borrowed from the chinese. this is about whether we're going to remain the freest, most prosperous country in human history. and this is about whether we're going to remain our own masters or if we're going to have to look to the folks who are lending us all this money, including the chinese, for consent in terms of how we map our future. is that the future we want to hand to our kids? certainly not the future i want to hand to my kids. that's what it's all about. and, again, it's not far off in the distance. this is an immediate challenge. this could lead to an immediate economic crisis unless we get ourselves on the path to a balanced budget quickly. again, step one is cuts this year, a budget that is going

back to 2008 levels, prestimulus, pre-obama budgets this year. that's step one. but step two is some sort of important structural reform like a balanced budget constitutional amendment that puts a straitjacket on congress, that demands that we get there in a reasonable period of time. madam president, the huge majority of states operate under exactly this type of constitutional amendment. the huge amount of municipalities, towns, cities, other jurisdictions operate under this sort of constraint, and it's hard sometimes. it demands tough choices. in times like these, in a recession, it demands real cuts. but guess what, madam president? just like a family does signature around their kitchen table -- sitting around their kitchen table making their family budget fit reality, states do that, cities do that,

towns do that, and congress should have to do that for the federal government. congress should have to tighten its belt just like families do, reacting to their budget reality sitting around the kitchen table. and i think it's perfectly clear we're not going to get there unless and until we're made to through some sort of mechanism like the balanced budget constitutional amendment. and, madam president, even beyond the deadlines imposed by the expiration of the current or any other c.r. spending bill, we have another looming deadline, which is whenever the united states federal government hits up on the current debt ceiling, that's going to happen sometime between late-march and may is the projection. madam president, i firmly believe it would be enormously

irresponsible to address that issue until and unless we put ourselves on this road to reform, until and unless we pass something like a meaningful balanced budget constitutional amendment. so this sense of the senate is meant as a first step, and i applaud senator lee for putting it before us as that first step. let's say "yes." let's say we're going to do it. and then of course, most importantly, madam president, let's do it. and let's do it now. the clock is ticking. let's do it now, we will before we reach any crisis point like coming up on the debt limit i spoke about. let's act responsibly, which means acting now. let's take up the nation's important business, which is spending and debt. and let's avoid the economic calamity that really is threatened if we stay on the

path we're on, which is completely, utterly unsustainable. it's not just me saying that. iters a everybody knowing it, including -- it's everybody knowing it, including ben beer bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve board. he tf testified before the committee yesterday. he is not some ideologue, not some tea party conservative. but he said yesterday very clearly three important things. first of all, the greatest medium- and long-term challenge we face as a country is our fiscal posture. secondly, the fiscal path we're on is completely and utterly unsustainable. and, third, while that is a long-term challenge, it poses short-term, immediate consequences. and if we don't get on a sustainable path now, immediately in the short term,

we could have immediate short-term consequences, even economic crisis. let's avoid that. let's do right by our children. let's tighten our belt like american families have been for several years in this recession, and let's demand that we keep on that path with a balanced budget constitutional amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president snr sneer sneer the distinguished senator from vermont. -- the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that an article written for "the hill" by the distinguished secretary of commerce, garry locke, dated march 2 this year, be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, i was -- it's interesting -- i don't want to embarrass the person i wish to speak about at all. but it's interesting. i was listening to my dear

friend, senator durbin, speak about his time at georgetown law school. both he and i are -- graduated from the georgetown law school. he talked about a classmate of his who was in patent law. he realized this was a complex subject, one that is not the sort of law that he -- durbin was going to go into anymore than i would. but i also think of another graduate of georgetown law center, an engineer, had a degree in engineering, studied patent law, became one of the most distinguished patent lawyers, litigators in this country and is now a member of the federal circuit court of appeals. that's judge richard lynn.

it was interesting hearing the senator from illinois, the distinguished senator from illinois himself one of the finest lawyers in this body. my wife marcel and i had the honor ever being out in chicago with george lynn and his wife patty for a meeting of the richard lynn inn of court in chicago. he served with great distinction. in fact, a major part of this legislation reflects what -- an opinion he wrote. but i digress, mr. president, and i ask unanimous consent the senate resume consideration of the lee amendment, number 115, the time until 5:15 be equally divided between the two leaders

or their designees, that upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate proceed to vote in relation to the lee amendment, number 115, the lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, upon disposition of the lee amendment, the senate resume consideration of the menendez amendment number 124, that senator menendez be recognized to modify his amendment, the changes at the dervetion and the amendment as modified be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table and there be no amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i thank the staff, the very superb staff for writing that out, because i am neat quite sure i could have done that on my -- because i'm not quite sure i could have done that on my own. but i would hope that the senate would focus specifically on this

issue designed to help create jobs. i would hope that we would consider relevant amendments and pass the bill. we could help unleash innovation, we could promote american ingenuity, we would not add to the deficit. this is bipartisan, commonsense legislation. you have republicans and democrats across the political spectrum as cosponsors. and i would hope that we'd come together, pass this needed legislation, do it in the finest tradition of the senate, something that we can do and would reflect our growing conscience of the nation. we have been bogged down with nongermane discussion and amendments. earlier this week senators were focused on legislative efforts and responsibilities joining tabling an amendment that had

nothing to do with the america invents act. extraneous amendments have nothing to do with reforming our out-of-date patent system so that american innovators can win the global competition for the future. they have no place in this important bill. we're going to win our imloabl economic competition, we need to pass a bill that makes sense. we have to dispose of another such amendment of i take proposals to amend the constitution of the united states seriously. i take seriously my oath to uphold and defend the constitution and bear truth and alley diswroons it, true faith -- bear truth and allegiance to it, true faith and allegiance to it. i have seen hundreds and hundreds of constitutional amendments proposed during my years in the senate. i am delighted that it did not pass because i can only imagine what our constitution dwoo look like if they had. and i have become more and more

skeptical of recent efforts to amend the design of the principle protections of all americans. i think the founders go a pretty good job in designing our fundamental cheamplet i take seriously the standards setted in article 5 of the constitution. the congress propose amendments only when a supermajority of the congress deem it necessary. of those hundreds and hundreds of constitutional amendments i have seen, a number i actually voted on during the last 20 years, i have remained steadfast in my defense of the constitution. now, the so-called balanced budget amendment, i understand it's not new. iit is the first matter that senator hatch moved throughout judiciary committee when he chaired t i was ranking member. i opposed the constitutional amendment but i worked with him to at least bring it to the floor so we could vote on it. and i wish others would show the

managers of this bill that courtesy and cooperation and not seek to use the bill as a vehicle. i know that president reagan spoke strongly about wanting a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. he never supported one but he said he wanted one. maybe the reason he didn't support a specific one is he tripled the national debt while he was president and vetoed only one spending bill. why? he didn't spend as much money he's wanted. now, we've had the so-called balanced budget amendment nine times before the committee. we debated amendments several times in 1982, 1986, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997. they haven't been adopted. aagreed once in 1992 but the house of representatives thought better. another senator has proposed an even more complicated amendment.

let's follow the are regular order, send it to the judiciary committee subcommittee on the constitution and civil rights and human rights. the senator who has proposed this is a member of that subcommittee. he didn't speak to the chairman of the it didn't speak to me, but preemptively sought to raise the matter in this important bill which is designed to create jobs, encourage american innovation, strengthen our economy. some of us have actually done hard work to help produce a bawsmght i remember in 1983, not a single republican voted to balance the budget. not a single republican when we passed it in this body by a one-vote margin. i was proud to be here to vote for it. what happened? it passed -- we passed a budget. a budget surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars.

by the end of the clinton administration, we were paying down the national debt. we had a surplus. again, not a single republican voted for it. but then the next administration squandered it by going into an unnecessary war and borrowing the money to do it, i'd ask particular letters be placed in the record and the balance of my speech as though read, and i note that we are now at 5:15.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all time has now expired and the question is on the lee amendment. mr. leahy: mr. president, i oppose this amendment. it's simply allowed to go to voice vote because the proponent of the amendment is leaving on the floor. i will, though, to protect his rights, and not withstanding his not following the normal policy on this, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient

second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: does anyone in the chamber still wish to vote on this amendment? if not, on this vote the yeas are 58, the nays are 40. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the

amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the senator from new jersey is recognized. may we have some order in the senate for the senator from new jersey? may we have order in the senate? may we have order in the senate? the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. pursuant to the previous order, i ask that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the amendment is so modified. mr. menendez: mr. president, this modified amendment cosponsored by senator bennet would allow the patent office director to prioritize patents that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness, and the amendment would ensure that patents that are vital to our national interests do not languish -- the presiding officer: i have asked the senator to suspend because the senate is not in

order. may we have order in the senate? may we have order in the senate, please? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i thank the chair. let me say that the amendment that will ensure that patents that are vital to our national interests do not languish in any backlog at the patent office and that they ultimately promote the national economy and the national competitiveness. my understanding, mr. president, is that by previous agreement, the amendment as modified is agreed to. the presiding officer: that is correct. under the previous order, the amendment as modified is agreed to. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and observe an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. the motions to reconsider on the two previous amendments are laid on the table. mr. bennet: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. i thank the senator. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: mr. president, are we

in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. a senator: i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i would like to be recognized as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i come at the end of a long day for all of us to talk about a subject off the subject of the current bill on the floor but one of tremendous importance to the united states and to the recovery of our economy, and also to just point out for the record and hopefully also for the right people that we are at a critical point in terms of housing in america with dodd-frank having been passed and the new rules being promulgated, it's essential that we do not make the mistakes that led us to the last collapse that caused the tragedy in housing in 2007, 2008, and 2009. as i'm sure the the president's aware and of the senate, there was a dodd amendment called the presence of residential mortgage. which was coauthored by senator landrieu, senator hagan and myself, to ensure that the risk retention provisions of

dodd-frank would not apply to a well underwritten, well-qualified loan. risk retention, as the chair would remember, is the 5% retention requirement of any lender who made a residential mortgage that was not qualified but they were not specific in their definition of what a qualified mortgage would be. so we took the point to take the historical underwriting standards that have proven so well in this country and write them into the dodd-frank bill, which were that a mortgage made to be exempted from a -- a risk retweengs have to have -- retention would have to have 20% down. if there was more than 80% loan-to-value that amount above 80% would have to be covered by private mortgage insurance. we required third-party verification of bank deposits, third-party verification of employment, third-party verification of an individual's able to make the payments and service the debt, and credit reports paul and the other under -- reports and all the other underwriting standards. the chair will remember what got us in so much trouble in -- in

2000-2007 was we made subprime loans, stated income didn't do debit checks, didn't do nations any we should have done and we made a lot of bad mortgages. any way, my point is this. there is a committee that's been formed made up of some very distinguished americans that's promulgating the rules to carry out the intent of dodd-frank. that committee includes shaun donovan from h.u.d., ben bernanke of the federal reserve, edward demarco, acting director of the federal housing finance agency, john walsh, the acting comptroller of the currency, mary shapiro, the head of the s.e.c., the honorable sheila bair the head of the fdic. that is a very august group. they are in the process of promulgating the rules to carry out the intent of dodd-frank with regard to residential mortgages. and the rumors that are coming out of those negotiations -- and i say rumors because i can't verify them because i'm not in -- but i do know the articles i've read in the papers the last couple days send a very troubling signal to me. and just for a few minutes i want to make the point that i

think are so critical. number one, it's my understanding that to consider memorializing 80% as the maximum amount of loan-to-value for a loan that would fall as a qualified residential mortgage and do not address private mortgage insurance for coverage above 80%. without getting technical, what that would mean is the only qualified residential mortgages that could be made and not require risk retention would have to have a minimum of a 20% down payment. in the olden days of standard lending in the 1980's and the 1970's and the 1960's, when you borrowed more than 80% but not over 95%, you had private mortgage insurance to insure the top 30% of the loan made so that the investors had the insurance of knowing if there was a default, the top portion of that loan, which was the most in terms of loan-to-value, would be insured and would be paid. if it is, in fact, correct that this committee's going to recommend a qualified residential mortgage, require a

20% down payment and not make provisions for p.m.i., we will be making a serious, serious mistake, because two things will happen. one, one, very few people will be able to get a home loan in the entry-level market or even in the move-up market because 209% down payment is significant. we would be turning our back on the history in america where p.m.i. has been used to secure risk. we must remember what happened in terms of the collapse of freddie mac and fannie mae. what happened was congress directed that they buy a certain percentage of their portfolio and what were called affordable loans, which became subprime securities, which became 13% of their portfolio, which brought them down when is up subprime securities collapsed. if we all of a sudden decide to pass regulations to define a qualified residential mortgage that are so prohibitive that we

run everybody through f.h.a., then we'll be putting a burden on f.h.a. and creating a situation of another collapse or another inability of the united states to meet housing needs through the private sector. and through we will underwritten loans. so my reason for coming to the floor is to send a message before the decisions are made to be thoughtful in determining what the parameters will be on qualified residential mortgage. yes, i do think an 80% or less loan should be qualified and avoid risk retention. but a well-paid, well-verified, well-credited individual who borrows more than 80% but less than 75% should be able to do so and be excluded from the risk retention as long as they have private mortgage insurance covering that top 30% of the debt created by that loan. if do you that, you protect the equity prigs, you protect the investor, you make a qualified loan, you don't put the country at rick, but most importantly of

all, you don't force everybody through f.h.a. that's what we're about to do because f.h.a. is by definition under dodd-frank exempt from risk retention. all other loans are not except those that'll fall under the q.r.m. or the qualified religionsdential mortgage. it would be a as doe disaster fe recovery of american housing to force americans to only one source of money to finance their home and put so much stress on federal housing administration and f.h.a. that it collapsed under the burden. we need to be magmatic when belook at the issues facing house. we need to be practical in taking dodd-frank and making it work. we need to recognize the value of private mortgage insurance, the value of good, solid underwriting and not put a risk retention in that's so high that we take most american mortgage lendlers oust the business, isolate it only to a few who dictate the pa ram ers this they want to write and make housing loans in america. we are at a critical time in our

recovery. housing has hit the bottom and bounced along the bottom. but it is showing some signs of coming back. now would be the worst time to send a signal that mortgage money is going to be harder and harder to get, that banks are going to have to hold 5% risk retention and worst of all we give the american people only one alternative for lending and that's the f.h.a. which in and of itself sunders such a burden it's a straes. so, mr. president, i appreciate the time tonight to bring this message to the floor that as we write the rules to promulgate the intent of the dodd-frank bill in terms of residential housing and finance, we be sure that we do so in such a way that we meet the demand after vibrant marketplace rather than restricting it, putting a burden on f.h.a. and, and protracting a long and difficult housing recession. i yield back the balance of my time and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and all nominations on the a secretary's desk. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, if these statements rb printed in the record -- be printed in the record and president obama be notified of senate's action and the senate then -- resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning,

thursday, march 3, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business million 11:00 -- business until 11:00 a.m. with the time controlled between the two leaders or designees with the republicans controlling the -- republicans controlling the first half and majority controlling the final half. the senate resume consideration of s. 23, the american invents act. finally, there be a period of morning business from 2:00 until 4:00 with senators permitted to speak for ten minutes each with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the next. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should expect roll call votes in relation to amendments to the american invents act to occur throughout the day tomorrow. if there is no further business, i ask the senate stand in adjournment under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> there's a new way to get a concise review of the events. washington today he spent radio. let's take you to capitol hill, the white house and anywhere this is happening. we'll talk with the experts, politicians and journalists as

he put today's events into dave. the stories that matter to you that most every week day, five to seven eastern time on c-span radio. you can listen in the washington baltimore area and nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 132. or go online at c-span.org. it's also available as an iphone app. you can download the program entry evening as the c-span podcast.

>> five democratic members are part of a discussion on the middle east peace process. lawmakers are hosted at the j street political action committee that describes itself as though israel americans to support its two state solutions. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. hi, i'm alexander stanton, the

cochair at jay street pack and i to welcome this afternoon session. it's very exciting for us to have right now for distinguished members of congress, all endorsed these of our pac. we have from left to right, congressman steve cohen, congresswoman lynn woolsey, congressman david price. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] so the way what do questions today is if you write them down there's cards on the table. we'll have staff going through the i/o. it just razor energy got a question in the past and that to me. also if you would make sure to turn off your cell phones or turn into silent in your blackberries et cetera. we'll start with opening remarks page for distinguished members of congress. crispin -- go in. >> good afternoon to you all.

we are in the south as i understand it. it's an honor to be here in more ways than one. it's an honor to be a member of congress. while i am the only jewish member to be elected in the state of tennessee. [applause] and i am the only minority caucasian representative of a majority african american district in the country. and that i think deserves a round of applause for my constituents. [applause] this is the last day of black history month and unfortunately black history has been made in memphis in many ways, one of the most on a track to sadden moments was in april of 68 when dr. king was assassinated in memphis. from that assassination, like a

phoenix distilleries museum husker and from the finest natural rights museum and the country. i encourage you to come to memphis and visit the civil rights museum and learned about the history of the movement, going way, way back to sir turner truth and ida b. wells and, to thurgood marshall and everybody else. but i am pleased to be at jay street. when i first came to congress -- [applause] exactly. that deserves a round of applause. as my fellow colleagues here know one voice about jewish positions including israel or american position known as aipac. there is nothing wrong with aipac. they should have their voice and they are very much pro-israel. but as most of you know, if you

get three together, you'll have four different opinions at least. and i think in israel they had some quote about 1000 presidents or a billion presidents. and so, jewish people think for themselves. albert einstein said there were certain things that made him very proud to be part of the jewish people. part of that was searching for knowledge for its own sake. part of it was a great desire for justice. and another was describing for independence. and jewish people are historically educated, knowledgeable, concerned about justice and thriving for independence. that's what einstein thought industries. without it's hard to fathom at least one jewish organization with one voice on any issue because that doesn't represent the whole issue of the jewish

people. now there are two voices, both with the same goal. peace in israel is realizing a major nation with security and the jewish state that we have needed and it needed to have me forever. jstreet is not against aipac. jstreet is pro-israel and pro-peace. it just takes a different approach as you know. i received an e-mail from a good friend of mine in memphis who was strong aipac supporter incited some quotations from three of the speakers that are on the panel at some time or another. they had statements that were very friendly towards israel and he suggested i shouldn't be here or be in the panel because i was among these three people, along

with 96 others that are going to be speaking. he don't make peace with people you're in love with. the new skype differences of opinion and you need to get together and make peace for mutual benefit, there's going to be somebody on the other side naturally but the need for peace that will say things are so nice about you because there's conflict. there've been conflicts in the middle east for a long time. because somebody makes a statement, that doesn't mean you don't talk to them or listen to them. if you don't talk or listen, you won't understand them and to not be a different mutual accord. it's a mutual accord that's necessary. so i'm pleased to be your even though some people think that we should all march to the same drummer. they should be out there doing a one-man band. that's not the way thinking people operate. the situation in the middle

east, as you all know is very fluid. who's knows what's going to happen next. first there is egypt. first there was tanisha, then each of, then wisconsin, then libya. [laughter] [applause] the problems with the middle east is you don't know it's going to happen, but israel needs support more than ever. and if the arab people get united and need a common soil, which often happens with the new regime to keep the people united, the have always been a great common foil or common enemy. and that potentially could have been. so i think we need to take every opportunity we can to encourage the united states, and to encourage israel to sit down at the table and have a two state solution to recognize the palestinian authority, to not be

aggressive in east jerusalem and to try to find peace that will penetrate everybody in the long rant. with that, i'm going to defer to my colleagues and the list of questions and once again it's an honor to be with you and i'm proud to be supported by jstreet. [applause] >> congressman woolsey. >> thank you very much. i thank you. we've decided we're going to sit down here. >> we decided we're going to sit down here. [laughter] >> that will work. is that better?

we thought we could see better down there, see you and the is better. thank you, alexander for organizing this. thank you, transport and good afternoon twyla view. it is definitely an honor to be with you and to be with my good friends and colleagues who are on this panel. i for one can grateful that jstreet put this all together because this is a particularly important for them. i've been in congress for 18 years. and believe me, there has never been more chaos in the middle east with algeria, egypt, lebanon, bahrain's, it just seems to not stop. and then much of my 18 years, there hasn't been very much space for free and open discussion about issues involving israel and the middle eastern region.

more often than not, there was a pinched and stifling quality to our debate with the most important decisions governed by a fear. and that was the fear of losing votes were losing campaign donations or for heaven sakes, having a well-funded opponent run if you are doing exactly the right thing because we were debating and people didn't know the pros and cons of what was exactly the right thing to be voting on. and as a result, it wasn't us that was harmed, the members of congress particularly, it was their constituents because millions of americans were being represented when we were debating both sides of the middle east issue in the u.s. congress.

thankfully, all that has begun to change. and i believe a lot of the credit goes to jay -- jstreet. [applause] ..

>> during my two visits to israel, and i'll tell you, i'm looking forward to a third visit with jstreet this summer. [applause] i came to appreciate just how vulnerable it feels to live in a nation the size of new jersey and be surrounded by hostile neighbors. those neighbors aren't miles away, but they are across a road. at the same time, i know that palestinians have been forced to live in dismal, squaller for generations. their human rights are stripped of dignity and self-determination, so i can't think of anything more short sided especially at this critical moment of transition and turbulence in the middle

east of underminding aide to israel or the palestinian authority. [applause] i'm joined with several, eni believe it will be many house colleagues in full support of the president's foreign aid budget request. it's one way to keep peace negotiations on track. [applause] so much -- i didn't pause for you to clap, i just got my papers all screwed up here. [laughter] so much innocent blood has been shed over the decades because of this particular conflict. it's my fervent hope, and believe me, i hope both parties consider their actions on young israelis and palestinians because a baby born in the middle east knows nothing of the six day war.

she simply deserves a chance to grow up without fear of rockets, without fear of grenades, and without fear of suicide bombers. these young people deserve a future of peace and harmony, but it will and can happen only if the leadership in the middle east show courage, foresight, and true statesmenship, and we in this congress support that. [applause] both sides must make concessions, neither owns a monopoly on the moral high ground. they must seize this moment and put themselves on the right side of history. they must understand in president obama's words to the u.n. last year, "we cannot let this holy land remain a symbol of our differences instead of a

symbol of our common humanity." as stubborn as this conflict has been and intractable as the differences seem, i believe there will be peace because at the end of the day, both sides want to give their grandchildren a legacy of peace, and i look forward to your questions today and our conversation. [applause] >> congresswoman capps. >> thank you, al -- alexandra for your support. i am thrilled to be endorsed by jstreet and travel to the middle east just a year ago now with

jstreet now. [applause] it's terrific to see such rapid growth in your membership and your exposure. the topics for today's discussion is a crucial one, creating political space for open and honest dialogue about israel and pees in the middle east is -- peace in the middle east is so crucial. jstreet has been instrumental in creating this. when i first came to congress in the late 1990s, israel disability was defined by a wide white line. you were pro-israel or anti-israelment make no mistake, i consider myself to be then and now strongly pro-is recall. it is our vital ally, the one driving democracy in that region. we are partners who share basic critical values, and i support policies that i believe are in

the best interest of both israel and the united states, and that's why i'm also strongly pro-peace. there's no doubt that a strong lasting peace between israel, palestine, and their neighbors is in everyone's best interest. that's why i'm so pleased by the great work that jstreet is doing. in recent years, and again, this is another result of the formation of jstreet, there's a notable shift in the debate and political atmosphere surrounding these important issues. simply put, there is now more than one way to be pro-israel, and i see many reasons for this shift in our debate. first, there's been a generational shift. younger voters and younger members of congress. the israel of the 1980s and 1990s was the much more stable place than in the 60s and 70s;

right? they didn't watch israel fighting over a right to exist like that parents and grandparents did. this understandably shaped their views, and many of these people are here in the room on the conflict and how to solve it. second, the situation on the ground in israel and the united states has changed considerably over the last decade, and i don't have to tell you that. after years of hands off policies under the bush administration, the status quo in israel has grown increasingly fragile. the settlements have made things worse. americans, jews, and nonjews understand this, and view is shifting towards a more hands on pro-peace approach. the understanding that israel's security is linked to establishing a stable peace in the region is taking hold here, and it has in israel also.

a long lasting peace is in the region -- excuse me, a long lasting peace in the region is clearly in america's interest as well, and the public understands this also. finally, this is the most important, jstreet has given a voice to the reality that the debate on security in the middle east is complex and demands honest and open discussion. these efforts have helped tremendously to open the dialogue in congress, and thank you for making that possible for those of us who serve in that place. we can tell. members of congress now know that there is more than one way to be pro-is real -- pro-israel. there's room for discussion. we are definitely making progress thanks in large part to jstreet's efforts, but we still have a long way to go. this is the part i want to leave

you with because it has to do with grass roots involvement. the most important statement i can make to you today, one which i know you share, is that the most important thing all of us can do to advance the pro-israel pro-peace agenda is to continue to be active locally. this is important to us as members of congress to hear from our local constituents as it is to all of our colleagues. i'm appreciative of the fact that jstreet recognizes this rein started opening up local chapters throughout the country. i encourage this. activism is essential to establishing the pro-israel pro-peace agenda. believe it or not, we, members of congress, listen to our con stitch wents, especially on issues like these. the hundreds of hill visits you are planning to make will send a powerful message across the floor of the congress as we gather because of the meetings

that have taken place in members' offices. don't stop there. arrange a meeting with the local district staff and check in with them regularly. if there's an issue you have concerns about, let them know. make sure that we know, their members of congress know, all of us, make sure that members in their staff are aware of the diverse opinion within the jewish community, and this is, i believe, the place where you can be the most effective, and as your numbers grow, the numbers of context to members of congress throughout the country are only going to continue. this is how we continue to create space in the congress for more open and productive dialogue. the biggest hurdle is not opposition to the pro-israel pro-peace agenda, but rather ignorance about it. seeing so many of you here over the days only strengthens my confidence in the aid and ability to advance the cause of

peace in palestine. i appreciate you being here. your presence here is sending a very powerful message. thank you from the bottom of my heart. i look forward to our conversations. [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman. congressman price. >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to welcome you to washington and to an expanded role in national politics. i'll address our topic in just a moment, but let me first say just a word about the world's situation, the mid eastern situation we mace right now, and the kind of light it sheds on the prospects enurgency of peace. these thoughts are performed by congressional mission that

congresswoman capps and i and three colleagues just returned from. we learned some things. our delegation's mission was to strengthen the representative institutions of indonesia. further admission, a congressional commission that i cochair, and it was clear throughout the discussions that the world's attention is captured by the events happening in the middle east. in indonesia, as you know, we face a very promising situation of democratic development and particularly parliamentary development that includes the peaceful participation of islamist parties, and there's a widespread sense i would think in our country, i hope so, and certainly in indonesia, that that parliament offers a promising model opposed to

others we might think of, a promising model for the democracy we hope and believe will be emerging in the middle east. even in east temor, a nation scarcely removed from decades of foreign occupation and civil strife, the president in his discussions with us a couple of mornings ago, a former guerrilla leader, a nobel laureate, and he talked about the forefathers and the revolutions and urged us not to lose sight of our interest in israeli-palestinian peace. it's easy to say as many have said that the events make this all the more essential. i think we all know at some level that that's true, but what does it mean exactly? how will this very fluid

situation in the middle east affect peace for israel, and what should the united states do about it? if we're to make the case to the administration, to congress or to very skeptical governments that this moment calls for action, then i think we have to talk pretty seriously, quite seriously and talk very clearly about exactly why this is so. obviously, a lot is not within our control. a lot depends on events yet to unfold, the makeup and orientation of the new regime in egypt, for example. the potential ripple effects of the unrest in jordan, on palestine, for example. the israeli government's reaction and so on. there's in uncertainties, but i believe we can already outline at least two compelling arguments in favor of a concerted effort by israel, the palestinian authority, and by the obama administration to overcome the setbacks we've

witnessed over the past two years and to return to the table for peace and negotiations. the first argument is one of uncertainty and urgency. as many including columnists like tom friedman and senior officials and governments on both sides of the atlantic and including israel itself argue that new prospects in egypt and elsewhere could be less committed to peace or more hostile towards israel, should counter a sense of urgency to strike a deal in favorable conditions. we have to take this threat seriously. the obama administration is wise to make clear that it views the camp david accords as a viable lynch pin of stability in supporting the aspirations of the egyptian people, but i also believe we shouldn't misconstrue or make too much of this threat. by all accounts, the leaders of

the revolutions in egypt and tunisia are young and pragmatic, worldly, haven't come of age politically, and they may be critical of israeli and american policies, but they are not anchored in the rejectionist policies and politics of the past. for this reason, i think the second argument is one of opportunity. we have a huge creditability gap with the vast majority of the egyptian people, and what our policies of israel and the peace process are not the only reason for gap, they certainly have contributed to it. in order to make progress towards peace could help the united states regain credibility with the egyptian people and lay a new foundation for an era of u.s. relations with a more democratic middle east to make good on the promise of president obama's address in cairo. now, let me turn briefly to the

topic of the day, the role of pro-peace members in congress in creating political space for the administration to pursue more aggressive reproaches to peace. there is to be sure a strong need for positive action, for us to enurge u.s. leadership and ideas in the peace process, to ensure that peace does not fall victim to the shifting sands of the region, but in the current congress, i must say, preventing negative action has become just as important, if not more so -- [laughter] there we go. preventing negative action has become just as important if not more so than pursuing positive action. i have to say that recent congressional middle east politics, and you know what i'm talking about, you know about the resolutions, the letters, those have often as not been

counterproductive, have been often very one sided and not helpful, and too many of those were under democratic leadership. i'm afraid we might have much bigger fights on our hands urn the current republican leadership in the house. think about what's out there right now, separating israeli aid for example from the rest of foreign aid. what a terrible idea. [applause] overly restricting aid to the palestinian authority, taking a reactionary approach to the legitimate components of a new egyptian or lebanese government, and the list goes on. [applause] so you're here at an important time. it will be critical for all of you to let the elected leaders know tomorrow, and we look forward to having you on the hill. let me and my colleagues know that you care about these

issues, that you're watching, that you're watching carefully, that there is still widespread support among the american people for an active, assertive u.s. role in sustaining peace. thank you. [applause] >> congressman -- [inaudible] >> thank you. you know, before i begin the assigned topic, you know, sometimes the staff hands us one or two pages of preparatory notes for these events, and i was taken by the extraordinary times we live in. the first page of the staff gave me, protests in the middle east, protests spreading rapidly across the middle east and north africa, bahrain, egypt, iran, iraq, kuwait, yemen, i'm --

i mean, who would have are e predicted this six months ago? [applause] it was put well where it's important as an american jewish community as well as israelis be in line with the hopes and aspirations of these people. fundamentally in this business, politics, and your business as activists, at the end of the day one has to have faith in people. it doesn't mean that's always born out or our idealism comes up short when it encounters reality, but it does mean we cannot give up believing in people, and to findly envision an arab world that has thrown off the yolk of oppression that arabs have suffered under for far too long is a wonderful thing for the world, and i think we can be proud in standing with

the hopes and aspirations of the long o pressed -- oppressed arab people. [applause] you know, as we talk about creating the space for a pro-israel and propeace discussion in congress, i want to share a little bit about how congress members think about these kinds of issues. now, in all honesty, most members of congress have made more of a study in the middle east than any other foreign policy areas, but with this and others what members of congress do is listen to their constituents. it's not anything nofareuos that other constituents care more than others about israel and palestine and many members of congress when given a congress about them might turn to their

jewish constituents and say what's going on and what does this mean? again, there's nothing unusual about that. when i have decisions about the or -- armenian constituents, most don't way -- weigh in one way or another, but we have an organized community in my district, and i'm a cosponsor of the genocide resolution because i think it's the right thing. [applause] it's difficult for a representative and a turkish population. that's understandable. here's logical leaders that members of congress turns to on issues of importance of the jewish community. if they only hear from one set, they think that's what everybody thinks. if they hear from you as well, they will incorporate that in. it doesn't mean they'll agree or

disagree with you on any particular issue, but it's a certain standing you have showing you're interested in the issue and believe strong athat moving the peace process forward and peace is in the best interest of israel and in the best interest of the united states, enwe need to use our leverage as a country, as the united states, to move that peace process forward in the region, and we have as we know considerable leverage, how do we have that leverage? of course, our historical ties with israel, large amounts of foreign aide to egypt and israel and the palestinian authority. with that comes not the ability to dictate what parties do, certainly not the ability to tell democratic elected governments what to do, but certainly the authority to use our influence to encourage all parties to do the right thing for themselves and fort world, and that is move forward in a fair peace process.

[applause] you know, the remarkable thing is that we all know to a percent or two what a comprehensive peace deal looks like in israel and palestine, and with the recently leaked wikileak memos, some of us saw we were closer than what we thought. with regard to the three issues, the land exchange, determination of the final settlements, final decision on israel, and the palestinian right of return, the parties are very close, very close. they are close enough where it's more of a matter looking for an excuse to do the deal or not do the deal opposed to differences between the parties with regard to what that final deal looks like, and hopefully our country plays a constructive role with your advocacy and with your help in bringing these parties together to create prosperous and free and peaceful state of

israel, and a prosperous and free palestinian state. one can say we've never been closer or never been further. until we get there, it's infin natalie far, but your presence here and particularly on capitol hill with your members of congress who you've elected will help play a critical role in making sure that america's influence, our country's influence is used in a positive way to support israel and to support peace. the best way of supporting israel is to support peace. the best way of supporting american policy for foreign interests is to support peace, and i'm proud to join you in supporting the peace process in the middle east which with the vast changes in the arab world over the last few months have begin us license to dream about what a new middle east might look like for all of us. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. before we start with questions, i just wanted to share with you you recently arrived at the conference. we are over 23 # 00 strong. -- 2300 strong. [applause] we have over 500 students from 128 campuses. [applause] we have, in this room before you, members, a mix of folks coming from grass roots, politics, some from small organizations, some from large federations, some rabbis, some people from republican and democratic parties as well as third parties. you have a real representation of the fabric that is the jewish community, and you five of here are from various states and your backgrounds are jews and nonjews are also representing that

diversity, and we're thrilled to have you here. some of the questions -- [applause] not surprisingly, this is an extraordinary opportunity for our conference attendees and members of jstreet to learn from people who are part of the jstreet fabric and family how you reinvolve in the halls of congress, how you navigate if you will some of the complicated issues. we are lobbying tomorrow. we are getting questions about bipartisanship. it's important. you five happen to be democrats. how do we pull our republican members as well on to these issues to work in partnership in coalition, and we're also being asked about advice in lobbying. congresswoman capps, you talked about the importance of local visits to district offices. i think folks want to know how are they to be representing themselves? what is most useful for members

to be hearing, and what advice would you give people who want to be the most effective in the name of this organization? >> i'm going to take a chance on this microphone. what do you think? does it work? awesome. i'm glad you picked on that, that particular issue. you're here on the hill. it's going to be dicey. there's a lot going on in congress this week, there's a big agenda on whether to continue our government, and so members will be preoccupied, and you're here for a short time, and you have many other things to do here as well. when you're home and talking about how to stay active in your local communities, whether through a chapter organization which i strongly encourage if you're able to do that, just reach out to the members distribute office. sometimes when we're in here in washington, d.c., you can go and sit down with one of the staff

members who has a particular interest and can be versed on this topic, and let them know of your interest. find an occasion within the local community for the member to make an appearance, to be a part of the discussion group, to be a part of a panel. keep district offices apprised of what you're hearing from the jstreet head quarters, what you hear on the news, and what you feel about what's going on. it helps to build up support in the local community that you're looking for, and cues us in on what's going on at home. when we're here, we miss out on the local news, so you can help fill that gap. thank you. that's what i had in mind. >> great. congresswoman? >> well, you're here on the hill today, tomorrow. okay. here's what i recommend. when you go into an individual's office, hopefully you'll speak to the member of congress.

if you do or if you don't, do not go in and assume you know how that person thinks. ask them. what is your opinion on -- what is your position on? when this happened, what did you think? if you're talking to a staff member, what was your member's reaction? because if you go, come to our offices and tell us what you think we think and you're wrong, there's nothing more infuriating by the way, or if you go and lecture us when we're already with you 100%, you just wasted a whole bunch of everybody's time. you need to find out what that member feels and thinks and will do. the member needs to know what your organization will do to help support that person.

i mean, you can't go in and say we'll vote for you. it's not a political thing, but it is political. they need to know that grassroots care about the issues. let me just put it that way. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> congressman. >> let me second the proposition that you shouldn't settle. it's easy to say you're proisrael and propeace. it's easy to generalize, but as lynn is stressing to the extent you can be specific while being civil and listening as well as talking. i think there's nothing -- there's everything to be said i think for a conversation that understands or reflects on understanding that these are contentious matters and that you're watching, and you have ideas you think are worthy of

attention, you know, just beyond paying lip service. secondly, the point about district contacts is extremely important. you have the capacity, i know from my own district, you have the capacity to set up to replicate the meetings you'll have tomorrow and do them more successfully without the bells going off and lights flashing in the districts. the grass roots aspect of this is one of the most welcomed aspects. i remember how i felt with the formation in my own district. it was terrific to have that kind of local support and also just the opportunity for local conversation, so it's a very great strength. district office meetings are potentially much more important what goes on here in washington without the distractionses. moreover, you have the potential

to multiply your efforts many times over, but it requires organization, attention to districts where you may not have full strength, you know, where you have a really work at getting people to go see their own member, go see their own member in their own district. that's the way to have maximum impact. [applause] >> congressman price, you talked about setbacks to the peace process. we get questions of avenues that you think the administration ought to pursue, specific or abroad? we'll being asked if you think the u.s. should publish its own suggestive parameters and plan for the two-state solution if any or all of you think that would advance the agenda? >> well, as i think was said, this is one the stranger foreign policy issues we're dealing with

in with what most people think they know what the parameters look like, yet, the obstacles to getting there seem absolutely daunting. of course, at the moment, plenty of reasons for discouragement on all sides, but what i meant to emphasize earlier is the sense of heightened urgency and opportunity that i think the situation in the region poses right now. it's not that we, of course, can predict exactly how things unfold, but we can imagine how things might go not so well down the road, and we certainly can imagine how the overall peace and stability of the reason and u.s. credibility and friendship in the region would be immeasurably heightened by a settlement between the israelis and the palestinians and by a

u.s. role in brokering that settlement. it's sometimes common to say that we can't want more -- we can't want peace more than the parties themselves want it. of course, there is truth in that observation. on the other hand, i believe that there's much that we can do to put forward ideas and the time may come when actually we put forward very specific ideas. i'm certainly open to that as the dip diplomatic situation permits where we would push this in every way that we possibly can. i certainly have a sense of both opportunity and urgency here, and just want to encourage in every way we can the administration's most forward

proactive kind of diplomatic effort they can manage. >> thank you. i don't know -- the first question is one i want to go back to. when you have a opportunity to speak to members of congress, and i know jstreet like apac is proisrael and propeace. i know everybody here is not jewish. that's the beautiful thing about last year's dinner because i looked around and not everybody was jewish. it was nice because they weren't turned around when they weren't at some other event. [applause] but i think you ought to express some of the other tenants that jews usually share, and that's caring about people that are less fortunate. children who may be in poverty, care about individual freedoms

and choice and planned parenthood and npr, that notorious media firm that puts out all that stuff, and public broadcasting. what we saw the last week in session was the repudiation of the last 220th -- 20th century, and it's scarry. i think what we scare should be expressed as well. [applause] they brought up turkey. i am the cochair of the toury-u.s. study group, and -- turkey-u.s. study group, and while i have a strong feeling towards turkey as a strong ally of the united states which it has been since the green war and

strong allies of israel recently, but turkey is going the wrong direction, but that doesn't mean you don't try to keep turkey your friend. i do that with every chance i can, members who visit, or any other time to try to encourage turkey to continue to be a nation in the middle east that is friendly towards israel to bring about a peace and they can do that. they can be a great conduit to peace. the opportunity for peace isn't lost, but wouldn't it have been wonderful to have a solution to this peace before all this unrest. who would have thought this six months ago, but because of the unrest, it's more difficult to bring about peace. hezbollah doesn't want israel to have peace, and they would like to see a continuation of the

failing of the peace process so eventually they can see a failure of the great nation of israel. [applause] >> congressman, can we go back to that a second? you talked about how the current situation makes the peace process more difficult. is there also not an opening in the past several weeks? to what extent to you see that the passover weeks rendered this more complicated but also afforded us more opportunities. >> i asked steve if i could jump ahead because i know this is on everybody's mind, and i have another event i have to attend. i just encourage you, the timing of your visit with all this going on in the world is doubly significant to me because i think that what jstreet stands for is a model for negotiations

in the troublesome areas that surround the israel palestinian region right now. i am one who believes that direct negotiations are the only way to resolve conflict and that that is what i have confidence that our administration is also convinced of that when they weigh in, they weigh in very strongly and will be very heavily involved in these regions and what you all are about propeace is the model for how the other countries can expect and should expect the united states to be there in this time as well. i thank you so much for your tremendous efforts: the encouragement that you've given us members of congress, and that i'm counting on you will continue to do because there's going to be some rough rocky road ahead, and we will be working together with you in a terrific team approach. thank you very much.

[applause] >> briefly, i think in a time of uncertainty, there's a range of possibilities that we can envision, but something is very, very wrong if this middle east unrest and the kind of democratic development isn't a very powerful wakeup call to the israeli government, to the palestinian government, and to our government, and -- [applause] you know, i said earlier we can't want peace more than the parties themselves want peace, but if that wakeup call suspect being heard, we certainly need to help make certain that it is.

>> you know, we live in very uncertain times. i think we knew what the established order was. we knew what different leaders could and couldn't do that were long established in the arab world. we knew more or less the parameters we operated under. that is all in flex. really the events of the last few months and the next few months will determine a new status quo in the middle east for the next generation. we hope for the better for israel, the better for u.s. interests. certainly, there is a change. i don't think any of us fully understand the ramifications of this change nor can we yet because we are bearing witness to the change. it's frustrating in that part. the president has handled this very well. i think wherever repression occurs, we need to condemn it. we need to somehow our hopes --

show our hopes are with the people. this is a struggle within the country and the region, and we hope it leads to more peaceful status quo. >> i guess i'm the only one up here who was on the white house lawn during the infamous wonderful handshake between arafat and president clinton looking on. there was such optimism and hope that settlement was imminent, it was around the corner, and that was, well, you know, you probably have the exact dates. to me, it was 16 years ago. that's close. you know what? that hope and the chances of settlement changed with every changing administration in our

own white house, so if you ask me should the united states put together a plan, our plan of what should happen in the middle east, i say no unless we can make and ensure that that plan carries on from one administration, republican, democrat, matter not to another. for us to do that and then, i mean we had a plan, and it was bill clinton's plan, and it was a really good plan, and the next administration came along and didn't particularly support it and didn't make it happen, and i think the lesson with what's going on right now following right behind what i'm saying now. the united states cannot be the nation that peace depends upon because we would have to be so many places all at the same time

and then if a new administration came in and changed what they believed, think what the poor nations would be wanting us to do. i just think that peace depends on the nation and that's involved and the united states is responsible for supporting that peace with as much smart security as we can and as little might make right attitudes. we really, as a nation, can set an example. we can help, and we can be supportive, but your question should we have our plan what should happen in another area and another region, i say no. >> congressman polis? congressman price? >> i think there's some disagreement here, but the administration that followed clinton was clearly a

disappointment in this regard. that's a -- i just witch he would have done it -- wish he would have done it earlier and with more preparation among possible arab supporters and so forth. we can revisit that forever, but i think putting forward a plan at taba was a very positive thing, and i'm not saying that the exact conditions exist right now for replicating that, but i certainly wouldn't rule it out. >> so in terms of where you think the house may go this session, given the events of the middle east, given the debate over foreign aid, given the budgetary constraints, what do you think is realistic for us to push for that is both

aspirational, but not irrational ? >> well, jstreet can play a very, very major role in helping your neighbors at home who think foreign aid is a half or three quarters of our budget. [laughter] people really do not know what a tiny, tiny fraction of our taxpayers' money goes to make peace and make good relations around the world, so you'd be very valuable in talking with your neighbors in helping them understand that those are dollars well spent. i particularly would rather see these dollars spent for economic support were individual nations and not military support, but --

[applause] but all in all, it's not much money compared to what we are spending on afghanistan at the moment. >> congressman, any thoughts? >> it's just a difficult time. one of the budgets proposed as an alternatives at the end by one of my colleagues from tennessee was that we should cut across the board, but not cut defense, not cut social security, not cut medicare, and not cut israel. you know, i think that hurts israel to be separated. i think we need to have support for all of the nations and support our state department, and i'm afraid what that was was simply a basis at the campaign contributions that must come from folks who support such thing, and that's not a good way to deal with your budget or

ideally deal with israel, so i think as congressman woolsley said, there's a report released that we're going to lose 700,000 jobs. another report said 1 million jobs and hurt the economy by 2%, and the truth of the matter is that's what the budget was about. it was about seeing to it that the economy is not in good shape and barak obama loses in 2012. don't ever think that everything that's been done up here isn't directed towards taking over the white house and removing this man who some see as an alien, so that's what you're dealing with. [applause] >> either way, certainly i agree

with the sentiment of the representatives. i do want to caution everybody. i think it is important to stay on topic when you meet with your members. i would share with you as i think everybody here a whole set of progressively oriented concerns we want to share with the members about the continuing resolution, gutting planned parenthood and npr, but i think this coalition has to be broader than people who might be progressive on those issues and might have some members shut off if they hear you start talking about things like that. you all wear hats as constituent members, and i think you should let them know about what you think on every topic, and you probably don't all agree, but here at the jstreet conference it's important your remarks are focused on the members here in this administration. [applause] >> on this cluster of topics we're discussing right now, let me just say i think the letter

that is circulating at this moment which i assume is in your pacts because jstreet has been very helpful in helping formulate that letter, i think that's a pretty good text for putting the foreign aid question in context. it doesn't explicitly take on the question of separating them from the rest of the budget, but i think you should take it on, and it also talks to palestinian aid. there is a real danger. foreign aid again becoming an ideological divide in the congress, and being the victim of demagoguery and i have always thought that one of the strongest arguments for aid to israel was the kind of friendship that it helped to cement which then meant we're in a position as friends and allies

to help inform israeli policies and help frankly to shape israeli policies and things like the peace process. i think the fact of the matter is that the israeli foreign aid has helped lift that foreign aid bill which benefits a lot of the poorest countries in the world, and so it's a kind of delicate balancing act which for all sorts of reasons i think must not come unraveled, and so don't let anybody off the hook. if they start demagoguing foreign aid everybody else but israel, i think there's a lot to be said about the approach suggested in the letter, and then finally -- [applause] finally in whatever ways you find it possible to express it, i do believe as i said earlier it's extremely important to avoid negative congressional

actions. so often that's what we deal with, these fire-breathing resolutions that don't contribute much to the betterment of the situation and may in some foreign quarters be, you know, we may not think about it here, but they sure do there, so the notion that you would make kind of premature and reckless preknownsments about the -- announcements about the egyptian government, not a very good idea. there's lots of things that are not very good ideas, and -- [laughter] i think honestly sometimes what we're facing in the congress is simply avoiding negative actions. >> yeah, great. well, i promise you it would be 4:30, and i don't want to keep you. let's give a warm welcome to our members. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> earlier today, the senate approved a bill passed earlier this week by the house that funds the government until march 18. the president signed the measure later in the day. this is 7 minutes. >> the supreme court ruled 8-1 today that the first amendment

protects church members -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. the american people want us to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, and passage of this short term spending bill i think shows we're listening to the american people. i think today's senate vote is a positive step in the right direction. american families are doing more with less, and there's no reason why the federal government can't bring in out of control federal

spending. doing that will, in fact, help create a better environment for job creation in our country. the house has now passed two bills, hr1 that was passed two weeks ago. yesterday, we passed the short term bill. these two measures were necessary because the democrats failed to do a budget and failed to do any appropriation bills to fund the government. passing this short term bill gives senate democrats two more weeks to either consider hr1 or outline their own plan of how we move ahead. americans have the right to know where senate democrats plan to cut spending to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year is. we're waiting for them, and hopefully we'll see something

from them soon. >> thanks, mr. speaker. i would only add that even though it was only a two week bill and a $4 billion reduction in spending, it is the first time i can recall in the time i've been here our actually cutting spending on an appropriation bill. small step, but a step in the right direction, and the question on your minds obviously is where do we go from here? well, obviously, we need to know where senate democrats take us from here. the house as the speaker indicated passed two proposals. one to fund the government to balance the fiscal year, and then the two week cr. now the question is where are senate democrats going to take us? what is their proposal? that would be the next step to try to resolve this for the

balance of the year, and we look forward to hearing from the majority in the senate. >> mr. speaker, mr. leader, the white house has announced that the vice president will lead talks inviting you to deal with this, and senate democrats said that they actually are incorporating ideas of what they would be okay with in terms of cuts, and that the white house would present those cuts to you at this meeting. would you come to the table with that in mind? >> it's important to make clear we've been discussions with democrat colleagues for weeks. this isn't something new, and the house's position is we pass ed the bill. it's out there. i think it's time for them to outline for us what's their position to keep the government funded? we've done the work in the house. >> wasn't the, i mean, isn't there some suggestion here

though that if the white house has been -- we've heard from democrats that they reached to the white house to get more involved. would these talks, would that sort of get this down the road where you can come upon an agreement? >> the house position is perfectly clear. we cut $100 billion over the president's request for this fiscal year. now, we have no clue where our colleagues on the senate side are. could i just add -- >> could i just add? we just heard about this suggestion about us being invited to a discussion on the way in here. we'll take a look at what they have to say. obviously, if i were you, i'd ask senate democrats how they feel about commencing such a discussion, and number two, at the risk of being redun adapt, what the -- redundant, what the speaker and

i are saying, where is the senate democratic proposal? where are they on the question of how do we fund the government for the balance of the year? >> you were saying that house republicans will not come to the negotiating table because you've already passed a bill, and that's the line? that's your -- >> that's not what i said. >> are you going -- >> listen, this is me. i speak english. [laughter] that's not what i said. i said the house has the position. where's the senate democrat position? where is it? how do you start a conversation where one house has spoken, and the other house hasn't? where's the starting point? we want to start with hr1, that's fine with me. >> you got two weeks. from this point