the i a key aide believes iran engage in research activities related to nuclear-weapons development. for two years they tried to get to the bottom of this, stonewalling by iran made it possible to clear up the i e a's concerns. ..remains, and without a full understanding of these past activities come is just not going to be possible to resolve this issue in any fundamental way. it's made harder by the fact that president rouhani keeps saying, not only does iran, is it not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it never pursued nuclear weapons. besides that, the supreme leader talks about i thought law, saying that nuclear weapons would be against islam. so becomes very difficult to

confess that iran was engaged in nuclear weapons related activities, given all of this. so i think negotiators are going to have to be very resourceful in finding a way to resolve this. i think the key will be to frame the issue in such a way that iran doesn't have to admit past guilt, but provide sufficient information to satisfy us that some activities engaged in the past do not have implications for covert programs in the future. that's going to be hard, that it's going to be essential. and the final issue i will mention is duration but if you look at the joint plan of action, it only says at the end that the conference of agreement will be of long-term duration. the parties could reach agreement on a precise number of

years. it becomes very important because another element of the joint plan of action is that once this comprehensive agreement expires, then iran will be treated in the same way as any nonnuclear weapon states party to the npt. and what that means is that perhaps some of the special restrictions on an enrichment program, on the iraq -- arak reactor, monitoring arrangements, some those especially restrictions will no longer apply. so the link of that comprehensive agreement becomes very important. my own view is that the duration should be 20 years or greater. i think the iranians have in mind single digits, low single digits, and the sides are very far apart. so what's the outlook? president obama had mentioned is yoview that it could be about a 50/50 probability in the state of union. he also indicated that perhaps

it won't be possible to reach a deal. i think, i think 50/50 may be optimistic. the issues are very wide. the differences are very wide, but i think it's possible with sufficient creativity on some of these issues to reach agreement. i don't see a agreement being reached in the first six months, the joint plan of action talks about the possibility of extending the interim deal by mutual consent. at the same time it indicates that a final agreement has to be completed within one year. i think that's, those are the parameters, between six months and 12 months. i think any longer than 12 months i think there will be strong pressures, domestic pressures both in transit and in washington that this has taken enough time -- in transit and in washington and you have to complete it.

so i will end it there, andy. >> thanks very much. thanks very much. there's a lot to chew on. please jot down your questions and get some of your so that i can then post them for our two speakers. there was one question that was asked me and written down before we actually started, and i'll just post the question here at the ousted. it was touched upon, bob come into final comment in this is question that pertains to verification. and the question is, the questioner says she wonders whether he you could comment on the enlarged role that is foreseen for the international atomic energy agency under, in the interim agreement? for example, the question is, i think the implication here is what the agency be granted the necessary access that they need to answer some of the outstanding issues, the outstanding questions that have been lingering there for a number of years but as you mentioned, particularly access

to the parchin military facility is where there is suspected possible military dimensions taking place. questions are pouring in. either of you just talk about that. >> under the joint plan of action, the iaea plays a major role. there will be a joint commission involving iran and the p5+1 countries that will look at implementation, both on the nuclear side and on the sanctions side. so it will play a role. but the parties recognize that the iaea is the organization with the expertise to do the job. so i would look to the iaea as the principal actor on verification. on parchin and those issues, those are going to be hard your recently, the iaea and iran agreed to a kind of program of action, six steps, that are

useful but they don't get to the military dimension aspects of the past. so this will be very hard but i think iran has to understand that it has to address iaea concerns or there will not be a final deal. >> i would just add what bob has said, and i agree with what he said. i think a lot of people remember when president reagan was negotiating nuclear arms reductions with the limitations with the soviet union back in 1987, president reagan said very same is fully -- said very simply, trust but verify. the verification in escape with a run comes with the iaea. a lot of people of modified what president reagan has said. iranian nuclear issue and i agree, don't trust. but verify. unique verification, and we trust the iaea. if it's fully empowered on a 24/7 bases to be the eyes and ears of the world to assure ourselves that the iranians are not cheating. but given the past record of the iranian government that bob and

i have both spoken to, they have not been credible. or honest. they have hidden these facilities, fordow now being one example when president obama exposed in his press conference in 2009. so we can't trust the government of iran. we must verify. another final point. foreign minister zarif and others have put a spotlight on verification and said we will go the extra mile -- i'm paraphrasing -- on verification. that's not going to be enough. because what is being verified is the critical issue. and we don't want to have a fully empowered and constructed centrifuge program to be verified. we want that such the program to be rolled back. we don't want the arak heavy-water reactor to be verified. as bob said, it's got to be transformed into a light water reactor, or dismantled completely.

so the core of the negotiations will not be verification. the core of the negotiations is the main government willing to dismantle parts of its program? then you verify. the agreement that you strike with them. and that's the proper order of thinking about verification's usefulness. >> okay. we will go to some of the questions now. here's a very straightforward one, response i think, i think bob maybe to mention this. the question is, what with the additional sanctions that were put in place yesterday? >> my understanding, i haven't been through the treasury trease announcement but my understand is that these were entities in a bunch of countries around the world, six, seven, eight, which were involved in mediation of the existing sanctions. so they weren't new sanctions. under the joint plan of action, the u.s. pledges not to impose

new sanctions. these, involved in the execution of existing sanctions, but there are sanctions against evaders of the sanctions regime. and these various entities in six or seven.com including countries allied to the united states, were seen as deserving of this treatment. the iranians predictably reacted against this, but the u.s. administration has informed them several times that the current commitment is not to impose new sanctions, new legislation, new executive orders and so forth, and that it will continue to implement existing sanctions. that is what was done. iranian's should have expected it. i think they're protesting in part to do with their own domestic audience.

>> an interesting question. do you think that analogies can be drawn or lessons learned from north korea? that is, that can be applied to iran or vice versa. >> well, bob and i have both been involved, in my case, in the clinton at bush administration, with a bitter expense with the north koreans. i was not involved in either negotiation directly, but i know it all good intentions in the world and the clinton administration with agreed framework of 1994, and i know president bush and secretary rice and a bass and chris hill did back in 2007 with that negotiation. i do think that there are differences year that don't, that make it difficult to equate the north korea situation with iran. north korea is a singular state run by a mafia family dictatorship. there's no other way to describe

it, really. and they're all big and cut off from the rest of the world. they're cut off from the global financial system. and they seem to be willing to live isolated from the rest of the world for the glorification of the ruling family. the iranians are very different. iran is more of a civilization. very proud. it is a key country in the middle east. iran wants to be integrated with the economies of turkey and the gulf and europe and north america and asia. and, in fact, that's been iran's traditional historic roll over many centuries. and so i see at least one of the motivations by iranian government here is to iran reenter the international system. they don't want to live in isolation and, therefore, i think -- and despite the fact that i disagree with almost every aspect of government govet behavior in tehran, it appears to be a highly rational regime and that's why it's important

that at the negotiating table with the united states are china and russia and germany, france and britain, and supporting it are japan and south korea. iran but the answer to the entire world if it violates an agreement with the perm five countries. and i think the chances if the agreement can be negotiated, successfully, of then executing it successfully are far higher with iran than they were with that completely mendacious regime in pyongyang. >> i would agree. i would just add something to the. people often ask me, is easy to sanction north korea or iran? the reality is, it's easier to sanction iran, and for some very simple reasons. north korea has one big benefactor, china. it's not prepared to let it go under. it's prepared to provide whatever food, fuel, for the support necessary to keep that regime afloat. iran doesn't have that. but iran has a crucial economic

dependency, oil, the export of oil. which north korea doesn't have. north korea only makes one thing, trouble. but the iranians really are dependent on the export of crude oil, and it's been the ability to get countries around the world to cut back their purchases of iranian crude oil that's led to huge drop in oil revenues, close to 60%. that's what has made a sanctions regime effective. and so that's why it's easy to put pressure on iran. and ironically than it is north korea. >> there have been a number of questions that have been submitted on your cards concerning the regional applications of where we go from here. let me read one of them. it says, clearly israel feels very threatened by these negotiations are what is the real risk to israel from these

negotiations? can use shed some light on the concern? let me just add to that, with the saudis concerns are, if you want to add on to this question as well. seems to be some simultaneity of concerns by both the israelis and saudis about the negotiations that are going on. so let me just stop at that point. >> well, i think is most americans, i'm very sympathetic to the situation that israel finds itself in as result of the arab revolution of the last three years, all of israel's borders have been destabilized. all more dangerous today than they were three years ago when -- particularly very worrisome trend of the signer with jihadi groups striking at the egyptian government and, of course, threatened to strike at israel. the weakening of jordan, the weakening of the border, the civil war spilling from syria over the border and golan heights and into lebanon,

israel's northern border. so if you're an israeli, or if your prime minister netanyahu, you've got to be concerned. in addition to this prospect that the iranian government that has never sufficiently answered, you know, the blame from hostile rhetoric of the ahmadinejad government, they face an iranian regime that appears to be a mortal enemy. so one can easily understand the problems that israel has. i certainly believe that prime minister netanyahu can put his faith and should put his faith in the president obama. israel has a great friendship with us, and we have been a very reliable partner to the israelis, defender of israel for 40 years. since henry kissinger transform politics in the middle east after the october war of 1973. and i would hope that the israeli leadership would give president obama but time and space to negotiate, and it appears that they will. the israelis will be in a very

tough position should these negotiations fail and in a way, you know, as you build up leverage against the iranians, it's important that the iranians know that israel will defend itself but israel cannot live and should not live within iranian nuclear cannot pass the, and neither should the united states. i would hope the trend will continue to lead and israel will support the united states. and diplomacy be given enough time so that it might succeed. bobob makes a good point. these negotiations might not succeed and that my require additional time. and if that's the case, and iran is well short of our red line, possession of a nuclear weapon, i would help israel would support, continued negotiations. and help the saudis would, too. i'm a private citizen, so i can say this. i've been very disturbed by the public attacks by saudi officials on the united states, and i'm president obama and

secretary kerry. i've been very disturbed as have been many americans by members of the israeli cabinet criticizing in a very public, very open way secretary over the last few weeks. these two countries have a great friend in the united states and these are tense times. so i would hope the saudis and the israelis, governments, would give the obama administration the outright public support. because we need to be unified in facing iran. bob and i have both talked about this, embarrassing spectacle of european politicians leading trade delegations to tehran over the last several weeks. we need the iranians to your tor united message from europeans, americans and the saudis and israelis. >> if you have more questions, go ahead. >> here's a question i see directed to you, nick. would it be a good idea to ask the iranians to allow a few americans, staff people, the

staff the intersections in tehran? this is a question of engagement obviously eric this is a question which i'm no not sure quite understand but this is what happened in 2008 with the bush administration? why didn't they ask them? this is a question about more contacts, but also staffing an intersection in tehran with americans. >> well, i take my advice from yitzhak rabin when his prime minister when he was explaining, i think back in the '90s, why he would sheikh arafat's hand in the south lawn of the white house. and he said something to effect, i'll paraphrase, you don't negotiate with your best friend. to negotiate with very unsavory enemies. and as a former diplomat, i teach diplomacy, i from the bleep do we have to be talking to our adversaries and our enemies. at the worst thing you can do from your own perspective, from your own national interest if you shut yourself off. so despite the fact i think we

agree that north korea regime is odious, we have had a conversation with them. because it's in many ways a powerful regime and i think that the idea that the united states and iran were to establish a consistent channel, a very effective one and a very good one for our national interest. we don't give them a favor. we do ourselves a favor by having the capacity to be more intelligent about their country. that's part of what diplomats do. we live overseas, our foreign service officers on point and difficult places, and we translate what's happening in the country for washington, and we haven't had that. so i entered the foreign service full-time in 1982, nobody in my generation went to iran. much less learned farsi. when i was the iran initiative for the bush administration, i never met an iranian diplomat. we weren't allowed to. there were no talks. i spent all my time sanctioning iran. so the fact that wendy sherman, our undersecretary of state, has had this opportunity to engage the iranians, the fact that

secretary kerry has had the opportunity is good for us. it doesn't get -- it doesn't give anything away. it makes us better at negotiation. i do want to get public advice to the administration. i would trust the nsa should decide when the right time is to establish an intersection. i'm iranians would accept a. it's a paranoid regime. they have a distorted view of the united states. they don't tell the truth about us. that's why we need voice of america and bbc and cnn to be broadcasting into iran because the iranian government distorts we are, but i trust the obama intersection to forget when the best time is. but the idea the jeff coston temptations and diplomatic representation makes perfect sense to me. >> just add, i completely agree with nick on that. interestingly, at this munich security conference last week, secretary kerry sat down with iranian foreign minister zarif. it hardly made the newspaper

anymore. and i think that's a good thing because we need to have this dialogue. we need to understand what they are thinking. even if we have serious differences, and i think it's good that it's becoming more routine that americans and iranians sit down and talk. >> right, next question. since this is a congressional audience, largely so, this is an questioned what of those damaging appendages steps members of congress could take to help or hurt the negotiations over the next six months? i know you don't want to advise members of congress but nonetheless, treat this as a very general question. >> i think it's a good thing that senators step back from a vote on the recently introduced sanctions bill.

we all recognize the importance of very strong sanctions to motivate iran to negotiate seriously, and to reach agreement on an acceptable deal. but i agree with the administration that now is not the right time to impose additional sanctions. and in part because the particular sanctions bill that was introduced contain a number of poison pills in it. you know, for example, it indicated that even in the next six-month if iran were to conduct a long range ballistic missile test, or to be seen as supporting directly or indirectly ask of terrorism, then we would be free no longer to implement our pledge that e duri't impose new sanctions during theeriod six-month period to me, that's

not reasonable. yes, these are bad behaviors. we don't want iran to support act of terrorism to conduct a long range missile tests. but we can't renege on our end of the deal if i rant engaged in actions we don't like but are not covered by the deal. so the bill specified in great detail what the outcome of negotiations had to be. this gets the next point about we have only one administration negotiating here. and if iran believes that the only way the president can suspend or lift sanctions if he can certify that he is achieved a deal that they have said is unacceptable, then they have little incentive to negotiate. s. it's good that the senator has stepped back. it's bare and it sends a message, but i don't think the message has to be brought to a

vote. >> i agree and i just wanted to add i know we are on capitol hill and there are many staffers from the republican democratic sides. congress has already played an important role. iran is at the table in large part because of the sanctions booted into play the european union. so the congress has done a very effective job sending the signal and enhancing our leverage that we might look to the history to just recall how america has built with different crises in the past with the president in support. when president jefferson dealt with in the 19th century or theodore roosevelt in the japanese war of 1905. franklin roosevelt in trying to negotiate to pretend before the second cold war these are all examples went on an exceedingly important vital national

security issue the interest of the president to lead. congress always has the final say. president wilson founpresident t after the peace conference in 1920. if the congress is able to negotiate they would need to come back to the congress because some of those sanctions can't be lifted without the congress agreeing so they will play an important role that the table one american, and he's done a very good job of positioning us at the table. >> because we are running out of time i want to ask two more questions together and if you could respond to them. the one question is more of a technical question that has a significant presence. should we recognize the right to enrichment? that's been controversial.

the second question is what should iran do to avoid military action while it is still an option on the table flex >> on the right to enrich, the administration hasn't recognized the right to enrichment. it doesn't believe there is such a right. the nonproliferatio nonprolifern its article protects the right of the compliant from the parties to engage in the nuclear energy from peaceful purposes. it doesn't talk about enrichment per se. it's a dual use technology that can be used for weapons production. and clearly iran because of its infractions regarding safeguard obligations has at least a temporary forfeited even the npt article for right to pursue the

nuclear energy. even in the joint plan of action there is no recognition of the rights to enrich, that there is a kind of understanding in an otherwise acceptable deal they are can be a mutually defined enrichment program but not as a question of legal rights that as a cluster of the -- successful negotiating options. >> i cannot improve on his answer he knows the subject backwards and forwards i just wanted to take a swing at the last question to avoid the use of military force and i think it's obvious to everybody that iran is facing a fateful choice and they are going to have to choose if they want to be reintegrated in the rest of the world.

in construction in the apparatus to support the program it's our job and the job of the administration to begin dismantle it and that the key issue. i must say a lot of people, myself included, have been very impressed by the foreign minister, they are different than any other iranian leaders that we have seen since the revolution of 1978 and 79. think of it as a possibility for the era of security if iran can become a peaceful nation it's part of the middle east and it's a natural leader and always has been, that it now needs to demonstrate that it's going to live peacefully and if we cannot

rely on words or verification we have to rely on the actual deed to december and dismantle their program and that is the challenge that they face. the question is how can they avoid the use of force by doing the right thing, by becoming a peaceful state, by acting like every, like almost every other state in the world. we are transparent, we told the truth about the national security apparatus and they have to negotiate on a fair basis. i think if they can do that you've seen the president and secretary of state are willing to meet them halfway. i hope we can get behind the president and hope that the iranians can meet the challenge. what they think nick and bob for sharing their expertise with us this morning. an extremely good seminar on the iran nuclear issue.

join me in expressing our appreciation f [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the former u.s. deputy chief in israel is the current efforts to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict are the most serious he is seen since the carter administration. these comments came during discussion at the middle east institute. former ambassador's recent return from a trip to the regi region. >> we are very fortunate to be e hosting today three speakers have just returned from a trip

to israel and the palestinian territories where they met with officials and activists on both sides. the trip was sponsored by the foundation for middle east peace which for those of you who are not family or with it was established in 1979 to promote a just solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict. so we will talk, the fm vp present let the trip and it included nicholas veliotes and arthur hughes who have decades and decades of experience working on this very thorny issue of the arab-israeli crisis. were hoping to hear from some profound revelations today. a trip to the region becomes at an interesting time. course bond with secretary kerry's very dogged efforts to keep a peace process going. while on the trip they got a better sense of where things are in this process, the progress that has been made, the obstacles that remain and look

forward to hearing their observations. very, very briefly because their bios are in your handout, nicholas veliotes served as assistant secretary of state for mideast affairs as those ambassador to egypt and jordan. arthur hughes served as ambassador to yemen among his many posts in the state department later was director general of the egypt israel multinational forces and observer 1998-2004. abbasid wilcox served in jerusalem as those deputy assistant secretary, among many other positions. i've also invited another foundation for the middle east peace, geoff aronson who is the director in the occupied territories to respond to our speakers and to those of you transit question. thank you all very much for your time. it's a privilege to have you here. before we get started i just

want to acknowledge another very significant person who is coming soon, george salem, a board member and has been very active in washington circles promoting better understanding of the palestinian cause and advocating a solution to conflict. through his foundation he has made it possible to program these panels on this topic. this is our sixth topic on the series and we look forward to many more such as want to thank george salem for his support. without further ado i would like to invite ambassador veliotes to the podium. [applause] >> thank you, kate. looking at some of my friends in the audience reminds me we've been involved in this peace process since the columbia 101 in september 1973. and, of course, it doesn't get any easier. in the context of the initiative

we believe this would be a good time to visit the area, try to understand the situation on the ground. i'll give a brief overview. we spent four days in jerusalem, today's in tel aviv during which we met with a variety of americans, israelis and palestinians for the most part not officials but very knowledgeable. the off the record personal attack by the israeli defense minister on secretary of state kerry provided immediate background for those first few days am and we visited, had talks with plo, palestinian authority officials, faculty with the hebron university. we met one on one end with groups. they are a fascinating intensive week.

during the first part of the week, there was a dearth of detail, or even in informed speculation of what specifically john kerry had in mind. the staff and others took seriously his request that they keep the discussion secret. however there was a general assumption that his ultimate framework would be based on the so-called clinton parameters. and the general view of our interlock of course was that kerry would fail, netanyahu would not risk his position, or his government by putting forward compromised proposals. not much optimism there. the one senior plo official was

ultimately frustrated that only abu moslem knew what was going on. nevertheless, this person was sure kerry would fail and was pushing a palestinian plan b, go back to the u.n. in the context of ignorance, much attention was paid to speculation of kerry's personality. wiki stay the course? would obama support in? et cetera. later in the week several things happened that impacted on the nature of our discussions in tel aviv with israelis. tom friedman wrote his op-ed in "the new york times" purporting to reveal the kerry framework.

this intensified the public discussion and debate on these issues in the annual meeting in tel aviv of an important think tank. been netanyahu and michael bennet had a very public spat of the future of settlers in a palestinian state. and michael bennet seemed to have blinked a bit. and later martin indyk was quoted as telling u.s. jewish leaders that the bulk of the settlers would remain in israel in any settlement. now, one result of this combination of fact is that some israelis begin to wonder if perhaps netanyahu might be willing to take some political risks. we did not have the opportunity to discuss these events with

palestinians. toward the end of our visit a boycott by the eu of products produced in settlements, remember the famous soda stream ad for the super bowl for you football fans. and disinvestment in banks operating in the settlement was having an impact on the israeli public and on the body politic. kerry's warning in munich about the potential for israeli isolation helped bring this pot to a boil. tom friedman, reporting from ramallah, devoted his latest column to the subject. and the forthcoming visit of german leader angela merkel who is considered israel's best friend in europe will be

important in this discussion. what she says, how she says it before and after the forum. now, for the millions of israeli jews who live in the plane in near the sake this is a bustling part of the israeli economy, this raises a range of potential serious problems that cannot be solved by a law. a quick word about the broader picture. israel's treaty with egypt and jordan are holding firm. israelis shed no tears over the demise of morsi and the balls and brothers, and they appreciate egypt's efforts to control the islamic militants who are roaming through the sinai. and cairo's tough line on hamas in gaza, which seem to be

missing, or at least their invisible factors in the current peace initiative equation. jordan has an obvious interest in any proposals for security along the jordan river. any proposal for resolution of the palestinian refugee problem, in jerusalem, which has its own special set of problems. so the treaties with the jordan and egypt are in good shape. and israel is far stronger politically, economically and militarily than ever. a giant really among the worse. looks like a good time to make peace from a position of incomparable strength. >> thank you for bringing out --

i've not exactly been a beacon of optimism in recent years about solving this terrible 100 year-old conflict. but i have to admit that this week i have sensed a ray of hope. it's because of kerry's diplomacy which coincides with other trends that may just lead to a way out of this tragedy. israel's secular elites are beginning to speak out, be more conscious of the threat facing the state of israel. and for the first time begin to do something about it. that coincides with what looks like a revival of the liberal, pragmatic, peace minded political parties in israel. the leaders of the two largest,

the labour party, has shifted from reluctance to even mention the peace issue, the territorial issue, the future of israel's security, but they are doing so now. and kerry has certainly energized a discussion, whether it's called the israeli center and left him very encouraging because in recent years israel's right wing which i think is not represent the majority of israeli citizens has taken the lead, seize the initiative, in spite of their minority savings. the polls still show that 74% of the israeli people, and it did the palestinian people, still want a two state peace. the problem is they don't believe it's possible. i think john kerry's extraordinary diplomacy is

beginning to arouse hopes for peace. that's more than the israeli side and on the palestinian side. the palestinians are still in deep despair, but it is encouraging they are sticking to their policy of nonviolence and mahmoud applause, the palestinian president, -- mahmoud abbas, far more moderate and conciliatory than benjamin netanyahu and his colleagues. the threats of sanctions, especially the european union's sanction on all european unions private and public blows the settlements has had a real effect. and that has shocked the committee who are now beginning

to mobilize. they have created a group called breaking the impasse. there was another group, the israeli peace initiative, prominent israeli businessman who realize they are the future of the israeli economy, if not the state of israel, is at stake. and that's an important development because they have been satisfied to remain to make money. the u.s. debate, which is especially important, no less important than the debate initial and palestine, is beginning to open up. you will read today in "the new york times," a lustrous correspondence like tom friedman, things they would not have said two or three years ago. the mainstream media are beginning to distrust more frankly and candidly this

problem, where as for years they have shied away from doing so. the nonmainstream internet media has been an important in this breakthrough towards a more candid public dialogue in this country. the organized american jewish, christian, arab, american communities are also speaking out, and there is a profound change, i believe, in the politics of those communities. for years, it was a pack that was seen as the preeminence of american interest group that supported general lee the policy of the government of israel. in recent months they have suffered two series of defeats in the congress. the bill on making war in syria and the bill which would have imposed conditional sanctions on iraq.

that is a historic ago but because it has not been since the awacs battle in ronald reagan's era that the american administration has decisively defeated and aipac and initiative. we are also have seen in the recent years the rise of a much more articulate and determined well-organized liberal and moderate jewish community. the emergence of aipac, the work of americans for peace now, churches are middle east peace, and many others is making a difference. j street, yes. get isa aipac? i met j street. [laughter] they're making an impact that the doors are increasingly open to them in the white house, and the media. and that's a sign of a change i

think. especially the young american jewish community is staunchly supportive of israel, is also very critical of israeli policy, and they are mobilizing. and slowly i think having an impact on congress, although i expect congress may be the last to become peacemakers. the israeli security elites are speaking out. the former security prominent retired generals, these are people of the highest prestige, begin to tell a truth about this conflict. i think that's a real sign of change in israel. but perhaps most important of all has been kerry's position. he has been determined. he has allowed a process of bilateral negotiations to go

forward. i think in an effort to give the parties one last chance to do it by themselves. it has failed, and now he is engaged in what i think is the next phase, and that is an american framework. now, cautioned against too much optimism about the framework because we haven't seen it but it looks to me like an american peace plan, whether it is detailed or specific or vague, i don't know and we shall see. i hope it is more specific. and it would transfer the dialogue, transfer the debate to an american proposal which will be, i believe, evenhanded, reflecting the fundamental interests of both israel and palestine. and that is galvanizing debate already, and that's a good thing. so we have not seen such activism by any secretary of

state since the days of jim baker. we have not seen an american peace plan, the united states for some years now has been elected to describe its own policies on issues like jerusalem borders, security and refugees. and that has, i think, weekend our influence, our ability to shape events in the interest of our national security, interests, and theirs as well. so it's a good thing. there will be no quick solution. this conflict is an ancient one. the whole for your project a settlement, expansion is deeply embedded. to remove it would be to transform the state of israel in many ways, but it's still possible, and we sense that possibility in talking to many israelis. palestinians are less optimistic but they, too, are resilient

people with very, very impressive human resources. so i'm convinced that if there is an active dynamic process led by the united states, both sides will regain hope that they desperately lack now and that this could be the way, over time, with u.s. energy, persistence in leadership, to a breakthrough in this terrible conflict. and to a reinforcement of american interests, american leadership, which was in trouble in that region, and to rescue these two parties from a terrible future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming

today. as we made our rounds, we heard very often, our interlocutors say, well, as i told martin last week when he was here, and we knew we are talking to the right people, because we were following to a large extent martin indyk around and we would say, well of course, tell us what you think, but what did martin said you? well, not much. he was asking questions. which is also a good sign. in fact, i should mention your that i think this is the most serious u.s. effort since the first camp david when jimmy carter was president. the most serious, the best prepared, the most intellectually strong. and that the risk of offending some of my friends who were at the second camp david and elsewhere, i think it's absolutely true, this is a serious effort, the most serious.

and maybe it's for a good while anyway, seeing as the last best chance. this is certainly the sense we got in the palestinian territories. this is the last best chance. so what i want to do is give you my impressions, tried to tie them together a little bit and give you a sense and specific things we can address in the question and answer period. the impact of kerry, what he's doing is shaking up the situation out there in incredibly. this comes after a time when the israeli left was dispirited and basically does organize and not thinking about other things but doomed the last israeli election was not on peace issues at all. the israeli right basically had a free ride. they were calling the tune, even though as bill said, they represent a minority. there was some loss in the can set elections as we all know. -- can affect elections.

the population continued. the barrier had had a result in reducing terrorism almost 10 now. -- to neil your netanyahu government and others were able to gives our president which irritated me include can you might not know here but after the failed attempt in the first term there were signs in israel we have one, we defeated the president of the united states in which i thought was bad for israel, certain that the united states as far as i'm concerned but i thought it was bad for israel, too. but now that the kerry initiative has shaken things up and people are being forced, being pressed and they know that i think now it's clear that kerry is not going to give up and the president's inclusion of a state of the message, a short paragraph with senator schumer taking credit for by the way i'm

told, israel is important but even more important is what the president is reported to have said yesterday morning after breakfast. which i found out in the israeli press, not in the american press, interestingly enough. that he praised john kerry by name, who was there, or his diplomacy, his passion to proceed. and i think that will help dispel further in cynical notion that was current even when we were out there, that the president was holding back, waiting to see if his success, successful have many fathers, and president, he could disappear. i never really believed that from what i knew and from discussions i had with some of the team, but i think what he said yesterday will further just absolute dispel that notion. so it's clear that israeli and palestinian leadership are going to be pressed to make some decisions. and words that we heard, the two words we're very often when we were out there were courage and

guts and whether courage and tactical become to play i frankly don't know. because as isaac herzog said in an interview the other day, this will require basic decisions that will change things but it would change things markedly both initial and a new state of palestine if it comes about. now, on the right, as i said, disarray. they don't quite know how to act. they are bickering among each other to the point we might have noticed last week prime minister netanyahu basically told his cabinet to cool it, which in good normal israeli fashion they ignored. it's always a very vigorous discussion, which is to the credit. absolutely. i enjoyed it when i lived there for three years, and then when i was going there of four or five times a year when i was the director general of the peacekeeping, i enjoyed very much the fact, it's a little bit

like madeline -- i have some very close israeli friends and i could get ahold scope of it by going to dinner with the two of them because they would cover both sides of the argument, one part of it, the married couple would argue left and wandered argubright so i didn't have to spend a lot of time going around talking to other people. now, just to mention, i don't think there's any indication he would use it but there is another option. we heard a lot, too, that in the knesset, there would 120 in the knesset as you know, would vote very, very sicily and into negotiations with the palestinians on a peace deal. in fact, though the new leader of the labour party said he has 59 in a peace camp in the knesset now.

the palestinian side, a lot of pessimism, a lot of not knowing what is going on. we also heard people say that only abbas, president, the lead negotiator really knows what's going on. they're not telling others what is happening. i think they're being very cautious because they know if there is much said publicly about where they might go on these issues, they will face very serious difficulties, because there is no good solution from the palestinian perspective on right of return. that's my view in any event. so they're being very careful, but as bill mentioned, that president abbas is being very statesmanlike. been very positive, constructive. the long interview that was in the times last week, he played the role of a statesman, moderate, said what he expected. and i think actually that's what

he believes as well. from what i know from being out there on the ground. so that's all good. he has given the role being to heavy after he met with kerry here this week and half ago. nothing good happening. so where now? i don't think we're at the moment of truth yet. may be a kind of a preliminary moment of truth. i'm not sure what secretary kerry is going to put on the table regarding the framework, but my own view is, and i'm not sure my colleagues even agree with me, but is that there will be enough space in the framework that it was very hard for either side to want to disengage. also, neither side of course wants to take blame for the collapse of this effort. for their own domestic reasons and also for the u.s. reasons.

because i think, as you indicated, netanyahu, prime minister netanyahu is in a different position here, after having won the first round. i think now he has not won this round. it's not only the elements going on in israel, but i think you in the united states that was referred to. and i didn't check their website but i saw referenced this morning that aipac issued a statement yesterday that now is not the time to pursue any additional tensions with iran. and chairman menendez issued a statement shortly before that and said there were some indications they were coordinated, which wouldn't surprise me. but in any event, the dynamic has changed and he will have to be very much more careful than he has in the past and i think that's all to the good. as an american i think that's all to the good. as an american who believes that this is a two-state solution is the best outcome, best possible

outcome, i think that's all the good as well. .. in his interview but one thing has not been talked about much in the press and that is the nature of the peacekeeping operation that would be needed.

this would not be one that would be responsible only for monitoring and verification but would need a very robust mandate and rules of engagement that would allow them to interdict, arrest, suppress. really tough mandate but i think that the united states and nato forces could accept that kind of a mandate and do the job. the other thing very quickly, i was also involved in what has been known as the canadian initiative that produced a very deeply-considered and well-thought out plan, option for the old city of special regime by one created by israel and the new state of palestine so it would not be imposed it would be internationalization, one of the old discredited ideas. but if anyone wants to blow up the talks or cause a real, a real rupture, it would be to do

something on the temple mount so one need to be very careful and i'm sure that the parties are keeping a very careful eye on that. so where are we now? the parties are being challenged. they are going to have to make some decisions because i'm convinced that secretary kerry and the president will not back away from this and as i said we heard the words courage and guts a lot when we were out there. whether we'll see them i don't know but i must say i feel better now having been there than i felt before we went about the prospects. so thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you, gentlemen, for an interesting and well-informed overview of current events in that part of the world. we have about a half hour now which i will open for questions

in just one minute. i would just like to make an observation here that i hope will stimulate a response from one of you. during the annapolis talks we know that there was serious engagement on a bilateral basis between israeli and palestinian negotiators. this was a dialogue that the energy for which was present on both side. it seems, from the outside in contrast that the discussions over the last nine months have been essentially bilateral discussions between one of the parties and the united states rather than between the parties themselves. and each party, each of the principle parties has been most interested to win the u.s. over

to its view of things rather than to negotiate among themselves to try to find points of agreement. based on your observations, at what stage would you see the beginning of a truly bilateral engagement perhaps along the lines most recently expressed during the annapolis era and certainly before? or are we going to see a u.s. role as absolutely vital and orchestrating discussions that are between the u.s. and each party without essentially interaction between the parties? an enhanced view of proximity talks, if you will. and then i will open it up to questions. i think you want us to stand up and appear, is that right?

>> -- to the podium. you will be speaking into the mic. >> so i will stand aside. >> nations generally make peace when they believe they have a shared interest in peace. i'm not persuaded that the current israeli coalition under benjamin netanyahu believes that they have a common interest with the palestinians in making peace i believe their interests lies in dominating, controlling permanently a land which some of them feel is sacred jewish land, which others want to dominate for idealogical reasons. so i think that the parties will continue to try to negotiate with the united states instead

of each other until there is a change in the israeli government. now the change would not necessarily mean the overthrow of benjamin netanyahu. he is a man who has a long idealogical history. he is also known as a politician who will grasp at opportunities to enhance his own leadership. there is talk in israel now that there are well over 61 mandates in the knesset that would support a comprehensive peace agreement that, and it's not, it's not out of question that it might happen, that there would be a a shake-up in the current coalition, a shedding of one of the most dedicated and extremist political parties and to bring in the labour party or the

esetid party or both to create a new very different, moderate, centrist, peace-minded government. if that were the case i think the israeli government and the palestinian government would take a lot more interest in negotiating between themselves. in previous important middle east negotiations there has been that commonality of interests. there isn't right now but there could be. so, that's the way i see it. >> i think that once the kerry framework is made public, the idea would be that the palestinians and the israelis would engage bilaterally. and i also believe that that would break down rather quickly, at least in the initial stages,

and it would require an american presence bridging proposals, what have you. so i don't think we're going to see the americans backing out, nor should they in this. >> well it's often said they can't do it themselves but there are also those, one hears this occasionally in israel, that we do it best when the americans get out and refer to oslo for example. but i don't think they can do it themselves. there are certain things they have to do themselves when it comes down to some of the fine points of negotiations if they ever get there but i think the u.s. has got to be there. >> thank you. we'll take a question. yes, sir, up front. [inaudible] you've got a mic coming too here. perhaps you could stand up and make it easier for everyone. >> thank you.

you talked about meeting with the palestinians. you said there was a shift in israel. seems to be a political shift in israel and maybe the united states. major stumbling block is hamas in gaza. did you have a chance to talk to any of these people and see if they're going to change their position a little bit, stop lopping rockets over my brother's head among other things? whether that is change, would be major stumbling block? >> i can't tell you what hamas attitudes are but from what we've been told by palestinians on the west bank, gazans are rather disillusioned by the hamas leadership. so they suggest strongly that the attitudes of the public in gaza would be reflective of the general attitudes in the west

bank. that's if you have a referendum on a peace plan that the gazans would reflect the views of the west bankers, if it is reasonable let's get the israelis off our backs. you have to understand that these people are living in an open-air prison. i don't know how you can describe it any other way. now, maybe that's a hopeful and unrealistic feeling but that's what they have told us. on the question of palestinian attitudes, expressed in a referendum i think people are reasonably certain that a good majority of palestinians would support a two-state solution as negotiated by their leaders.

if they, but that doesn't necessarily include the refugees who live outside of the west bank and, you know, are they going to be included? pretty hard to see how the people in yarmuch could be included but nevertheless, these are things that are going to have to be worked out. what you have right now is a west bank first negotiation. my personal view is we should have been trying to do this some years ago and come up with something good enough to attract the gazans. i hope that is what happens this time. >> i don't think a permanent and viable peace between israel and palestine could be possible nor could a wholesome, viable palestinian state come into being if it is cut off from the other part of palestine, cut off

from the mediterranean sea. hamas is a critical party. if there is an emerging peace agreement supported by the palestinian authority and the people of the west bank, i am certain that hamas would have no choice. they would have to support it for fear of losing whatever constituency they have retained and their constituency now today is waning. so hamas, yes indeed, it is an obstacle. they will make trouble as the, if kerry's initiative proceeds as i think it will but in the end they will have to yield because they are in a minority and they would not stand in the way of the rescue of the palestinian people and the, and the emergence of a palestinian state. >> just to agree, given what's

happened in egypt, it is hard to see that hamas would have any other realistic option under a circumstance in which there was real progress toward a palestinian state. >> yes, sir. >> i'm bob blake. like you all to discuss a little bit how, how, what you've been seeing and hearing that is, with what is happening in the united states and so forth on iran and syria and egypt. in other words, the whole big picture. what is, what do you think obama would, might have in mind by pushing hard as the guess what is the real quite openly said, something on nuclear with iran must have the highest priority?

>> well, i don't think the administration is ignoring iran. my own personal view is they have done a very good job. as far as egypt and syria, i guess if i were back in government i would first ask the question,, what and i use fully do in egypt to promote freedom of expression for example? for example, the 18 journalist who is are being prosecuted for various crimes of disagreeing with the military in egypt. syria, you know, can i do anything else except try to feed and provide some relief to the

hundreds of thousands who are suffering? and then i would conclude there's frankly not all that much i can do except in the humanitarian field in syria. but in palestine and israel there is something i can do and therefore, i really applaud the kerry initiative and i hope the president carries it out. doesn't mean you're going to ignore the rest of the world out there but there is only so much you can do. here you can have a major impact. in iran you can have a major impact, if they do walk back from their nuclear program. >> i agree with nick that the u.s. has a vastly closer relationship with the israelis and palestinians and a much larger capacity to use american diplomacies to solve their

conflict. we'd like that knowledge, that ability in egypt and in syria. i think that the, a resolution of the iranian nuclear issue would lift a burden of fear from the israeli public and i think that the israeli public does support a negotiated solution and not a new war. it is very interesting that the most prestigious and retired military people, retired mossad officers, say that a war between israel and syria would be crazy and that a war between the u.s. and syria would cause -- >> iran? >> iran and the united states would bring nothing but further grief. so, yes, we are capable given our past history of being helpful in israel and palestine.

we have shown that in the last 60 years of conflict, if we have a policy of our own that reflects the basic needs of the negotiating parties, if we persevere, if we are strong and patient, that we can prevail. i think we need to have a little more confidence in our own country to do this and there is precedent that the proves that. thank you. >> yes? >> hi, epe director. i would like to hear some comment how third intifada, economic and tightening of the screws in israel and how that may affect the whole negotiations.

>> well, both phil and i tried to address that to some extent. i don't know how many of you in the audience have had the experience of actually living in israel and watching this incredibly unique, interchange, interaction between the public, the media, and the government. it is something that i have never experienced in any other country. this issue has been there but, largely ignored until rather recently. and then several issues, several developments, which we mentioned, kerry's statements and the e.u. boycott of settlements and the danish and norwegian banks.

>> dutch. >> dutch, disinvesting the, the threats of more, the visit of angela merkel. tom friedman's article which you can bet is being discussed in every cafe, every coffee, every dinner party. that is where public opinion goes and in the media in israel. i think it is very important. it may be leading to a tippingpoint in the public views. >> the palestinians have one other asset which i think as a last resort that they may use and that is going to the united nations again. they are reluctant to do this because they know that it would, it would offend the united states. it would be very costly to the united states because our congress has passed a law which

declares that we shall withdraw from any u.n. specialized agencies that admits the palestinians as members. and that would cause of course havoc for us. so we are opposed to this policy there is a need i think in the future if this american initiative continues, i believe it will, to begin to develop more public diplomacy. peace is not made by diplomats in secret conversations. ultimately it is made by the people and the societies of both israel and palestine will have to be committed to peace if it is to succeed. and so, at some stage i think kerry will begin to turn a

corner to begin to engage the united states more directly with the israeli public and the palestinian public. it is already happening in a way. but we need to build this in as a very important component of our diplomacy as this thing moves forward. >> let me say, there is a nightmare scenario -- >> mic, please. >> that we can think of if kerry's talks fails, everything goes back the way it was and everyone is discouraged. i don't think it will lead to violence because palestinians are just too tired of all this nonsense, pressure but it could lead them to go, all right, let's go, every year we'll go up to the u.n. maybe we'll go into a new specialized agency and the united states has to pull out. how stupid. and then israel is labeled

continually as the negative black mark. that that would be a terrible scenario, which could happen but i hope it doesn't, for everyone's benefit. >> i think it's important to draw a distinction between what is the bds, boycott, disinvestment, sanction on the one hand and other kinds of attempts to, which give the impression at trying to delegitimatize the existence of israel as a state. i think it is very important to distinguish between the two and keep it clear because they are two different things. bds is aimed at israeli investments and activities in the occupied territories. that is to say product that is are produced there and labeled, made in israel which factually is not true because even israel

doesn't claim that the territories are part of israel yet although a bill has been introduced in the knesset. but, my way of thinking, that is a perfectly legitimate peaceful way to put pressure on israel because the products aren't made in israel. where it get as little more complicated with disinvestment from banks, major israeli banks all have bank branches in the territory, the settlements. the words i heard from israelis, that is more concerning than the question of boycotts on products made in the territories. on the other hand the question of delegitimatization i think is a little bit more loaded and dangerous because this is an attack on the basic israeli jewish narrative of israel. of course there is kind of a battle of two narratives.

you know, the twain shall never meet but the narratives are extremely important in the psychology and politics of both sides and therefore attacking the basic narrative of either side i think is a dangerous proposition. it's one thing to maintain your own narrative but another thing to attack the narrative of the other. they will have to address the narrative when it comes time to address some of the core issues and conflicts of course. >> yes, right there, the woman right there, yes. >> yes, hi. phil, you mentioned that peace will ultimately come not through secret diplomacy but through the people themselves. in your travels did you encounter any influence or hear

anything about the arab peace initiative, the israeli peace initiative or even the geneva accords and if that is being resurgent? yes i think the -- >> yes, i think the geneva accords is one of the models and templates as are the clinton parameters for a peace agreement and, to their, to their credit the geneva initiative people are still working. they have institutionalized it. they are publicizing it. the arab league initiative i think is quite popular among the pragmatic center in israel although it's, it is feared by the far right because it is directed at an israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for peace. there are many, many

international and american private organizations that are trying to promote dialogue. this is a very old institution whereby israelis and palestinians listened to each other, ultimately begin to accept each other, and to mobilize their, themselves for a joint approach to peace-making. that alone has not been enough to break this impasse but it is very, very important and i applaud these american groups that send teams over to israel and palestinian annually. i think there is a payoff there and they should be supported. >> i think we have time for one last question, two. okay. please.

>> concerning israel's need for security, perceived need for security under a peace agreement, netanyahu was asked the question, who do you trust? and his response was, i trust my own army. that seems to me a fairly strong statement, you know, presumably precluding the knows of the u.s. or international community involvement particularly along the jordan valley and i'm just wondering how serious you take that and what it implies and, for moving forward? >> if i were kerry i would take it as an opening position. certainly would not be an acceptable final position. if that means the israeli army permanently stationed along the jordan river, total nonstarter.

but when you deal with right-wing israeli governments, you always have to be careful on the subject of security. to distill real security concerns out of a mix that includes strong idealogical and religious considerations. >> why does no one ever talk about the security of palestinians? >> allow me. both sides have legitimate security concerns. israel, israel has legitimate security concerns and palestine does too. and frankly when i talked with the peace team i pointed that out. i also pointed out the danger in talking only to israelis about peace terms, security

arrangements and then going to the palestinians and saying, well this is kind of what we need to do for the israelis. that's been done before and it's a stupid thing to do and it's a mistake and i hope the present guys have not done it that way. >> we will leave the last few minutes of this program. you can see it in its entirety at the c-span video library at c-span.org. a look at u.s. capitol here in washington as city and rest of eastern seaboard is preparing for snow cast snow and ice storm. the senate about to gavel in beginning the day with general speeches at 11 eastern they will consider a number of executive nominations. votes on those nominations set for 11:30 this morning. majority leader harry reid hopes to take up a debt limit increase and a bill restoring military pensions today as well. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, to whom

we must give an account for all our powers and privileges, guide the members of this body so that they will be faithful stewards of your will. open their minds and hearts to know and do your bidding, teaching them to rely on your strength and to serve you with honor. help them to discover in their daily work the joy of a partnership with you. as they learn to find delight in your presence, plant within the soil of their hearts a desire to glorify you. may they rest and

wait patiently for you, the author and finisher of their faith, embracing your precepts and walking in your path. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 12, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of

rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the state of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, we'll be in a period of mogadishu until 11:00 this morning. the republicans will control the first half. democrats the final half. at 11:00 this morning, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar numbers 525, 595, 527 and 529. these are all extremely important nominations. at 11:30, there will be up to four roll call votes on confirmation of these nominations. we also hope to consider the debt limit legislation, military retirement pay and hopefully additional nominations today. mr. president, as i just mentioned, we hope today that we

can act on two vital pieces of legislation. on this side of the aisle, as we say, we're ready to move. we want to move on a measure to restore earned retirement pay to our nation's heroes, retirees from the united states armed services. dozens of major veterans' organizations have written in support of this legislation, which was passed by the house of representatives yesterday. i commend the sponsor of the senate bill to restore veterans' pensions. senators pryor, shaheen, hagan and begich, among others, forcing republicans in the house and the senate to take this issue very seriously, take it seriously now. but without their leadership, we would never have reached a compromise that protects our nation's heroic veterans and reach it so quickly. the senate's unanimous vote on monday to move forward with the bill to restore veterans' pensions forced the house to understand we are serious about

this and secured a resolution that protects veterans. it's encouraging that some of my republican colleagues seem to be regaining their grip on sanity this week. republicans have shown a willingness to compromise to restore veterans' hard-earned pensions. a few reasonable house republicans were willing to join democrats to avert a catastrophic default on our nation's obligations, a default that would have thrown our economy into a tailspin and damaged this nation's standing in the world. i commend speaker boehner for doing the right thing. he voted for this and he had enough republican votes to get it done. i have said often that he has a difficult job, if not the most difficult, certainly one of the most difficult jobs in washington, especially when you look at the caucus that he has to deal with. i'm pleased that he has come to the realization that the full faith and credit of this country is not hostage to be held for political gain. unfortunately, republicans on

this side of the capitol are forcing us, obviously, to jump through procedural hoops to alleviate the threat of a debt. i can't imagine they are doing that, but they are. every reputable congress acknowledges that defaulting of the bills would devastate the economy and erase the past five years of recovery. now, mr. president, the recovery is good but it's not great. we can do a lot better. according to a report by the nonpartisan peterson institute, when republicans forced us to the brink of default two years ago, it cost our economy $150 billion in productivity, and, mr. president, 750,000 jobs. this is not some left-wing blog that's saying this. this is a nonpartisan institute that is well respected. it cost our economy $150 billion in productivity and 750,000

jobs. scary. now, mr. president, the reason i am a little concerned here, it was just a few months ago that republicans in the house by a two-thirds majority voted to keep the government closed after having been closed for 16 days and voted to default on our nation's debt. so i hope that the senate's not going to follow that tea party-driven action that was done in the house just a short time ago. financial industry leaders have warned congress again and again and again that even the threat of default ripples quickly through the economy, and today there is threat of a default. we have republican senators saying they're going to filibuster the debt. we can't default on our obligations. it's too bad that a few senate republicans would threaten filibuster in this critical legislation.

it's critical and it's crucial. i'm hopeful that senate republicans won't force the economy to wait for weeks or even days for a resolution. we should wrap this up today. so i hope we can vote on this and vote soon. the markets are out there all over the world watching to see what we do in the senate. the house did the right thing. i believe many of my republican colleagues would like to be reasonable. i really do believe that. if they weren't so beholen and afraid of their tea party overlords. -- beholden and afraid of their tea party overlords. i'm hopeful that a more partisan, commonsense approach, one that favors cooperation and collaboration will prevail this year. congress should be striding, striding from accomplishment to accomplishment, not staggering from crisis to crisis, as they force us to do. if we spent more time working together and less time running out the clock on procedural hurdles and republican

filibusters, we might actually get things done here in the senate. so i hope we can continue to cooperate and collaborate this year and deliver results for americans looking for action instead of the constant gridlock we've had. i would ask the chair to note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended and i address the senate as if in morning business and pending -- depending on the arrival of the republican leader i will pause and ask unanimous consent to return to my

statement at that time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, --. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. -- 11 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my statement pending --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i rise today to appeal to the conscience of my colleagues and my fellow citizens about the mass ro atrocities that the assad regime is perpetrating in syria. when the images and horrors of this conflict occasionally show up on our television screens, impulse of many americans is to

change the channel, but we must not look away. we must not avert our eyes from the suffering of the syrian people. for if we do, we ignore, we sacrifice that which is most precious in ourselves, our ability to empathize with the suffering of others, to share it, to acknowledge through our own sense of revulsion that what is happening in syria today is a stain on our collective conscience of moral peoples every there. i appeal to my colleagues today not to look away from the images i will show you, and i want to warn all who are watching, these are graphic and disturbing pictures but they're the real face of war and human suffering in syria today. a war that our nation has the power to help end but which we are failing to do. these images are drawn from a cache of more than 55,000 photographs that were taken

between march, 2011 and august, 2013, by a syrian military policeman whose job it was to document the horrors that the assad regime committed against political prisoners in its jails. this individual essentially -- essentially defected along to the opposition along with his photographs which were meticulously reviewed and verified by three renowned international war crimes prosecutors and a team of independent forensic experts. they compiled their findings in a report late last month that provides direct evidence that the assad regime was responsible for the systematic abuse, torture, starvation, and killing of approximately 11,000 detainees in what amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. these are just a few of those

pictures, and far from the most disturbing. i urge every member of congress and the american people to read the full report which can be found on both ?an.com and -- cnn.com and the guardian.com. although only a handful have been released publicly the authors have provided their own startling commentary on what they reveal. david crane, the first chief prosecutor of the court for sierra leone and the man responsible for indicting former liberian president charles taylor for crimes against humanity stated many of the photographs show groupings of bodies in a way that -- quote -- "look like a slaughterhouse." crane characterized the syrian government as callous industrial machine grounding its citizens that is guilty of industrial age mass killing. professor sir jeffrey nice,

lead prosecutor against milosevic at the hague reported the way the bodies were catalogued and the effort to obscure the causes of death leads one to infer this is a pattern of behavior for assad's forces but most chilling of all, desmond desilva stated that the amayberry yaited bodies revealed in these thickets are -- quote -- "reminiscens ent of those found still alive this the nazi death camps after world war ii. yesterday in a hearing of the committee on armed services, i asked the director of national intelligence, james clapper, whether these photographs which depicts ghastly crimes against humanity are authentic. the director said he has -- quote -- "no reason to doubt their you authenticity." the united nations is now doing its own assessment of these

images and all of shus fully support -- us should fully support that. it's important to have the broadest possible validation of these images and i'm confident the u.n. team will validate them. after all, does anyone seriously believe the assad regime does not have the means, motive and opportunity to murder 11,000 people in its prisons? indeed, this kind of inhuman cruelty is a pattern of behavior within the syrian government. according to a detailed u.n. report issued at the end of january, assad's forces have systemically as part of their dock strin -- doctrine used children as human shields and thred threatened to kill the children of opposition leaders if they did not surrender. the u.n. detailed the torture and sexual abuse of thousands of children by government forces. i will spare you the remaining details as they are

unspeakable, but again i urge you to read the entire report which can be found on the united nations' web site. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask my friend if he would allow me to do a unanimous consent request, just to get us through the day. as usual, i very much appreciate his courtesy and his stunning delivery on this horrible situation going on in syria. and i ask this report not -- record not appear interrupted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent enhancing the lack of the receipt of papers if they have not arrived from the house it be in order for the majority leader or his designee to concur in the house amendment to s. 25. if a 345e7b8g has arrived before 1:30, the chair before the house at 1:30 and i be recognized to recognize to coburn combur in the house

amendment to s. 25, there be up to 30 minutes of debate, upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to concur, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: quickly, mr. president, we'll have up to four votes starting 11:30 and coming back at 1:30 we'll finish the business of the day and hope to have a lot of votes today. i'm aware as i mentioned last night or following the storm on an hourly basis and we should know within the next few hours howe how accurate the reports of the snowstorm, good or bad, will be. the presiding officer: tax the gentleman from arizona. mr. mccain: i recommend my colleagues read of the war crimes human rights watch has

been documenting. they report on how who are authorities have deliberately used explosives and dull bul dozers who demolish thousands of residential buildings for no military reason whatsoever just as a form of collective punishment of syrian civilians. human rights watch watchers from documented the air campaign against aleppo and damascus and in particular the regime's use over the past few months of what has become known as -- quote -- "barrel bombs." for my colleagues who are not aware of them, barrel bombs are oil drums or large containers packed with explosives, fuel, shrapnel, glass, and all manner of crude, lethal material. their sole purpose is to maim, kill, and terrorize as many people as possible when they are indiscriminately dropped from syrian government aircraft on schools and bakeries and mosques

and other civilian areas. in one stark video of a barrel bomb's aftermath, a man stands in front of a child's body and cries out, oh, god we've had enough, please help us. these are just some of the many reasons why our director of national intelligence referred to the syria crisis yesterday as -- quote -- "an apocalyptic disaster." and with more than 130,000 people dead, after more than one-third of the syrian population has been driven from their homes, no truer words were ever spoken. but this apocalyptic disaster in syria is no longer just a humanitarian tragedy for one country. it's a regional conflict and an emerging national security threat to us. the regime's war crimes are being aided and abetted by thousands of hezbollah fighters and iranian agents on the ground, as well asus