tv U.S. Senate CSPAN November 19, 2010 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
to replace chris dodd. >> earmarks account for less than one half of 1% of the federal budget and they're part of the agenda for the upcoming 112th congress. find out what earmarks are online at c-span video library. search and watch programs explaining earmarks and the arguments for and against them. it is washington, your way.
can >> next, president obama presents the national medals of science technology and innovation at the white house. 10 researchers received the nation's highest science award and three individuals and one team are receiving the technology and innovation award. the national medal of science has been awarded annually by the president since 1962 for outstanding work in science and engineering. the national medal of technology and innovation has been awarded annually by the president since 1985. this 25-minute ceremony
takes place in the east room. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much, everybody. thank you. sit down. we've got a lot of work to do here. have a seat. welcome to the white house. it is a great honor to be joined by so many leading researchers and innovators. i want to, give some special thanks to a few members of my cabinet, members of congress who are here today. secretary gary locke, our commerce secretary is here. members of congress. we have arlen specter of pennsylvania and bart gordon of tennessee. please give them a big round of applause for their great work. [applause] we also have nasa administrator bolen who is
here. [applause] dr. saresh, director of our national science foundation is here. [applause] mr. dave campos, director of the patent and trademark office. [applause] he was here. he may have had some work to do. dr. patrick gallagher, who is the director of our national institute of standards and technology. [applause] and dr. gary stricklin, administrator of the national telecommunications and information administration. [applause] now, the achievements of the men and women who are on stage today stand as the testment to the ingenuitity
and zeal for their discovery and willingness to give of themselves and to sacrifice in order to expand the reach of human understanding. all of us have benefited from their work. the scientists in this room helped developed the semiconductors and microprocessors that have propelled the information age. they have modeled the inner-workings of the human mind and the complex processes that shape the earth's climate. they have conducted pioneering research for mathematics to quantum physics into the sometimes strange and unexpected laws that govern our universe. folks here can also claim inventions like the digital camera which has revolutionized photography as all these folks back here will testify. [laughter] as well as superglue, which, in addition to fascinating children, has actually saved
lives as a means of sealing wounds. the men and women we celebrate have helped to unlock the secrets of genetics and disease, of nano technology and solar energy and chemistry and biology. breakthroughs that provide so many benefits and hold so much potential from new sources of electricity to new ways of diagnosing and treating illness. along the way many of these folks have broken down barriers for women and minority who is have traditionally been underrepresented in scientific fields but obviously are no less capable of contributing to the scientific enterprise. just as an example, at the start of her career, decades ago. esther conwell was hired as an assistant engineer. soon after she was told this position wasn't open to a woman. she had to serve as an engineer's assistant instead. of course that didn't stop her from becoming a pioneer in semiconductors and materials science.
it is no exaggeration to say that the scientists and innovators in this room have saved lives, improved our health and well-being. helped unleash whole new industries and millions of jobs. transformed the way we work and learn and communicate. this incredible contribution serves as proof not only of their incredible creativity and skill but of the promise of science itself. every day in research laboratories and on proving ground, in private labs and university campuses men and women conduct the difficulty oven frustrating work of discoverry. it isn't easy. it may take years to prove a hypothesis correct or decades to learn that it isn't correct. often the competition can be fierce whether designing a product or securing a grant and larry do those who give
their all to this pursuit receive the attention or the acclaim they deserve. yet it is in these labs, often late at night, often fueled by dangerous combination of coffee and obsession, that our future is being won. for in a global economy the key to our prosperity will never be to compete by paying our workers less or building cheaper, lower-quality products that is not our advantage. the key to our success, as it has always been, will be to compete by developing new products by generating new industries, by maintaining our role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. which it is absolutely essential to our future. and that's why we're here today and why i look forward to events like these. i believe one of the most important jobs i have as president to restore science to its rightful place that
means strengthening -- [applause] that means strengthing our commitment to research. it means ensuring that our government makes decisions based on the best evidence rather than politics. it means reforming and improving math and science education and encouraging the private sector to inspire young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. and it means fostering a climate of innovation and entrepreneurship. from incentives in clean energy to tax breaks, to startups. i'd also point out that is not just a job for government. creating this climate depends on all of us, including businesses and universities and nonprofits. one of the most important ways which we can restore science to its rightful
place by celebrating contributions of men and women like all of you. that is how we'll excite a new generation to follow in your footsteps. that is how we can spark the imagination of a young person who just might change the world. i was reminded of how important this is just a few weeks ago. we held a science fair here at the white house. some of you may have heard about it. we welcome all the time championship sports teams to the white house to celebrate their victories. i thought we ought to do the same thing for winners of science fairs and robotic contests and math competitions because those young people often don't get the credit that they deserve. nobody rushes on the field and dumps gatorade on them. when you win a science award. maybe they should. so, i got to meet these incredibly talented and epenthusiastic young men and women. there was a team of high school kids from tennessee that had designed a self-powered water purification system. we had robots running all
over through the state dining room. the last young person i spoke to was a young woman from texas. she was 16 years old. she was studying biology as a freshman. decided she was interested in cancer research so taught herself chemistry during the summer. then designed a sigh enproject to look at new cancer drug based on some experimental drugs that are activated by light. they could allow a more-focused treatment that targets cancel cells while letting healthy cells remain unharmed. she goes on to design her own drug. wins the international science competition and she told me she and her high school science teacher are being approached by laboratories across the country to collaborate on the potential new cancer treatment. this is true story. 16 years old. taught herself chemistry. incredibly inspiring and, at
a time of significant challenge in this country. at a moment when people are feeling so much hardship in their lives. this has to give us hope for the future. it ought to remind us of the incredible potential of this country and its people as long as we unlock it, as long as we put resources into it and we celebrate it, we encourage it, we embrace it. carl saying again once said -- sagan said thinking is much more than a body of knowledge. that thinking and curiosity, skepticism and sense of wonder and willness to test our assumptions, what at root we are honoring today. it has spurred countless advances conferred untold benefits to our society and idea driven our success as long as we've been a nation. and i'm confident that the spirit of discovery and invention will continue to help us succeed in the years and decade to come. and our country owes everyone of our laureates
with us today a big measure of thanks for nuturing that spirit and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. so it is now my privilege to present the national medals of science and the national medals of technology and innovation. all right. >> yakir aharonov. the 2009 national medal of science to yakir a ron nauf, for his contributions to foundation of quantum physics and drawing out unexpected implications of that field to the boma effect to the theory of weak measurement. [applause]
>> steven j. benkovic. the 2009 national fed dal of science to stephen j. benkovic, pens state university in research contributions not field of bioorganic chemistry which changed our understanding how enzymes function and advance the identification of targets and strategies for drug design. [applause] esther m. conwell the twine national medal of science to esther m. conwell university ever rochester.
for her broad contributions to understanding hole transport to semiconductor to semiconductor and/or began nick electronic devices studying the electronic properties of dna. [applause] malye anne fox. marye anne fox, university of california at san diego for research contributions in the areas of organic photo chemistry and electro chemistry and excited state and charged transfer processors with interdisciplinary applications in material science, solar energy conversion and environmental chemistry.
[applause] susan lindquist. the 2009 national medal of science. to susan lee lindquist, whitehead institute, massachusetts institute of technology. for her studies of protein folding, demonstrating that alternative protein confirmations and aggregations can have profound and unexpected biological influences facilitating insights in fields wide-ranging as human disease, every solution and bio materials. . .
changed algebraic geometry, and for connecting mathematics to other disciplines such as computer vision and neurobiology. [applause] >> stanley b. prusiner. the 2009 national medal of science to stanley b. prusiner, university of california san francisco, for his discovery of prions, the causative agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other related neurodegenerative diseases, and his continuing efforts to develop effective methods for detecting and treating prion diseases. [applause]
>> warren m. washington. the 2009 national medal of science to warren m. washington, national center for atmospheric research, for his development and use of global climate models to understand climate and explain the role of human activities and natural processes in the earth's climate system, and for his work to support a diverse science and engineering workforce. [applause] >> amnon yariv. the 2009 national medal of science to amnon yariv, california institute of technology, for foundational contributions to photonics and quantum electronics, including
the demonstration of the semiconductor distributed feedback laser that underpins today's high-speed, optical fiber communications. [applause] >> harry w. coover. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to harry w. coover, eastman chemical company, for his invention of cyanoacrylates, novel adhesives known widely to consumers as super glues which today play significant roles in medicine and industry.
[applause] >> helen m. free. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to helen m. free, miles laboratories, for her seminal contributions to diagnostic chemistry through development of dip-and-read urinalysis, which gave rise to a technological revolution in convenient, reliable, point-of-care tests and patience self-monitoring. [applause]
>> steven j. sasson. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to steven j. sasson, eastman kodak company, for the invention of the digital camera, which has revolutionized which has revolutionized the way images are captured, stored, and created, creating new opportunities in commerce, education, and global communication. >> this picture better be good. [laughter] [applause]
>> federico faggin, marcian e. hoff jr., and stanley mazor. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to federico faggin, marcian e. hoff jr., and stanley mazor, intel corporation, for the conception, design and application of the first microprocessor, which was commercially adopted and became the universal building block of digital electronic systems, significantly impacting the global economy and people's day-to-day lives. [applause]
[cheers and applause] >> well, let me make two closing points. number one, i feel really smart just standing up here with these folks. [laughter] i think it kind of rubbed off on me. [laughter] >> number two, i want to congratulate our military aide for being able to read all those things. [laughter] [applause] i want to assure you he practiced a lot. [laughter] and finally, let me just once
again say to all the honorees who are here tonight, you have truly revolutionized the world in ways that are profoundly important to people in their day-to-day lives, but also help to create those steps in human progress that really make us who we are as human beings. and so we could not be prouder of you, could not be more grateful to you for your contributions. please give them one last big round of applause. [applause]
>> a live picture of the capital where the u.s. senate right now is in a recess. our live coverage will continue when members return. there are no scheduled vote today. earlier this week lawmakers approved jacob lew to had the office of management and budget. they also passed a bill providing temporary payments to doctors who treat medicare patients. while we wait for the senate, here's a u.s. supreme court argument from november 10. the high court will decide if
unwed mothers and fathers can be treated differently in passing on citizenship to children born abroad. >> we'll hear argument next this morning, florez versus united states. >> mr. chief justice. may please the court. when the court approved the legitimization requirement only up on fathers of non-bearable children born abroad. that is based on biological differences between men and women. it provided proof of parentage and proof of an opportunity to make a relationship with a child as to the mother. but here the residential requirements that are at issue here have no biological basis. they set barriers by younger fathers, but not younger mothers, and they are based on gender stereotypes that women, not men, care for non-marital children. that is king has been tried to
try to justify that scheme by claiming that congress was concerned about that. the record does not support the claim that both the 1935 -- >> what separates the stereotype from a reality? do you say it is not true that if there is illegitimate child it is much more likely that the woman will end up caring for it then the father will? that's not true. >> i think it is more likely but i think empirical evidence has not carried the day in gender description cases. >> and all the cases it is true in general, but there are people who don't fit the mold. so a stereotype is maybe the majority of cases. it just means that you say this is the way women are, this is
the way men are. >> this is just beyond and empirical stereotype. the congressional hearings it was said that the woman is the sole legal parent of the child. totally excluding the men come in which it basically dates back to the no true of culture with the men were out of the picture and women were the ones who were responsible. so in addition to the fact that it. a portion of it, there's also just the notion that the legal. was the woman. that was -- >> excuse me, wasn't that said in relation to the principle that only that where paternity was not established, the child would be regarded as having citizenship under the law of virtually every country, if not every country? >> well, a lot of many countries that citizenship did go through the mother, but with respect to legitimization, and the statute, congress to reduce tension between all parents, excuse me, all fathers of non-marital
children and those who are illegitimate that the statute applies to those who legitimate. that very large article that congress relies upon according to, said in the case of legitimization, it should go to the father. so the bottom line is that the very article relied upon said in one instance it goes through the mother that any instance of the people who are actually affected by the statute, those who legitimate it goes through the father. there are also a number of situations under which mothers. benny: until there is legitimation it goes to the mother. it went to the mother under the law virtually every country, right? >> i respectfully disagree. at the time of 1940 when this was passed there a number of situations where it wouldn't go to the mother. in china and japan if the father was merely known it would not go through the mother. there were three dozen countries at this time, including the english countries and those who followed its welcome if they're female citizen gave birth to a child somewhere other than in
their country, citizenship would not travel through that mother. because of the laws of the particular countries. there are also stateless women's. and all the situations business in ship would not go to the mother. it would have to go to the father. this statutory dozen anyway provide for the. this scheme also creates severe -- for married fathers. a marathon who is married to an alien, in those situations there are number of countries who would not allow the woman to transfer citizenship so if the father was precluded by laws such as were in the united states, that child would end up in stateless as well. so there's substantial risk. and continues today. there are numerous countries that have reinstituted that will that if the father is merely known, citizenship would not transmit through the mother. those are primarily in the middle east and some of them in africa. those are also detailed in the brief. >> how do you deal with the
argument that really, this is a classification with the unmarried woman is being favored? because the unmarried father is being bracketed with the married couples. so like, what is it, that the woman is getting a special favor and the unwed father is treated like most people, married couples who have children. >> this is not a case where congressman is seeking to -- as with the case, six licensure versus ballot. there was no discrimination against women up until very shortly before the statute was passed, it was clear under the state department practices that the children of non-marital children of women did get women citizenship that it's also true as two men. if there was no discrimination being remedied in that
situation. >> that doesn't answer i don't think justice ginsburg's question, which is this appears to be an exception to the generalized non-gender-based requirement. couples, male or piano, and fathers, unmarried fathers, are subject to five years. of on the married mothers get the largest of one year. why isn't, why shouldn't everybody just put it to the broader category rather than extending the largest to a greater number of people? >> the reason is, justice sotomayor, we're not talking about an exception here, that the non-mental mothers get. that was the standard practice in 1940 litigation -- 1940 litigation. it was no significant residents require. had congress impose new requirements because it was concerned about the foreign influence in mixed marriages.
meaning, someone who is married to an alien. in those situations, congress specifically said in a record they were concerned when those children born abroad that they would have foreign influence, that they would be more foreign than you are american. >> five year residency requirement address that if we apply it generally, wouldn't the five year residency requirement honor congress is concerned about there being a substantial tie to state? >> absolutely would, but that concern is not applicable when you're talking about two u.s. citizen parents, to whom the extended residence requirement didn't apply. nonmarital mothers who assume to be the ones who will be raising the children without the influence of an alien father. a non-marital fathers are in the same category as those too. those non-marital father to raise their children on their own as petitioners, are not subject to that type of law. so they should be grouped together with the women and with
the to citizen families because they have the lack of foreign influence. so it's only as to the mixed marriage couples who were married when there's a foreign influence problem. and they are the ones to whom the extended residence required. was applied. >> under now, with respect to the solicitor general has raised concerns about the plenary power doctrine, and i would argue that that doesn't apply here for a couple of reasons. first is we're not talking about the admission of aliens. second is the court made clear that when exercising that power, that congressional -- congress' power is limited by constitutional limitations. now, with respect to the entry of aliens, congress made very clear passing this very statute that they consider those people who gain citizenship as of birth to be different situated than it is. that was the tradition that data back to 1350. in 1790, congress passed a
statute saying that children born abroad our citizens -- >> are you taking us in the direction of an argument that congress gets less a difference in determining nationality than it does with -- >> what i'm saying is that we're talking about the ability of the united states citizens bother to transfer citizenship if that is the traditional, citizenship is important and it is a tradition that citizens have done so for years. so yes, constitutional limitation should apply when congress is drawing distinctions between main -- >> now, you want us to write an opinion that says congress has less deference when considering -- when it determines who should be the national of this country than when it determines it which the listed as an asp? there isn't any tradition lives back to 1380. >> are you asking us to write that formulation in an opinion?
>> your honor, what i'm saying is that the due process guarantee of equal protection is applicable in this context, because the citizens -- >> if i take that as a yes answer, what is your authority for the answer? it seems to me it ought to be just the other way around. >> your honor, my authority is the tradition that i've been discussing. congress itself in 1940 considered people who get -- aliens who naturalized. in fact, that was universally -- >> but it was congress that made the distinction. you're asking us to say that congress has less authority over this essential issue as to who should be nationals in the united states. maybe they're so authority for that. do you have any authority? is there something i can read that tells me that. >> even though congress has plenary power over the immigration power, when it exercises that power it has to
apply the constitutional limitations. this is the first one of court cases where -- >> but that wasn't an indian admission ticket to talk about nationality. >> i'm talking a space and shipping transmitted by a united states citizen. but what we're saying is petitioners father as a united states citizen has equal protection can't equal protection clause, protection against the discrimination here because similarly situated woman would be able to transfer citizenship -- >> are you finished? >> yes, your honor. >> i didn't quite follow this. as i understand it, what remedy will that be if you are right? this is what i don't understand. a child is born abroad. one parent is american. the other is -- if the two are married, that child is american, only if the father, or the mother, one or the other, have
lived in the united states, for now, at least two years. it used to be more. okay? now it is five years. after the age of six. now, suppose they are not married and supposed the american is the father. same rule. now suppose they are not married, and now it is not five years or two years to join have to live here for one you. suppose i agree with you, i just don't see any sense to that whatsoever. i can't figure it out. there may be a mistake and immigration laws. suppose i agree with you. then why doesn't the many say, okay, whether it is the father or the mother, the general rule applies, they have to have lived in the united states for five years, or for two years. now two years. >> there are a couple of reasons for that, your honor. the first is there's a structural limitation here to imposing a leveling down tight remedy because citizenship cannot be taken away once it is granted.
so the court can't remedy -- >> some people were lucky and they're already citizens under this. and there we are, because their mother lived in the nine states for one year. those already our citizens. nobody will take that away. we are just looking at a statute, the first part of the statute they have section g. of 1401, the first rule i told you about. 14098, the second will. 1409 see, the third rule. okay, if you're right about this, totally unfair and there's no good reason whatsoever for distinguishing on the basis of gender, we strike g. okay? that would seem to be no because that isn't getting a reply. how to get to some other thing instead of striking g. what we do is strike all of a in strike everything and shove it all into g which is so easy with this link which it how do you
get there? >> the first thing is the statute contains a severability clause. it is very similar -- >> so we strike g. when we do is you want me to strike a. sorry, we strike c. and you want me to strike 1409 a, and 1401 g and shove people who are in their into g which is a little tough to do in english language. but i want to know how you get there -- >> by extension, your honor. >> let us be clear about what you're saying. i thought your argument was you're not touching married couples. >> that's correct specs are your talking about the unmarried father to the unmarried mother. is that any notion of how many people we are talking about? do you need an extension versus in validation as the court generally extends when it is a small class to be covered, small class is left out. and large class, that's already
covered. and the reasoning has been, congress want you to take care of that. it would be most destructive of the legislative will if we said you can't cover that larger class. so to the group of married mothers, as against unmarried fathers. do you have any notion what the numbers would be? >> i don't have any statistics to provide the court. >> maybe would like answered justice breyer breyer's question. >> yes, justice breyer. it was the remedy that we are requesting is extension. and wescott, the court look at language and a severability clause, summer to this and also in justice harlan's concurring opinion in welsh, and said that that type of language in the severability clause gives courts power to grant an extension remedy. so that's what we are requesting that. >> there's another slight
problem with that. reading this carefully, which i hope i've done, it seems to me it may also discriminate against fathers. and that's because c says that the woman has to have been physically present for a continuous period of one year. i have read at least one article that says that would continues doesn't appear with the father. and that they really mean it. that if somebody is living down in texas and happen to go visit one christmas their father or their grandmother or cousin or something who is across the border, for five minutes, that they cannot take advantage of this clause tranny. is that true? >> i don't know the answer to that, justice breyer. >> but if it is true, if it is true, then i would think that the fathers are really worse off. i do know if that helps you. immediate kuchar not that that is really a problem. if it is really a problem than the fathers are worse off. does that help you with the
remedy? >> traditionally, in immigration law when you have continues requirements, if it's a short trip, casualty of an event, that requirement is not considered to have been violated. i have to admit i'm having a hard time following the question. >> the question i'm looking for a way, i'm trying be helpful in my question. i'm looking for a way that you could get to your result. i'm not saying i would do it, but i just want to know what the best way is a getting to that result, where you shove everyone into c instead of just cutting c. >> the best way is to follow the course tradition in the benefits cases, such as wenger and we sent out with the court granted an extension of remedy and basically treated -- >> that would help you. is there a reason for doing that? >> the reason is that language that is contained in the severability clause is similar to what the court has already said allows an extension remedy.
and the other problem is that if the court doesn't grant an extension remedy, it leads petition of basically without a remedy. that there will be individuals who -- >> no, you have a remedy. the remedy for equal protection violation is to treat everybody the same. you can do that either by lowering people are given the benefit or by increasing the people who aren't. so here's the remedy. my mother and father are not being treated the same. it's all the relief he is being entitled to expect you are right. my point is that structurally that remedy is unavailable here because you can't equate the citizenship from people who have already gotten it. and notion that you can get a perspective release as was discussed in a brief doesn't make sense either. because no one, the statute, the over talk about today doesn't apply past people who were born before 1986. but the thing is if someone were to come into court after an opinion that said just that were
issued, some were to come into court and say, i want to claim citizenship through my mother, that person would still be entitled to citizenship because it's as if the date of birth. so this is a retroactive provision. so the notion doesn't make any sense in this context because equal protection violations i basically already occurred at the time the person who would make a citizenship claim was born. we would still be left with a situation where petitioners father would say, that i was unable to transmit citizenship to my son, and a woman who is similarly situated was able to. so that type of remedy is unavailable. in the court decision in iowa versus bennett, the bank is, they ordered a refund of the taxes that were collected in a discriminatory manner gaining back in time. so if you could factor outcome if you could make a relief that we take away the benefit that others have received, then i would agree that is available. that's not possible in this situation. >> i think the chief asked you,.
[inaudible] but with a goes up or down, they have to get a temporary solution because the legislature can't be convened on the spot. and the court actually did go through that exercise, extending those allegations, most conspicuously in wescott, in the wescott case that it says yes, that's we've been doing in all these cases, and in other cases we didn't say you were discriminated against, congress should fix it. we said you get the court amounts that up until now has been available, the father got the same child in care benefits as the mother. so the court was making a decision for extension. it recognized it had to do that. >> absolutely, and in many of the benefits cases, the same analysis was available.
and that's the announces we're asking that the court apply here. but -- >> mr. hubachek, you're asking, i think, that the court pronounced your client to be a united states citizen. isn't that the only pronouncement from a court and that is going to do your client any good? >> well, -- >> unless he's a united states citizen. >> technically what we're asking for is a reversal of the judgment and opportunity to present -- >> every virtual of the judgment on the grounds that your client is a united states citizen. right? >> that would be impossible for them on the sex to become a united states citizen, yes. >> that he is a united states citizen? >> that he is. do you have any of the case where a court has conferred citizenship on someone who, under the statute as written, does not have it? >> that was one of the issues that was debated of course in
the medicaid. the court has not said that yet but it can in this -- >> never done? >> that's correct. but it can in this case for a number of reasons. number one is the fact that the severability clause is applicable to this claim. congress passed a statute 1421 in the same statutory scheme that said we were talking of naturalization and naturalization at alien, then you cannot get naturalization of circumstances any other way than what is set out in the statute. they didn't say that as to claims of citizenship as of birth. there's a negative implication basically that they were not including this type of remedy as a dual citizenship clean or equal protection violation. the second point is that if the court is unable to grant the remedy that would leave equal protection violation in place. and as justice harlan made clear in welsh -- >> unless, in this we solve the violation the other way, by
saying that the father gives a shorter period that the mother has. >> again speak i'm sorry, the mother gets the longer. that the father has. >> right. >> we can't apply it retroactively, okay, we don't apply that retroactively. for everybody else is the case that even, this statute says you have citizenship as a bird that even if the court were to read that decision and somewhere to make a claim, they could still say i have citizenship as of birth. whenever i was born, which was before the courts decision. so that would be no remedy at all. >> is it in any other minis you're suggesting with -- discuss them with justice clay involves this court in a highly exercise of power. let me just ask you this as an analytic matter rather than
logical priorities. we usually talk about substance first, remedy second. do you think it's permissible, logically, for us to say that because the remedies here are so intrusive, that there's on our choice of whether or not we as in immediate or -- the remedies are so difficult we're going to use rational basis scrutiny? is that a logical way to proceed speak what i don't think so. i think the court has traditionally said that questions, and whether not there exist an opportunity may claim, and the remedy for it are analytically distinct. so i don't -- >> and it also says the remedy can be complicated. the court is not set up to do that. that's what wescott said. one can go one way, then the other way. they can't get any fine tuning because it is there. it all goes back to congress to do what it will come but it is just interim, we need a
solution. >> and certainly congress could do that. if the brief makes clear what was being balanced it was concerns about according to them anyway, concerned to statements on the one hand and connections to the united states on the other. if congress hadn't assumed based on gender stereotypes that men were not caring for children, then it would've been able to put them in the same category as women because they would understand that both of them would be caring for children. it's not just these situations in 1940. as time has gone on, i believe in the national women's center brief points out the number of men who are raising children in single parent families has been increasing over time. so the problem, if anything, is getting worse. >> the congress did make at least some change, right? it's no longer five years that it's only two years. >> the current system is five years. two years after the age of 16 sorry, after the age of 14.
that age requirement here completely precluded mr. flores-villar father being able to transfer of citizenship. that would never apply to a woman who is similarly situated. >> thank you, council. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. congress, in deciding who among the various people born abroad should be made citizens of the united states, has to take into account many factors that may bear on that question in its judgment. they include importantly congress' prediction in the case of princeton's citizenship at birth, what would be that person's likely connection to the united states. congress also has to consider interaction with the laws of other countries where these people may be born. it may take into account
equities, potential stable this or they will nationality. these are complicated questions to which the court should defer. now, -- >> or intermediate scrutiny, and that is not without some deference. >> excuse me. >> unless we apply strict scrutiny, which no one is arguing for. the question is, is a rational basis deference or is it some intermediate scrutiny, kirk? >> yes. and we believe that under court decision, particularly the cases discussed, that it should be rational basis. >> well, you can't really mean that. we could put a hypothetical that is very simple ending you explain to me why a u.s. citizen shouldn't be burdened in this way. and a hypothetical is, let's assume congress determines that there are too many foreign-born children of u.s. citizens coming into the united states.
and that those foreign-born children, those born of women, are placing a greater burden on our economic system. they need more care, for reasons that congress determines analytically, or statistically they are spending more money, more government money. and congress passes a rule that says, only the foreign-born children of men can come into the country, not of women. wouldn't that be a rational basis? >> i think, i think the into to that question lies in the courts formulation. that is the one relation drawn from the case that was articulated. that is the has to be a legitimate and bona fide reason. i think -- >> there is a -- >> i think the court could have no trouble concluding that an arbitrary choice between men and
women, having no bearing -- >> what other -- which arbitrate about a convincing i want to spend less money on a new citizen? >> the ultimate, the ultimate reason may be legitimate, but i think the legitimate test also accomplishes means, not just in. and if congress is just arbitrarily choosing between men and women are people of different race, i think in this court tradition, it could conclude that those would be impermissible under the well-established task. by the recent we say -- >> the well-established task? >> the cases underline a. we also think -- >> is that a rational basis you're talking about? >> you could call it that, or you could call it -- >> now we are going to discontinue, sort of tweeting
the definitions and creating more variations on our review standards? >> i think it is a test that this court has are taking a 10 olive presses bill to to address this very situation, that including a situation where it's our constitutional rights of u.s. citizens in this country are being claimed. and we agree with justice kennedy, at the standard should not be more demanding, but rather if anything it should be less demanding whether questions -- >> well, it is hard here because both the father, this father, but many fathers and mothers, are actually u.s. citizens who want to bring their children over as u.s. citizens. so, if the father was making the claim here, you would still argue it was a rational basis, that even though he's a u.s. citizen entitled to all the
protection of the constitution -- >> we would argue -- >> that was the case, that was the case in which the plaintiffs included u.s. citizen. children and fathers claiming in a very parallel situation, claiming that special privileges for illegitimate children to reunite with the father were unconstitutional discrimination against the fathers of such children. and it was u.s. fathers of children who among the plaintiffs, and the court nonetheless said that there's no constitutional right to pass a citizenship that this is a question of congress' judgment about who it believes should be made citizens, and with the important factors congress has looked at his connection to a u.s. citizen. that is entering a proxy for what the likely connection to the united states will be spent i understand it, but what you are doing is applying a lesser standard to gender discrimination than is ordinarily applied to gender discrimination. now, is there any reason to do
that? i think that would be the crux of the question. >> that was the issue. >> fine. if it is the government's position, you do. does the same thing apply to racial discrimination? doesn't also apply to lesser standard of racial discrimination? >> i think the standard would render a reliance -- >> this is subtly cutting a big hole in the 14th amendment. >> no, i don't think so because i think that same principle would be given effect. >> first, we were dealing not with citizens. this was someone, a resident, it could be resident alien wanting to bring in a parent or a child. but that gave lesson about who is the citizen at birth. >> it wasn't, but in the eyes of the constitution, anyone born abroad is an agent unless and until congress passed the statute making them a citizen.
so analytically, the -- >> congress has passed making certain people citizens, and the question is, as a dental in a way that is compatible with equal protection. but remind me, chief justice, not in front of my head, i thought the classification that was dealt with in, wasn't it unwed parents rather than gender? >> but the claim, there were claims based on both illegitimacy and gender. and they were equal protection claims based on both. .com if i could move on to the way that the statute operates, because we think it satisfies either standard or get in this case that if i could just step back for a moment. as a mentioned there are a number of factors that congress takes into account passing a statute like this.
1401 deals with married couples. and when both parents are citizens, all that is required is one of the pairs have resided in the united states prior to the birth. where your next parents is, the background of the enactment of the 1940 and we not been in 1952, and continued up until the present day, congress was concerned that such a child may have had the connection to the united states. data connection to the parent but may not have a connection to the united states, such that congress wanted to grant citizenship to the person. so what congress did, in the next citizenship was required residency of parent and the court said in rogers, for connection to united states of 10 years, five years after the age of 14. congress has liberalized that but that was the basic thought. where you have unwed parents, in 1409 a, what congress did was follow general principles of a
lot of illegitimacy come our children born out of wedlock, if a father legitimate a child, then it is as if the child was born out of marriage, in a marriage. and the rule in 14 to one with respect to marriage applies. that is true whether both parents are citizens or in a mixed marriage situation. if a father legitimate a child, and both parents are citizens, then the child benefits from the rule that if either parent were present in the essays before birth, it's a citizen. doesn't have to satisfy the one year unbroken residence requirement under 1409 training. if it's mixed parentage, and the father legitimate, then the rule applicable to marriage makes citizen applies. as if the child had been buried at the outset. it's a perfectly sensible and
provision ought approach consistent with the way this has been done. what congress did with respect to the mother of a child born out of wedlock, but weather has not, may not be legitimation come is to confer citizenship on the basis of a one year residency. as counsel for petitioner explains, a mother in that situation who at the moment of birth as this court understood, that mother may be the only legal parent or the only parent at the moment of birth with a direct connection to the child have an opportunity for the sort of connection at birth. so the mother in that circumstance is very much like to citizen parent family. the only parent our parents with a connection to the united states. >> mr. kneedler, if it were thin that we want to encourage, father child relationship.
so we will give that advantage, one year. for fathers that will put the mothers together with the married couples. would that be compatible with equal protection? >> well, i think there would be, that we defend upon a different rationale that ending, hear what -- >> i told you what the rationale was that the rationale was we have lots of statute and nowadays, like family medical and leave at, that attempt to encourage fathers to have a relationship with their children, to be an equal parent. so that's the rationale of this classification. they want to encourage the father and child relationship. therefore they give this one year, for the father. everything else is the same
except the father gets the one year, and mother who gives, what is a, 10 years? >> i think it would be a more difficult question because congress would be responding based on the expected behaviors and how it's made of men and women. what's different here is that's not the basis for this classification. >> it would be in fact acting on the basis of what hasn't been the general pattern. but what is becoming a new pattern. >> right. and in that situation, congress i think could expect and maybe should be required to do that as a general neutral basis because it is promising on the behavior. >> so that is, even though we're still dealing with dual citizenship, you recognize that there are categorizations that would run a found of this? >> the cars will be whether that is a legitimate rationale.
and i would want to know, i think i would want to know more about what the record for such a justification would be, et cetera. but i would like -- >> the same in the family and medical leave act of making it a parental leave instead of as it has been historically maternity leave? >> right that in the situation i think it is expanding on a general neutral basis rather than singly at one parent or the other. but i would like to finish the description that i have, because it is incomplete and is a critical piece left out. and that is the counsel for petitioner says that if a father legitimate and out of wedlock child, he is in the same position, or that child is in the same position as the child of an out of wedlock mother. and that is not likely to be so, and it's not likely to be so at birth and this is the reason why. it's when the child is legitimated there are two
parents who have a strong connection that was described to the shelter and a u.s. citizen father, but also the mother, the alien mother, on the other country. so your two parents whose interest happened to be taken into account. whereas in a situation congress was addressing in 1409 c, the situation child born out of wedlock where there was no at the moment of birth likely to be no recognized father, you have only the mother. and if we think of this in parallel to the illegitimacy of the cases involving illegitimate, that discourse is at any domestic context, i think that is instructive that i think a case like later where the question was whether the father of child born out of wedlock should receive notice of a prospective adoption. the court explained in the case, the father had not taken the steps necessary to perform in a relationship with the child. and, therefore, be a father in the eyes of the law, then the mother load --
>> and we have the breeds that are filled, you know, pros and cons about this business and whether it was real. i have read those and i would like to comment on those. but i would want to comment, this may be a very minor thing, but i did notice potted by an article i have to say, that for the women's there's a sense in which it is tough and as because of a continuous period. now, i guess it depends on how that is enforced. ..
# >> i think in that situation, no. >> in that situation, you cannot go across the board? >> the answer i gave to the question is if you have someone living in mexico and commutes to the united states five days a week, you can under 1401 add up each day and get to a total of five or ten years of continuous, or excuse me, actual physical presence. that would not satisfy. >> all right. it's tough then and really is meant to be tough, then there is the -- what is the rational for treating women in this respect worse than treating mean? >> congress, the one year -- >> i grant you the time, one year is treating them better than the time five years, but the word continuous, it's
really, it's tough is what your answer leads me to believe, and do they really mean it? i mean, then that's triting them -- treating them worse than the men. >> while i said the mothers are like the two citizen parents in the since that u.s. citizens are the parent and you have some connection, congress was balancing the duration of that connection or taking into consideration that connection, and chose it to make it a little bit tougher, and that's legitimate because you only have one parent, and congress was decided, well, if someone has been here for a continuous period of one year, then there is probably a greater likelihood that that person will have roots here than for example, the other situation where if you had a child born abroad and came loam in the summers -- home in the summers, that child
may not be regarded as an american in the same way. congress was focusing on a period of longer duration which in its judgment could give rise to, congress believed, greater connection to the united states. >> counsel, what if the court were to determine that this does violate the equal protection clause, and the court also determined this is not a case to be the first one in history in which it grants natural zags, what should the court do? >> i think the court ought to strike the eligibility of anyone who gets citizenship on the basis of one year. i think it should construct the class to those specifically governed by 1401 on the ground that it violates equal protection bsh >> what about your friends point that that retroactively deprives people of citizen shich that people say
they should have gotten if the clause for enforced? >> i think this court could take into account the citizenship and the reliance on that. i think it's parallel to hackler vs. matthews in taking a counteralliance -- >> of course, but here in the scenario, there's not a situation where congress addressed the problem, so what do we do? if somebody under the theory we say this person should not have been denied citizenship because of the unequal protection in the law, and he comes in with the same situation and he's going to be deported because he's not an american citizen, but he says he's an american citizen. does he get the benefit of that or not? >> no, he does not. i think the answer is partly for the reasons that you eluded to and justice scalia mentioned, we don't believe a court can grant citizenship, and that should inform the remedy, but for the
people who have been granted citizenship, i think the solution would be to invalidate the one year resident -- >> why don't we grant that remedy when it doesn't do this petition any good whatsoever? it's a remedy that doesn't remedy? i'm not in the habit of a bill that doesn't provide relief. >> i suppose the court could decide that at the out-- >> if the reason it doesn't grant the relief is unusual in this case. it doesn't grant him release because of the third party standing. he doesn't care if they are treated equally or not, he just wants to claim the benefit of citizenship. the person who gets belief is if it were the father because he's entitled to be treated equally. the relief this person is asking for is not to be deported, and
the problem is complicated by the case of third party standards. >> right. i agree with that as well which gives all the more reason for the court to be conscious in entering into this. >> mr. kneedler, in answering the question that way, i know you're familiar with the cases, and this was a father who was denied benefits to take care of a child whose mother died in childbirth, and the court came out with a unanimous judgment, but it was split three ways on why. one of the members of the court said, this is discrimination against the child even though the classification was called a mother's benefit. it's discrimination against the child because it should make no difference at all whether the missing parent is female or
male. that was then justice renquist's opinion. he thought the discrimination was against the child and that counted for equal protection purposes. >> here, the only claim that's been raised -- >> well, that's what steven, the father, was the plaintiff, but the court's one justice's rational was that the discrime flags is -- discrimination is against the child, but the father can raise it. >> in so far as discrimination on the child, since it's not on the child's gender, that's a legitimate standard and in justice o'connor's opinion they addressed the basis there. this is not just based on the
gender of the parent, but on the complexities of legal history and how children out of wedlock are dealt with which turns not on stereotypes of talents, but on regimes not just in this country, but in other countries and until the father does something to have a meaningful relationship, the mother is the only legal parent or in the terminology of this court's decision when the parent who is likely to have the meaningful relationship. once the father comes forward, the result is not that the father gets the veto power or only the father's interests are taken into account, but -- >> that's a case with mother vs. father, but here it's a single parent. this is not a case where the father is doing something that the mother regards as disadd
venn tashes, and you said something this has something to do with stereotypes and this is the way the law works, but wasn't the law shaped because of division of the world being divided into married couples where the father is what counted and unwed mothers where she was both father and mother because the lord didn't regard him as having any obligation? >> again, this is the issue the court addressed in wynn and the court said there's a difference in the moment of birth and the potential and likelihood of a connection of child to parent. at the moment of birth, that justified the requirement that the father takes a step to legitimate the child to be on equal footing with the mother to the rights, and here the residents is a requirement of
what measures the connection of the parent to the united states, not the child to the parent, but we think the same point obtained so the moment of birth in another country, for example, another country might take the same view in other cases that the father does not have a meaningful connection to the child in the sense that one would predict citizenship on the basis of until there's some formal steps happening after birth to establish the relationship with the child. if it was constitutional for congress to do that in that case, it's constitutional for congress to take intoability that other countries might do the very same thing. >> i thought this relied on the bilogical factor and here there's no question that this is a natural parent of the child. >> well, yes, but in the case the court didn't look at the circumstances of the particular case. it looked generally to what would have justify congress' acting categorically as we think
congress has to have the flexibility to do, and i think the questions in these statutory revisions show there's numerous competing equities and considerations that have to be taken into account, and that's what congress did here with respect to establishing the requiring to the united states, and if in another country, a father has legitimated or done those step, then you have a u.s. citizen mother and a father in another country that is directly parallelled to the married-mixed parent marriage, and the government is concerned whether that child is affiliated to the united states. >> counselor, if we determine the only remedy to impose is to equalize up, in other words, add to the burden on the mother rather than relieving the father
of it, do you have authority for the proposition that we can address that issue hype thetically, -- hyperthetically, in other words without questioning on the merits? look ahead and say, look, the only remedy we can give this person is a remedy not benefiting him regardless of the merits decideed, therefore we don't reach the merits. >> i don't have authority for this court. i may not recalling something, i don't, but i do believe in the context of citizenship that there might be a justify cation for the -- justification for the courts doing that. >> that would be in effect saying we have no jurisdiction because there's no standing because there's no remediation that the court can make. >> i suppose that would be one way of looking at it. i mean, the court traditionally have looked at questions of severability as a question of remedy and not at the outset,
but this is sure to be a pee cool lar situation -- interesting situation. >> there's cases on nullification, and the court did make the choices, well, we can't make any choice. one, was it matthew vs. heckler and it was a rare case where the court equalized down, but i don't know any one of them -- >> no, i think that is ordinarily the case, but this is a difficult context and just to go back with a complication with the remedial approach that chief justice suggested. if the court declared an expansion of citizenship, and that was applied to everyone situated rather than just the petitioner in this case, it
raises the question if the congress has the freedom after a freedom under the law to remedy that with respect to people following this court's decision or the logic of the court's decision suggesting they are citizens too. >> is there anything ringing a bell in your mind about this? the right of an american citizen to pass his american citizenship on to his children, and when we talk about -- when we talk about congress' power over naturalization, is there anything drawing a distinction between natural power who are not citizens but to become citizens, but what it means to have the right to a pass your citizen hip on? >> there is no such right. >> i'm not saying there is, but does it ring a bell that this has been discussed in anything
at all in >> the court's decision discussed this, but we think it's clear that that is an equally exercise of congress' naturalization's power -- >> just looking in trying to get your memory -- something comes to mind the opposite way where the court did go into a long talk about the law including constitutional law, and then says at the end, well, you're not entitled to a remedy. >> this is going back to remedy, i don't -- >> thank you, counsel. mr. hubacheck, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, justice. the rational that the solicitor general office overs today that further assumptions can be made that even after men do the things that the court said were
required of them that they have an opportunity to form a relationship with their child that further gender based assumption should be put into place saying, well, you're not going to be the real father or parent. in the case of women, we assume when they have the nonmarital child, they are in charge, and when a father does whatever is required and wherever the child was born, we're going to assume that the mother is involved still, but the very facts of the case demonstrate that that's not the case that in this case, petitioner's father raised him and the mother was not involved in the growing up and he brought him to the united states. it's piling further gender on top of the ones that are already in place served to justify this dings. now, there is a tradition of allowing citizens to transmit
citizenship. the case getting aliens into the united states, there's no tradition dating back to 1650 where citizens enjoyed rights to bring aliens to the united states, but in 1350 you could confer citizenship on your foreign born children, so it has differently situated in the very structure of the statute we're talking about today. congress specifically eliminated the ability of courts to change the rules of naturalization of aliens and use similar language saying you can be naturalized under this provision and no other way. it didn't say that to citizens as of birth. citizens as of birth are treated differently with a severability clause and that applies to them and brings into the play the remedies the court granted in regard to extension over the years. >> i'm sorry, you referred to the tradition of passing. you agree with mr. kneedler that
there's no such right? >> i agree that the constitution doesn't guarantee that right. our point is that it's a traditional right, and i think congress always provided for it in 1802 and 1805 where the statute was drafted and didn't provide it, this court made clear in montana vs. kennedy, that they made that retroactive. we have an unbroken tradition dating back to 1350 which is why this right should be treated differently than the admission of aliens. it makes clear that the constitution limits congress' power even in the context of naturalization, and in respect to the third party standing issue, they limited it to third party defense in their criminal cases, and same analysis should apply here. we can still look at the right from the perspective of the petitioner's father, and if
there's a leveling down remedy, that doesn't remedy the situation the father would be in because both before and after the court's decision the children of women similarly situated women would be citizens, and petitioner's father son would not. >> what were the criminal cases where the defendant was permitted to raise? >> campbell and powers, both cases where the criminal defendant asserted -- one case it's a grand jury and the other is a petit juror. they alawed the criminal defendants to assert those constitutional rights. seven members also found there was standing in miller. i think this craig vs.born, it's a forgiving standards when a person's right are at stake.
>> court is adjourned until monday at ten o'clock. >> i live picture of the u.s. capitol here where the senate is currently in a recess subject to the call of the chair. earlier this week lawmakers approved jacob lou to have the manage in budget and temporary payments to doctors who treat medicare patients. next week, harry reedments to work on a food amendment bill and senator coburn on earmarks. january marks the beginning of the 112th congress. this month's midterm elections will bring several new senatorrings into the mix. among them, former congressman u.s. trade representative, and head of the omb, rob portman. he replaces retiring ohio
>> now the opening of the nato submit in lisbon. next, opening remarks by the secretary general of nato followed by the president of the host country, portugal. this is just under 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the meeting, excellences, ladies and gentlemen, today and
tomorrow we will take decisions which will frame the future of our alliance. these decisions will reaffirm the sheer commitments by all our countries to the freedom and security of our citizens. this commitment is the paperwork of our alliance, and it is upheld every day by the more than 100,000 men and women who serve in nato operations from afghanistan to kosovo and from the heart of africa to the mediterranean sea. i think it's appropriate that we begin our summit with a tribute
to them. the bravery of these soldiers, sailors, air force personnel, and civilians give strength and meaning to our alliance. every day, without question, they put themselves in harm's way so that others can live safely. we owe a depth of gratitude to them. we are privileged to be joined this afternoon by representatives of the armed services of the 28th allied nations.
loss to their families and their loved ones and to their countries. we extend our deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of our fallen military and civilians, and we mourn the loss together with them. we also honor those who have been in the cause of our common effort. may i now ask you to join me in a minute's silence to pay homage to all of those who have fallen or have been injured in the service of our alliance. ♪
they have made nato the most successful alliance in history. >> translator: this summit concerns that success. here in lisbon we define the cause that the alliance will take in the coming ten years, a decade in which nato will become more effective, more engaged in the world, and more efficient than ever before. >> we will develop modern capabilities to defend against modern threats. we will reach out around the globe. we will make a fresh start in our relations with russia with the aim of building a strategic atmosphere, and we will streamline the alliance to make it more efficient by cutting fat
and investing in muscle so that our taxpayers get maximum security in the money they invest in defense. for these reasons, this will be one of the most important summits in nato's history. prime minister, let me thank you for hosting us here in this room, and now the floor is yours. >> translator: mr. secretary general, heads of states and government, portugal is proud to be one of the founding members of nato. we participate actively in alliance activities and operations since its foundation, 61 years ago. we have for decades, a nato
command close to lisbon, and it's a long line of permanent commitment with nato that we're organizing this summit, a first summit at the heads of state level, and government held in our country. i have considered nato as a democratic institution for peace. this is its heritage, 60 years of peace, freedom, and stability, a heritage built on strategic coherence, sound commitments, military capacity, but above all, built on the common values we share, values as peace, freedom, and security. the lisbon summit is a decisive land mark in nato's evolution.
we will reiterate its founding principle, and i'm quite sure that's the alliance of nations between transatlantic ties and democracy and freedom. we will update collective dissents taking into the new threats and risks we face. we will be in crisis management that may jeopardize our own security, and we will underline nato's role in cooperative safety by acting in a polar world which is ours, and in partnership with other organizations and nations to promote stability and global security. ..
[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: a strategic concept of lisbon will also direct the reform of nato's structures. of reform which turns it more, which turns it stronger more efficient to take advantage of available resources, and best but that's it to our challenges. heads of state and government, allow me to say some words about the meetings held on afghanistan
and with the russian federation. i'm quite certain that tomorrow we will go live -- give a clear import of afghanistan, based on a strategic partnership guaranteeing the security and stability in the country in the long run. portugal will continue in gauge in this objective, and will strengthen its contribution for the training mission of the afghan forces, allowing the country to fully assume aids sovereignty. finally, it is with particular satisfaction that we welcome in lisbon the summit for the nato russia council. we are certain that tomorrow's meeting will mark a new phase in the strategic relationship between nato and russia. as you know, portugal has given
its contribution to strengthen the nato russia partnership. because we consider that it is vital for the security and stability of the euro -- and is, decisive for the approach and to solve most of the challenges of regional and global security. our intent is, therefore, very demanding, which is the only way to achieve historic results. i'm quite certain this will be a summit, which will be a landmark in nato's history. i want to read -- reiterate on behalf of my country the pleasure it is to welcome all of you. thank you very much. thank you, secretary-general. >> thank you very much indeed, prime minister. thank you very much, and let me express our gratitude again to the portuguese authorities for receiving us so warmly here in
lisbon. may i now ask the media to leave the room, so that we can begin our meeting. >> a live picture of the u.s. capitol here where the senate is currently in recess, subject to the call of the chair. there's word of a possible agreement on a pickford and coble cases, which refer to long-standing claims that the federal government mismanaged funds owed to american indians and discriminated against black farmers to earlier this week, lawmakers approved jacob lew to head at the office of management and budget. they also passed a bill providing temporary payments to doctors who treat medicare patients. back after the thanksgiving break, majority leader reid hopes to work on a food safety bill, and when they also seek debate on an amendment offered by republican senator coburn ending earmarks. more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span2. and news from the other side of
the capital, ap reports new documents have surfaced in the ethics case of democratic representative maxine waters of california. the house ethics committee says it has postponed her november 29 trial on charges that she improperly tried to obtain federal assistance for a bank or her husband is an investor. waters is a senior member of house financial services committee. she is vigorously fighting the charges.
a discussion on the transition in january to republicano the leadership of the house of representatives. from today's "washington journal." >> host: joining us today is a summary phase to c-span viewers, former congressman jim nussle of iowa. republican who served from 1991-2007. he is now assisting the incoming gop majority with their transition. morngs for being here thise morning. >> host: >> guest: great to be your. >> host: let's start with the approach that you see the leadership team is taking to sta assembling this congress. ouat's distinctive about that? >> guest: certainly compared to when i did it is they knowhe nois they're doing. we didn't. remember back in 1994 when we in the same context, we have been in control of congress for over
four years. there was nobody better that even knew what he transition was like, what it was like to be chairman of the committee, or was lione the speaker of the house. so there are quite a few here, o course, starting with the speaker elect john boehner who, not only was here in the last majority, but was committee chairman himself. a committee chairman himself -- john boehner was a committee chairman himself. i think there is a difference in the new majority that is coming in for the next congress than there was when we were there. we were never truly in charge of the place in 40 years. host: which is your job? guest: my jaw, if i have a job, is to be a counselor, i guess. i came in and gave advice to people who probably did not need much advice from me about some of the things that i saw as pitfalls that they may want to look for. challenges we face that maybe they may face in a much
different way, and then some basic advice that they might want to think about, given the opportunity of a transition. there are things that you might want to do now that you probably cannot do next year or the year roster -- the year after. i was encouraging them to make some of the tough choices on committee jurisdiction, earmarks, budget process reform. things like that, which, after you get everybody in their chairs and in their seat siong and everything else is a little more challenging to do. -- in their seats and everything else is a little more challenging to do. host: one of the earlier reforms had been a tenure process, you could only serve for a certain number of years and then handed the gavel over. what is your own thinking based on your experience about the need to stay with the tenure
program that has been in place? guest: i like the program that is in place. it is really a meritocracy. it is not a seniority based system. when we took control in 1985, if you lost it long enough and you were still alive when the last german navy got beat, which was rare, you became chairman -- when the last chairman got beat, which was rare, he became chairman. instead of the next chairman getting in, we would have a race for it. it would have to show their competency on the issues of the jurisdiction that the committee would have to preside over. it gave all of us not only the ability -- i jumped three people, as an example, to become chairman of the budget committee, which was almost
unheard of. we have seen a number of recent experiences where you have had committee chair races and where it is a wide open situation. even someone like john some kids, believe is no. 4 in seniority in this situation is not only a viable candidate, but i have heard will be a potential front-runner for energy and commerce. it is an exciting process that i think is still a merit-based system, not just one that if you last long enough you get to be chairman. host: about the jurisdiction and size of the committee? guest: this is the perfect time if you're going to make changes, to make those changes. if you are going to, for instance, has been dark hastings wants to do, to take energy away from energy and commerce and put it under natural resources, if you're going to do it, i think
the commerce -- the congress is going to have to do it right now. otherwise, it during its next year will be more difficult to, -- accomplish. host: how do think the majority is aware of the electorate? guest: i think they're very aware. even the potential minority of january, everyone seems wide awake about what happened in this election. it may take different lessons from it, but this is as sensitive that congress has ever been about what their constituents are angry about and upset about and sending a message to washington. host: will they say it in the form of a mandate?
guest: i do not think so. i'm not sure the american people have decided what they've won yet. that would be the mandate side. i think there is -- by not sure the american people have decided what they want to get. that would be the mandate side. i think they are sure of what they do not want. the overspending and obama care and things like that. i think that has been clear. but what they do want, that has not been as clear. there will be some great debates coming up, sure. host: congressman jim nussle, what are you doing now? guest: i am president and ceo of a group called growth energy. it makes alternative energy from ethanol. the other is i have a small
consulting firm. host: our numbers are on the screen. you can call us or send us a message on twitter or e-mail. moving from structure to policy, the big decisions will be on the budget. we will be doing a series of -- we have been doing a series of the past week of a retired members. the first was from the 94th class. this incoming speaker was here during the time. and what lessons are you hearing of that experience that he is committing to the incoming class? guest: first, i do not believe -- that was a failure and hopefully we will never go down the road again.
we face it because of the failure this year of not having a tax bill, not having a spending bill passed, not having a budget for the first time since 1974 when the budget act was first passed. it is a failure. it is not so much a tactic. there are some people who think that clinton, forced a shutdown as a tactic or been -- or gingrich force a shutdown as a tactic. it really was not a tactic. i believe it was a failure. jim handling has a bill that many are supporting -- jim hands early in has a bill that many are supporting. i believe it would be a valuable reform to the budget process. host: packaging of the bill is no sure thing. guest: of course not.
and many do not like it because it takes away their leverage. we have many in the leadership that have a sort of damocles hanging over the process. it is a sort of leverage. even the white house may feel that way to an extent. i know president bush. possibly, president obama has supported this as part of reforms. i do think it is an important reform. host: what you think from the headline from yesterday's "new york times"? guest: the electoral upheaval has not yet taken full effect. meaning, the congress does not take office until january 5. in order to see change we will actually have to see the new congress. host: would you think of writing
off the congress? guest: they both have to come back to this continuing fight over the budget and taxes a feeling in golden by whatever they heard from the electorate byfeeling emboldened wherever they heard from the electorate. there is shared power. you will see that changing dynamic actually occur. host: let's get a phone call from bill in cambridge, ohio. good morning. . . pommell
republicans. and one of his remarks is almost in tears. he said you don't even know what side of the rim is going to be. now, this man is going to be the head of the house. that's frightening. thank you. >> host: had said wisconsin is next. >> caller: good morning. i got couple of questions for you guess and i just wanted to say basically he is part of a palm. not part of a solution. he is a career politician. he has spent time in the lob legislature and now he is a lobbyist. and g and, you know, he gets his pension, he gets his health care. i
i want to know from this spent individual how many years he spent in congress, okay? and specifically, okay? paid into yew much he is paid into a pension planar and how much he e gets right now? every year as a penchant for th rest of his life and health care that he receives. out here in t midwest, who work for a living can understand how much you make off of our government. guest: happy to. first of all, i'm not a lobbyist. number two, i receive no pension. i'm 50 years old and not old enough thankfully to receive a pension although i have gotten a lot of ribbing about turning 50. that is not quite old enough to even possibly receive a pension. so i receive no pension, lifetime pension. there is no such thing as that. there was at one time, i think you are right, in years past. i served 16 years and it did not happen to me. i receive no healthcare benefits
from the congress, nor did i after i left congress. so i realize there is this culture that believes that is what happens to former representatives. it is not true. none of us receives that kind of pension or health benefits other than the cobra benefit that everyone is entitled to when they leave a job. that is the answer to those questions. host: do you accrue pension benefit that you will be able to tap later on? guest: yes, you pay into a system that is a defined contribution plan, so not even a defined benefit plan. you pay into it similar to many other jobs. that is matched by the tax pap s taxpayers, no question. but it is not something -- will is this pop belief that as soon as you leave congress you start getting it. if you are 65 i suppose you can. or beyond. but i don't, certainly, and haven't as a result of my retirement from congress.
host: one benefit for former members that others don't have is you can go to the floor of the house of representatives, correct? guest: as long as you are not a lobbyist. i have only been there twice. i went there in the president's cabinet for state of the union as an example. it is not a very friendly place these days so there is not much reason to go. host: we are talking with jim nussle, he is offering advice to the incoming members of the g . g.o.p. freshman class an leadership about the transition and moving to their majority. next is from mississippi, anita, a democrat. caller: no, i'm not a democrat. i'm just calling because it is the line i could get through. host: i'm sorry. you can't do that because you will make everybody who follows the rules so frustrated. i appreciate your being honest but you have to wait your turn. next is a phone call from waco, texas, pete, republican.
caller: good morning, jim this s is old pete from texas and you know how we are from down here. 1969 i started my own business. i have a ph.d. in chemistry. by 2005 i had nearly 800 workers and employees. this administration is killing us. their policies are job killers. every where from healthcare to promise of increase in the taxes. i don't have to watch fox news to live this nightmare. what i'm going to ask about specifically, there are many problems. we had to deal with carol browner when she was the e.p.a. director. now he is an energy czar. e.p.a. is in the state of texas is trying to kill every business we have here because of our high petrochemical and gas and oil business. my specific question to you is, can the congress go in and isolate e.p.a. and say, look, we
are going to cut your budget by 80% this first year and you mess around with another state or company and we are going to cut you another 50% next year? guest: well, pete, first of all thank you for taking the risk of starting a business and hiring people and really not only living the american dream but providing it for so many others. second, yes, technically can congress do that? yes, they can. will they? it is hard to say. it is one issue we were talking earlier about this jurisdiction and exactly how the new energy committee chairman is going to handle their job. one will be oversight of e.p.a. as you said and some of those rules and regulations. the last observation i would make is there are many politicians and others who talk about how we are sending jobs overseas. i would observe that in most instances we are chasing jobs overseas and this may be one of those examples where, because of
the rules, regulations, tax system, the mandates, everything else, we often find ourselves in a situation where jobs are not being sent but, rather, being chased some place elsewhere they can do business in a more free open market kind of experience. host: this viewer asked by twitter how realistic is ensuring the bush era tax cuts while resolving the budget? guest: i think it is realistic for this reason. if you believe that raising taxes brings more revenue in to the government you will find historically that it is not as efficient as actually reforming the tax system, making it more efficient and simpler, more transparent and actually reducing overall rates. often increases economic growth and brings more revenue into the treasury. probably the best bipartisan example everyone could agree on is go back to 1997, 1998, when
clinton and the democrats and republicans under gingrich cut capital gains and we balanced the budget when we were actually reducing taxes and spending was pretty much held at about even. so, i'm not saying that is exactly what should happen now, but my view is this is not the time in our economy or history that we need to raise taxes. i think we need to rein in the size of government and spending to get this under control. host: how many new republican freshmen have you met? guest: just a couple of they are kind of cloistered for good reason. going through the orientation and learning some of the basics. this is a very interesting time to be a new member, a freshman member. you are going through so many transitions. you are going through a personal transition moving from iowa or wherever. you are trying to find your way around this amazing city.
and i know we always bash washington but it is an amazing place. then you pick staff, trying to decide what your committee assignments are going to be. and as you reported earlier today, they have a room draw where they begin the of deciding where they are going to work for the next couple of years, which is often about the size of a broom closet in some of the buildings. it is an interesting time to be a new member of congress and one i remember with a lot of fondness. host: we have a clip from john shadduck what it was like coming in and how he thought it worked. >> when republicans took the majority no one had any reason to doubt that they would do what
they said. they had not been in power 40 years. i don't know that republicans won the majority based on the contract with america or anything else of that nature. in part that was their victory but in part it was a reaction to bill clinton. this time republicans have won the majority i think largely in reaction to an overreach by you might say nancy pelosi more than president obama because it was pelosi who said no we are going to push through this healthcare bill consequences be damned. the president and raleigh imam were -- raleigh emanuel were talking about a compromise but the tea party people are expecting republicans to produce, and if they don't, if they break their word a second time i think the tea party could split off and i think that the republicans could be back out on their ear quickly and that would result in a different fate for the tea party going forward.
host: what do you think? guest: first of all, john is right. he has great experience. i was here before 1994 so i saw kind of the before and after. i would suggest this time is different than 1994 in that freshman members are coming in not only against some of the democratic things they saw back prior to 1994 but they are an antiestablishment republicans, meaning they want to prove that they are not going to be under john boehner's thumb either. there is almost a period of time where they are going to not only are to prove that they meant what they said when they voted against obama care but they have to take on the republican establishment as john said and prove that we are different, prove that republicans are not the big spenders, the earmarkers, and even some of the scandals, duke cunningham and some of those that came before.
so, he is right. it is like your mom telling you when you are growing up you have your entire lifetime to establish your reputation and you can lose it like that. we lost it in 2006. and it is going to take time for us, meaning republicans, to demonstrate to our constituents and american people that we have it back. host: this viewer wants to go back to the budget conversation and ask specifically what would you cut? guest: i love that question because i not only -- i wrote eight budgets phaoufs and together with my colleagues on the committee and on behalf of the president. i have had to put up or shut up eight different times where i actually wrote a budget. my last one we identified about $100 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, do you know indicative programs that -- duplicative
programs that i outlined and not only did president bush put them forward as specific areas you could cut but president obama actually adopted many of those same ones that he september up to this congress -- sent up to this congress and congress hasn't addressed many of them. my days of having to put up or write budgets are over, but i will take any of those and put them forward as examples of places that you could start. host: back to the conversation about the tea party newcomers wanting to demonstrate this viewer tweets so-called tea party knocked out the old republicans. who is their tea party leader? old republicans. guest: referring to john bane are? -- boehner? host: yes the challenges for him and finding consensus. guest: first of all, john boehner came in as a reformer
and still is a reformer. he came in together with me. we were part of the gang of seven which, boy, that is a throw-back. we helped pose the check bouncing scandal here in congress and it is sad to remember on a day like today with charlie rangel that the exact same thing happened to another former chair as a result of that scandal and that was dan rostenkowski. john boehner has been part of the reform movement here changing the way congress does its work, how committees operate. he was a reformer when he was chairm chairman. he lost his job in the republican leadership, i think, because of his reform agenda and attitude. so i think it would be a mistake to assume john boehner is this old republican like all the rest of them. he is about as reform minded as you will find in the old republican regime. i'm proud of the fact that he
now has the opportunity to lead by example the way we felt needed to be the leadership model when we came in back in 1990 when checks were being bounc bounced. host: fort atkinson, wisconsin, ross on the air. caller: you talk about you think the republicans got the mental, maybe even the democrats, from the people. but i will tell you until you take the money out of politics like boehner, he is on the golf course more than he is at work. and who is he with? with the lobbyist. and the money comes in. and all parties, the people are you -- i know you are not in any more but they know it is all about the money and there should be term limits so you are working for the people, not for your own best interests or re-elections. guest: first, i agree on term limits. i voted for them and i term
limited myself and believed in it for chairman. i do agree a healthy amount of churning, getting new people into the process is healthy. number two, i think you were being facetious, john boehner is not on the golf course as much as in congress. he does enjoy golf but he does have something that is a good release as opposed to some things you could get involved in. third, you are right, there is too much monday in politics. -- too much money in politics but that is saying there is too much gambling in las vegas. you have to have full disclosure and transparency. the problem many get into is when there isn't disclosure. i think charlie rangel is a good example where he failed to even repo report. these are the situations that cause most of the problems. t the fact that you know where
john boehner receives contributions and is even receiving them from what particular interest. and the interest may align with your interests, who knows? but the fact that you know that is because of some of the reforms put it. it could be even more transparent as far as i'm concerned, but you are right, there is no question there is too much money in politics. but i believe disclosure and sunshine is the best antiseptic to that, not just assuming you can get rid of money in politics. host: back to the term of service for george w. bush as director of the white house office of management and budget. here is someone who once talked policy with you. jim nussle was in the white house when this began. guest: no question about it. we had to be extremely creative working with secretary paulson to create then the tarp program, troubled asset relief program,
which, while i know has become kind of a standard of people suggesting that was the mother of all government bailouts, i don't think there's anyone now who could suggest that it didn't work and that it didn't -- it not only wasn't -- even though it was imperfect, a good policy that came in at a time when that kind of creative policy was needed. and the proof is in the pudding. it not only did work but it is being paid back and it may be paid back nearly in full, which is a testament to the creativity at the time. so, there is no question it was a very challenging time to be in the white house. i believe president bush, as he stated in his book and he stated on the stump recently as he has been out talking about his book, believes that they were the best decisions given the information that he had at the time and i would agree, even though they were not my philosophical bent
either. i didn't have a better alternative that i knew would keep us from going over the cliff at the time. host: call from indiana next kathy, democrat. caller: good morning. how are you? first off i need to say, i will tell you, you are one slick operator, i must say. i mean the way you are spinning everything and doing it with a smile on your face. the new republican congress is coming in scares the life out of me. it is proven as of the vote yesterday. the republicans in the house were willing to dump unemployment benefits and because they are worried about the addition to the deficit, yet they don't blink an eye about giving a tax cut to the wealthy, which as a matter of fact the
majority of leaders in the house and senate are multimillionaires so no wonder they are fighting hard for the tax cut. it will add $700 billion to the deficit but they are not worried about that. they still not a one of you have ever said what are you going to cut. so it was social security, my husband pays dollar for dollar more on his wages to pay for his social security than, say, john boehner or tkaerl issa -- darrell issa. why don't you raise the social security tax for multimillionaires for them. why does my husband that doesn't make a quarter of what they make, why is he paying more? we know where you republicans stand. it is all for the wealthy, nothing for us and you are willing to dump them, the unemployment. host: i think you made your point on that.
guest: i'm sorry i'm smiling this morning. i tend to be a morning person so i apologize. part of it, i think, is where you believe the money starts. this debate in washington right now is very philosophical for this reason. there are some in this country who believe that the money starts in washington and then we pass it out to you and if you believe that you can understand why it is tax cuts for the rich or it is tax benefits for somebody or that the government is providing you. i think the difference in it election -- and it is a different philosophical belief. i believe the money starts with you and your husband. it is your hard work that created the resources and it is your check that you send to washington, d.c. in the form of tax dollars that we should respect. so, the money doesn't start
here. it starts there in indiana. if that is how you believe, you have a much different perspective of the world, number one. number two, i understand that you believe that none -- that all the republicans are rich. that is not true. and it does take, i think, a lot of experience to run for congress. but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be wealthy. we have seen a lot of examples starting with the president of the united states you don't have to be a wealthy person to run for office. i think that is a misconception that somehow this gives them breaks that nobody else gets. but i do want to start with that premise that if you believe that money starts in washington and we hand it out to you, you are going to have a much different perspective than if you believe money is earned by yourselves and checks in the form of tax dollars come to washington. host: latinos hear your -- let's
hear your opinion on unemployment benefits extension. with the jobless rate stuck at 9.7% to 9.5% there doesn't seem to be jobs out this. what is the message to people who are actively looking for jobs and haven't been able and there is not an extension on benefits? guest: i'm not in congress so i will let the debate rage with those that are policy makers. let me point out a couple of things. this is not the first extension. there have been multiple extensions. number two, at a time when we are running record deficits and the pay-go principles are supposed to apply to everything, we have seen this year under the budget rules that they have been waived over 200 times for 200 different items that it is fine to say we are going to pay for tax cuts if you will, under it principle that somehow the money starts in washington and you pay for money to go back into the pockets of people that earn it,
which is to me a crazy notion. but you exempt all of the spending such as unemployment benefits. so defense spending is not exempt but unemployment bits is. tax cuts are not exempt. you have all of this crazy budget rules instead of saying it ought to apply to everything. that is the second principle. the third one is after two years of having this debate over how do you create jobs in this country, i think that i would much rather trust pete in texas talking about how he created 800 jobs in his factory in texas than anybody in that capital dome over there right now for how to create jobs. yet we're chasing pete and those jobs potentially someplace else in the world as a result of our tax policy, environment policy, mandates, regulations. that is why we're in this crazy situation where our country is not growing and we are worrying more about unemployment benefits
than about how we are going to yet jobs. host: social security benefits? guest: her example, i'm not exactly sure host: she wants to raise the cap. guest: her husband doesn't pay any more than i do. there is a limit on benefits. do we need social security reform? no question. anybody that has the guts to do it? i think we proved that no matter what your belief is on what social security reform ought to come next there are very few yet willing to step up and reform the entitlement of social security or any other entitlement for that matter. host: for mr. nussle next is a call from berkeley springs, west virginia, karl, a republican. caller: i have a simple solution for all the corruption in politics. if everyone on capitol hill, all the congressmen, senators, had
to sign a contract with america to agree to an audit by the i.r.s. every two years, not only for them but their immediate family, you would see mass resignations up there. everybody would be scrambling to the airport to catch the first flight out. and you are going to have corruption in politics because it just -- there are too many people offering you money. to a person like me, it is disgusting. it really is. i'm a political junky. i watch it program every morning religiously. but it is getting to the point where it really is. but you know what? if charlie rangel had an r in front of his name he would have been handcuffed and led off capitol hill just like cunningham. that is all i have to say. thank you.
guest: i don't think people would have mass resignations because they were necessarily on the take. i think an i.r.s. audit would scare even the most honest taxpayer you could find. it is because of the complexity of our tax code and everything else. i understand what you are saying. that is why i smiled. i think you are probably right. you not only wouldn't have many people that would want to stay here. i would guess you probably wouldn't have anybody who would want to run for congress if you had an audit every two years. we have to file not only taxes as chairman, former chairman rangel discovered, but you have to file financial disclosures about your finances, which is a much higher bar than most taxpayers have to do. it is not a perfect system but there is more transparency and disclosure to be a member of congress than in most occupations. again, it is not perfect but i
know there are bad apples that spoil it for the rest and i know that this is not going to -- you won't believe me but i guarantee you most of the people who are here in congress are doing a good job, they are trying to do it the right way. they are not breaking the laws or on the take. there are bad examples that have spoiled it. unfortunately, they have made it so there is this popular belief that everyone is. it is unfair because it is not true. public service is still an honorable job that many of these guys do a very good job at. host: we have time for two more calls. ron an independent from florida. caller: congressman nussle, you republicans being so against soci socialism, i don't understand how you can be for farm subsidies since most of the farm subsidy money goes to giant
corporations or corporations. host: thank you, ron. guest: there are many of us, even from farm country, that over the years have worked for reforming those farm subsidies and have not only reduced them in many instances but changed them so that it doesn't artificially hurt the marketplace or warp the marketplace. there is more that can be done, no question about it. but i think if you look back at some of the reforms particularly of the hrlast 15 or 20 years yo will see a great change in farm subsidies compared to, let's say, 50 years ago. there is still more reform that needs to be done, but i don't think it is quite as black and white as you put it. there is a lot of gray area. host: last caller from the pocono mountains from pennsylvania. rich a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes. >> i would like to know how you
can justify approximately $10 billion a month which is being spent on the war yet we are whining about tax breaks at this time of year and you want to cut unemployment and that people pay in into, some have been out of work almost two years but have worked for 20 years and i paid into it. i think you can throw all the spin and you are a perfect spin doctor. you are like a washing machine. guest: it is interesting so many of these things have been blamed on the republicans. a majority of democrats did not even support -- i mean a majority is still in democratic control so if they wanted to pass the benefits they could have. it is not just the republicans that believe we have to start creating jobs and not creating more unemployment benefits or extending more unemployment benefits. i think it is both sides, not just republicans or democrats.
i think it both sides that believe this. and, second, with regard to the war, i'm with you. i think the sooner we can end not only the conflict and bring our folks home but reduce the amount of spending that goes to it. there is a lot of waste in the pentagon. bob gates has identified a lot that needs to be reduced or removed or changed. so there is a lot of work that needs to be done but it is not either-or, defending the country or providing unemployment benefits. host: we're out of time but i have a closing comment or question for you. just a moment we will be talking with rob green a pollster here in washington and he has done a couple of polling questions on transparency and openness in the new congress and what advice people would give to the incoming majority. what would yours be? guest: i think charlie rangel is a greating for freshmen right
now. you have to recognize that hypocrisy in particular will be your number one thing to look out for. you cannot be the chairman of the tax writing committee and not pay your taxes. that is number one. number two, and this is the same advice i gave the transition team. in washington and in this job unlike the famous book by this title, you have to sweat the small stuff. it is the small things that will get you in trouble. it was trading stamps for cash that got dan rostenkowski. it was a few bad checks albeit for big amounts that sent a number of members of congress to jail then. you have to sweat the small things because it is the small things often that will jump up and bite you and it is that openness and transparency of the process that needs to there if we are going t to keep that
>> a live picture of the u.s. capitol where the senate is in recess. there is word of a possible agreement on the cases which referred to long-standing trains that the federal government mismanaged funds owed to american indians and discriminated against black farmers. and news from the house at the capitol involving california representative maxine waters. the ap is reporting that new documents have surfaced in the ethics case of representative waters. the house ethics committee says it has postponed her november 29 trial on charges that she improperly tried to obtain federal assistance for a bank where her husband is an investor. of course january marks the beginning of the 112 congress. this month's midterm elections will bring several new senators into the mix. among them former west virginia governor joe mentioned. he was elected to serve out robert bird's turnman sworn in last week.
on the republican side among many new faces is kentucky's rand paul. he is the son of republican presidential candidate ron paul and will take his seat being given up by retiring senator jim bunning. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up our, even though they may give it up for principled reasons, they seem handcuffed at the minute they give it up. edmund morris examines the final years of t.r.'s life including his bull moose run for president sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> on this morning's washington journal the center for american progress released a list of actions president obama can take without the congress.or >> host: sarah wartell is the tk executive vice president for the centern of american progress a s think-tank in washington, which
has been headed by john podestad and is very much involved policy development for the obama administration podesta. there is a paper you put out this week, the power of the president, recommendations to advance progressive change. it is being picked up in a lot of columns. it is essentially a message to the president to assert yourself. what are you saying? guest: so much of the conversation since the election has been predictions that sort of the government is going to come to a halt because we have a divided government and differences of view about so many issues that are going to be debated in the congress and there is a lot of discussion that somehow legislative progress is going to be differ to make -- difficult to make. i hope those predictions may not prove to be accurate in talking about the congress. but our point was to say that government is not just about legislation. the president has enormous
authority and responsibility to be able to operate as a chief executive of the federal government and we want to emphasize the ways he can help get things done, things that the public really needs and wants given the concerns they have with the economy and with american security. host: what specific enumerated or traditional actual powers does he have? what tools does he have? guest: the united states congress gives him the responsibility as the executive to administer all of the agencies of the federal government, and every single one of those agencies from the department of commerce and small business administration, to the department of defense, have significant responsibilities. and in executing those authorities there are choices to be made every day and they can
influence the way things get done. nobody can deny that president bush often faced a divided congress, yet he was able to, in the exercise of his executive authority, put a real stamp on the country and the way that he governed. and president obama has the same opportunity. host: let me ask about the call for partisanship. the front page of "u.s.a. today" search for civility grows in washington. you have been here a while. what is your view on civility and partisanship? guest: i would guess we have a call for nonpartisanship or at least perhaps bipartisan ship. an effort to -- i think the public is really frustrated with it conversation. this was an election that people said let's -- we like the agenda
of the republicans and we dislike the agenda of the president. they were expressing their deep frustration that there was fighting, there was bickering and rather than change the tone in washington nothing had cake -- nothing had changed. i think the responsibility now to control the house is going to put an onus on the house leadership to be able to not simply say here are the things we don't like but here are some things we do and create a real opportunity for the beginning of a dialogue and the president will likely be looking for places where he can make progress and find common ground. host: for instance, because the economy is foremost on most everyone's mind, let's look at the suggestions you have put forward for presidential action on the economy. we put them on graphics for people but they include launching a new consumer tppb financial protection bureau which is part of the dodd frank legislation, accelerate implementation of small business
jobs act, promote automatic mediation to avoid foreclosure. will you talk about how he can do those things and why they are important? guest: in each case those are places where the congress has either recently passed or has for a long time put authority on the books in the area of housing that the president has to begin -- has to implement. the housing legislation has been in the works for a long time. so, what we are suggesting is the statutes don't answer all the questions about how you move forwa forward. there are major priorities in for the economy in figuring out how we can get lending to businesses so they can start to hire people. and what i think the public is saying is we want to see progress. so, if, for example, if the small business bill, those are
authorities special extra access to credit for the next two years. it will take a very concerted effort to lift that up and draw the attention of businesses about the new opportunities they have in both under tax law and lending opportunities to get them taking advantage of the programs before the authorities expire. much of the president and white house senior staff time and attention the last two years was focused on the congress, but they have this great opportunity now to turn their attention to helping to implement these laws and make sure we get the full benefit. similarly, as the new cfpd is being put in place, consumer financial protection bureau, the president could spend a lot of -- or the administration could spend a lot of time thinking how you stand up an operation, but he needs to talk at the same time about what that operation will do so the public sees that it is not just bureaucracy, it
is change that effects their lives. host: before we go to calls looking through newspaper for an article i found it. this is from the "baltimore sun" today. from the tribune's washington bure bureau. dems plan counterattack. activists push white house and plot on strategy frustrated by president obama's weakness in battling republicans many leaders have become independently plotting their political recovery including whether to build a network of outside fund-raising and campaign organizations to compete with those formed this year by republicans. george soros quoted in this i'm used to fighting losing battles but i don't like losing without a fight. he saeid in a comment confirmed by his staff as a private call and private conversations at the meeting of democracy alliance an organization of democrats that provides funding to liberal groups. is there frustration with this
white house? guest: i think there is, first of all, recognition that this white house got a lot done during the first two years on very big and important issues that have troubled the country and helped to bring us down. the recovery act, getting us away from the brink of financial collapse, healthcare reform long sought, and the dodd frank act are major accomplishments and there are other small ones. first, people recognize this was about as hard a job as you could have at the beginning of an administration with a new team and they got an amazing amount down. do people wish there had been more had do people wish there was the capacity now to demonstrate that we are not going to be spending all our time and energy in conflict with people in the congress but we are going to work to show what we can get done? of course. but that is not necessarily a critique. that is a work plan for moving
the country forward. host: there is a paragraph many diseffected democrats say the station needs to be more aggressive advocating positions to rally the party space and differentiate it from republicans. that sounds to be the opposite of what you just described. guest: one reason this report was written is there is this inevitable debate in the papers and among pundits about whether the president should rally his base or going to the center, should he be challenging the republicans or working with them. our sense is that that kind of debate is somewhat wasted energy. the real question is how do we get things done. the president needs to show his capacity to run the country, to le lead, and he does that through leadership on the hill as one of many tools. there are many others. running the government and using its capacity to make lives better for people is what we are saying he should spend his time
on. host: we want to go to phone calls e-mails and twitters. we are discussing center for american progress report the power of the president recommendations to advance progressive change it is available on their website and ours. it has been picked up by a number of progressives and liberal columnists. in the nation we have the headline use your executive authority, president obama and a similar theme this morning in eugene robinson's piece in the opinion page of the "washington post" the decider in chief. reference being this report and encouraging the president writing progressives are right when they complain the white house must do a better job of making the case for its policies but the challenge goes well beyond communications. judging by wait they snubbed obama's invitations to break bread together republicans seem eager for gridlock. that may be the g.o.p.'s story line but obama can write a narrative of his own. he is the decider now.
that is the reference to george w. bush's memoir on the market now. let's go to phone calls. we begin with a call from levitt town, pennsylvania, catherine, who is a democrat. caller: good morning. i just feel so sad because no matter what obama tries to put forth, the republicans have made a statement, they made a statement that they only want him in for one term. so, no matter what he does or tries to do, they are going to block it. and actually when they go to congress they are to take care of all the people. guest: thank you so much. i find remarks that focus on the next election days after the last one to also be sad. i do think that is not what the election result message was to
the congress. but i also am not convinced t t that, and the whole point of the report is that those tactics to try to make sure that nothing gets done is not going to be what the public is lacking for. and -- looking for and i think that we are going to see a great deal of pressure on both parties to show that they have the capacity to help solve problems, not simply the ability to try to get in the way of the president's attempts to do so. host: anne, a republican from tennessee. caller: i don't know when they decided that progressive was a better for social securityist, communists. george soros sits up there like a big evil octopus funding groups and if obama tries to push the country further in social inch he won't get two votes the next election. but that woman talking about the government needs to take care of us, that is a pa text state --
pathetic statement about where america is today. there was a spectacle in atlanta this summer they were fighting like dogs over a bone to get subsidized housing. american people are not enslaving themselves to this government and the last election spoke to that. we do not want to be taken care of. the people out here work and look around and see people on food stamps spending, wasting taxpayer dollars and most of them are making a mess out of their homes and kids are being fed by the boys and girls club, churches. the schools are even sending back packs home. why are we giving them food stamps? they are not feeding their kids. it is disgusting what they have turned the american people into with these socialist, communist programs that people like this lady sitting here -- host: i will stop because you made your point. how about a response? guest: i think that the notion
is that -- i think that the government exists to meet needs that people across the country have in common and can't meet on their own. but we need to do a better job of giving people confidence, like anne, that when the government does the things that only it can do, it does them well. an important part of it report and another report we leased the same day called the $400 billion opportunity, which was about how we can make sure the government spends less through the things that it buys through its procurement powers, make sure it gets a better deal for the taxpayer on the things it has to do. the president has a great deal of ability to focus on running the government like a business, running the government so it gets a better rate of return and gets more done with less. and those sorts of things i hope will give people more confidence that on those things like
defense, transportation, roads, utilities, that are so important as well as social safety net, we add values to the lives of everyone. host: back to the morocco papers, is -- morning papers is it headlines like this in the "washington post" obama democrats can't agree on plan for tax cuts, that encourages you to suggest that the president find a way forward other than legislation? guest: we are going to have to agree or at least get enough people to pass some kind of legislation. the president is clear and i don't think anyone in the republican party or democratic party want to see right now tax cuts for the middle class expire. so, some way when this is done there will be tax cuts, i hope, continued for the vast majority of americans who right now are having a real struggle in the economy. i hope that it will not include tax cuts for the very wealthy but that will get worked out. our point is that that is only a
small part of what the country needs to do right now. and we don't need to become so consumed with that debate that we forget about all of the other responsibilities of the executive branch. that is what we want to make sure is lifted up. host: next is park hill, oklahoma, good morning to our caller gary who is an independent. caller: good morning. once again, you are like fine wine. we are probably both about the same age but i have craters in my face. two quick comments and one in-depth question. first off, to everyone, including those in other countries who have lost a son, child, husband in our war against these baby killing people, i'm a vietnam veteran and every time someone i read in
the paper one of you kids have died fighting these people my heart goes out to you and i want to acknowledge and thank you for your sacrifice, not just to my country but to other citizens of the world who have gone into iraq and afghanistan with our kids. i sincerely mean that. two, i would like to address progress seufrs in a quick statement. i have always equated it with regulatory nazi inch and public -- naziism and public health terrorism by our own people and one of the post disgusting things is how they used law and order country and turned our people who normally have been to serve and protect and turned them into a bunch of [inaudible] people extorting income out of taxpayers to support a bunch of college kids in the government and in special interests groups
with college kids who won't go out and make money and provide jobs. host: gary, your question, please. you have lots of strong opinions but how about a question. caller: concerning immigration, i live right in indian country and this is another example of what happens when you have people who are in charge of things making statements concerning their support for illegals when in reality, say like you are working, the real working poor class blacks and whites and indians, their voices are not heard at all. if you ought to hear how the indians here in indian country scream because of all the mexicans who are allowed across the border -- host: we understand your question. we will stop there. do you have a response for him? guest: i actually wanted to mention for a moment your comment about afghanistan.
and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i think this is a place where there is actually some in the topic we are here it to talk about today that speaks to that. the way that the administration manages through the ongoing obligations commitments that we have in those two countries is a place where i think the president has some choices that could work to help prevent more loss of life for american soldiers. we are suggesting we need to focus more of our attention on the diplomatic powers and a economic ability to strengthen the governance and local economies in those countries so we can make them self-sustain and move out. so much attention is on military strategy and not the other tools we have to help strengthen those countries so we can bring our soldiers home. host: for that viewer even though you apologized because you are a vietnam vet someone took over to your language. jack hutton says how can you let a caller continue who uses the
term camel jockey. you neat to call hate out. moving on to loganville, georgia. in is scott republican on the air. caller: i thought one of the problems the democrats had in the last session they wrote these huge bills, 4,000-page bills and leave so much of the law to be defined by the executive branch and bureaucr s bureaucrats. the congress ought to define what the law is and not leave it up to unelected people to write law. the question is, what business does the government have inviting bankers and executives from general motors down to the white house and telling them how
to run their business? that is not part of the government's job. guest: thank you. i think that the particular, if you are referring to yesterday's discussion about general motors, the federal government did make a significant investment in general motors and i think that the discussion the last two days has been to celebrate the fact that the company has been able to bring itself back to keep a lot of people employed in the areas not only in their own industry, their own company but many other parts of the industry who are suppliers and others. and they are now being able to seek private capital and move on without government support. that was the discussion there. it is inevitable that when you run a country that the 535 members of congress are not going to reach agreement on every detailed aspect. it is inherent in our constitution that broad -- this
authority is granted to the president. but he does it within the broader consent of the public and their approval. i actually think what the publish has been saying to the president lately is we would like to see things get done rather than the kind of constant debate and bickering. we spent too much of the last two years with a spotlight shined on the united states congress and less on getting problems solved on the big problems that people are facing in their lives. host: we will go back to a for instance on how your suggestion of executive authority might work. a head lane democrats struggling to make any headway. on wednesday they wrote the senate majority leader announced he would push forward with the annual military policy bill that includes repeal of the policy that prohibits openly gay and lesbian people from serving. it was a direct challenge to john mccain of arizona who indicated he will try to block the measure as long as it
contains the don't ask provision. the president has made clear and the leadership of the military has made clear that this policy doesn't advance readiness. they will study a report early next week that talks about their views about what was best but then they need congress to help change the background love. they believe, in order to make those changes. now i am hopeful congress will take those steps that they may not and if they do not, the fact is our military has report from
our military leaders saying our military readiness and their capacity to deal with national security threats is impaired by oldierss of train qualified soldiers, and the president has authority for example to not allow any person who alleges that someone is to treated as gay credible evidence. of the "don't ask, don't tell policy. he can use that to mitigate the effects. host: karen, a democrat. caller: i have two questions any comment. how can congress justify not passing the bill to take away tax breaks from company that take jobs away from overseas. thearen't they addressing
manipulating the currency and why isn't that in the forefront? that would create millions of jobs in the united states. i would like to say to the republican party, i am tired of you saying no to everything. guest: thank you, karen. let me pick up on your point about the economic climate the president faces. one recommendation in our report is the president's take up an unrelenting focus over the next two years on the the united states' competitiveness. it is one of a wide array of policies that i would argue are important. it includes how we enforce our trade laws and how we -- what kind of higher education and training programs we have. make sure our workforce is ready
to compete. it is important what kind of support we give to new technology so they can be the jobs of tomorrow. we suggest that concern is for most of the minds of many americans as they face an uncertain future for jobs and an uncertain future for their children. this is one place where we think the president could spend a good deal of his time. hopefully this will be a place where you could find the business community and the labor committee and republicans and democrats who would follow him in making a fight to help make the united states better able to sell their products around the world. host: we heard this morning in the social media and talk radio and other places terms for the construct of government. people have used the term socialism. somebody even said nazism.
"we live in a mix of socialism and capitalism." guest: i think we live in a capital society that has some common goods and needs and purposes that are served by government. this is a democratic government. it is not socialist government. there are enormous differences in how we govern ourselves. which is had a tremendous example of the government's being in the hands of the public, not in the hands of the state. enormous contrast to the way that china runs their country and their economy. we are a market economy. " we learned over the last few years is that you need a level playing field and you need market to have ground rules that are fair so that everyone can compete and we can get to the
best economic outcomes. when we let market distortions prevent that, you are not making free markets. you are making for the kind of distortions that led us to the financial crisis we just had. i think some of those labels are part of the larger problem that we are quick to put names and not talk about the underlying issues. host: we have 10 more minutes left with sarah wartell. the new paper suggest the president use some of his powers to advance progressive causes during the next two years. bowie, maryland. caller: good morning. a couple of things i would like to touch on. sarah mentioned the constitution. i think is interesting,
especially going on where how our country is run. it is not a democracy. it is run by the people who are in power right now. the changes from time to time. is more of like an oligarchy, but that is neither here nor there. we're talking about progressivism. we have to mention the health care bill, which is one of the things that was pushed through by this administration. i think people are kind of missing the point. it is not so much health care as health insurance reform. going back to the constitution, i would like to know if you could tell me where in the constitution it says that is okay for the government to force its people to have to purchase the service when it is something they don't necessarily want or need. how is that right? the second thing is, if we're
going to talk about the constitution, people's rights are being violated at airports on a daily basis. who is overseeing the tsa when it comes to what could beat a sexual assault? if i go to the airport with my family, i don't want to be treated like a criminal and forced to go through the full body scanner like janet napolitano said -- it is irresponsible of people to not take -- utilize the new technology. if i do not do that and it seems to stand up for my rights, i am violated and i am humiliated. i don't think -- i do not understand how we can consider ourselves progressive if we are referring to people as criminals before any kind -- i do not know what the word is. there is no trial. there is no anything for people. they are just automatically criminals.
maybe you could expand on that. guest: i wanted to start with your discussion of the word "progressive." we have progressive in our roots. it is an attempt to evoke a long history and a sense of tradition that goes back to the founders. it is about trying to find solutions to problems. it is not a theological in that it will -- in that it is a conservative or liberal. looking at research and trying to figure out what will work and making a change to make these things happen. the health care legislation was an attempt to deal with the fact that so many people found their children could not get health care in their early years. many people could not afford it. not every solution is perfect.
we need to make policy better. one of the things in the scanning question we have to ask is whether this new technology is going to be helpful. if it is helpful, there are less intrusive -- is there a less intrusive way to accomplish the same goal as so security? it is about how do we do works? that is the tradition that progressivism is designed to evoke host. host: emma has a different view in this tweet. guest: i think that there's a great deal of frustration right now because of all the time and attention spent watching congress were the major pieces of legislation. the media has shown a spotlight on other voices of individual
businesses that were seeking different outcomes in the legislation. the president came to washington saying he wanted to see things done differently. there was a lot of attention given to in fact people trying to use their clout to get things done. with the election just showed us is that the people in charge are the people who go to the ballot every week and every two years. i think we will see over the next two years both parties with a great deal of responsibility to see if they can contribute. i'm being hopeful. the earlier caller talked about focusing i making sure this is a one-term president. i don't think the message that voters are trying to send. it will take a couple of months
for this to make its way through the system. host: i want to go back to a policy specific, one of your suggestions is to improve the performance of the federal government. that harkens back to images of al gore and his reinventing government campaign. what do think this government has the power to do to improve the performance? guest: one example we give in the report is the federal procurement process. the government buys goods and services worth billions of dollars every year to help the troops and the military, help provide a support to our installations and our diplomats around the world, to do things like provide benefits to people and their social security and medicare programs. we think they do not purchased
goods and services as effectively as they could. private-sector has learned a lot about how to make sure to get real robust competition that drives down prices in the procurement process. the federal government could adopt some of those same processes. host: chris from florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to educate the viewers about one of your principal financiers, and that will be mr. george soros. in 1998, an article he wrote -- "the sergeant of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. the greatest opposition to this
id is coming from the united states. the united states will have to lose its role as an undisputed dominant force. we will be downsized. at the same time, we will have a better working system and opponents will be better downsize then we will." george soros has been implicated -- many people know he was instrumental in bringing down the british pound in 1991 when he bet against it to the tune of some $10 billion. $10 billion. many, many people saw their savings virtually wiped out. mr. soros is all about economic collapse, engineering economic collapse and a game plan. he has a game plan and it starts
with organizations like yours. guest: mr. soros is more than capable of defending his own record. i will not take that on now. what is important for you to understand is that mr. soros is widely reported mistakenly to play a role in our organization. he is one of many, many hundreds of people who have made -- many thousands of people who have given us financial support. it is i think the ideas that we are talking about here have nothing to do with whatever views he may have held in 1998. we're a separate organization. host: does he served on your board? guest: no. host: we have a tweet. guest: there is -- that is the
case where his goals to close it are in dispute in the congress. there has been a great deal of debate about that. i also think there are difficulties in finding other places to send the prisoners. a resistance to having some of them on u.s. soil. the need to figure out what the resolution is for having some of the remaining prisoners faced accountability for their prior action. so it has proven to be a difficult and sticky wicket. that is a good example of a case where there are a wide array of existing statutes. he needs to figure out how he can't use those -- how the president can use those to make
sure the american citizens are protected from real threats and also to preserve our stake in the world. host: last call, george, a democrat. caller: i would like to make a statement. threeced there .. done something that all american citizens pay attention to. the young man who discussed the middle of honor. he had to make a decision. like many of us who served in the service, we take the same oath as the president and congress. he made a decision and it was the right decision. george bush had to make a decision. we put that on tv. he did the right thing. president obama >> caller: he and all the politicians came in and made a decision because they had the
quick pass to make it happen in the united states. this is the spirit that i think that the congress and the senate should take up. they should look at the examples of those three important people, and live up to their oath, and i'd like to know what can we do as americans to remind them of this because if we don't go to this, we're going to fall apart. thank you. >> well, george, i couldn't agree with you more. i think in each of those cases that you referenced, you had people not doing what was in their immediate or short term interest or political interest in figuring out what was best for the larger institution and country and for the community in which they lived and worked and serves, and i'm hopeful that what the voters were saying to us is they'd like to see that spirit on the part of their
legislated officials, and maybe there's possibility of bringing people together to make change and start that process together. >> host: the report, again, and we talked about the editorial pickup it's getting in some columns. if you want to read, it's called "powter of the prosecute" thank you for being in the washington journal this friday. >> guest: thank you very much, my pleasure. >> a live picture of the u.s. capital where the senate is still in recess subject to the call of the chair. there's word of agreement on the cases, long standing claims that the federal government mismanaged funds owed to american indians and discrimeuated against black farmers. after the thanksgiving break, senator majority leader harry reid hopes to pass a food bear
disease control and international elements brief reporters on the cholera outbreak in haiti. this is just under 30 minutes. >> we'll make just some very brief opening remarks, and then take your questions. after the earthquake in haiti, we knew that the island would be particularly susceptible to water born diseases and other medical threats, and we along with the ministry of health and the international community set up a robust surveillance system that did indeed the outbreak of cholera that was confirmed on october 20th. the reason this cholera is spreading which was also predicted is the poor sanitation in haiti, which those of you who have been there certainly have seen. also the fact for at least 50 years and perhaps as long as 100
years, haiti has not had any cholera so there's no immunities among the population. also, this strain of cholera seems to be more veer lent than the normal strains and cdc can talk more about that, and they're doing some up vest gageses to try -- investigations to try to get a better picture of that. because haiti had such a poor health infrastructure, we, the united states, as part of our broad assistance there have made this one of our pillars. we are going to invest a lot of money in the health system over the next five years, and we've already started on several parts of it. the -- but the challenges as you go forward on cholera are many, and we are meeting them and trying to overcome them, but this occupies us every day, and our
great team of people down there as well spend a lot of time on this, so with that introduction, i'm going to ask mark ward from the office of foreign disaster assistance and u.s. aid which allows the initial work in responding to this to say a few words. >> thank you, tom. hello, again. i think i was here last to talk about tomas. i was in haiti last week to look at the cholera situation. let me begin by expressing a lot of confidence in the efforts that the government of haiti has undertaken in treating the disease in what we've seen so far. i was impressed by the professionalism when i was there last week and among their medical professionals. i think you know the numbers. the cases reported are going up, over 18,000 now, and
unfortunately, the death toll is also going up, over 1100 now. ofda has provided about $9 million, committed about $9 million so far. that number is going up every day, and you'll hear why. going forward, our strategy right now is to focus very much on prevention. cholera is not very hard to prevent or treat if you get it early, but we got to provide the tools to treat it and make sure the people know how to use those tools and take better care of themselves. if we are successful, the number of severe cases will decline. we won't, they won't overtax the government's treatment facilities, and the death rate will drop. we got an aggressive plan on prevention enand there's four -- and it's got four parts. number one, clean drinking
water, a subject we talked about a lot and talked about it in the pakistan floods. clean drinking water is critical. chlorinateed drinking water is more important to stop cholera because that stops the nasty thing inside the water that causes cholera. many haitians get their water from public sources. when i was in port-au-prince on friday, # we saw people gathering and filling water containers from public pipes, and we tested that water on the spot. good news, it was chlorinated. we've got to ensure there's plenty of chlorine coming into the country over the next couple months so they don't run out, and we will do that. for the rural areas who don't have access to the government's
water, we are providing millions of aqua tabs the families can use to clean the water themselves. second, rehydration therapy. cholera kills severe diarrhea and dedehydration which is what kills. u.s. aid is proud of the fact that about 50 years ago, we developed this therapy in south asia, and all of us in the foreign service know it very well from our service overseas. we all keep a couple of ors in our desk at work. it's e easy to make and administer. you don't need to go to a hospital or clinic to use ors, so it's critical our to prevention effort in haiti, and we, the u.s. government alone
among many donors, will be sending 2 million ors to haiti over the next month and a third of it is distributed through the network throughout the country and the rest through the united nations. there are 400 points in the country now where people can go to get ors, and weem be -- we'll be adding more because we want it available in all parts of the country even where the disease has not yet shown up. education and messaging, the third part of our new strategy. cholera as you'll hear as you heard from tom, is new to haiti, at least this generation, and we have to renew our effort to make sure the haitians can take care themselfings and prevent the spread in other cases. the message is simple. drink clean water. well, we're giving them chlorine and aqua tabs to do that.
wash your hands with clean water and soap. we're distributing as many hygiene kits as fast as we can. we have enough kits in the country here for about 80,000 people for two weeks. use ors. if you or someone in your family develops diarrhea, and when we give it to people, we show them how to make it in case they can't read the directions. we have a network of ngo partners and community health workers in 4,000 different locations where we can be spreading this message as well as through text messaging and the local media, and then finally, we know the fourth part of our approach, we know there will be some severe cases still developing. the prevention efforts won't entirely succeed, and people node to have a place to go if they develop diarrhea, and it's not going away.
we will be adding additional money to expand the facilities that are availability either in cholera treatment units or cholera treatment centers in places where the disease is showing up so that if the diarrhea presents and people need additional help, and that additional help is generally just an iv drip and a monitor on your vital signs, but you need to get there quickly once the die diarrhea develops, and these facilities have to be available to people without a long journey. we'll working with ngo partners particularly in the camps to make sure people have a place to get to quickly and with the government to expand the beds that they got for people outside the camp rs so if the diarrhea shows up, people can get to the treatment facility as quickly as possible. finally, you know, we're not
doing this alone. there are a number of other countries around the world really stepping up in helping out with the cholera effort. brazil, european union, spain, and japan to name a few. this campaign is going to cost more money and the number is going to go up every day, you we have to act now to keep those numbers as low as possible, so i don't think money is going to slow us down. thanks very much. >> good afternoon. as said, cholera is a preventable and treatable disease. sometimes the conditions get more severe based on the conditions onts ground. there's lack of access to safe drinking water, contaminated food and large numbers of refugees or internally displaced
people. the earthquake on january 12 of this year worsened those conditions by damaging drinking water facilities, pipe systems, and displaced over 2.3 million haitians further increasing the risk of cholera and other water born diseases. what the earthquake also did was heighten surveillance. the laboratory capacity by the administration of health and lab in conjunction with partners including the u.s. government and disease control center had a heightened alert of cholera. when the first suspect cases were announced on october 19th, those were reported to the ministry of health, and within four days, the national public health laboratory confirmed the diagnosis of cholera. it's a rigorous effort to restore surveillance and lab compart that allowed for the effort that we're working on now
to commence. it was declared a public health emergency, and the public worked closely again with international and nongovernmental and governmental organizations to raise awareness of cholera and treatment in prevention measure. cdc also has a long history of working on cholera outbreaks in asia, africa, and latin america. there's really five areas we want to focus on and continue to focus on while in haiti. one, we want to focus on parents who make it to the hospital, to reduce the rate. in order to do that, we are working with clinicians to educate them through a training the trainer program. clinicians in haiti as mentioned are not used to seeing patients with coal rare. it's not reported to have been there in this generation and likely not in past generations as well. past training on diagnosing a patient with cholera is not present. we have a training system which
will reach both the departmental hospitals and its way to the community as well to community health workers. two, work with patients in the community who are sick who require by providing health education and advising them as mark mentioned on the proper use of oral hydration and providing patients once they have acute diarrhea to seek health care. three, prevention. again, as was mentioned, via improvement in safe drinking water and improved hygiene and food preparation practices. four, working on surveillance, both laboratory and monitoring the spread of disease to prevent timely details of infections, death, and mortality rate. this can be used to support the areas where it's most needed. five, continue to work on the science to adjust interventions
as necessary. each outbreak, the vehicle of transmission, the knowledge and attitude and practices of the local population may be different. in haiti where cholera wasn't present again, the knowledge of cholera, the way it's transmitted and use oral rehydration solves may not be permitted in other parts of the country where the disease is pandemic. working on these five aspects we feel we can support haiti and reduce the burden of disease. thank you. >> open it up to questions if you want. >> yeah, this question is for any of you. if after the earthquake you knew this was likely to be a problem, how did this spread so quickly and so -- how did did get so bad so fast, and if it was inevitable, and knowing what you know that the
haiti hasn't had a case of cola in however long it is, why weren't people being trained in recognizing this earlier? a four-day diagnosis confirmation seems to be a bit long to me, and i'm not suggesting that this is the surveillance to blame here, the u.s. or anyone else, but it seems if the international community was aware that this was going to be a problem, steps could have been taken to at least contain this before it got out of hand. >> i hope i didn't say it was inevitable. we didn't wish this on anybody or hoped haiti would dodge this bullet, but they haven't dodged many bullets as you know. we knew they were susceptible to water born diseases, not necessarily cholera. it might be another disease, but we had prepared supplies for that and set up a surveillance
system. frankly, i think people felt if it broke out it would be in crowded port-au-prince. you know, the disease fooled us. i think the point there is that there were preparations made that allowed us to get an early start on tackling this problem. that said, it is a serious, major problem, and it's going to present challenges as we go forward. >> i want to add. in the early 90s when there was a latin america outbreak of cholera and a naive population and cases spread through the continent. surveillance was heightened both there and in the caribbean, since then, we have never seen a case there despite heightened
awareness. you need the presence of the organism and a breech in the hygiene structure. previously, we had no reason to think the organism was there. >> what was the breach then? >> as was mentioned, there's a couple aspects. one, after the earthquake with the displacing over 2.3 million people, it created a population that was internally displaced which is a known risk factor for cholera. >> you mean cholera can just appear magically? it doesn't have to be introduced by anything? >> no, i'm not saying that. the displaced people cricketed to the spread that -- contributed to the spread we see now. >> you said, all along haiti is in one disaster after another, and this hasn't happened before, so, i mean, there's been populations moved around haiti and living in unsanitary
conditions for hundred years. >> that's correct. >> something had to introduce the -- >> that's absolutely correct. two things. one, we don't know how the surveillance system prior to earthquake would have even detected it at this point. the surveillance is heightened now post earthquake. i'll address your question now. specifically, how the organism was introduced, we don't know. it's very difficult through the spread of diseases where the strain of this organism came from, how it got there, what the origin was. we'll never know that answer. >> okay, but then -- i'll stop with this. if -- i'll let someone else go. >> let me just say, tell you something i saw on friday to dispel the notion that we were not taking steps to prevent the spread of some kind of an
infeshes disease by water. i visited a large camp in port-au-prince on friday, 26,000 residents, and they set up a cholera treatment center, very impressive. all the steps you go through. i walked through it. i walked through so many puddles of chlorine, i think my shoes are going to dissolve. they followed the protocols, they were ready. they had not had one patient yet because in that camp, there were the ingredients to avoid cholera, clean drinking water, clean la treens, and families being taught every day how to keep their children and families clean. >> the senate has just gaveled in, we'll leave this program and take you there live. this is c-span2. and that is after the paygo statement has been read in the record. the motion to reconsider be laid
on the table, that the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will read the paygo statement. the clerk: the senator from north dakota, mr. conrad, this statement of budgetary effects of paygo legislation for h.r. 4783 as amended. total budgetary effects of h.r. 4783 for the five-year statutory paygo scorecard, net increase in the deficit of $1.453 billion. total budgetary effects of h.r. 4783 for the ten-year statuary -- statutory paygo scorecard, net decrease in the deficit of $1 billion. also submitted for the record as part of this statement is a table prepared by the congressional budget office which provides additional information on the budgetary effects of this act.
the presiding officer: the statement having been read, the various requests with respect to this bill are agreed to. mr. reid: the bill is passed? the presiding officer: the bill is passed. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that any statements relate to go this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i want to say that i appreciate everyone's cooperation. this has been a long, hard slog to get to where we are. i appreciate senator kyl, senator menendez, and many others who have worked on this matter tirelessly for many years. so i'm grateful it's accomplished. it's one of the really noted things we have been able to do this congress. it's good for all people concerned. i also want to spread across the record, senator conrad announced today he has a choice of -- because of his tenure of service to take a number of different
committees. he has decided to stay as chairman of the budget committee. i talked to him this morning and i said i'm elated. he is really a wizard with numbers. he was -- as a young man academically extremely talented and as a person who is experienced here on the senate, no one knows numbers better than he does. we're very fortunate as a country that kent conrad is going to remain as chairman of the budget committee. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent the majority leader be authorized to sign any bills or joint resolutions for the remainder of today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the baucus amendment number 4713 be modified with the changes at the desk and that the november 18 order be modified to make in order to consider the baucus amendment to suspend with respect to baucus amendment 4713 as modified. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask the chair now to lay before the senate the house message to accompany h.r. 5566.
the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message. the clerk: resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 5566, in title and act to amend title 18 united states code, to prohibit interstate commerce and animal crush videos, and for other purposes, with the house amendment to senate amendment. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent that the senate concur in the house amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent now that the chair lay before the senate a house message with respect to three -- s. 3689. the presiding officer: the -- the chair lays before the senate the following statement. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate, s. 3689, entitled an act to clarify,
improve and correct the laws relating to copyrights do pass with amendments. mr. reid: i move to concur in the house amendments. i further ask the motion be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relate to go this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that we now proceed to calendar number 650, s. 3650. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 650, s. 3650, a bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5 united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. reid: thanks, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the wyden amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no interaction or debate and any statements relate to go this measure be placed in the record as if read.
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6198. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6198, an act to amend title 11 of the united states code to make technical corrections, and for related purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the hatch amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask, mr. president, also permission that any statements relate to go this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to h. con. res. 327. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 327, a concurrent resolution recognizing and supporting the
efforts of the us-aid bid committee to bring the 2022 fifa world cup competition to the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to that item? without objection, the majority leader may proceed. mr. reid: i ask consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relate to go this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that we now discharge the judiciary committee from further consideration of s. res. 611 and we proceed to its consideration now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 611 congratulating the cumberland valley athletic club, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to this item? without objection, the majority leader may proceed. mr. reid: i further ask that we agree to the resolution, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relate to go this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without without objection. mr. reid: i ask we proceed to discharging the judiciary committee from further consideration of s. res. 631 and consider that here in the senate now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 6 631, designating the week beginning on november 8, 2010, as national school psychology week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to this item? without objection, the majority leader may proceed. mr. reid: i ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 689. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 689, recognizing national
american indian and alaska native heritage month and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to this item? without objection, the majority leader may proceed. mr. reid: i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the prepreamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn under the provisions of h. con. res. 332 until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 29. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the journal of proceedings -- i did that last night. two times. doesn't matter. we say it twice. what difference does it make? the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 4: p.m. with
senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each during that time. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the f.d.a. food safety modernization act, as provided under a previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next vote will occur at 6:30 p.m. on monday, november 29. under the agreement we reached last night, at 6:30 p.m., the senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. senators should expect additional votes on the four motions to suspend the rules and passage of the bill to occur monday night. therefore, senators should expect up to six roll call votes monday evening. mr. president, if there's nothing further to come before the senate, i, first of all, appreciate your courtesy in waiting here this afternoon until we got this most important piece of legislation completed. i appreciate your patience, as usual. i ask that now we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to the provisions of h. con. res. 332, the senate stands adjourned
florida. earlier this week, secretary of state, hillary clinton, announced the release of the international freedom religious report. secretary clinton is joined by my coal -- michael peosner. this is about an hour -- 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. it's my pleasure to join you today for the release of the state department's annual report on international religious freedom. every year, the state department prepares a comprehensive review of the status of religious freedom in countries and territories around the world. we do this because we believe that religious freedom is both a fundamental human right, and an
essential element to a thriving society. this is not only the american view, but the view of nations and people around the world. it is enshrined in the declaration of human rights. it is protected by the international covenant on civil and political rights, and it is garn tied -- guaranteed by the laws and constitutions of many nations incoming our own where religious freedom is the first listed in our bill of rights. because we believe in religious freedom and committed to the right of all people everywhere to live according to their belief without government interference and with government protection, we are troubled by what we see happening in many, many places. welicious freedom -- religious freedom is under threat from regimes that abuse their own citizens. it is under threat from violent
extremist groups that exploit and inflame sectarian tensions. it is under threat from the quiet, but per persistent harm caused by mistrust that can leave minority religious groups marginalized. during the past year, al-qaeda issued calls for further violence against religious minorities in the middle east. sufi, shia, and holy sites in pakistan have been attacked and so was a sere yak catholic church in baghdad just a few weeks ago. we received reports from china of government harassment of buddists and house church christians and muslims.
several have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression. these infringements on religious freedom stain the bonds that sustain democratic societies. with this report, we hope to give governments, ngo's, and citizens around the world valble information about the status of religious freedom, and a call to action for all of us to work together more effectively to protect it. our office of international, religious freedom and our embassies and consoles have worked around the globe to assist in these reports. they have been ngo, news outlets, religious groups, and other governments. i want to thank everyone who offered analysis and in particular the people who shared
their stories with us sometimes at great personal risk. one country not included in this report is the united states, and that is because the department of justice monitors threats to religious freedom in the united states, and issues reports throughout the year. as some of you know, i said upon becoming secretary of state, if we were going to issue reports on other countries, we would start issuing reports on ourself, and we are keeping true to that position, and these reports on the united states are publicly available for review by everyone. you know, obviously, we, like every country, must be vigilant in preacing the rights of -- protecting the rights of religious minorities and people of faith or no faith can be free. with this report, we do not intend to act as a judge of other countries or hold
ourselves up as a perfect example, but united states cares about religious freedom. we have worked hard to enforce religious freedom, we want to see religious freedom available universally, and we want to advocate for the brave men and women who around the world persist in practicing their beliefs in the face of hostility and violence. this report reflects a broad understanding of religious freedom, one that begins with private beliefs and communal religious expression, but doesn't end there. religious freedom also includes the right to raise one's children in one's faith, to share one's faith peacefully with others, to publish religious materials without cren soreship, so change -- cren -- or to practice no religion at
all, and it includes the rights of faith communities to come together in social service in the broader society. we have seen the valuable contributions made by religious communities in the global fights against poverty, disease, and injustice. here in our own country, religious, people of faith, have played a key role in many of our most important reform movements from the abolition of slavery to the modern-day campaigns against human trafficking and forced labor. when the work of these communities is constrained or blocked, we all lose out regardless of our particular beliefs. now, some people propose that to protect religious freedom, we must ban speech that is critical or offensive about religion. we do not agree. the defamation of religions resolution adopted by the united
nations human rights counsel again this year and now pending before the general assembly, reflects the other view, and the united states joins in all nations coming together to condemn hateful speech, but we do not support the banning of that speech. indeed, freedom of speech and freedom of religious emanate from the same fundamental belief that communities and individuals are enriched and stengthenned by a diversity of ideas and attempts to stifle them or drive them underground even when it is in the name and with the intention of protecting society have the opposite effect. societies in which freedom of religion and speech are permitted, they are more stable and productive. we have seen this throughout history, and as this report reflects, we see it throughout
the world today. with this report as our guide, united states will continue to advance religious freedom around the world as a core element of diplomacy. president obama's speech in cairo last year showed a significant increase with countries and religious communities around the world. compared to previous years, many of the chapters in this year's report provide greater detail about what the united states government is doing to engage faith-based groups and address the issues that effect them. our embassies will continue to support interface dialogue, and work with religious groups across a full range of issues and continue to speak out against the curtailing of religious liberty wherever and whenever it occurs. i want to welcome michael
posener to answer your questions and elaborate further on this report. michael? >> thank you, madam secretary for your remarks. as secretary clinton had said, religious minors in countries today face restrictions on practicing their faith, to congregate with others to worship freely. too many people are targeted for their religious beliefs and face discrimination, intimidation, and even violent attacks. this year's report tells their stories. it relies on a universal standard in the universal declaration of human rights. these are human rights issues. it provides a baseline for understanding the global status of religious freedom around the world. it details both improvements we've seen over the past years as well as government failings.
let me give a couple of examples. in iran, government respect for religious freedom continues to deteriorate, especially for groups like the bahi. in burma, the government continues its tight control on the activities of buddhist clergy and discriminates against minority religious communities. the release last sunday is a positive step, however, there's more than 2100 political prisoners in burma and monks and other religious figures. in pakistan against the backdrop the continued extremism, the number of severity against religious minorities in connection withed. for example, in may, extremist attacks on two ahmadi groups killed at least 86 people. government respect for religious freedom declined in the last
year and in several areas. government-rated chic -- government raided christian services and face fines or other restrictions. the government continues to harass and detain members of unapproved religious groups, several hundred minority members today are in jail in very harsh conditions, and in china, as the soak tear noted -- secretary noted, we see restrictions on tibet and buddhist community and other restrictions on religious freedom including on christian churches. there's some positive steps. president obama in his trip to indonesia noted that religious tolerance in that country is a
defining and inspiring characteristic. the government has set up a national interfaith counsel. we've participated in earlier this year a a bilateral religious dialogue. in syria and turkey, most have spoken out publicly urging tolerance on jews and christians. in spain, there's prosecutors focusing on hate crimes, and in bray zill, a ngo commission against religious intolerance published a guide to combat racism and religious intolerance and in the earlier this year, government in rio created an office to combat religious intolerance. this morning, dr. suo jay cook appeared before the foreign relations committee, a step on her way to becoming, we hope and are encouraging the ambassador
at large for religious freedom. i hope the confirmation process goes quickly, and she'll be able to pursue us in this important ajen disa. i'm -- agenda. i'm happy to take your questions. >> [inaudible] >> no. the report is a separate exercise from that, but we will be designating countries of particular concern in the next couple months. >> if i could follow-up on that? >> sure. >> vietnam -- well the u.s. commission urged for more than a year now encourage that vietnam be put on that list. i think the list wasn't finalized this year since the last report. i'm wondering why is vietnam being kept out of? >> well, the commission as you know is an indpept body. it has its own designations. this -- we will make a judgment, as i
say, in the next several months of the countries to be designated as countries of particular concern. we discuss vietnam in the report. we have concerns about a range of things. in fact, i'm going to vietnam in december to renew a bilateral human rights dialogue that we did last october, and these issues will be prominent on the agenda. >> does it make any difference? year after year, you bring the reports out, and you see many countries never change, and you keep telling them each year and the united nations and bilateral including china and other places. where do you go from here? do you force them and you -- even sanctions doesn't work, so what's the next step? >> well, as i said in my opening comments, these reports are a baseline, a factual baseline,
that gives us information we need to then make policy. it is -- the reports by themselves will never solve the problem. the reports, though, provide information both for our dip diplomats and other governments and united nations and others to raise these issues. we do raise these issues. i raise them in all of my travels and other senior u.s. officials do, and it's the combination of diplomatic pressure, public attention, and what happens within society that makes a difference. one thing that's very striking to me about all of these reports is the extent to which those activists, religious leaders in this case appreciate the pact that their situation is being publicly identified, so there's a recognition on the part of those most affected that these issues and reports give them
strercht, give -- strength, give them a sense of solidarity and support. >> make a list of the muslim countries of concern. how do you answer this question because women are suffering and they have to be and have no freedom and maybe muslim countries just producing children and nothing else. >> we raised this issues everywhere, and including in the countries you describe. as you know, for the secretary, for me, for this administration, the treatment of women and girls is an extremely porpt human right -- important human rights issue, and we raise it constantly and we need to identify their support for inclusion and every aspect of society. >> it's been pointed out a lot of countries are sort of familiar and come up again and
again, but the secretary mentioned you take note of european countries putting harsh restrictions on religion. can you go into more detail? are you concerned about things like the burka bans and vote and so on. is western europe in particular a area of concern where it wasn't when it comes to religious freedom in >> i can't speak about before, but i'm discussing these issues constantly with our european allies. let's take the vote in switzerland. the government didn't support that initiative. it was a public initiative, 50-some percent or 59% voted to ban, and i talked to their representatives repeatedly is now doing what it can to jefer turn that and -- overturn that and create a public process that will basically restore the ability as
a muslim community. same thing with the burka ban. we raised that issue, and our own position and president obama spoke about this in the cairo speech. we have gone to court in the united states to enforce the right of muslim women and girls to wear in the streets and schools ect.. that's our position, a position we articulate when talking to our european friends. >> is it your view widely that religious intolerance is a growing problem in europe? >> there is certainly a growing sensitivity in europe, and i think what we are urging, again, are european friends are to take every measure to tree to e leaveuate that tension. these are often in europe and elsewhere, these are tensions between communities, and it's for the government to be as proactive as it can in each situation to reduce the level of
tension. >> thank you, sir. since 2003, the christian communities in iraq have been target of a great deal of violence, towns where they are blown to bits. how do you deal with that panic? how do you deal with people who want to immigrate as a result of this fear? >> we are and have expressed great concern about the situation of the christian community in iraq, the bombing last month of the our lady of salvation catholic church where more than 50 people were killed as an example of the violence that you describe. we've condemned that violence in the strongest terms. we have repeatedly spoken to
government leaders in iraq, and president maliki has called for increase the security and rebuilding of that church, but we are continuing to be vigilant, and this is an ongoing problem and challenge for all the people. >> how about the community? you know, i know that the whole town was blown up, and they are still waiting for some sort of aide from the unl -- u.n. or elsewhere, and that was in 2007. is there anything you can direct to the community? >> i don't have anything to add on that community in particular. i think we're looking at the whole picture. as iraq creates its government, we're hoping there can be a restoration of a better relationship and a more stable situation. a huge number of christian population have left the
country, and so we are very mindful of the continuing tensions, and obviously one aspect of that is to restore people's lost homes and whose lives have been disturbed. >> has anybody from the administration reached out to france, especially the french president, about head gear bans for muslims? >> i can't speak to the question whether anybody has spoke to the president. i can say i've talked to my counterparts in the french government repeatedly about this. we have a different view, but i think our view is that for all of our allies, we're encouraging a government action to reduce, alleviate tensions, and to allow people to express their religious faith including by the wearing of the burka.
>> you mentioned that you are concerned about the increased violence and condition against public and in egypt. you have painted several times about this decision and worrying about their situation, but the egyptian government has ignored your statement about religious freedom, about freedom of human rights. who do you have to encourage the egyptian government in taking in considerations upcoming parliament and election and increase of the violence and to have witnessed two days ago another violent accident? thank you. >> i, i've been to egypt twice in the last year, most recently last month in october. i've raised these issues with
senior government officials. i was in egypt first in january several weeks after the killings. we urged, and the government did initiate an up vest gages, and there's -- investigation, there's now three people on trial. that's a step in the right direction. i had a number of conversations with religious leaders both christian and muslim last month that the level of violence may not be increasing, but there's a great tension, a great sectarian tension is actually increasing. we'll continue to raise it. i raised it publicly there and i'll continue to raise it. these are concerns of ours, and they are certainly concerns to many, many people in egypt. >> you don't expect any u.s. aide to egypt or anything you may use regarding to the ignorance of the egyptian government on these issues