we now have a unique chance with a new administration in the united states looking at a loss of a conflict which were also on the edge of this and previous administrations. i often talked about this with george bush to give an impetus to a number of matters. it was with great interest in gratification i was able to see president obama was pushing open the doors and forging ahead in many areas in the middle east conflict, afghanistan, iran and unmentioned other areas, mentioning for example economic issue but also climate change. so he is trying to open up new perspectives, and use and new opportunities and tried to bring about solutions. i have vital interest in seeing this policy being crowned by success, making progress because what is important here to is to prove that our values that we share are still valid in this world of the 21st century, will gain ground also an acceptance among other nations. or the other forms of government which don't always correspond to the way we see respect and dignity of man, that is something that i don't want them to win over if you like. we are proud of

i hope you enjoy your first visit to the united states. i look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues. >> madam secretary, i like to say to you how much the government of israel appreciates your support of israel. we value your friendship greatly. you made many contributions. we thank you for your outstanding commitment to israel and for strengthening the relationship and friendship. we have had a good discussion today discussing global issues. but some secretary, -- my dammam secretary, i thank you for your efforts. >> thank you. >> the new ambassador was talking about some interesting proposals. can you elaborate on what they may be? does that mean there is some wiggle room that there should be no such settlement activity? can you discuss george bush's private letters to the israeli government's. is that issue over with? >> that is a long question. thank you. that is three questions. first of all, we do not have any intention to change the demographics in the area. it is in every place [unintelligible]

she said that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing to do what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i am going to have to ask her what she meant by that. >> when people talk about a filibuster, a understand that republicans ab

what does a government-run program look like in the united states? it looks like medicare part b. a voluntary program. it has a 97% market share. crowds everything else out of the system. there are high quality reports that would give evidence to 110-120 million americanings being crowded of their private insurance if a government option was in place. any mandate, either individual or -- and the reason for that is not just because it is a mandate, which is a bad idea in the first place but because when congressman dates something, what it mandates is the health coverage. what would qualify as health insurance. all of the dynamic things, health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, all of those things will not only be unavailable, they will be illegal and that's why a mandate would be a -- for american medicine. the healthy choice administration or the comparative research council, whatever it is, if it is not patients and physicians making the decision about what treatment to administer, then quality of american health care plummets for each individual. not just in this room

another service outlet available >> we tried as much as possible we looked at state-by-state, we looked at averages across the unitedstates if we look for example the upper peninsula average of michigan, 19 to 23 minutes and oregon, chevrolet will go from this is miles comics to come ten to 14.5 models -- the issue is on the extremes because there will be situations we clearly have a problem. >> mr. chairman, if i might, closing the dealership is probably at least 100 miles to mad first, that is the nearest chevy so the people are going to go from climate falls now to medford. burdens, closing burns, 136 miles to pay the new list dealership, right? >> we will have situations where we have problems and we are going to have to solve these problems. >> and how will use of the problems? putting a dealership back? >> that is not aware intent and one of the things we said in the case of -- first fall, another general motors franchisees can provide work. >> there isn't another one in climate falls, burns -- >> the second thing we cities in the event we need to put in place, put a location back one of the things we committe

what's a government-run program look like in the united states? it looks like medicare part b, which is a fogs part of medicare, a volunteer program, crouts everything else out of the is. there are high quality reports that would give evidence to 110 to 120 million americans being crowded out of their private personal insurance if a government option is in place. second, any mandate, either individual or employer. and the reason for that is not just because it's a mandate, which is a bad idea in the first place, but it's because when congressmandates something, what it mandates is the definition of health insurance. again, we see from the house bill that all of the dynamic bills that are out there in the marketplace, like high deductible catastrophic plans, all of those things will not only be unavailable, they will be illegal. and that's why a mandate would be a death sentence. at that point in time for that individual, the quality of american health care plummets for each and every individual, not just in this room, not just in this city, but acr

their government more than they otherwise would have because they have the example of the united states to look at. and if i think of countries, you know, the revolutions, the orange revolution and the changes in governments in places like poland back when it broke from the soviet union and ukraine and georgia and all of the other places in the world where people finally broke free from the shackles of a government that would not permit free speech, what were they seeking to do? to exercise free speech in order to petition their government for more individual freedom. so the united states should jealously guard those rights in our constitution rather than, as mr. koh says, have the united states interpret its constitution more in line with the mainstream of thinking in the rest of the world. if you sort of try apply a mathematical formula here and you average what the rest of the world thinks about free speech, the right of religion, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government, the average is far below what we provide. we're pretty much at the top of the pile in terms of what we

what's a public auction, with the government run program look like in the united states? it looks like medicare part deal that has a 97% market share and crounse everything else out of the system. there are high-quality reports that would give evidence to 110 to 120 billion americans being crowded out of their private personal insurance if the government isn't in place. some get to the american polity of medicine is any mandate either individual or employe year and the reason for that is not just because it is a mandate which is a bad idea in the first place but it's because when congress mandates something wittman dates is the definition of health coverage, health insurance. what would qualify as health insurance and again we see from the house bill all of the dynamic things out there in the marketplace like savings accounts and medical savings accounts and deductible catastrophic plans, all of those will not only be on available they will be illegal and that's why a mandate would be for american medicine and finally ceding the definition of quality of the federal governm

united states to find cancer at its earlier stage. americans have a greater chance of surviving cancer. when we look at five-year survival rates, overall, the picture is also stark. women fighting cancer have a 65% chance of surviving if they are treated in the united states. that survival rate drops to 56% in europe. for men, the difference is even starker. 66% of american men will survive a cancer diagnosis. only 47% of european men. bottom line once again, we see across both men and women, you are much more likely to survive cancer in the united states than in european countries. and much of the reason why is because in countries in which the government controls more of the health care sector, they restrict access to oncoling medicine and to imagery. and cancer is found later and fought with less aggressive drugs, meaning that europeans will die at a higher rate than americans. when we look at high tech medical procedures in britain, canada and the united states, many people would say that health care costs are driven by too much access to medical care. what we see here is that survival rates are

then the developing countries that want to be like the united states, they look at us as a model and they're going like poland, hey, what's this stuff here? is this something that you guys came up with at some university or a couple of guys smoking some marijuana ciarettes or is this real, you know, fundamental stuff? and maybe we ought to prove this before we give up our cars, before we give up our s.u.v.'s and our station wagons. i mean, we've had this debate about the volt and whether g.m. should go to an electric car that costs $40,000, that we talk about gas and oil and how you power these big trucks that i make in my district and how you power the r.v.'s. how exactly are you going to pull a toeble with a smart car? the challenge is, how are you going to move around? and one of the questions is, i think they think that electric cars, when you plug them in, that the electricity is in the wall. what is going to make the power to power electric cars? and how many kind of regular people are going to be able to afford a $40,000 electric car which gets -- car? which gets to the core o

>> another symbol dimension of this, if you look where russia and the united states would begin the process, if you look at the rates at which they can destroy weapons, in 2018 you come to 1,000 on both sides. >> yes. >> i am from china central television. i want to confirm the numbers. the first is the commissioners are from how many countries altogether of this global zero commission? and also, among the 23,000 weapons, how much percentage of them are now possessed by the united states and russia? and according to a previous document of the global z zero action plan, there will be another summit next year and he will present the final version of the plan. this plan we are holding today is the final version? if not, in what perspective you will refine it? thank you very much. >> i have to remember all those questions. the first one, as i think i said earlier, united states and russia have 95% of the world's nuclear stockpile, roughly speaking. that is why i referred to them as the big boys in terms of nuclear weapons. how many questions, 7 or eight or nine? in terms of total commission, we

united states. if that's not an erosion of u.s. sovereignty, i don't know what it is. and advocating that judges who take an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states should instead look to international treaties as a source of that law, to me, is a radical and very fundamental shift in what i think most people would expect from our judges. he said that federal judges should use their power to vertically enforce or dough mess indicate american law with -- domesticate international law. do we want the top advisor at the state department supporting the idea that international bodies and unelected federal officials -- not the u.s. congress -- should be the ultimate law-making authority for the american people? i don't think so. now, this has manifested itself in a number of ways. for example, in a interview that dean koh gave on may 10 of -- for the "news hour" he said that he was asked about, for example, some of the interrogations that took place in places like guantanamo. and he basically said that the u.s. forces, including our commanders and presumably the intelligence officials that actually conducted interrogations and detentions, violated the geneva conventions a

-- i have great confidence that african americans, like all americans, looking no further than the oval office of the united states of america, looking at the opportunities that have been provided to african americans on a widening basis over the last 50 years in this country, would see the wisdom of moving on from dwelling on those moments in the past. and i think that discussions of reparations are apologies that don't acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifice that was made by americans to end slavery is not productive. should the government apologize? well, again, i believe that the willingness of americans to lay their sons down in the civil war and the grief that ensued for virtually every american family with 600,000 american lives that were spent in ending slavery on this continent was probably recompence enough. >> that means no. >> final question. >> first to follow up on that. if it came to the floor for a vote, you would vote for or against it? if the same resolution came forward just with the apology similar to what's already gone through? >> well, look, i am a supporter of -- and i supported the reautho

about her views toward international law, in effect saying that you could interpret united states's constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she has said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her, what you mean by that? people talk about a filibuster, understand that republicans could not filibuster this nomination on our own. there are not enough of us. and by the way, none of us are talking about filibuster. it is all in response to questions by the media, which are fair, but we're not proposing this. it would be very difficult to pull off any way unless the jet -- unless the democrats joined in. >> that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the government funding of college, direct aid to colleges and students is really a late 1950's, early 1960's thing that has grown since then. >> today, not even government- backed student loans aren't permitted. >> t

least privately expressed some reservations that large conventional forces is the way the united states should be looking at the world in terms of its defense. as you do this review, will this construct itself be under review? will you be analyzing whether this type of operation is what the u.s. should be focused on the next decade? >> those who believe that is what we are trying to do, and that is what i believe, do not understand what we're trying to do or what i believe. the reality is the vast preponderance of the defense department procurement budget will still be for large systems used, sophisticated systems usable against near peers, and it will continue to give us a technological edge for the next 20, 25 years. what i am trying to do is simply get a place at the table when resources are passed out for those who are fighting today's wars and to institutionalize what we have learned about counter insurgency so we do not forget it like we did after vietnam. so this notion that i am tilting the scale dramatically against conventional capabilities in order to fight their regular or whatever, asymmetri

she was saying that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing to do with what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she has said it on several occasions. i'm going to ask her what she means by that. republicans could probably filibuster this, but there are not enough of us. none of us are talking about a filibuster. it is in response to questions from the media. we are not proposing this. as you point out, it would be difficult for us to pull off unless the democrats join us. >> that will be today at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the government funding of colleges is the late 1950's and early 1960's thing that has grown rapidly since then. >> kill still -- hillsdale college has never accepted government funding. even state loans are not permitted. >> we have a lawyer here in town that tries to keep the government from giving us money. i want to ask him to send me title for. he said it was no use

in effect saying that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. well, public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. and if that's really her point of view, that's very troubling. i mean, i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her what do you mean by that? when people talk about a filibuster, understand that republicans probably couldn't filibuster this nomination on our own. there aren't enough of us. so even if we wanted to -- by the way, none of us are talking about filibuster. it's all in response to questions from the media which are fair questions, but we're not proposing this. as you point out, it would be very difficult for us to pull off anyway unless some democrats joined in. >> "newsmakers" with senator jon kyl here on c-span. >> nor nonfiction box and authors through the weekend on cable-satellite public affairs network's book tv. how the followers of jihad, jefferson, and jesus are battling to dominate the

but i have great confidence that african- americans, like all americans, looking no further than the oval office of the united statesf america and looking at the opportunities provided to african-americans on a widening basis over the last 50 years in this country would see the wisdom of moving on from dwelling on those moments of the past and i think discussions of reparations or apologies that to not acknowledge the extraordinary sacrifice made by americans to end slavery is not productive. should the government apologize? again, i believe the willingness of americans to lay their sons down in a civil war and the grief that ensued for virtually every american family of 600,000 american lives spence -- spent in savings of this -- >> the final question. >> if it came to the floor for a vote, would you vote for or against it? it with -- if the same resolution, just with the apology came through? >> i am a supporter -- i supported the react -- the reauthorization of the voting rights act. the civil rights act of 1964 was the greatest legislative accomplishment of the 20's -- of between century. i supported the d.c. vo

united states. [inaudibl [inaudible]. host: are we looking at something that could turn into major civil unrest? guest: it may. as far as i'm concerned, there are two or three things that need to take place for this to go beyond just these protests that we see and kind of have this sustained opposition to whatever it may be. right now, it may be for the fact that they feel cheated in the election. beyond that, if you allow it to go on and come against the regime as a whole, the islamic regime. two things that come to mind for this to sustain itself, if you want to call it a movement, meet a ledder, maybe not necessarily -- a leader, maybe not the most inspiring leader with the passionate rhetoric or speech skills, but someone who is part of the system. that is one of the reasons that mr. musavid, the challenger, has been able to form the protests and rallies. he was a former prime minister during the iran-iraq war. he was extremely possible with ayatollah, the founder of the islamic state. he has the credentials, if you will. he is part of the system. he needs that kind of leader. that will give

can any of you imagine what the united states economy would look like today if we were denied the use of 52% of the current oil we use? with the price of a gallon of gas be? it is crazy, silly, these guys don't know straight up from succumb when it comes to basic economics. it is a catastrophic set of policies. if you look at this stuff in look at this means in trade and of the articles, they respond arthur, you don't understand. the people who on the oil and to have that are bad guys. and i will stipulate that. they are bad guys. i stopped going to beach parties with hugo months ago. i did not played doubles in tennis with ahmadinejad for a while and i am no longer sharing my-- with vladimir putin. i am sick and tired of these guys and i don't like them either but did they not understand the bhagwati theory? this is named after bhagwati at columbia. you never use trade as a political weapon. dew just -- if embargoes worked, north korea years ago would become a free market capitalist nation. it doesn't work. i am if embargoes wert cuba would have been free market, pro-growth as well.

troubling things about her views to international laws, saying you could interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that's really her point of view, that's very troubling. i mean, i would -- i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her, what do you mean by that? when people talk about a filibuster, understand republicans probably couldn't filibuster this nomination on our own, there aren't enough of us. even if we wanted to. and none of us are talk act filibuster, it's all in response to the media. we're not proposing this. as you point out, it would be difficult for us to pull off anyway unless democrats joined in. >> newsmakers," with senator jon kyl, today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the government funding of colleges, direct aid to colleges and their students is a late 1950's, early 1960's thing that has grown rapidly since then. >> hillsdale college never accepted goth funding and today, not

troubling things about her views toward international law, saying you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she set it on several occasions. i am going to have to ask for, what do you mean by that? when people talk about a filibuster, republicans probably can filibuster this nomination on our own. they are not enough of us. none of us are talking about a filibuster. it is all in response to questions from the media. we are not proposing this. as you point out, it would be very difficult for us to pull off unless the democrats joined in. >> sunday at 10:00 p.m. at 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> up next, list cheney, the daughter of vice-president dick cheney on the future of the republican party. this portion is from a conference here in washington. it is a little over 30 minutes. >> each year at this seminar, we present our conservative leadership award to one

she said you could interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in your. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believe that. she has said it on several occasions. i will have to ask her what she meant by that. when people talk about a filibuster, understand that republicans could not filibuster this nomination on our own. even if we wanted to prove that none of us are talking about filibuster's. is all of response to the media. we are not opposing this. it would be difficult for us to pull off unless the democrats joined us. >> news makers with senator jon kyl. sundays at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the government funding of college is a late 1950's think. it has grown rapidly since then. >> the college as never accepted government funding and not even government-backed student loans are permitted. >> title 4 of the higher education act is 400 pages long. we have a lawyer in town that tries to ke

oncologist in your fighting cancer, then you're more likely to live in the united states than in other countries. other folks have been looking at it as a model for the united states could go. >> good morning, i'm lynn jenkins from the great state of kansas. health care is not just a policy issue for me. as a daughter of aging parents and a mother of two children, i have spent a fair amount of time in dr.'s offices and emergency rooms in recent years. when it comes to health care for my loved ones, i want their doctor working with us to explain treatment options and helping us make important decisions, not a distant government bureaucrat or a washington politician who does not know the situation and does not know my family. we have a healthcare crisis on our hands. it is definitely a crisis when a family is denied the ability to choose the doctor or hospital that is best for them. i am concerned with some of the proposals being discussed here in washington that will take that choice away and put a government bureaucrat in charge. health care decisions are personal, and one thing we know for sure is that a one-size- fits-all g

night about her views toward international law, saying they you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. if that is a point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believe that. she said that on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her what she means by that. so i do not know is the answer to the question, but that's one of the troubling things. we have all heard about her view of the superiority of identity politics or racial politics to just looking at the law on its merits. that is very troubling also. >> even if you wanted to filibuster. after you've gone through the four thousand decisions and what not, you decide she cannot be on the supreme court. do you think you can get the votes? >> that's the other question. when people talk about a filibuster, understand republicans cannot filibuster this nomination on our own. there are not enough of us. by the way, none of us are talking about filibuster. that's all in response to

about her views toward international law, in effect saying that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. well, public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. and if that's really her point of view, that's very troubling. i mean, i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i'm going to have to ask her what do you mean by that? when people talk about a fill buster, understand that we couldn't do that on our ofpblete there aren't enough of us. so even if we wanted to. and by the way, none of us are talking about that. it's all in response to questions by the media. which are fair questions but we're not proposing that. and it would be difficult for us to pull off anyway. >> "newsmakers" with senator john kyle, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> the government funding of colleges, direct aid to colleges and their students really is a late 1950's, early 1960's thing that has grown since then. >> title 4 of the higher education act is 400 roughly pages long. we ha

energy is critical, not only to the economic security of the united states, but our national security as well. i do not know about you, but in looking at who we buy a lot of oil from, they are not exactly our friends. hugo job as from venezuela -- chavez, ahmadinejad, they are not exactly friends to the united states. we should be independent of foreign sources of energy in the united states. we have the energy. if we have the will, we can do it, and we can do it together. [applause] this is an issue that you do not hear republicans talk a lot about. i believe it is an issue we can actually take from the democrats. it is the issue of education. it has been said that education is the new civil right in america. i believe that. to compete in the 21st century, our kids need the best schools that they can go to. they already have it in our colleges and universities. we have the finest colleges and universities anywhere in the world. people all over the world want to come to america to go to our colleges and universities. we have arguably the second worst k-12 system in the industrialized world. we are not inspiring children to become an

in effect saying that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what publicpinion is in europe. well, public opinion in europe has nothing whatsoever to do with what our constitution means. and if that's really her point of view, that's very troubling. i mean, i would -- i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she has said it on several occasions. i'm going ask her, what do you mean by that? so i don't know is the

we have every interest in seeing a very good relationship between the united states and russia. we need russia, looking at the problems we have with iran, and the need to forge a common position with russia and china. it needs to be continued. we dealt with the preparation of the g-8 meeting that is coming up, the pittsburgh meeting, and i think there has been progress. we have made a very important steps here in the united states for financial market regulation. in the summer this year, we can take stock and see where the regulations meet and try to create a level playing field for the rest of the world. the crisis of this magnitude -- we're very grateful that we can work with the united states on principles as to how all this to be taken into the future. we have to emerge from this crisis and the recovery of our economy is a precondition for the process. we talked about climate, just as i did this morning what i was in congress. i said that this is a change. the upcoming bill debated in the house -- it really points to the fact that the united states is very serious on climate change. it should not b

we don't as often look at the united states from outside. but i wonder what it must look like for, let's just say, socrates, looking out across this country today, 3,000 years ago, they sat around and in places like athens, socrates, play tow, aristotle, carried -- plato, aristotle, they carried on conversations and shaped the age of reason. it was the foundation of science and technology. they built it into their culture to be proud of being able to rationalize both deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, and that rationale, and even though they didn't get their elements right, what did they have earth, wind, fire, maybe some other elements like that that they used to argue with, they didn't have the tables to be able to put the atoms together and figure out the molecule, but they had a good rationale. the age of reason in greece is the foundation of western civilization. they took great pride in being able to think rationally. if they would transpose themselves, fast forward through history 3,000 years, race through the age of enlighte

this is what the united states is up against as we look to compete for the travel dollar. our close neighbor of mexico spends $149 million promoting travel to mexico. our next-closest neighbor, our next close neighbor, canada, spends $58 million in travel to its destination. china spends $60 million in promoting travel to their country. us a strail spends $113 million. and the countries of the european union collectively spend $800 million on self-promotion. now, how much does the united states spend? we spend absolutely nothing. we spend nothing in promoting our tourism. for years sectors within the agriculture industry have used the so-called checkoff program to promote their products. we have heard the slogans, "pork, the other white meat." beef, it's what's for dinner. milk, it does the body good." producers kick in their own money to create a marketing campaign that benefits all producers. we need the same thing for our tourism. which is why i urge my colleagues to support moving toward a travel promotion afnlgt it will benefit our economy, complement our nation's dip

we simply cannot tolerate in the united states of america at least as much as 70 miles inside the united states, and i'll be going down next week to look at these locations north of tucson on the road to phoenix. this is the united states of america. our sovereign territory. and playing cat and mouse with people there with semi-automatic weapons, supplies, smuggling drugs in the united states should stop. our congress should join together in our voice and with this amendment ask them to do so to stop that activity and defend our soil and put an end to and actually would be a very big help to dramatically reduce the amount of illegal drugs smuggling in the united states. thank you, madam chair. i yield back and urge its adoption. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- mr. king: madam chair, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. the clerk will read. the clerk: p

happen overnight because nothing negotiated with india or the united states happens overnight, but if that really could happen, then we could look to the next steps. i don't know what to say about your question about europe because i think the jury's out as to whether or not how broad the agreement that india will negotiate with europe is. i think when they initially started, the negotiators in india were very upbeat about broad subjects. i was shocked to hear them talking about investment and competition in an fta. but that was a couple of years ago. now they're stuck on a number of the tariff issues, a number of the service issues, and i wasn't, didn't realize but the latest on the general labor issues, but because of that issue i think that it's important for us to start and build the confidence in the relationship where we're not confronting so starkly some of the differences in perspectives before, between our two countries. >> in an fta between the u.s. and india, it's quite unlikely for quite some time to come actually on both sides. i mean, on the u.s. side i don't think the u.s. will move without labor standards being a

united states would be greatly affected. z in ten years. well, the planet has been warming and you might want to take a look at agriculture in the united states respect to warming. this is the intergovernmental panel on climate change temperature history for the world. we have two periods of warming here. one in the early 20th century which couldn't have anything to do with carbon dioxide 'cause we hadn't put enough in the air than this period where it sort of cools a little bit and then from here on out where we see warming beginning in v3ñ1977 a y interesting period beginning in 1998 where it doesn't warm which i'll talk about in a second. but let's compare this to wheat yields and corn yields. corn yields have quintupletled in the united states. as the planet warmed a degree celsius. they have continued at the exact same rate of increase that wa@"% established by the time people were talking about the end of the world. the climate of extremes began a go, didn't it? extremes began a and take a look here at wheat yields. whea1yy this is much m drought tolerant than corn shows an increase of about 100% over an increase of aears.100% over to t

the people in the united states and the government should contract production of it, just like a contract building an airplane. guest: you raise an excellent point. it needs to be looked at. it is the way that the united states government has contracted with oil companies. as a result -- first on the positive side -- we have some of the finest technology in the world. all over the world people look to american companies for that technology. i am very proud in my state of louisiana along the gulf coast we have developed a lot of that. as gently as i can say this, you have hit a point that may be time to look royal to reforms. we should look to see if companies are paying their fair share, just like we look to see if the coastal states are receiving theirs. and if the federal government is receiving there's been nohow? i do not know how we will proceed. but there are many different ways that countries all around the world contract with, or, on the far left side of the argument, they just take over the oil fields been a the problem with that is that you do not get any oil produced because governments do not a good job of running oil rigs. you need the technology and no-

i work in solar and in hawaii, one of the states and the united states, along with the world, taking a look at a project and i think c-span discussing -- their plan is to do three things. build capacity -- parking lots and the home, and special statements that will remove batteries. there for the cars are cheap but the batteries cannot go with the cars, basically can leave the batteries a cheaper rate than gas. the most and portend thing is that it allows the industry, the vehicle industry to create basically gliders, as i heard them referred to in years past, vehicles and entities that would be marketing them will decide whether they use in fuel or whether they use electrical. i have a friend that built electric vehicles, quite a few in hawaii, letters of intent with several years in detroit, but at that time that is when gm was rolling out of a ev1, and that was the problem because there was not enough funding. there is not enough venture capital unless we look at a method that makes the difficult cost-effective in a competitive marketplace. i am not sure i make sense -- but my question i

i want americans to know that iranians are just looking at the united states and try to get their voice out

differences, and i understand that cultural and society in the middle east will never look like that in the united states. i yield myself 30 more seconds. but i also understand what secretary of state hillary clinton speaks of when she says that a woman's rights are human rights, and i understand that these actions prevent a nation from moving beyond an era still wounded by the scars and fierce of years of oppressive taliban rule. and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment although i do not oppose the substance of it. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. chairman. in fact, i rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. mr. chairman, this amendment has a noble purpose to draw attention to the potential erosion of the social and economic progress that has benefited women throughout afghanistan since the fall of the taliban. many of us in

truth about judge sotomayor, about her record, and about what kind of judge that we're looking for on the united states supreme court. we need to make sure that she gets the same, civil, fair treatment that other nominees have been given. judge sotomayor's story, mr. president, is a classic american story about what is possible in our country through hard work. she grew up in her own words in modest and challenging circumstances and she worked hard for every single thing she got. many of you know her story. her dad died when she was nine years old and her mom sported her and her brother by herself. her mom was devoted to her children's education. in fact, her mom was so devoted to her education and her brother's education that she actually saved every penny she could so she could buy e encyclopedia britannicas for her kids and this really meant a lot to meevment i remember growing up, thencyclopedia britannicas in the hallway were like in a hallowed place. i now show my daughter who is 13 and these are from the 1960's. she doesn't seem very interested in them, but they meant a lot to our family and the

they're going to look at the united states and go, "well, i'd love to buy that american made steel, but you know, it's 30 or 40% higher than the steel we could get from china, korea, india. and what's going to happen ." >> -- it isn't going to be more expensive. >> it is going to be more expensive. you can't produce steel without producing carbon dioxide. it's what's fundamentally wrong with us. that's not just about higher costs. this really is about shipping millions of american jobs overseas. and the idea that we're going to control the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere by ourselves i think is ridiculous. you got no environmental controls like this -- like we have today in india or china, our two biggest industrial competitors. and so here's what happens. we impose this tax on high-end energy use in the united states, we're going to ship jobs overseas. and when those jobs get shipped overseas, guess what? they're going to import more american coal. we'll sell more coal. they're going to burn that coal to produce energy. and when they burn that coal over there, th

then look at the swine flu and all the excitement we had around that potential pandemic in the united states and say to yourself, what if either mother nature or a terrorist alters a virus out there and it is communicable? do we have a national disease surveillance system to pick it up, whether it is mother nature or a terrorist? if we have the system, do we have the capability to do the research and development, and manufacture the antidote or vaccine. and if we have a surveillance system and the ability to manufacture the antidote or vaccine, do we have a distribution system? the years after anthrax, we see the pandemic right now. the greatest concern i have is that we spent a lot of time when we should have worried about nuclear-weapons and fissile material, radiological. from an intellectual point of view, i am even more concerned about biological weapons. host: tom ridge served as the homeland security secretary for the first bush had been attrition. the and then joins us from his mobile, california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. rich, i would lik

sarkozy's lifetime that -- but if we start moving on that pathway and other countries can look and say the united states is not just talking the talk but it's walking the walk, then i think that will indicate to the iranians, for example, that the goal here is no to single them out, per se, to suggest that this is dangerous for everybody, including them. their security interests will not be served. by possession of a nuclear weapon. last point i'd make on iran, the supreme leader has said we don't want nuclear weapons, that's not what we're pursuing. i'm happy to hope that that's true, but in international relations i can't just base things on hope, especially when you see actions to the you see actions to the contrary. -- one of my famous predecessors, one of reagan, i think he said it pretty well. we are not even at the point of having those conversations with iran. hopefully, if iran does not seek nuclear weapons, then it should not be that hard for us to have a series of the association's. iran would then be able to enjoy a host of economic and political benefits in gains much greater -- with much g