>> hey, guys. good afternoon. it's been a while. let me go over a few items and that we'll get right to your questions. first of all, our thoughts and prayers are with the fort hood community as they prepared to mark the one-year anniversary of the tragic shooting that killed teen and wounded 32. tomorrow, secretary mchugh and general casey driver to choline to participate in the ceremony, remembering those lost in honoring those civilians who honored the wounded.

you may recall the 1908 and the 467th medical detachments were in the process of deploying to iraq and afghanistan, respectively, when they and others came under attack at home. i'm happy to report those units have returned home from tours overseas. meanwhile the prosecution said the accused shooter is moving to prepare a hearing. the entire fort hood family has shown truly exemplary strength and resilience as they work to recover. and we will continue to support them in every way we can. not to secretary gates' upcoming travel schedule. late tomorrow night he departs from melbourne where he will join the 25th annual australian attitudes ministerial consultations come or as we refer to it ausmin. this is the fourth international trip together and they will be joined by this time by chairman mullen. you may recall this meeting was originally scheduled for last

january, but was postponed due to the catastrophic earthquake in haiti and the need for both secretaries to remain in washington to help manage the u.s. assistance effort. i should note that haiti is currently bracing for another natural disaster, tropical storm tomas and we are again positioned to respond quickly. several days ago, southpaw directed the uss iwo jima to steam toward cd carrying a crew of 1600 military and civilians medical, engineering, aviation, logistical and other support personnel to help are needed. back to ausmin now. a bond between two democracies was shared culture or interest and values. will also considering the path forward together in particular, discussions will address or joint effort in afghanistan, where australia is the largest non-nato troop contributor with over 1500 troops serving largely

in uruzgan. our work together across southeast asia both confront the region's humanitarian common developmental and also provide assistance to partners on issues ranging from disaster relief to maritime security. finally, the vital role our military partnership continues to play an overall security environment. from melbourne, the secretary travels on to malaysia next tuesday. they'll meet with prime minister najib as well as defense minister zahid who visited the pentagon earlier this year. all discuss or strengthening bilateral military ties over the past six years we've held an increasing number of joint exercises of malaysia has been an important contributor to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions globally as well as a discussion on security issues in the region and other areas for potential cooperation. this is the best in no follows closely clinton was in kuala

lumpur this week and is yet another signal ever deepening relationship of malaysia. secretary gates joins secretary clinton and present a bomb in urging the senate to approve the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty before the adjournment of the current congress. he and many other former defense secretaries and national security officials from both parties have frequently voiced their strong belief that this treaty is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal. our knowledge of russian nuclear capabilities and u.s. national security overall. with that, out of the way, let's get to questions. anne. >> well, following what you said about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, is that the secretaries calculation then, that the treaty is more likely to be able to be passed if it's done in the lame duck? what chances do you get it with the change of political calculus

if that holds over into the new congress? and separately, also related to the republican gains, what do you think will become of the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? is there any chance it would be passed into the lame duck and what happens if it doesn't? >> let's start with the first if i may. you may need to remind me of but on the first, i don't believe that either the president or the secretary's aren't fanciness during the lame-duck session because of some political calculus that it may stand a better chance of passage during that time. i think were advancing it at this time and pushing for ratification because we need this and we need it sooner than later. why wait until next year, next

spring perhaps, for something that has -- we've been almost a year now without the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and its verification provisions. so we think this is what's necessary. it was necessary weeks, if not months ago. we hope the congress will -- the senate will address this as quickly as possible when they reconvene after this recess for the elections. there's no sense in putting off what we need now towards the next congress. but i don't believe our urging of the scum of the action to be taken is because we think the state fairs in a better chance in this congress and the next congress. were advancing now because we think it is the right thing to do and what is needed by your country at this time. >> and "don't ask, don't tell" on the same calculation? >> again, what congress decides to do legislatively with regards

to "don't ask, don't tell" or any other issue for that matter is largely their business. they take up things in the order to state that they see fit. obviously you saw the president yesterday addressed the "don't ask, don't tell" and his postelection press conference. you also saw today during this cabinet meeting him specifically outline his desire for new start to be go with. so i don't know what the congress will do with regard to that. all i can tell you is sort of opera in the process doing is they think think you all know, the secretaries report is due on his desk by december the first. the working group as i understand it is very much on track to meet that deadline. so i think in 26 days time, the secretary will have the work product that he thinks is so necessary for us to be able to fully understand the full implications of the repeal of

"don't ask, don't tell" and then what additional measures we need to take in preparation for that eventuality. you know from his discussion of this dating back to last february, that he believes it's better to be smart than stupid and this report is very important to us doing this smartly. so our focus right now is getting the report finished, giving it to the secretary, having him review it, carefully consider it and then take measures for mayor. >> can i follow-up on that? >> sure. >> so right now the department is urging congressional action on s.t.a.r.t. treaty, but not urging congressional action on "don't ask, don't tell"? that's kind of what it boils down to? >> no, we are currently urging congressional action act when the president on start. i think you saw the president speak to "don't ask, don't tell" as a priority for him yesterday.

we have been very, very clear on this. again, j-juliett, dating back to us that there were the secretary of the chairman for his voice support which is therefore repeal. they want to study to take place in advance about repeal to educate us with how to deal to this change. we have not yet completed that study although we are very close. let's let that finish. let's let the secretary did it inconsiderate and then will chart a course for mayor. >> the stipulation could change for the second half of the lame-duck section, especially the december session because at that point the review will be done so depending on the outcome of that review, this department might have more to say to congress? >> i'm not prepared at this time, julian, to tell you what action we prepare to take on receipt of the report. ila can tell you right now is the report, the working group is

coming to a conclusion with its report. they expect to make the december 1st deadline, which was a very ambitious one. the secretary put in place last february for consideration of the full ramifications of repeal across every aspect of how we do business in this department. so once the secretary get that i'm sure it will be a priority item for him to review and consider and then provide leadership for this department on how to move out based upon what the report tells us. but i don't have any news beyond not. anything else on this? yeah, go ahead. >> a secretary gave point to urge the senate to pass defense authorization measure or is it not going to engage -- >> i mean, clearly we would like the defense appropriations bill and the defense authorization bill to be passed as soon as possible. we're operating on continuing resolution though i think expire early next month.

we of course always prefer roxana to have these things done in regular order, for us to have had an appropriations bill, and not the reflation bill by this point. we're now operating on an extended cr, but that has a life to it. and we'd much prefer to get an appropriations bill, and authorization bill passed, rather than have to extend the cr again and potentially do with appropriations and authorization come next year with the new congress. so yes, there are many things would like the congress to be dealing with. but you know, clearly funniness departments, authorizing this department activities are our priorities as well. >> basque repeal side to because it's in the senate bill. >> pattern a whole ultimately the congress will consider these bills. that's for them to figure out. we don't opine on such things. we clearly want to appropriations.

how they construct those i'm not going to tell them how to do their business. >> just a quick one, there's no reason you should have the answer of the top of your head, but at any service member's been separated from service since the change in the procedures for implementing "don't ask, don't tell" were announced? >> the most recent changes which is elevating this to ultimate approval by the service secretaries and coordination with the general counsel of the undersecretary of defense -- not to my knowledge. >> but you don't know for sure? is there anyway to check on that issue? >> sure. not to my knowledge. we will check. i think it's highly unlikely. that's something that would've come across my desk at some point. okay? yeah. >> how concerned is the secretary that the july 2011 deadline for troops to begin withdrawing from afghanistan is pushing president karzai into the arms of iran?

>> i don't get the sense that we believe president karzai is as you describe it being pushed into the arms of iran. >> 's aides said he received his bags of cash from iran. >> yeah. i mean, is the most press reports. as i told some of your colleagues at all surprise me. i think i ran for long team -- we discussed it from the podium vis-à-vis iraq and afghanistan have been playing both sides of the fence. on one hand, trying to curry favor as these payments would indicate with the afghan government will on the other hand supporting antigovernment forces, training, equipping, funding, directing them in their operations in afghanistan -- not nearly to the degree we saw in iraq, that troubles some done the rest.

the fact that iran may be attempting to do this i don't think it's particularly surprising. but that said, listen, we are dealing with a sovereign country here in afghanistan who lives in a very, very difficult neighborhood. it has long, historic cultural trades, ethnic ties to iran, particularly in cr last and they have to have a positive working relationship for there to ultimately be stability throughout that region. so the fact that iran or afghanistan wishes to have a better working relationship, i don't know that we see as particularly problematic provided iran wants to play constructive roles in bringing peace and stability to afghanistan in the region. if their desires are not ours in that respect, that is

troublesome. but they have to be -- they live in this neighborhood. they have to have relations with their neighbors. we hope those relations are constructive ones. but you know, president karzai can have productive relations with us and also presumably with his neighbors as well without it undermining necessarily our efforts in afghanistan. >> are you hearing increasing complaints from president karzai or his office about the july 2011 deadline? >> no, not at all. i think they understand what the deadline -- you call it a deadline. what this state is all about. they understand that there is a twofold purpose here. one was, as you know from the strategy was to show a real sense of commitment to the effort in afghanistan by inserting another 30,000 u.s. forces, another 10,000 coalition forces.

at the other hand, there was also an effort that should make clear to the afghans they were not going to be able to do this forever. so they need to step up to the plate and assume more and more responsibility, particularly on the security side. i think that messages come through loud and clear. you've seen this dramatic development in the afghan national security forces over the past year. they've grown by 100,000. our operations now in kandahar and operation hamkari, you now have 60% of our forces down there are afghan forces. compare that to our operations in marja earlier this year where i think the ratio was five u.s. troops to everyone afghan. so their capabilities, their effect defense, their size have improved dramatically over the past year and it's really becoming a difference maker on the ground. it's one of the reasons that general petraeus credit their

success in kandahar in its environment since hamkari began in earnest in late august, early september when the full surge force was in place. >> can i follow to jim's question? >> yeah. >> with the new congress coming into office in january, many who have been a vocally opposed to this july 2011 day, if they are able to exert pressure to push the idea, with the pentagon be open or receptive to a loosening of that date? >> first of all, this is a presidential policy. so fundamentally that the questions put to the president and the white house. but i think the misperception of what july 2011 is and what it isn't. this is not a date by which we all the sudden decide you fellows, were out of here. and our forces leave the country.

this is a date by which conditions based we make determinations about where we can begin to thin out for service and we can begin to transition increasing security responsibility to the afghans. as general petraeus and others have described it many times lately, this is not about us withdrawing from any particular region. it is about us getting out, given the afghans increasing responsibility for the security situation they are and then taking the dividends from thinning out and sending some of it home for the president's direct hit, while also reinvesting others elsewhere in the country where they were also still needed. so i just -- i don't understand why people are confused about what this is and what it isn't. this is not by any means us departing afghanistan come next july. >> well, i guess it's the nato commander in rc south told us

from afghanistan that they're not going to have an idea of how much progress has been made until june. you know, that things are very seasonally based. you can't judge an area in november, you know, you have to judge it in june after the harvest. so i'm just wondering if one of the most important volatile areas in the country, are not going to have a good read till june. but the decision has to be made 30 days later. >> chris, what i would say to that is let's just -- i think it's pretty obvious that the areas of afghanistan from which you are most likely to be able to thin out forces are probably not kandahar and helmand. i mean, i would remind you that 60% of all the violence in afghanistan is centered in helmand, kandahar and kumar provinces. so there's 34 provinces account for 60% of the violence.

so 10% of all the provinces is where the taliban and has focus their effort. i would remind you, kunar is a distant third because there's only one district in a kunar that troubles on. so kandahar and helmand are the most troublesome of the ones we dealing with. those ones in likelihood where you see the least amount of spinning. i don't own that is a fact get because these determinations have been made. the a month in advance that make sense because the security situation they are is most tenuous at this point and would likely be looking for a thinning out in other parts of the country that are more secure at this time, probably more various than the north, more areas in the west perhaps a necessary in the south. although, july is a long way out and we are by no means going to sit on our hands this winter. i don't know what the taliban will do and what is historically been a downtime for them, a time for them to sort of retreat and

try to reinvigorate, beyond themselves. we are not in any way going to take the foot off the pedal this winter. we will take the fight and continue the operation followed through on. we'll see what the enemy does during this period of time. there's a lot of fighting not to be done before these kinds of determinations are made next spring. as the dynamics on the ground can still change considerably before these decisions have to be rendered. >> thank you. because of the security in afghanistan is concerned, i'm sure secretary gates has ardea vice president of -- >> getting back to your point, chris. i mean, the one thing you should keep in mind now and i think there is -- and they see this in some of the stories that get written from down wage, where you see this bit of schizophrenia sometimes in the coverage in the same area can be covered very differently by different reporters.

haven't you seen some people clearly note the tactical operational progress is being made by our troops in kandahar and helmand as well but there are others that was sort of say well, governance is still lacking. people don't feel secure enough to take the job opportunities that are being presented to them. so the civilian side of this is still not what it should be. what i would say to that as a couple things. first of others historically always been a lag between sort of our security progress in our governance progress. i mean, by some accounts there can be a six month lag between those things. but i think it only is logical and stands to reason that you need to establish a certain security climate before you can have, you know, the government's capabilities that we would all like the afghans to have at this point.

and we really began, as i mentioned earlier, operation hamkari in kandahar and its surrounding areas in september. so although we've been -- we've noted the extraordinary progress over the last couple months, i don't think anybody has the expectation that we would be seeing, you know, a germanic change in the governance situation down there in that span of time, although i would think you can go to any objective observer can say that governor weaves a and some of the people below him are performing very admirably on a difficult situation there. sorry. >> what i was saying that as far as the security situation in afghanistan is concerned and india's role in afghanistan and now president is going to india tomorrow and i'm sure the secretary must have consulted or advised him about u.s.-india military to military relations and also india's role in

afghanistan will be discussed during -- during his meeting with prime minister of india. my question is what do you think is india's role now in the future since we'll have a new congress and now the president will be discussing these issues in india? >> listen, i think it's the best people to talk to about the president's group and what we hope to come out of it. i think it's inappropriate for me to wait on that now. i don't have anything new or different to rats would refer you to the white house. >> it's not the presidents trip. what i'm saying is the secretary's role toward prime minister -- president of during his trip to india is to discuss this indian officials. >> yeah, in the sector is advice is between the secretary to president but thanks for the

try. >> india state media's going to bring an enormous abound of security with india in his visit this week. to include 34 warships that would mean that to them by area, whether or not these reports are true has certainly stirred up a lot of interest. i'm wondering if you could comment on a 34 warships. >> i think there's been a lot of creating writing that's been done on the strip over the last two days. i've seen other reports for some astronomical figures in terms of what it cost to take these trips. i don't know the cost. we don't speak to the cost. we obviously have some support role for presidential travel. we don't speak to that in detail for security reasons. but it will take the liberty this time of dismissing it's absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10% of the navy, some 34 ships and aircraft carrier in support of the presidents trip to asia. such as comical. nothing close to that is being

done. but the notion that the president would require security as he travels to india and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone. you know, this is the country that sadly stood eight devastating terrorist attack a couple years ago. so it stands to reason that would want to take caution for presidential travel. that is really an issue should most directly attract again to my friends at the white house. does that answer your question? >> it does. i'm a sunny, you know, special security requests come this time around with this trip, we'd be interested to know. >> would not speak to you about special security requests. we wouldn't speetwo but in a security requests. all will say is this department is playable in support of presidential missions, but we don't care for security reasons to discuss particulars of that. i made an exception in batting

down this absurd notion of there being 34 ships or more than 10% of the navy deployed in support of the strip. it is most certainly not the case. i'll pass them. >> i just got handed a note here, back to your question, david. there've been no discharges under the new policy that the secretary instituted about a week ago. >> back on the election, what sorts of concerns are there by secretary or other officials of new challenges or new changes to defense policies by the new congress, particularly the war in afghanistan, but also the planned iraq withdrawal, the possibility for military action against iran and whatever other issues are being discussed. >> well, i've got variations on this theme over the past couple of days. you know, the election is going to hasten the secretary's

departure? is the election going to make his job even more challenging? to the first question, no. his calculus i went to finally leave this job is based upon personal considerations and not politics. in his notion of when he would like to leave was formulated long before these political winds began to blow. with regards to the second question about how does the election outcome -- changed all or make our lives more challenging -- i dismissed by one as well. i mean, there is thankfully a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation on national security issues. we expect that to remain the same under this new congress as it was under the last congress.

so i just don't buy into that. our core relationship fundamentally does not change. now, what different congressional committees under different leaders have different priorities and focuses? perhaps. i think we enjoy a strong working relationship, this department does, certainly the secretary in particular with members on both sides of the aisle, with not just the chairman of these committees, but also the ranking members of these committees. so these changes we don't anticipate making much of a -- make in a very dramatic difference in how we deal with the congress. the bible's also note as an historical reference that shall be called secretary came into office on december 810 of 2006. this was a month -- six weeks after the last flipping of the congress in november 2006.

so he dealt with the kind of change were about to see in these committees when he first took office nearly four years ago. it was fundamentally not new to us. we don't expect it to be dramatically different. we still expect to have strong working relationships across both sides of the aisle. and we fully expect the strong, bipartisan cooperation on national security issues that we've enjoyed over the years will continue under this new congress. kevin baron. >> i wanted to go back to the civilian like at times of security in afghanistan. the secretary has said that there's been a problem before it can be spaced for more development aid and diplomacy as a way to help alleviate the burden on the troops and get the troops home summer. i'm wondering how much that is continuing in afghanistan -- >> i think you're talking about two different things. i'm speaking about afghan

capacity, particularly out in the most difficult security climates. and i think you're addressing the notion of civilian support from the usg. [inaudible] >> -- specifically to build the afghan capacity. the secretary gates please with the balance? or is there -- is their way to worry about the lag -- >> no, listen. we've seen basically a trumpet in civilian support to afghanistan. they think you now have upwards of almost 1100 civilian personnel in afghanistan and not just in kabul, although the preponderance i think may still be in kabul. but in the deployed around the country as well, yeah i think the preponderance is still in

kabul. but hundreds deployed around the country as well. so there is obviously a core group is there to try and support the central government, building up its capacity, but also, you know, hundreds out in the field trying to work with her eventual and district governments as well to try to enhance their capabilities. so i think he's very pleased that the support that our military is getting on the civilian side and the numbers clearly are out of whack if you look at them just on face value you see a thousand persons almost 100,000. i think you talk to anyone any one of our guys who were deployed in afghanistan and they will tell you these civilians, particularly deployed those in the field are huge force multipliers, that they have the effects, because it's not just them.

these ngos come afghan civilians, there's others. they have the effect of sort of one civilian by some estimates, has the impact of 10. so i think the numbers are heartening. the trend lines are encouraging. is there still more to be done? clearly so, but i think people here are very much pleased with how the civilian side of this campaign has progressed. yes, luis. >> i was observing reports earlier this week that the f-35 joint strike fighter and particularly there's going to be more cost overruns, more schedule delays, the secretary gates was briefed on this this week. can you confirm that? and can you speak to these reports? >> well, what i would say, luis, is the department regret that someone chose to provide unauthorized and incomplete information to the press on the sunday program.

admiral venlet who is the new program manager has been doing a soup to nuts review of the sunday program. it is the most thorough, the most expensive, the deepest dive yet we have done into the f-35 program. but that assessment is not yet complete. therefore, what has been linked to the press is premature, and i would suggest you in some respects it's inaccurate. so it's not appropriate for us at this juncture to publicly discuss something that's not complete and that ultimately has not been decided on by the department leadership. because once venlet's assessment has been complete, it will be provided to leadership. it will then shape and inform our programmatic options and remedies that are under consideration. and then the secretary will make

a decision about a path forward and will provide that information to congress into you while at the appropriate time. but we're not there yet. >> what do you mean by -- the secretary will make a determination? >> it's important to look back, luis, and clearly this program has had its challenges over the years. we've been dealing with this for quite some time now. and just when you think you have some appreciation for what the situation is, we have learned later that there were other complications. not all that is unexpected given this huge program and given how sophisticated these aircraft are, but clearly we have been disappointed by some of these developments, but many of these developments. remember back in february, the secretary fundamentally restructure the program, based upon this -- this very stark

assessment that the joint estimating team provided him. so in addition to sort of restructuring number of aircraft, the test phase and all these things, that he also with how they think $600 million in payments to transport any fire fire the program manager to put it bluntly. he was not satisfied with the performance audit of office. he can the program manager and inserted a more high-ranking, more experienced professional to run that -- were not operation. you now have a three started the vice admiral venlet. a nice dimension to you earlier, he is in the midst of this, a deep dive, but he's doing it. it's not just dependent on him and a small cadre. he's got 120 people who are working this issue with him. and they are not taking

anybody's word at face value. they are demanding that there be evidence to back up what they are being told about the state of the program. so, they are clearly in the process of doing that, finding some issues that did not known to us before, but we're still not done. so it's premature to think for us to go, luis, much further beyond that i think. >> you mention yesterday of meetings next week. the f-35 is not strictly a u.s. program, but others go and into countries like australia? is their consideration about their path forward and you expect the f-35 will take part? >> i don't know that the f-35 is on the agenda -- i'll check for

you, luis. that may be a little bit to programmatic for this ministerial considering the secretary of state or dissipation as well. but clearly not just by australia, but the u.k., italy, the netherlands, turkey, canada, denmark, norway, now israel, all of these countries are keenly interested in this program. so we are -- when i spoke about the appropriate time, will share this information with congress and the american people who obviously share with our partners as well in this endeavor. i would note to you that they are, their economic pressures being felt on all these countries. and so some of them -- some of them are not any position to be then were we at this stage in a program or we could be delivering aircraft sooner than we apparently will be or had hoped to originally, that actually works perhaps to their

advantage given their economic situations. but overall, these are committed partners to this you ultimately need these aircraft for their -- to a fifth generation capability, to have the kind of air to air -- air to ground, air to air capabilities, you know, to have air superiority in the future. yeah. go ahead, larry. >> the defense attorney for major hasan at fort hood had said the ceremonies like what's happening tomorrow commemorating the anniversary of the gnostic or make it difficult for his client to get a fair trial in that environment. >> yeah, i think that's absurd. >> is there any -- >> it's absurd. i mean, is the suggestion that that community, which was so rocked by that shooting last year not pause, not take time to remember the 13 people who were

killed? it's entirely appropriate for that case, the extended choline community and frankly the military as a whole to pause tomorrow and remember that tragedy. the accused killer in this case will still get a fair trial. he is dealing in a very sophisticated judicial system, with very professional attorneys and judges. his ability to get a fair trial and our ability to mourn and remember that marked the year anniversary of the tragic shooting are not mutually exclusive. yep, just in. >> geoff, what if anything do you know about this military sniper who shot out five different military related holdings. they know it's all done with the same gun. we believe the military issued

gun? do you have anything on his identity? >> listen, this is not yet led investigation. obviously there are investigative contributions made by some of the services the fundamentally be led by the fbi so i'd refer you to bear. we're obviously concerned. this is clearly someone has -- has an issue to say the least with the military and it puts potentially our servicemembers to the civilians who support them in harms way. the secretary's been apprised of developments as warranted, but he also has full faith and confidence in the fbi and the other departmental investigative services to get to the bottom of this. >> can you say with the services are doing to help the us by this investigation? >> those are investigative matters that should be discussed publicly, but whatever assistance they required is being given by -- given by, you

know, the navy and whoever else is now involved in this. >> the fbi agent said last week in his press conference he believes it might be a marine. do you like about the least? >> i would have no way of knowing. i would have no way of knowing. clearly, this is somebody who has issues with the military. beyond that, i would have no way of knowing. >> can you say if investigators know more than they're telling us -- >> i have no idea. i'm not involved in the investigation. this is an fbi leave. they can probably beat -- [inaudible] >> i am not involved in the investigation. the fbi is in the lead and it's not appropriate for us. if there is something that we feel as though would help the investigation by sharing a publicly, i am sure that the investigative authorities will do so and do so in a timely fashion. so if they felt it was helpful,

larry, and i didn't hear that, to release that information, it was probably done in a calculated expense. i don't have anything to offer in that respect, for you to share, as to gain public participation in this investigation. yes, to the back. >> hi, could you comment on the study of the rare earth to the military needs and whether you support the bill that passed the house before recess awaiting action in the senate? >> we have stuff on that. i'm happy to talk to off the podium. i'm not as familiar with thawed the into kersee's and higher one of the colleagues are happy to walk you through it. >> you have any timeframe of the u.s. and south korea military exercises next? >> well, with lots of military exercises. [inaudible] >> i don't know that we canceled the exercise. we didn't cancel in the exercise. we've been trying to work out the next appropriate date for us

to jointly exercise in the llc with the uss george washington. we are still working on that date. but rest assured, we will do so with that aircraft carrier in the yellow sea, so stay tuned as for when. but we will be back there with those assets. but this notion of canceled i think is just hyper evolved. they've got a lot of moving parts here when it comes to one including an aircraft carrier, so it is difficult to get all those parts together and assembled in full agreement on when to proceed with this. but we will do so. we will be back in the yellow sea. we'll be there with the george washington and so stay tuned. >> when will it be? i mean, next month? >> it still be determined. we haven't nailed down and sure

we will share with you. all right? gordon i think is the last one. >> a quick question. president karzai continues to be concerned about the contractors in afghanistan. i'm just wondering if you have some current sense of what the department is doing to help alleviate those concerns and what is plan b is. >> you know, i frankly know i'll miss what i've read on it, poured in. it sounds as we clearly have been working. general petraeus as well as embassy kabul, very closely with president karzai and his team on trying to fashion the most responsible way forward in this regard. president karzai has made it abundantly clear that he wants to do away with private security contractors as quickly as he can, but also as responsibly as he can. he has made exceptions for static protection of certain diplomatic facilities and that would be encouraging them

responsible. they are voicing concerns about the impact about pulling the rug out on private security contractors on ngos by taking their contractors to the way precipitously and the impact that would have on development projects. and that would -- obviously our efforts in afghanistan are not just driven by security needs. they're also driven by governments and development. that's a key component to her success they are. so we are working with the afghan government, try to fashion a responsible way forward that still allows for adequate security to be provided to development projects around the country while we are still growing the ansf to the point they would ultimately be able to assume responsibility for protecting convoys in support of development projects, the actual project itself. but those things are still being worked with right now. we are encouraged by the fact that he is allowed for more time

for consideration of this issue. okay, thank you all. >> is harmless that one is making a star out of brittany spears or share, but when one takes this notion of stardom into national security room, the mindset state.

americans after a while get why is that the stars of the wizards in training teams in the best and brightest really might not be what they're cracked up to be. in that amount of time, chaos and mayhem in contraband. >> henry kissinger, mcnamara, donald rumsfeld, a few foreign-policy theaters. sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> saeb erakat is the palestinian authority's lead

negotiator in the middle east peace talks with israel and he represented the palestinians reach in the 1993 oslo accords. mr. erakat discussed the current state of the middle east peace process at the woodrow wilson center in washington. is interviewed by the wilson center's, aaron miller. this is an hour and a half. >> welcome to today's meeting conversation with saeb erakat. i'm holly sang queen, the direct your of the release program at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. the center is a living national memorial to president wilson established by congress in 1968. it is a nonpartisan institution engaged in the study of national work affairs. the wilson center establishes,

maintains a neutral forum for free, open and informed dialogue. the center commemorates the ideas and concerns of woodrow wilson by providing a link between the world of ideas in the world of policy. fostering research, studies, discussion and collaboration among a full spectrum of individual concerns with policies and scholarships in national world affairs. today's meeting is basically a conversation between mr. erakat who is the chief palestinian negotiator, how does the negotiation affairs department and aaron david miller, public policy scholar at the woodrow

wilson center. we have distributed the bios of our speakers and i'm sure you're all familiar with them, so no need for them to again introduce them. i just would like to remind you to please close your cell phones. no text messaging, no twitter, please. because it interferes with the live webcast we have and it's very important for us not to have any interference with the live webcast because this may be like any other meeting we have, it center on the live webcast is picked up around the world. so please be kind enough to close your cell phones for the duration of the meeting.i woul i would like not to give the floor to my colleague, aaron

david miller, and he will star the conversation for 40 or 45 minutes. and then will open the floor to your questions. alsme also welcome mr. ambassador, saeb erakat who is the first time at the wilson. center and we hope to see more often enough and. he is the representative to thee states.than thank you. >> haleh, thank you very much. then the welcome into the woodrow wilson center for american colleges. ho is a privilege for me to host. first in the interest of full disclosure, i should say that he i've known saeb for more than 2r years. i consider him a close friend, are wiser friends come our i vehters are friends. he spent to my home, i've beenas t his. our careers parallel to

essentially a long one issue, the pursuit of israeli and my world is to find more to what is probable. we still have our some of them may appear today, some of them may not. i consider him a close friend. second, no one is in a betterr i position in my judgment to offer you and c-span a comprehensivepn assessment and view therospects palestinian issues and prospects for the negotiations.om the e saeb has literally seen it all inm the early days, and they seem very early now and the dreaded for you and i were. h i'll never forget how the secretary of state was with your

pc that day. to the israeli talks were saebof and i negotiated against the backdrops of secret negotiations that were going on at oslo which we were aware. do not fully. to the oslo process in which saeb became prominently and permanently involved, to the heady run-up to the camp david summit and the desire to camp david over much of the course of the last decade into hopelessness, despair, violence haspretty grim prospects for a solution. saeb has been there through it all.it s and it should be of no surprise to any of you that he remains the champion and advocate for the palestinian national interest.

he has an articulator in the palestinian natural narrative.t. that is first and foremost his . role. and i respect that. at the same time, saeb is by nos also aware of the fact that the really p israeli israeli-palestinian problem is not a place that keeps it for some goodness against the forces of darkness on the other. but the complex conflicts in which both sides in responsibility for the perpetuation and both sides bear responsibility for the solution. and absolution must be based not on an imbalance of power, but od a balance of interests. so the format today is straightforward. i'm going to s. saeb questions i've been treating us and for the government in 2003 at hide negoations,litics, negotiations themselves.is

saeb's expectations in view of the american role, specificallye the last four months of the obama administration.hat, we once we finish with that, we'll go to your questions. and let me emphasize, under pain of punishment from haleh these are to be questioned. set the question up without comments in their entirely and certainly not speeches.ave i know since clarity and honesty yourbeen your trademarks, that no one will be disappointed in your responses to theseue questions. so let me begin first in the area of internal politics. henry kissinger once said that the state of israel has no foreign policy. it just had domestic politics. sts dome you've got 32 israeli governments. the average length of each government was 1.8 years, 1.9

actually since independence. so i guess my question is, on the palestinian side, how do palestinian internal politics constraints, opportunities shape and affect the palestinian position in the negotiations? >> is a transitional state of mind. i think it's the most difficult thing we have to deal with. and sometimes we have ourselves asom per the period and then wee realize we are just like anyer other society with you ore. israelis were horrible people. and the transition society usually go through certain period of transition for certain limited period of time, but for

us as palestinians, as long as we don't have a defined border, we are in this transition. and that would mean that myover. wagon would always be overloaded with complicity is. at one point, the plo was transferred, meaning countriest. had factions because the assigned question is a question in the minds of rs. and how do you balance severing palestine can use in palestine? how do you balance the political geography of palestinians, whils scattered all over the arab world and doing many cases havea to abide by the rules and understanding of the given of an country they given to survive, to maintain their kids at schools and universities.

and then, you have israeli occupation. i was 12 years old when the israeli occupation came. i went to jail by the israelis when i was 13-year-old. that will tell you something. that will tell you something about the nature of the negotiations. we are different. we are not your normal conflict. we have people 11 going to synagogues same -- we have people who are going to synagogue and saying the same thing every saturday. there are people who go to

churches every sunday and believe they are hearing and seeing it for the same time. deal with that. been a believe and a divine power -- they believe and a divine power. the palestinian politics -- it is to people going through labor pains, going through a transition period -- transition.

they do not feel like they have finished their transition yet. we have many internal complexities. hamas is the palestinian party. the defeated my party. in 18 days, they were the speaker, the parliament, in five weeks, there were the government. i had been elected from the constituency in 2006. my party cost me to deliver a speech in response to the in tradition -- introduction to the government for a vote of confidence. you are my prime minister.

you are my wife's prime minister. they honor their commitment to the previous agreement. it is a political transition, and faction split the role of the government. you are the government for the palestinians. you are everyone. those traditions that we have all for our people, you should honor. unfortunately, democracy in palestine has failed. we won the election and we must change the charter. since we won the election, it

must be canceled. the internal dynamics are so difficult. not because we chose this path. we make mistakes. people are watching us and they want to score points with us and the fall what we do. so far, we have 26 parties. i am happy -- we are on the right track. it is difficult, it is painful, and will take a lot of time. but this transition is a must for us. >> you provided a good transition to my next question.

not to be unkind, but you could look at the palestinian national movement today as a kind of palestinian hump the dump d. you have to political entities, two sets of security services, two different sets of funding streams, to different ideas about what constitutes the future is palestinian. how did those divisions shape, constrained, the negotiation and the implementation of a punitive agreement with the israelis? did ministration seems to be subscribing to what i would call the kevin costner school of diplomacy.

the main character hears voices that say, build it and they will come. is the logic that they will reach an agreement and the agreement will be so compelling that the divisions will heal because they will have no choice but to acquiesce? how do you manage? how did you manage? >> the difference between us and hamas is not an economic problem, a social problem. if they ran the country, they're good.

was that the withdrawal because of negotiations? to be fair, they never disputed the fact that the plo have the jurisdiction in negotiations with israel. it specified that the negotiations with israel, -- they passed for one thing.

i do not think that the division today is because of negotiations. they were always there. they maintained an agreement with you. in 2006, the one. -- they won. if i have an end game agreement with israel, who would prevail? if i do not have an endgame agreement, i will stop. >> this is a tough one.

i think. change is hard. to expect a change in others it is understandable. particularly when you're the weakest party in the negotiation. if you had to identify one in perfection, weakness, flock, in the palestinian strategy these many years, with respect to the israelis and the negotiating process, and there are many strengths, but no one is perfect. we know this. >> israel these are not perfect? shocking. >> what was the most significant shortcoming in the palestinian strategy? >> i have no army, no air force,

no economy. if it is my word against an israeli, we cannot stand a chance. when we entered these negotiations, many people were there, like jim bakker. he denied my existence as a palestinian. i am here. they insisted that we deny israel without defining the border.

nations are no nations without borders. that is where the police give tickets. that is where you have language. american officials insisted that my ticket to negotiating -- at without defining the border. that has been the loophole in the peace process. s spected israeli government' fought -- you have to lower these expectations.

let's see what kind of arrangements -- it will not be a country like yours. the problem we face is not that he wants -- look at what he says. settlements should not be -- what does this translate to me? he had already decided which part of my territory he will give back to israel. once he finishes this, he will say, come here, boy. this is what we have for you.

they come with conditions. i am supposed to accept that. i will not negotiate jerusalem. you have to join the zionist movement. that is what it boils down to. they recognize israel as a jewish state. after he puts all of this list of conditions, he tells me, come and negotiate. why? israel is still deciding where its border will be. the region is changing. iran, at ahmadinejad. the only way that this region --

>> we will get to mr. netanyahu in a minute. >> i will come to that later. >> i could identify a hundred mistakes that americans made during the course of -- >> americans and israelis did not make mistakes. exclusively palestinians. >> i could identify thousands of mistakes that we made. everybody strategy involves changes. looking in the mirror, that is the place for that change, whether you are in israeli, palestinian, or american, has again. that is the real question. you may not want to answer it. but that is the real question that needs to be confronted. why did we do wrong?

over the course of the last two decades. israel has to look and be a mirror to make an assessment of where their tactics and strategies ran off a highway. if they are prepared to do it, it is only logical to assume, even though you are the weakest part, your rights have been taken away. you need to do it as well. let's move on. the peace process. a general question. how would you characterize the status of that process right now, november 4, 2010? what are the chances for resuming negotiations? resuming negotiations that actually could become serious and might be to an agreement. how would you characterize the current status?

>> we have always been honest with each other. i did not waste a minute in my negotiations. i said earlier that we are different. we are not iraq. we're not somalia. we are not better, we're different. what we fail to recognize when we signed the agreement is that the state of mind -- that is what life is all about. it is not a far distance. trying to that we're make? is it merely a to-state

solution? do they trust us? did they recognize us? do we trust them? 17 years of negotiations. only 18 months of negotiations. we did not waste a single amendment. this was a mandatory course for palestinians and israelis. today, in 1978, they wrote an article calling for dialogue, rather than violence. when i ran for election, i got

68% of the vote. a major change. 75% of palestinians do believe that the only solution is a two- state solution. that does not mean that they are not angry at me. they know. >> the proverbial bottom line, where are we now? >> i am coming to it. [laughter] we are here. we finished the negotiations. i do not think that palestinian needs -- that palestine needs a negotiator anymore. it is time for a decision. it is time for an end game. we have turned every possible stone. we know what it takes.

we know that -- were the swaps will take place. we know the solution to east jerusalem. and the capital of palestine. and what kind of body should govern the divided city. we know the solution to the refugee problem. we know what kind of security we are going to have. the israelis must learn one thing. the concept of limitations in armaments. there is no such thing as limitations in people's dignity. when the israelis were like that -- realize that, we will have peace. >> ok. the road in the washington post recently that international law

needs to be respected. -- you wrote in the washington post recently. if the israelis do not respect international law, what should the united states do about it? >> look, i will be fair. i will be fair to president obama. and secretary clinton. these people have done a marvelous job. they have done everything in the book and they continued to do so. have no doubt, americans will not make decisions for us.

americans may provide you with elements maximizing the benefits, the decisions are required for palestinians and israelis. you have a president and leadership in palestine that is willing to deliver. do we have someone in israel who is willing to engage in decisions? that is the question. that is the question. if not this year, next year, 10 years time, it is a two-state solution. jews will not go back to christianity. close your eyes, walk me through

the year 2015. -- 2050. you can do it. you have the choice. we are at a defining moment. it is time for decisions and not negotiations. the americans know that. the israelis know that. and i think that mr. netanyahu has choices to make. >> that question is a good one. there are three possibilities with respect to the israeli prime minister. he is serious. he is not serious. or alternatively, there is a certain amount of conflict within itself about his own decision or commitment.

>> there is a fourth option. you have a palestinian authority that was established in 1993. it has had a legal jurisdiction, economic jurisdiction. then he came into office and everything was taken away. no jurisdiction whatsoever. he was the final authority. we have more options. he does the same. why can we maintain it?

keeping security, building institutions. they are building institutions, education, whenever society needs. he believes -- he may believe that he can -- as much as he is weighing his options, we do not want to surprise him. the status quo will not be maintained. >> before we turn to the u.s. role, i have one history question for you. there is no rewind button, unfortunately. if you ask me what i would have

changed in the last 20 years, to produce a different outcome, i would offer the following observation. it's like a change to things, -- if i could change to things, it would be that he was not assassinated, and that george h. w. bush would have defeated bill clinton in november of 1992 and that jim baker would have continued as secretary of state. had those two things applied, it is my view that we would of had won agreement. my question to you is, today is the 15th anniversary of the assassination, had he lived --

>> i sat with him. to be fair, he was a gentlemen who was concerned with israeli security. he made me realize the difference between someone who is a tough negotiator and someone who does not negotiate. there is a big difference. someone who looks at the 9:00 news that evening. i do not know. i cannot answer this question. >> the next questions all involve the americans. you watched the united states for 30 years -- if you had to identify a consequential strength and weakness in our approach to arab-israeli negotiations, what would those be? >> number one, in the beginning

of the 21st century, your country's borders are no longer with canada and mexico. your borders today are with turkey, iran, china, pakistan, and jordan. you have kids serving in iran and iraq and afghanistan. you need to get them home. when you talk about -- it is the most cardinal american national interest. they are being brought home in coffins and wheelchairs' every day. the function of the roles in the

nation and have changed. that is the truth. americans must know that since he died, we had 799 movements. we have a very good religion in islam. we're supposed to go to mosques to worship god, not to use god. the minute we go to moscow to use god, we become like -- to mosques to use, we became like the churches in medieval times. peace between palestinians and israelis. it is a two-state solution.

democracy in the arab world. anyone said to says that arabs are not for democracy, they are a racist. since 1683, the relations have not been defined. their work muslim soldiers in mid europe. ever since that time, you never forgets. the relationship is guided with suspicion, fear, and anyone -- it is time to think about defining these relations. at the end of the day, -- we

have to identify the growth and maturity. i believe the u.s. has followed that policy. they come to israel and they see what the prime minister of israel can do or cannot do. the never asked me, ok? i asked the american administration, with a bigger picture in the middle east, with what is going on in iraq, lebanon, somalia, yemen, it is

not a good picture. all right? should the policy from what is possible to what is needed. >> our greatest strength is our proximity to the region? the urgency that that carries. our greatest weakness is our proximity to the israelis? >> i am not saying that. people in palestine ask me about the impact of the republicans. president clinton was the most pro-israeli president. it was president bush who first realized the to-state solution. you define your interests.

i was 12 years old when they came to my hometown, jericho. i'm 55 now. you might might doctors. -- you not my daughters. -- met my daughters. i do not want my son to be a suicide bomber. i want the two-state solution. that is what is in it for me. is that too much to ask? i could care less if someone in the congress was for israel or palestine. somebody here needs a wake-up call. somebody needs to get out of the box. you cannot do anything inside the box.

i am suffocating. i will not continue in this box. >> that brings me to my second to last question. what is it -- remember, we have a track record. of doing effective diplomacy. there was a time when america actually did effective diplomacy. when our relationship with the israelis, however special it was, was not transported to one that was exclusive. what is it that you want? >> it is time for the end game. >> what does that mean? does that mean additional pressure on israel? what does that mean exactly? >> we have the choice of -- people here tell me that -- i

have a ph.d. in negotiations. americans tell me, why are you surprised? it is over. it is over. we know exactly what it takes. we know it. without a fair agreement, nothing gets done. you cannot defeat these forces without an endgame agreement. let me ask you a question. i am observer of the u.n.. if i were to take an application, i need a number to

apply for membership. i make this application. >> we would be to adapt. -- we would veto that. you can order them in any way you want. we have invested and believe in the pragmatic value of negotiation. good, bad, naive, simple, nonetheless, it is a fundamental american conception. people have problems, they said down, they reconcile their differences. that would be essentially a fundamental but trail of

america's commitment to negotiations. we would say to you, and you know the talking points, you open the door through this application process to a set of is really counterproposals and measures which would reflect their own interests in response to yours. i am glad that i do not have to do this anymore. finally, there is the reality, a

willful american president -- nixon, carter, every time -- will fall president to are smart and capable will trump domestic political interests and lobbyists every time. still, president function within the arena of domestic policies. this one now particularly. with all the headaches that he faces, a jobless recovery, problems of a reduction of the deficit, new congressional math, all kinds of other things. he will choose his fights very carefully. if you were to tell me that president obama, fight for me on an end game. a fight for me on jerusalem, on security, on refugees.

that i will fight for. but i am not go into fight for a comprehensive freedom zone. but i'm not going to defend your right to become a un member state. i am not going to fight for u.n. conflict resolution which embodies your desire for state. even though i share that aspiration. the art of this process may well lead to what it is you want, but do not pray for anything that

you really do not want. . . past. you've seen that. do you want them? >> let me just take six ackley -- all i said was i'm suffocating in this box. and seated my independence with your interests through peacemaking and for democracy. now, miers' that too much for the politics or unilateral for me? okay -- >> negative answered the second question. >> second, you cannot recognize be on the because you tell me i'm not a state so when i askat you what are they doing in south

sudan the last year and a half i put that aside. so don't compare yourself to -- [inaudible] council, no, don't do that. that is good. that is good, i told you i cannot survive with that. the american proposals will not be subject to international agreements. if -- when we speak about --

1945, the u.n. was born. there was a mandate except for palestine. why can't i go against the u.k. or against you? then, if i don't see the authority after 8 years. if i cannot define my borders. that is not mean anything. and i am afraid you are pushing me to the point where we will very polite to tell mr. netanyahu, your second plan is

to resume your occupation and a sure your power as the occupying force. we will never be an agent of the israeli occupation. if he thinks that he can maintain the source of the authority, we will not agree with this. israel has 3000 fighting planes, nuclear weapons. number one is my option, two states, 67, swaps, whatever. today in the west bank and it in

my home town of jericho, 86 kilometers. that is the difference. if they think that they should call my home town and the hebrew name, talk to me about it. in 2010, there are roads in the west bank that i cannot use as a palestinian. your colleagues here, our

scholars. some times the color of your skin is used. occupation corrupts. the whole region now is going down the drain. they cannot stop settlements, they don't want me to go to the security council, they don't want me to be recognized. they don't want a fair agreement. i am supposed to be in the box. i'm supposed to be a servant for

this occupation. forget it. i did not miss an opportunity. >> i don't work for the administration and i have been gently critical of their policies. i would not prejudge what is that day are or are not prepared to do. you had plenty of times -- time to go to the united nations should your predictions prove to be accurate. i would ask you my tent question in the interest of time. if we invite you back and lecturer at this time, will we be having the same conversation? in the interest of time, your

responses were forthright and candid and i really appreciated it. let's go to the questions. can you please identify yourself? >> we went to get their. when the blue plates could drive into the west in jerusalem. i don't think that sense netanyahu was elected by the extreme right wing, under the current circumstances, he will not be able to do a settlement freeze. as important as it is from the

day after 67, settlements have been intentions about the land. every prepare this book tells the rest of the world that israel does not intend to give up the land. as a country and an existential issue, none of its leaders have embraced the idea of giving up the land. you have an american president who has a lot of problems, staffing included. we will not go into that. maybe what you need to ask for this year that is in my mind absolutely doable considering what is already being kept in a safe is a mat. palestinians know where they will have their state. once there is a map that will be

accepted by the entire world, then you can discuss how you can work out all of the other issues. >> during negotiations, they became very very serious in negotiations. what about a map? >> that is what i'm saying, we need to agree on any map. mr. olmert says that he offered a great offer. i do not deny this.

i asked the prime minister olmert, why did the short circuit. this is what i had given to mr. olmert. this is the 1967 map with swaps of 1.9% of land. with formulas to deal with in jerusalem, security, water, refugees. mr. olmert shows to say that he does not recall being offered this. we came december 18th, 2008 to

washington. we look at this map along with the mattress opposition. these people transferred and 11 page file. -- we look at this map along with the opposition. i am asking netanyahu to stop settlements. he knows where the israeli borders are and we know with a palestinian borders are. there cannot be an agreement for me without jerusalem or without refugees. this is a package. they don't want to do this. they don't want to touch the

issues. they don't want to stop settlements. they want to maintain the status quo. they want to keep this authority. this will not be maintained. this will not be maintained. i know president abbas. he is the most decent and courageous person he could never encounter in your life. no palestinian can make such offers. netanyahu has made up his decision that they think that they can maintain the status quo. no, it will not be meant. >> it is great to see you.

>> if i could bring the discussion back to the specifics of this round of negotiations. the palestinians have taken a lot of heat for wasting nine months of the first 10 months of the period of the moratorium. the respective of what you might think about whether the moratorium is serious and what was actually offered. how old you defend against the charge that those nine months were wasted because the plo was not willing to come to the table and there's a corollary question, supposing we get a two-month extension of a moratorium, will the palestinians come back to the table? if you do come back to the table, what do you think you can do in two months that would be an accomplishment that would go

beyond those two months? >> this chart shows the moratorium with our figures and israeli figures. when they reached a moratorium of 10 months, this was meant to increase of almost 17%. they were constructing 3450 under the maritime -- moratorium. they have confessed they had made 100 violations in 12 months. we went through proximity talks. we offered our opposition.

the israelis said, no. we cannot discuss anything without direct negotiations. we had that. now since september 26th, and they introduced 312 housing units in east jerusalem. this is air up later. they want to get 6000 housing units which will give them a stand that he has until 2014. they might come to us and a few weeks say, i agree on the moratorium.

i am losing my land to the settlement and i am losing my credibility. i cannot do anything about loosing my men. why should i lose my credibility? in the person in the west bank and jerusalem -- fivefold any time. if he knew business, the prime minister of israel, if he is genuine, he cannot stop the settlements for three months or he can stop on the border and then he can build in this country or on the borders or whatever it is. the intention here is not that he will take the blame. like when he says, the jewish

state. i did not know that was the position in 1993. i do not know why they asked me. the embassy says that this is the biblical and historical whatever. and he is looking for things, i told you so, to be blamed. wait a minute, you need to convince the central council. herehe is creating -- on the ground. he will understand very san that maintaining the status quo will not be sustained, maintained, and is not an option and then he will have to take the israelis

to plan the. occupation and power in accordance with the geneva convention. they have responsibilities as occupying powers. how would urge mr. netanyahu the start studying them. >> yes, the second row. >> on your question about the two state solution, in terms of being precise and getting some clarity, the u.s. and israel as well as the palestinians want a two-state solution. how you perceive that solution t? a palestinian state? one agreed to by the composition. the state to ensure the viability and progress of the

palestinian minority in that state. can you elaborate on your rationale or feelings? netanyahu indicated that if you recognize us as a jewish state for purposes of ending -- and so forth. if you can expand what you have against what is agreed upon by the majority of observers, nation states, that is where critical to a xenophobic power such as israel. what happens when they withdraw from areas of conflict. >> israel was going from areas.

i went to mr. shah roan's office in 2005. -- i went to mr. sharon's office. i said, don't do it unilateralism. unilateralism doesn't pay. you need to withdraw them. only agreements will pay. like with a drawl -- like with a drawal. -- like withdrawal.

i have a choice. so far, you were able to have the books for the first-third grade. we began changing our textbooks and we managed to have the palestinian textbooks. as far as the jewish state is coerned .. -- when israel was declared

independent, and since the government has been informed and the jewish state has been proclaimed in palestine, -- has been requested by the provisional government. united states recognizes the provisional government as the defacto authority of the new jewish state. i know that when israel applied for the u.n., they applied as the state of israel. i was asked to recognize the state of israel. now, they have a choice. there are countries that went to the security council and asked to change the name.

i have exchanged letters of recognition with israel and that is done. september, 1993. as i told you, some people speak about refugees, some people's big about 1.5 million. that is true. the state of israel was recognized by us, and if page. -- end of page. >> i have a quick question. looking back, on what do you think were the opportunities that the palestinians missed in your opinion? i was wondering whether he would agree with you.

>> what were the missed opportunities? >> as critical as i has been at times about the realities that exist on the ground on both sides, i think that there's probably no precedent in modern history for a people negotiating their way out of occupation and trying to create and build institutions at the same time. the conventional response to your question would be camp david, july, 2000. the orthodox ouopinion says that this is what happened. we never should have gone to any summit.

>> as i respond to your point, people tell me why my answer is wrong the last leader to have the capacity and the authority and moral legitimacy to deliver a unified palestinian polity, one gun, one authority, one negotiating group, in my judgment, missed an opportunity that because they refused to accept was put on the table. no leader could have never accepted that. after all, they negotiated on the same real estate where they had negotiated before. yasser arafat was thinking more about the fate of saddam. that was not a transgression.

the transgression and missed opportunity in my judgment is that the transgression, i will not accept what the americans and the israelis want me to accept. i will offer you on each of the issues and alternative and they come back position and had that happen in a way that was more authoritative and had we not been so frustrated by the palestinian refusal, maybe july, august, september with a determined american president who spoke last night at the middle east institute, who cared more about this issue then all

of his predecessors, might have been able to create a framework for negotiation which could have preempted what transpired at the end of september. rather than plain good blame game, we might have found ourselves in a different situation. you need to explain to the group why i am wrong. >> i came to see them before camp david. i told them don't do something and expect white smoke.

they did not have anything in mind to make an agreement. i was warning them, asking us to prepare better. everything got out of there and these other words that i used. we went to camp david, we talked in camp david, and they said that an offer was made that cannot be rejected. . half -- mr. barak, can you please show us the offer that was made to us at camp david? >> you know the answer to that. >> , there wasn't. the offer was made to me personally oscar was made to me

personally with president clinton and the white house. we were close to the peace more than anyone else in the history of this conflict. and then, you say that arafat was the last leader with legitimacy, i think that you are wrong. what is going on now is not less legitimate than what arafat was doing. the second mistake that he made is when you say that we missed an opportunity. i remember on the 24th of july, 2000, i was asked by president clinton to come to his office. we reviewed in camp david. you know what, they asked me to draft a communique and i did.

we had serious negotiations, we had made offers and counter offers. i was asked by president clinton and other colleagues to -- then, all of a sudden, i hear president clinton and the posted -- the israeli leaders say that they had the offer and they said no. why did you say that? why did you say that? you know that in camp david, we did not have an offer.

he told me, did not open your mouth, not a single question from you. that is a truce. i came here in january 2nd and they said, mr. president, i appreciate your offer and the have -- i appreciate your offer. and then when president bush and olmert, we had an agreement to come january 25th, 2009, to lock into the agreement. why did the american presidents always want to do this when

there is only nine days left i know it. i was there. i am the person who drafted this. for five days, the israeli negotiators refused to open the door to his bedroom. i don't want to score points, i don't want to go more and more. the blame game will not serve anything. now, my offer, we have a president who is ready for the two states solution, the '67 lines, all agreements with what was offered.

do we have a partner in this? >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> it this is the first in dialogue and other people from the region. please come back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> turning out to political news. republican congressman-- up next on c-span2, review the midterm elections from the american enterprise institute and then

today's pentagon news briefing. later, discussion about the middle east peace process with the palestinians chief negotiator, sa'eb erakat.

>> the american enterprise institute recaps tuesday's election results today and looked ahead to what republican gains mean for the next congress. speakers include aei resident fellow in washington examiner political analyst michael barone as well as aei resident scholar and roll call newspaper columnist norman subtwelve. this is just under two hours. >> good afternoon everyone. good afternoon. my name is bowman and i'm a senior fellow at aei and it would like to welcome all of you to the final session of aei's 2010 election watch program. or as we might properly call the session, the first session of

the 2012 election launch program. i would like to begin with a round of congratulations to my fellow panelists at the last election watch in november even though we are not in the prediction business, all of them did give us some ideas of what they thought would happen on election day and all of them predicted very substantial gains for the republicans in the house and senate and the governors and state legislative races overall but i particularly like to tip my hat to henry olsen the days before the election predicted, and this is correct as of this counting, that there would be a pickup of 64 republican seats in the house. congratulations, henry. [applause] we have a number of handouts for you, and all of them will be available on the aei web site immediately after this session. thanks to jennifer marsico and andrew. we have taken a very comprehensive look at the 2012 gubernatorial and senate contest

and we have included many basic facts about those elections largely compiled from michael barone's almanac of american politics. we have also looked at how george w. bush is being viewed today, his new book of course will hit the bookstores on november 9 and we have included many new polls about how the public is viewing him. just to mention one and a recent cnn opinion research corporation poll, 47% said that all in all barack obama has been a greater president than george w. bush but 45% say that george w. bush has been a better president than barack obama has been overall. finally in terms of the handouts, we have a chart that looks at how key voter groups have voted in house races in every election since 1980. this is something that you won't find anywhere in washington and it will be invaluable for those of you really want to dig down and look at how particular groups have moved over that long period of time. the order of our panelists today will be john fortier and henry

olsen talking about house and senate races overall and then we will turn to michael barone to tell us what happened in the governors races in state legislative races and finally norm ornstein will look ahead to the new congress. as those of you who have been attained in the aei sessions you know i moderate the session's president going to talk a little bit about some of the most interesting exit poll results to set the stage for the rest of the discussion. first i'm going to be discussing the changes in the composition of the electorate that were quite striking in a number of ways and they inspire clearly the shellacking president obama felt that he received and then i'm going to talk about some of the most interesting findings in terms of what voters told the exit pollsters on tuesday. the partisan makeup of the electorate hardly changed on election day, but independence swung massively in the gop direction. this is the third election in a row in which independents voted out the party in power, this time by 55-39%.

in 2006, they voted for the democrats by roughly the same margin. speaking of independence, in florida they supported marco rubio and not charlie crist, the independent candidate. the ideological composition of the electorate changed very substantially. self identified conservatives on tuesday were 41% of the electorate, but i'm percentage from 2006 and they voted massively for republican candidates. the share of liberals in the electorate remained the same. women were more than half of the electorate as they have been in every election since 1980. we have a gender gap once again with women dividing their votes this time between democrats and republicans and men voting for republicans by very substantial margins. but what is significant about this election is that republicans did better with women than they have done in any house contests since 1980. despite the fact that there may

be some losses in congress for women overall, women win just as often as men at every level of our politics, and in the pattern that we have seen in the past, women tend to vote for democratic, not republican women. in connecticut, california and nevada women pull the lever for democratic candidates. voters in union households were 23% of the electorate in 2006. on tuesday that dropped to 17%, and the support for democratic candidates dropped four percentage points over the same period. two-thirds of hispanics backed democrats as did six to 10 young people in 90% of black voters. the problem for democrats was that neither young people nor african-americans turned out as they had in 1980. the percentage of young voters to a half from 2008. obama's efforts to rally the base failed nationwide so his efforts in nevada to rally hispanics appear to have been

successful. we had in this election as in past elections, a bell shaped education curve. people with less than a high school education, very small share of the electorate, 3% pull the lever were democratic candidates at the those with a postgraduate education. postgrads were 20% of the electorate on tuesday. all of the education groups in and between voted for republicans. the three groups that i watched most closely because they have an almost perfect record of voting for winners delivered for me once again. independence, every mention, white catholics and people with some college education voted substantially for the gop. in 1988, 12% of voters had incomes above $100,000. today, a quarter to. in 2006 and 2008, people have this high income level. on tuesday they voted massively for republicans by almost the

same margin that they had in 1988. republicans-- had there have been showing among union households since 1994. now let's look at some of the attitudes. neither the gop nor democrats were regarded favorably on election day. 43% rated the democratic party favorably, 41% republican party. what is significant about this and worrying for the republicans is that in 1994 and 2006, voters had a net positive view of incoming party. that wasn't the case on tuesday. the exit pollsters asked people to choose from a list of issues and to pick the one that was most important to them. not surprising that the economy was the top issue on election day but what ace is significant about what voters said on tuesday was that if you add up all the other issues the exit pollsters asked about and take them all together, still almost twice as many voters said that the economy, said the economy and not health care, immigration

or afghanistan combined. just 14% of voters said their family's financial situation was better than it had been two years ago. although that question isn't always asked, it appears to be the most pessimistic reading on it since 1984. three in 10 voters said that someone in in their household had lost a job in the past two years. when asked their opinions about government, 38% said that government should do more to solve the country's problems but 56% said that it should do less. in only four of the 26 days for which we have data did the majority wants government to do more. those days were connecticut, delaware, hawaii and new york. speaking of immigration, two-thirds of arizona voters david immigration law in that state, but they didn't want to punish illegal immigrants already here. 55% said that most illegal immigrants should be offered

legal status, 37% said most should be deported. 31% of voters said the congress should expand the new health care law. 16% leave it as it is than 48% to repeal it. in the 26 states for which we have data, majorities in seven states supported repeal. finally, getting back to the president, just 45% approved of the job he was doing and 54% disapproved and perhaps more worrying for the obama administration, for the white house, 43% said that in the long-run obama's policies would policies would help the country but 52% said that they would herded. now i will turn to my colleague john fortier to talk about house and senate contests in the shape of the electorate. >> thank you carlin. we are going to have a presentation here. i'm going to make for large points. first to try to assess the size of republican gains, the size of the wave in a number of different ways, the simple

answer is it is a very big wave but the second is that it is actually lasted over many conservative district, many swing districts but it essentially stopped at the mob at democratic districts. there are no in the house, they are in a very democratic districts are even moderately democratic districts held by republicans. only a few that are slightly democratic. and then finally to look at what has changed since 2004. is it in a sense back to the future? that which is transported ourselves back in time to after the 2004 election and in some ways yes, the numbers are not going to be so different, little more in the house for republicans of little more in the senate that something is change. there are actually more polarization, more democrats representing democratic seats in more republicans representing republican seats. how big was a selection? you can look at the members here and i'm going to focus on the house and let henry talk more about the senate that the house after the 2004 election republicans had 232 seats.

they are likely to have that little bit more than what you see up there, 239 seats because they are 11 undecided but in the neighborhood a little bit more. the biggest seats. we ranked the last 100 years of midterm elections and i know michael will tell you about the 1922 and 38 midterm elections. he was not there. none of our panelists were born i think, at least in 1922. i won't check your birth certificate, but the 2010 ranks very high. is certainly the largest gain for an out party in seats in the house and that number actually depends a little bit on some of these races but it is much higher than anything we have seen in a couple of generations. senate elections, of course here is where republicans still-- did still quite well but not as well as we might have anticipated and if there is one thing, one silver lining for democrats in what was generally a dark cloud

is a couple of senate races especially nevada and colorado which kept republican feigns probably 26. we are counting lisa murkowski or perhaps joe miller and that number eight slot. eight out of 26 governors, and there are a couple of outstanding races but 10 seats a very large gain, not quite as large as 94 pitches short of that and victor certainly by a large matter more than 2006 and finally here a very stunning result in state legislative elections. here that number is likely to go up because there are still outstanding seats that have not been counted and republicans gained over 650 perhaps close to 700 seats in state legislatures across the country. that is substantially larger than the republican gains in 1994 and more than twice as many as democrats gained in 2006. and republicans are likely to be that really their high watermark since before fdr, so they really

have gained significantly in this area. so we took all four of those factors and we put them all together in a relatively simple way of combining the ranks. they are ranked historically, tied with 1994 for the third largest midterm election in the last 100 years. again, but for a senate race or even one of those close governor's races which could go the other way, it would be second and it depends on how you want to weigh these factors. clearly house in state legislative seats, the most recent years a little less on the other side is but still quite impressive. okay, now let's go back and remind yourselves of where we were in 2004 on the map and 2004, after a close bush kerry election we are going to look at seats that democrats have picked up and actually the republicans have picked up before this election, so in the 2006/2008 elections and in the special elections that we have had.

this is the territory which changed hands since the 2004 election but before tuesday night. and d.c. democrats with very significant pickups, 56 pickups. there are two republican pickups that were made in that time. that was hawaii and joseph gowen louisiana and you will note that both of them lost the other night so all of those seats were primarily in the democratic direction and now let's look at where we stand after the election. changes from 2042 today knowing the election results, and you will see that many of those seats if we go back, many of those seats, 36 of those democratic seats they picked up have gone back into republican hands. they only hold 20 and republicans have picked up 24. again, i will note that there are some projections made on the west coast at make that number smaller and a couple of places but you get the idea. let's look now at the partisan composition of the changes again

going back to post 2004. how many seats were any sense out of place? how many republicans won in districts that john kerry won in 2004? this is again just after the 2004 election and how many democrats won in districts that bush had won and the 2004 election? here you see quite common in some ways a very small number, 65 out of the port of 35 credit place but democrats having a much larger fraction of those changes and you see some republican seats in the northeast and a few out in iowa and the west. what you will see him the next is what happens because of the big democratic wave of 2006 and 2000 a. what happened? almost all of those republicans were lost. they were justified including those two new ones that i mentioned before hanging on before this election where john kerry had won the republicans still held the seats. and democrats picked up those

numbers. they gained a number of republican leaning seats, 35 or so seats, 35 seats that they had not have before so the map for democrats before the election from a couple of nights ago, democrats were holding some pretty substantial republican territory. let's see what happened with the election. that number has gone down dramatically, and you see now going from 85 districts that the democrats hold, that bush had won to only 26 districts and if you look again, where the blue disappears, lots of the southland lots of the plains and western states. and republicans did pick up a few democratic leaning districts. again i will note some of those west coast ones, or two of them are speculative. they are still being recounted. i guess that is jim costa's seat there. they might go the other way so it might be fewer republicans so now you look at less than 40

seats out of 435 are essentially out of place. less than 40 seats where republican leaning seats and democrats hold republican leaning seats. more polarization. finally they illustrate this point even further. let's look at-- these are seats before tuesday night's election. george bush had won those districts by 60% or more, so very republican seats. and democrats held quite a few of them in the south. some in texas and the plains states. what happened? where did the republican wave hit especially and what happened after the tuesday night results? one seat left. jim matheson of utah survive survived that. the other 12 seats all went to republicans. if you go back a couple of seats that are pretty republican and colin peterson's and ann born

district surviving in kentucky but those are not quite as republican as the ones i saw. but this wave washed over republican seats and washed over some swing districts but the edge of that wave i think essentially is, if you want to look at the most democratic seats that republicans hold there are four seats that john kerry won with 53% of the vote. two of them in pennsylvania, paul kanjorski's district, joe sestake's seat and the former seat in the suburban philadelphia. jim oberstar's seat in minnesota and mark kirk's seat which they were able to hold onto in the chicago suburb. those are the four seats. that is the edge of the way. those of the most democratic seats that republicans hold. if you look at a seat that john kerry won with more than 54% of the vote they are all held by democrats. >> thank you very much john for that illuminating series of maps

or good segues very nicely into the commentary i want to make on the house, which is why what could have been a mild wave turned into a historic tsunami? i discussed the long-term intellectual forces at work on a piece that i wrote on national a few on line called day of the democratic dead that appeared today before the elections, so i would encourage you if you are interested to take a look at that. i want to focus on more than nuts and bolts. there are two types of seats that swung back primarily, john identified one said very clearly and that is the republican seats that were picked up and left, to elections by democrats. many of them, not all of them but many of them slipped back into the republican pattern at this time, but the other seat are seats that are dominated by the group that i've been talking about throughout this election and that is the white working-class. i want to focus on that again.

what happened here? according to the exit polls, the white working-class voters were republicans by 29%. 63-34. this was much stronger than any other group based on education and race. republicans carried whites with college degrees by 18 points, 58-40. it becomes even more striking when you compared to the 2008 poll and in 2008 the house republicans carried weitz with a college degree by six points, 62-46 but they only carried weitz with working-class degree by 10 points, 59-44 soy 12 points shift on the margin between whites with a college degree but in 19-point shift margin in the weitz with working-class. then let's take a look at how those whites voted in 2008 for the presidential election and you will really see here what was going on. whites with a college degree only voted for mccain by four

points. among whites with the college of review had a phenomena that you could see through casually looking at the election of obama republican the person who is a habitual republican who voted for obama. the white working-class-- there you see a long-term historical trend we have seen throughout the modern political area which is whites without a college degree are much more likely to support republicans at the executive letter-- level particularly at the house level so what happened on election night was that the two groups among the white working class who have split their ballots were very his reasons all decided to vote republican in the first group is southerners. and others in rural southern leaning districts like the southern part of indiana, a lot of the southern ohio districts have strong southern heritage. these places traditionally voted republican at the top of the ticket and the democrat at the bottom of the ticket. that tendency has been over the

last 30 years but it persisted until last night. the key examples of those seats are virginia, with brick voucher, mississippi with gene taylor, missouri for which is again not necessarily a southern state but one inherited and influenced by that heritage, ike skelton and particularly tennessee the day the seed. i put a blog post up this morning called gone with the wind, the enterprise blog that since 1832 the heart of the democratic party was white rural southerners. even as recently as 1980 in a majority of seats were held by the white rural southerners and today there are six. there were more republicans in new england and new york than there are white democrats who represent rural southern districts. but that would only describe are her parted again. you would have a natural republican seats surging back. you would have rural southerners no longer splitting their tickets, but what you also solve

perhaps for one of the very few times in legislative history is northern northern democratic white working-class voters voting republican. you can see that in places like minnesota eight, seat that has not been carried by republicans and michael can correct me on this. since 1946. >> i was going to say living memory, but my living memory. >> okay, 44. pennsylvania, 11 working-class seat in the wilkes-barre region, historic coal-mining district. illinois 17, democrats along the mississippi river, rock island, phil hare lost to bobby shilling and then there were other place where bush narrowly carried but essentially working-class democrats like art stupak in michigan who one. these people who are traditionally voted democratic the top of the ticket and democratic at the bottom of the

ticket were voted republican this time largely because of anger about the direction of the country that president obama's taking them, so the question is is this unique? it seems unique in one sense, because of the size of the wave but in fact this is the fifth time since the great depression we have seen a massive republican gain in each time it has been founded in a large shift among the white working class, oftentimes although perhaps not as excessively as this time, although michael knows 1946 better than anybody, among the norm-- northern white working-class, 1946 rural southerners voted for democrats regardless of the legacy of the civil war. each of those times, 1946, 66, 1980, 1994 now at this time in the four previous times he saw a massive swing in white working-class areas towards the republicans largely because of anger at the same sort of issues that we see today, anger and

concern about massive rapid federal expansion of governmental power. so does 2010 imply that the republicans now have the majority? not quite, because if we take a look at what republicans did with their previous examples we can see that this is not necessarily a sure thing. 1946, michael has written extensively about this. republicans passed many things that were policywise i think you could say politically it was a disaster. the white working-class northern are seats that were at that time primarily dominated by union members took umbrage at the taft hartley act and swung massively back to the democrats. in fact that swing back compton they turn to dwight eisenhower who supposedly ran on a platform of modern republicanism which is no expansion the new deal but no repeal which led to the modern movement.

so we can make the argument that this political position in 1946 to the modern politics that we have today in some direct sense. 1966, republicans didn't take power but they did take power and a number of state legislatures across the country including the last time in my home state of california that they have held a majority for more than six months since 1958 but they didn't know what to do with it. again, they didn't know-- they didn't want to, they didn't think that they could repeal a lot of the things that run against but they didn't have an alternative aside and basically continuing lebanon with perhaps lower funding schemes and there is no legislative confirmation of richard nixon's presidential victory. the state legislative gains were lost quickly and we move back into the 70s is working-class voters return home. 1994 with newt gingrich we saw very quickly with the government shutdown, the move to quickly move towards more base of

republican concerns fizzled out. republicans lost seats and a very quickly saw again and eisenhower like response. george bush ran specifically as not exclusively but implicitly, not gingrich, not clinton very eisenhower as -esque in the congressional majority moved towards the umar culture that govern with a clear philosophy. against the between the scylla of repeal and the car because of reinforcing the welfare state. they couldn't figure out where to go. the only successful liberation in this was 1980 where ronald reagan took a different course. ronald reagan took the course of principle prudential reform. many conservatives at the time criticized him. why couldn't we repeal the will stay at-- welfare state faster? why do we still have big government at the end of the reagan area-- era but he was wise in a way that many of his

philosophical allies were not since he understood that at that time his task was to plant the tree of liberty in the garden of for us about when he succeeded in a way that today everyone claims reagan as their intellectual godfather band on the left for 30 years people have debated about how to react to the reagan legacy. that sort of principle prudential reform actually solidified conservatism and republican support, much longer than they need to-- that have characterized republican response. now, i think some conservatives might claim that this policy even today is still selling out. i want to quote a wise man to my right to wrote in the almanac of american politics in 1982 that politics at the national level in america is always a matter personality because of the central importance of the presidency but is also a product of ideas. for 40 years at this time, the

ideas that have been associated with the term liberal have prevailed. in 1930 most americans do not believe the federal government have the responsibility to maintain a strong economy with low unemployment and provide sustenance for those who cannot find it for themselves. in 1980 most americans do. the liberals have an effect written the history books. most americans believe franklin roosevelt was a good president and richard nixon was a bad one. in the 30 year since i think we can amend that and say in 1980 most believe government intervention could assure them a stable and growing economic life. today most members of the white working class to not. 30 years ago most americans didn't necessarily believe that entrepreneurial fiber and capitalism with minimal government regulation to could provide a growing economy. today i think most americans would. ronald reagan was able to program a principled pragmatic reform to change the attitudes of americans overtime in the

same way that franklin roosevelt was able to do in the 1930s. so my summation of what happened and where we are going, the americans-- it is a he apocryphal story about the american constitution at the constitutional convention. ben franklin an american came up and said what sort of a government have you given us there, and he replied a public-- republic if he can keep it. today americans have given for the fifth time since the great depression the republicans a chance for a majority in the question is can they keep it? >> thank you very much henry. michael. >> well of this little daunting to be in a presentation after having had my words written 29 years ago flung at me. >> approvingly. >> approvingly and since newt gingrich is in here i would argue that 94 republicans urged -- then he suggested that thank you for bringing back, if

you simply omitted the name of the author of course i would not have recognized at all. where did he get that garbage? [laughter] i am here today to talk about state governments, which weren't really a focus of much national attention in this campaign but i think the results in the races for governor and interest lay in the races for state legislature to which john alluded i think it turned out to be hugely important both politically and in terms of public policy. as in last year's elections and governor elections in new jersey and virginia, which have given us a very large national figure in governor chris christie, the issues in these contests were roughly congruent with issues that in congressional races, she's a national politics, raising the questions of the size and scope of government. republican gains of governorship and perhaps even more so.

they are large into a great extent unexpected gains in state legislature. i think it demonstrates the strength of voter rejection and the big government policies of the obama administration and the democratic congressional leadership. at the senate level, democrats by direct campaigning and negative campaigns against opponents were able to limit the republicans gains to somewhat less than they had hoped for but the house races, and even more so the state legislature shows the strength of the anti-big never meant trend here. overall numbers are, there were 37 governorships up, going into the election. democrats held 19 and republicans 18. republicans held 13 a very teen governorships and won 12 of the 19 currently held by democrats so assuming that candidates currently in the lead will hold onto that lead, we are ending up

with the republicans having 31 governorships to the governor's 19. i think that is not quite a historic record but obviously it is a considerable preponderance for the republicans. now there was some good news for democrats in several of our largest, three of our largest states. jerry brown won in california, as he did in 1974 in 1978. absent the wide lapels and bell bottom pants. democrats accordingly actually gained a seat in the california assembly. that is pretty hard because the redistricting in california produces less than 1% of changes in congressional state senate and assembly districts in the course of this decade. in new york, andrew cuomo won by a wide margin against a republican who could charitably be described as eccentric. i am not going to use the term

straitjacket here. [laughter] raw blagojevich's successor in illinois, pat quinn, he seems to us how long. he leads by less than 2000 votes in a state where county clerks seem to have violated the military voting at and trying to send out dallas to military members, although they did transfer them to inmates at the cook county jail. [laughter] otherwise, the news is very good for the republicans. they now hold the governorship of those houses and the legislature and six of the 10 largest states, texas florida pennsylvania ohio michigan and georgia. they want democratic governorships in pennsylvania, ohio michigan and wisconsin and gain control of both houses of legislature in each of those states. in addition they gain control of the legislatures in indiana, minnesota, montana and one house in iowa and maine new hampshire

and new england, north carolina and alabama in the south. altogether the figures i got from the national conference of state legislature showed him gaining 125 seats in the state senate and the figure john made reference to, 543 seats in the state houses. obviously there are still some counting to do. california, we recently had the election on sunday and they counted the votes in less than five hours. california takes five weeks. there is something wrong with this picture. but in any case, we haven't got the final tally, but they have one, as john said, more legislative state legislative seats than in any election since 1928. and they won more than the local political experts, least the ones i've been in touch with have predicted. the republicans need five seats for a majority in the pennsylvania house and they won 15. they needed for seats in the ohio house and got 14-- 13. they needed 13 in the michigan

house and inside michigan politics earlier issue, they ended up winning 20. they needed to in the wisconsin senate and they got four and 14. they needed 12 in the minnesota senate and 21 in the minnesota house and got 16 and 25 and i understand that republicans have never had a majority in the minnesota senate prior to this, although i need to fact check that claim. the republicans gained in upper new england 22 seats in the main house and 122 seats in the new hampshire house so new hampshire for reasons of its own has one of the nations largest state legislatures, 400 member state house of representatives. this will have important consequences and politics and could have important consequences in public policy. politically this means the republicans will have the largest advantage they have ever had in the redistricting of congressional seats, at least since the 1920s. pendant that there is no

reapportionment of the seats among the states in the 1920s so there was very little redistricting done in the 1920s. california and florida will join iowa, washington and arizona as states which give, have drying congressional boundaries in the responsibility primarily solely at the nonpartisan commission rather than of legislatures but in most states this is the prerogative of the legislature and governor. interestingly north carolina, the governor does not have a veto on redistricting bills so the republicans have both houses and the legislature and north carolina the democratic governor cannot veto their redistricting bill. in the 29 states with five or more house seats, redistricting can make usually a significant difference and torso, the more districts you have got. and the outlook now, as i put the members up is republicans will have control of redistricting in 13 states with

165 house districts, democrats will have control of redistricting in four states with a total of 40 districts. in 12 states in the party will have control because of the partisan balance or because of the existence of the redistricting commission. moreover where democrats have control, they have relatively little routine advantage. illinois with a projected 18 seats and democrats advantage depends on governor quinn maintaining his current narrow lead. in massachusetts and connecticut, democrats are a hold of the seats and massachusetts it's going to lose one in reapportionment in which case that said there will be a game of musical chairs with democratic congressman giving large contributions i'm assuming to the democratic state legislators and making friends at the statehouse. maryland is the fourth state already has a strong democratic partisan plan to give democrats a solid 6-2 advantage which is

extended briefly to them, 7-1. and contrasts republicans have control in texas with 36 districts, pennsylvania with 18. these are the projected numbers of reapportionment will be announced in december. ohio with 16 michigan, michigan with 14, torture with 14 north carolina with 13 arizona with nine tennessee with mind, indiana with nine and wisconsin with eight and in my judgment all of those states are areas where having control of redistricting can be significant in increasing your partisan balance in the house of representatives delegation. so i think that they will be republicans are in a good position to consolidate and build on the gains and they gain house seats and everyone of those states in the elections last tuesday. i should add that you know redistricting does not guarantee an enduring advantage. earlier in this decade we heard

people say well, the redistricting that was done in 2001 or 2002 and texas and georgia in 2005 blocks in that redistricting party for the remainder of the decade. those predictions have not survived the 2006/20008 in 2010 elections. pennsylvania republicans had a 12-7 republican delegation and became 12-7 democratic in 2008. is now i get it going to be 12-7 republican want once again but not because of redistricting, because a change in the balance of public opinion. governors and legislatures, think it is also well to reflect, can make enduring contributions on public policy. only consider how wisconsin and other states led mostly by republicans like tommy thompson but also by some democrats as well. they made significant changes on welfare policy. congress congress came waddling in late to the game with the

welfare reform act of 1996. it was built on changes in policies that have been demonstrated to work in the states. and states can be laboratories of reform on other issues. we have seen us on education where once again the federal government has sort of caught up with some of the things that have been going on in some of the more adventuresome states. we have also got the potential of this severe fiscal crunch in state government. california and new york and illinois are all states where democrats remain in control with the section that we don't know, with whether the republicans will win, regain a majority in the state senate they held from 1965 to 2008 in new york. those are three states with huge financial problems. they face enormous pension obligations, public employee unions have been pushing, have been dominating public policy in

those states for many years, and they have been receiving as meredith whitney pointed out in "the wall street journal" yesterday, in effect they have been receiving federal aid as well from the 2009 stimulus package from various forms of bonds subsidies that they have enjoyed from the federal government. they face the potential of a severe crunch and it looks like they have got a house of representatives that will be in no mood to bail them out. so, i think that is an issue that may arise, something similar to the bankruptcy of new york city issue in 1976 is something that may happen in the next two years. >> thanks karlyn. let me start with a clarification, for joking about earth day's. michael was in fact worn in 1946 in kenya. [laughter]

born in indonesia and then was smuggled into michigan. [laughter] to all the c-span viewers, i am kidding. really, it didn't happen. one little comment on what henry said come it is important thing to realize that after the 1982 midterm elections, the commentary basically agreed on one thing, the heir of reagan is dead. reaganism is gone. reagan is a dead duck. of course wasn't nearly as severe of backlash in the midterm as we sell this time but republicans lost 26 of the 33 seats they gained in the house and of course those predictions as so many among pundits were wrong so i would not attribute much and what happened tuesday to any projections, linear or otherwise about 2012 in anyway and i think henry's cautionary notes there are appropriate. of course the elections are not over at this point, and many of us have our eyes continued to

turn toward alaska as we wait for the right and. i'm not referring to the senate contest but the critical vote for the mayor of wasilla. [laughter] with those right ends can levi johnson get into the double digits is the question? [laughter] now, my task is to talk about the road ahead and i want to start with a venerable story that i have told many times before that as a cautionary note to the winners. it is a story that takes place in the first year anatomy class of medical school where the professor using the same crowd-- socratic method said the question of the day is what human organ when of probe really stimulated grows to eight times its normal size? he looks around the room and says ms. richards and ms. richards turns beat red. mr. hendricks said the people of the human eye when it enters a darkened room. the professor says that is right

and ms. richards i have three things to say to you. one you did not do your homework, two you have a dirty mind and three you are doomed to live a life of unfulfilled expectations. [laughter] now that was as true for liberals and 2006 and 2008 as it is for many tea party members of congress coming in now and it is a reflection of the difficulty of governing or of turning your gains into something that approaches what you want and hope will happen. ..