahmadinejad, at least for the arab states, is to clarify the situation. we no l

that iran may have nuclear weapons, the possibility that iran will continue to expand, and it has hezbollah allied with hamas in lebanon growing in power. it has hamas increasingly as a proxy on one side of israel. it has syria as a client state. is there any sense that egypt and perhaps even saudi arabia and some of the gulf states at this point would functionally ally themselves with israel against iran or is it that the enemy of my enemy can be useful but that doesn't make him my friend? .. i done of i completely by ed wood made that cover, i think it would be more of a fig leaf or anything but we know where their feelings are on the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon and do whatever they can two hopefully for iran from achieving. >> i want to look for questions out there and make sure you have a microphone before you start to talk in moscow right over here if we can, start here. >> i have two questions. and the first is can you give some background on the fatah hamas negotiations sponsored by egypt which have been apparently totally unsuccessful, and my second question has to do with

that year, israel and lebanon had at least a month-long confrontation of their border and basically hezbollah, the militant lebanese group and it's sort of wildly considered a war. and iran was a supporter and continues to be a supporter of hezbollah, of course, at the time and i remember there being the same constant tv footage of lebanese civilians suffering and of that war. and at the time iranians, i think, were quite resentful of that support. they were very sympathetic again towards the lebanese. i don't want to suggest that they are not sympathetic to the lebanese or the palestinians who suffered during these conflicts but they felt as though this was not iran's fight. and one morning i had gone to the bakery to buy fresh bread as i did sometimes. and as i got there very early, the bakery was closed which was unusual for that hour and other neighbors started to congregate and we were all waiting to see when the bakery would open and when it didn't, people began to wonder, well, what's going on? and suddenly all of these murmurings produced a conclusion was that the government had sent

moreover, hamas in the south, like hezbollah in the north, repeatedly repeated their claims. territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred. the most regretful thing is that even the moderates among palestinians are not willing to say the simple words -- is real is the nation state of the jewish people and it will remain that way. [applause] in order to achieve peace, what is needed is courage and candor. from both sides. i today and speaking with courage and candor, but if courage and candor is needed not only from the israeli side, the palestinian leadership must arise and say simply, enough of this conflict. we recognize the right of the jewish people to a state of its own in this land and we are prepared to live alongside you in true peace. i am yearning for that moment. for when palestinian leaders say these words to our people, these simple words, these true words, when they say this to our people, then, the path resolving all problems between our peoples will be open, no matter how complex they may be and therefore a fundamental prerequisite for ending the confli

of their weapons to hamas were cut off and hezbollah was not a threat from the north. so the reopening of the ambassador is a very positive sign, positive sign that envoy former senator george mitchell was visiting. and this, i think, bodes well. the article i wrote in the washington quarterly some time ago sets forth in greater detail my views on the issue of dialogue. i note my colleague has come to the floor, so i will conclude my statement and yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, harold koh of connecticut to be legal advisor of the department of state. mr. specter: madam president, may i regain the floor for a unanimous consent request? i've been asked on behalf of the democratic leader to ask consent that caroline mcneil, nay can keefer and stephanie -- nathan keefer and stephanie lewis be allowed privileges of the floor for the remainder of

. -- and hezbollah shows up, they will influence that interview. get back if you can, try do -- determine if it is a poison interview. it can be dangerous work. >> to what extent is your work affected by the ban on journalism gaza? >> that is a perfect example of lack of access. not only was the press not getting in, but human rights monitors were not getting in. i was able to stand there on the line and watch the fighting. we could see white phosphorus and, to the press. it was nice that you had bbc there, and explained what was going on. for me, it was interesting looking at, what helicopters were flying, what aircraft. what munitions were they carrying? once you go in, you then had a feeding frenzy with the press and human rights monitors. we did have the luxury of having a palestinian works for us pretty lives in gauze a, and was able to -- he lives in gaza, his wife was pregnant, and he was concerned about getting to the hospital. it was a very difficult time for him. >> you said you were tasked with determining if there's a link between 9/11

any use of indiscriminate rockets, whether they would be the hezbollah use of rockets during the war against israel during the war of 2006 or the rocket fire that has gone for the last 8 years, their war crimes, because of the desire to hurt and harm civilians. we have put out press releases and as you know in 2 weeks -- in charlie wi end have another report on qassam rockets, it does not absolve the other actor from necessity to adhere to the geneva conventions. >> how and where was human rights watch founded and by who? >> i have been there for 6 years. human rights watch started as helsinki watch which looked at the old soviet union and how people were being treated and it grew and has taken on a larger mandate. if you look at our web site you can find out more about it. >> what does the senator feinstein bill do? do we have the name and number? >> to me have the name and number? it is outside on the paperwork, the civilian cluster protection act, it escapes my mind right now. what it does is simply states that the u.s. can only employ cluster munitions in areas that are not popul

its back is still to the sea and surrounded by hos teuflt from hezbollah in lebanon and hamas in the gaza strip. one thing must be absolutely, indisputably clear there is no more equivalency between israel and hamas. israel is a sovereign democratic state of 7.5 million people, jews, muslims and christians. hamas is a terrorist organization. it won control of gaza after men in ski masks based battle with another leadership. it launched rockets in nearby cities. this is the thanks israel got for withdrawing from gaza. haplgz does not recognize agreements that -- hamas does not recognize agreements palestinian leaders recognized with israel in the past, does not recognize israel's right to exist at all and is ideologically committed to israel's annihilation. gaza's people thrift for freedom and opportunity. even today after the consequences of menacing israel became clear in a disastrous war, weapons are flowing freely through tunnels into gaza. hamas is rearmed and it is readying itself for the day when it is going to take on israel again. hamas and hezbollah may be the head of the sn

they ended up with hezbollah on their northern border and a war. when prime minister sharon decided that he would unilaterally withdraw from the gaza, one would have thought that the palestinians would have used this opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they were capable of self-governance. instead of that, they have rained 8,000 rockets on israel proper over the last three years. i believe that israel exercised extraordinary restraint before they finally went into the gaza to end this bloodshed and carnage against their own people. i understand how the israelis feel, how tentative they are right now about sitting down and moving towards a two-state solution without any assurances, what is the guarantee after they've left lebanon and got hezbollah, after they left the gaza and got hamas, that if they leave the west bank, what is going to happen then? do you want a terrorist state living side by side with a democratic state of israel? i don't think anybody wants another failed terrorist state. we have to make sure that doesn't happen and at

the same ago for hezbollah and for syria, sudan want to get into the act which is also people overlook the iraq and sudan is also a proxy of iran. you've got these ponds that are surrounding israel and israel played a masterful game of chess to my chest was invented in persia and we can now see that even if iran doesn't get these weapons and has placed upon separately route is real, and it gets the nukes and all these factors into would they please and women even necessarily need to be a nuclear attack with israel, it could be just a toy of the missiles. the low to the 30,000 plus in their position and other 5,210,000 possibly chemical weapons in syrian hands and the homemade weapons that hamas buyers into southern israel which increasingly can now reach tell of the according to some reports not to mention whenever sudan was, and other wares having all this in place to put israel in a great amount of danger and also threaten the viability of a speech to the fashion in the west bank arab robins reasons the strength of wayne. so there are a lot of petitions about the way this is going to

not hezbollah. no discussions with them. the u.s. would weigh in to stop such funding.we have a bill that seeks security and it has te they prongs. -- two prongs. if it were a republican president asking for this, it would pass with over 300 votes again. democrats would join to the republican president's request as we have done in the past to say this is for america's security or international security, and we support it. this bill does some other things. we have a pandemic flow, swine flu, that is now at a level that is 41 years historically in this country. the administration said we need additional funds because of that for the flu. we did not have that in our bill. every member wants to take care of the health of our people. we know it carries a lot of white underside of the aisle. just the other day we heard people say what a great theater ronald reagan was. i want to quote him if i can find it for a quickly. he said this. the imf is the linchpin of the financial system. he said i have an unbreakable commitments to increased funding for imf. that is a conservative

iran is funding hezbollah and iraq, i think they are more dangerous. guest: the caller may be right, they may be more dangerous, and he's certain right, they are more dangerous. host: this is martha from maine. caller: yes, this is martha clark, and i would like to ask mr. will, why do you include insurance companies to the health equation. they bring nothing to the table. they make money and prevent health care. guest: that seems to me as a eccentric view of the current function of insurance companies in the country. i don't know how to grasp they prevent health care. are they trying to make a profit? yes, and you make a profit by providing what people want to buy. and therefore the market is benign to give products and in this case health coverage that people want. and those countries that thrive are doing just that. host: what are you reading this summer? guest: elmer blore has a new novel and i am listening on tape the history, called the waking giant. lots of stuff. host: there are predictions that books will go to all news. guest: i like a book i

you can see with hezbollah and hamas. one woman got killed. it goes on and on and on.ms to me -- i also wanted -- now that we're talking about -- even c-span. they got away with saying israel a few times. you cannot say israel and jew together in the same sentence or you get hung up on. they go out of the way to conduct these things. everything is intertwined. whoever has an agenda --. -- it goes up to the top office. it spills into the cia and everywhere. they go on these missions. we're build on a global capitalism system. it is going to keep happening. what obama does is called double he doesn't so nonchalantly. host: any thoughts? guest: not really. to the extent you're saying that the pro-israel community in the united states is pushing a set of policy ideas for an agenda that is not good for u.s. interests. there is much in that agenda i would disagree with. it does not serve u.s. interests well. i don't think it's accurate or helpful to talk about that in terms of conspiracy or some kind of illegitimate collusion among different people. it is a set of ideas that

salary is only $2,000 or $3,000 a year, and this regime gives twice or 10 times that amount to a hezbollah family in lebanon or a family in palestinian, when he is starving, those rirets are not in the interests of your own people. i have heard them celebrating making yellow cake? how about making bread for us because we are starving. if you trust the iranian people, and you should in their decision, i have no doubt that first and foremost we have a sense of respect for ourselves. our signature must mean something. we have signed a treaty. if we violate that treaty, how could we possibly think if tomorrow we wanted to become a member of the world trade organization, and we have violated this signature, how could you ever trust them. that is my position and principle on the subject. thank you. >> i would like to refer to a former question concerning the future of iran. when you look at the people who have not an important roll, like mr. moose wie and others, they are all part of the regime. how do you envision the future of iran? is it going to overthrow it? it is probably not going to be a

more intractable, it's not going to help in our dealings with iran, because it directly hamas and hezbollah and others are involved. if we don't have any serious movement with iran, not necessarily movement with agreement, but movement on a set of negotiations in which some issues might move forward more rapidly than others, that is also going to create a more negative atmosphere in the middle east. i would say the two have interactive roles. it is an interactive process, both issues. a poisoned atmosphere, both issues are potentially dangerous and damaging. >> to what extent do you think the friction over settlements that is developing in the last few days, especially, will constrain to any extent the obama administration in terms of their post-iranian election engagement activities? >> i don't think it will limit its either way. what it has done, however, is it has elevated one specific issue into a policy issue. because the rest of his speech, there's nothing in it that is precisely binding or is precisely a clear-cut test. but this issue is cut precisely. he has put to the u.s. on recor

think he was not the way he can to power but the threat he posed to other countries, the leader of hezbollah in southern lebanon is classic and a list goes on. >> host: why did you write this book? >> guest: out of a longstanding fascination with wide democracy to me is probably the most beautiful and extraordinary thing we have come up with in society. of course, -- in the course of human condition but suffers from a paradox which is a freedom probably our most valuable gift we can so easily let it go that i have been thrown my life would be at what happened in germany in the 1930's they had a beautiful and hopeful constitution and people ordinary germans handed the freedom over through the lawful process and it was turned against them. that it turns out was just something that happened in germany. it has gone through human history over and over france during the french revolution and where you had in a few short years liberty equality and fraternity were their goals then you have the air and guillotines. you have this paradox haunting mystery. and it was fascinating. had you make democracy

talked about has block, a loss -- has a lot, hamas, and ahmadinejad and this is right below what's -- hezbollah. what about foreign country raping? you don't tell like it is. guest: i am not sure what his point is. he obviously does not like what the united states foreign policy is. but i am not clear on his particular spirit host: a comet saying -- host: this is a comment -- explain costa rica's unique government. guest: coaster rica should be a model for the rest of central america and foreign policy in the region -- coaster rate cut should be a model. that is why i pointed to militarization of central america. the emphasis of narcotics interdiction, that those two policies have cost central america great wit. we have one or real statesmen in central america, and that is the president of costa rica. i think in the rest of central america, we have a new president of el salvador that shows great promise. but in guatemala, the 40% of the territory is under in the control of narcotics dealers, the government does not run in that area of what's ramallah. honduras has been foundering because of a l

not hezbollah. no discussions with them. the united states would clear the way and -- would clearly weigh in to stop such funding. with a bill that seeks security and peace. i suggest to you that it is my belief that if it were a republican president asking for this, this bill would pass with some 368 votes again. why? because democrats would join in the republican president as we have in the past and say this is for america's security. for international security. this bill does some other things. we have a pandemic flew. -- flu that is now level that the world health organization says is 41 years historically in the context. the administration has said because of that, we need additional funds for vaccines. we did not have that in our bill. clearly, there is not a member of this house that is not one to take care of the health of our people. i might say that although he does not carry a lot of weight on your side of the aisle, jim leach has strongly endorsed this effort for the same reason ronald reagan who we are just the

$3,000 a year, and the regime gives this kind of money, twice, five, 10 times that amount, to some hezbollahlestine while he is starting, those priorities are not in the interest of their own people. people know that. people are celebrating making yellowcake? how about celebrating keeping us from starving? if you trust the iranian people, and we shoin

not in the way he came into power but the threat that he posed to other countries, the leader of hezbollah in southern lebanon is classic and will list goes on. >> host: why did you write this book? >> guest: out of a longstanding fascination with why come a democracy to me is probably the most beautiful and extraordinary thing we have come up with in a society. in the course of the human condition. but it suffers from a paradox which is freedom, probably our most valuable gift. we can so easily let it go that i have been throughout my life at what happened in germany in the thirties they had a quite beautiful and hopeful constitution but then people of ordinary germans handed their freedom over to adolf hitler through the lawful process then turned against them that it turns out it has gone through human history over and over a happened in france during the french revolution in a few short years you have liberty and equality than a few short years later you have pierre and the guillotine's. anybody has seen dimas rumba, you have a paradox i was fascinated one days with that had to make it

against the state, mahmoud ah d ahmednijad in the threat he posed to other countries, the leader of hezbollah in southern lebanon, that is a classic demagogue. the list goes on. >> why did you write this book? >> a long standing transportation, why democracy to me is the most beautiful and extraordinary thing we have come up with. and society, in the course of the human condition, suffers from a paradox, which is freedom. our most valuable gift, we can so easily let it go. they had a beautiful constitution, and people of -- ordinary germans held -- handed their freedom to adolf hitler and it was turned against them. it has gone through human history, over and over again, it happened in france. you had liberty, equality, fraternity. and then you had guillotines. the broadway version, you parad and i was fascinated by that. how do you make democracy work, how do you make it flourished? how do you make ordinary people hold it sowed the year so they prevent demagogues? there is an answer after years of thinking about it and it is constitutional. political scientists have thought about it, histori

hezbollah was defeated. you had that -- is this an example for the people? i do not want to assert that it is, but the theory of bush's iraq was first to get democracy there in the belly of the arrogance of non-democratic released, and hopefully it will spread. maybe, maybe not. the store might be 10 years from now. guest: we took away the threat of iraq from iran which was their natural-born enemy, so in a way we helped iran. host: here is the editorial you have referred to. the issue is whether to establish a new public plan to encourage more competition between health insurers and provide americans with an alternative. guest: this is what washington will debate. i don't think the democrats have put it on the table. senator baucus does not want it. guest: he has held off a bit. guest: this will be one of the great debates and it does not begun charlie along partisan lines. if you create a government-run interests whether they will under-priced the private-sector insurance and drive it out of business, and then you have a big step towards will be a single-p

characterized has blood that has more missiles and rockets in most countries -- where do you characterize a hezbollah that has more missiles and rockets than most countries? it is the versatility of our force and the ability to respond to a wide range of conflict that we are trying to build the programs for this department for the future. but there is a huge investment in trying to protect our technological edge for the future. frankly, to be blunt, the notion that not purchasing 60 more f- 22's imperils the national security of the net is this i find the complete nonsense. but mark me down as undecided. [laughter] >> yesterday, and president obama's announcement on federal or benefits -- federal benefits for gay employees, the you have concerns about any type of double standard -- do you have concern about any type of double standard? also, before the announcement yesterday, there seem to be back-and-forth between the white house and congress on who was taking the lead on don't ask, don't tell. who should be taking the lead from this? >> this department's position is dictated by the fact there is a

or under hamas and hezbollah to bomb is true. host: that will about due for this morning's program. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern for 3 hours of conversation and your calls. hope you have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] . .

$3,000 a year, and the regime gives this kind of money, twice, five, 10 times that amount, to some hezbollah family in lebanon or some hamas member in palestine while he is starting, those priorities are not in the interest of their own people. people know that. people are celebrating making yellowcake? how about celebrating keeping us from starving? if you trust the iranian people, and we should in that decision, i have no doubt that first and foremost we have a sense of respect for ourselves, and our signature must mean something. we have signed the treaty. if we violate the treaty, how could we possibly think that if tomorrow we want to become a member of the world trade organization, if you violate this signature, not committed to it, why should you trust us on anything resign after that will ever be respected by ourselves? that is my position on the subject. thank you. >> i would like to refer to a former question concerning the future of iran. when you look at people who have an important role like mr. mousavi, mr. rafsanjani, mr. kasai me, they are all part of the regime. but this mov

equivalent of $2,000 or $3,000 a year, and the regime gives twice or 10 times that amount to some hezbollah member or hamas member in palestinian, that is not in the interests of the people. i hear people celebrating them making yellow cake. how about making bread for the people who are starving? if you trust the people, i have no doubt that first and foremost we have a sense of respect for ourselves. our signatures must mean something. we have signed a treaty. if we violate that treaty, how can we possibly think if we want to become a member of the world trade organization, if we sign this and don't do it, how can you think well do anything else. that is my position in principle on the subject. thank you. >> i would like to refer to a former question concerning the future of iran. when you look at people who have an important role like mr. mousavi, mr. rafsanjani, mr. kasai me, they are all part of the regime. but this movement go far beyond -- does this movement go far beyond? how do you envision the future of iran? will it be an overthrow of hypocrisy -- will it be an overthrow of the th

not hezbollah. no discussions with them. the united states would clearly weigh in to stop such funding, properly so. so we have a bill that seeks security and peace and it's two-prong now, not one. and i suggest to you that it is my belief that if it were a republican president asking for this that this bill would pass with some 368 votes again. why? because democrats would join in the republican president's request as we have in the past and say this is for america's security, for international security, and we'll support it. now, this bill does some other things. we have a pandemic flu, swine flu, h-1-n-1 flu that is now at a level that the world health organization says is 41 years historically in the context. and the administration said because of that we need additional funds for flu vaccines. we didn't have that in our bill. clearly there's not a member in this house that doesn't want to take care of the health of our people. i might say although he doesn't carry a lot of weight on our side of the aisle that jim leach

days later they understood the elections in lebanon for the hezbollah-backed coalition was supposed to win and lost largely because there was a large turnout, much larger than expected for the pro-u.s. coalition of parties. they understood that immediately to mean something. they could not quite bring themselves to say publicly, gee, we think that he had a big influence on these elections. now we see something in iran. they are trying to walk the line behind it taking credit for something happening, a new, diplomatic opening in that part of the world, and not antagonizing the authorities in iran or inserting themselves into a debate that they still insist is a iranians debating their own future. it is impossible to say whether or not, how much influence about events that his congress be chad. host: what is holding back the president and his team? the president has said already that some of his statements have been misinterpreted or miss translated in the arab world. guest: that is an interesting point. president obama mentioned that on one level anything he says is being mis-translated

we have seen how groups like hezbollah can have an advanced anti-ship cruise missile. again, i am not sure that we have will -- we will go into an environment and say it is low- end or high-end any more. what was once kind of remote and not of great interest as far as battlefield's go, they are opening up. i talked about the blue twirl -- littoral areas. there is a competition for resources and if maritime trade continues to connect the world together, we will seek sovereign space open quickly and the undersea domain with the competition for resources i believe will become more important. the ability to influence world events, therefore, is going to be more important that we do that from the sea. it clearly is an important option for country to have. especially because in the future, a small footprint on someone else's sovereign soil will become even more sensitive. between 2001 and 2010, one-third of permanent oversees military personnel planned to return to the continental u.s. and when those bases and those folks go way, american presence cannot go wait and it will

is supporting activities of the iranian revolutionary guard or material support to the taliban, hezbollah, the shia militants and iraq, that this is serious provocation and it seems that we're holding our punches by not calling it one and is into my encouragement would just be for us to take this seriously because when we lighten up on north korea by taking them off the list we did lineup on then we in a sense rewarding bad behavior hoping we would create good behavior and we got worse behavior than we had before. in makes absolutely no sense to continue with this and i think it basically iwo amplifies and growing sense of americans are a paper tiger full of talk and no action. it appears that this is maybe one of the few things we can do at this point that can actually put some pressure on them and if you say we're already doing all the things such as freezing their assets and the other economic sanctions that go along with this, the message it sends to the world is that we're getting serious of least in my mind. >> i appreciate your thoughts and we will reflect on that and get back to y

denounce terrorism in general terms but not the specific actions of islamic groups like hamas or hezbollah. they've denounce violence but not the ideologieses behind them. further, the group which attempt to chill speech by calling critics of radical islam is -- finally, i like to close my speech by recognizing the men and women of the f.b.i. and the hard work they do every day to keep this country safe and to restate the f.b.i.'s own words, quote, until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between care or its executives and hamas, the f.b.i. does not view care as an appropriate liaison partner, end of quote. i completely agree. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, for 60 minutes. mr. latourette: i thank you, madam speaker, for the recognition. and, madam speaker, we have been coming to the floor for about four months now in an attempt to get to the bottom of one or two mysteries. and i had hoped to be able to come to the floor today to