behavior that we are seeing manifested in jerusalem is nothing to celebrate that young people are so despairing and it's nothing to celebrate the people are taking the lives of others and taking their own lives in the process. suicide is not a normal human activity. it only comes when death appears to be a better option than life. ..

a or the arabs finally doing something today the arab initiative and not just try to sell it but actually put some conditions on it and would institute a boycott and do what king faisal did decades ago. and so it falls on the weakest party, but the weakest part has have a strategy and it doesn't. and it certainly can't be that the weakest party should do what folks have been calling him to do here, which is some gestures to the israelis which only enables bad behavior because it was into the israeli apology. there needs to be a mass nonviolent movement. there needs to be a mass movement which has been absent,

and it can't be stonethrowing or knife wielding. because when you pick up a stone, and his arrival. when you click of a knife, they bring in the tanks. would you pick up a gun, they send in the army's antitakeover cities again. to disarm the israelis it must require a palestinian movement of nonviolence that actually is a mass movement that invents people in a significant way. and it's up to the leadership to do that. people i think already but people don't have a leadership that is going to put themselves on the line in that kind of effort. i truly believe that we will not move this equation and less one of the factors into it is transformed. someone needs to break out of the pathology and do something different. not going to be america, it's not going to be europe. it's not going to be the israelis want to help we can get some discussion on the palestinian side of how to create that movement that can alter the dynamic and create a

different future. [applause] >> okay, just to quickly summarize. i think we've heard from both of our speakers we need to try something different. now just a reminder. we do of notecards. our volunteers walking around for your questions, so if you have any questions for the panel please send them up now. we have until 11:30. we have three more speakers who from but we promised to try to get to the most relevant questions. matthew reynolds from unrwa. >> great. thank you, thank you for inviting under which is united nations relief and works agency rebels and refugees in the near east. now you know why we just as decadent unrwa, to participate in today's panel. as the responsible agent for providing development services for over 5 million registered

palestine refugees since beginning our operations in may of 1950 and what remain are five fields of operation, jordan, lebanon, syria, a gaza strip and west bank including east jerusalem. if you were given 30 seconds to discover landmarks of human history since 1950, what would you list what the korean war and the start of the cold war, desegregation in the u.s., uprisings in europe in the '60s and in the arab world in the 2010s, the end of colonialism and apartheid, rise of all dictatorships in europe and latin america, africa. the berlin wall built up in broadband. the destruction of the world trade towers in new york. genocide implemented or cambodia. throughout this entire period was and refugees have remained refugees. here are some 65 years after the creation of unrwa we should reflect on three fronts. on wednesday at houston refugee today, the work of unrwa towards bettering the lives of palestine refugees, i'm being a living reminder of the failure to

resolve protracted human crisis. palestine refugees today face an existential crisis on many fronts. in palestine facing 50 years of occupation. being a palestine refugees in gaza where there's 1.3 million, the size of dallas, texas, means being a victim of a blockade that affects every aspect of one's life and being depend on food aid while being educated and wishing to be self-sufficient. sadly gaza is only defending -- descending path of the development. it means living under their daily incursions, i fire and detentions by the israeli army and the anguish of being denied access to opportunities. being at houston refugee in syria today means being a resident trapped by merciless siege and violence deprive the right of access to water, food or electricity and basic health. by fear of contracting typhoid is real. you can see the suffering and hunger and stinky people's

faces. being a palestinian refugee in lebanon today means trying to cope with the frustration of still living in a miserable temporary shelter ages after the destruction of the camp. we speak today of over 5 million registered palestine refugees in the region. that equates to the population of minnesota or colorado or for non-americans norway. we are sometimes told unrwa perpetuates the status of refugees would get around it though is that a child of afghan refugee in the shower is refugee even 35 years later. one big difference, today announced an some decides to go home there is an independent country called afghanistan to go to. this is not the case for palestine refugees. they are isolation and exclusion and disposition represents a time bomb for the region, a denial of rights and dignity is that must be addressed. reflecting on unrest 65 years of service also reminds us of the

all too frequent crises faced by palestine from the palace and refugee most recently the 2014 conflict in gaza we shouldered 300,000 displaced persons in 90 of our schools. that's the size of geneva, switzerland, being shoved into 90 schools. we provided lifesaving aid to them under extreme circumstances being, including the showing of seven schools resulting 44 dead and over 200 injured. during the ongoing war in syria we continue to provide centrally to hundreds of thousands of displaced. we are dealing with essential survival needs but also with education and health and innovative ways of working have been established. equally significant is something even our closest partners underestimate. the fact with your support and i would like to publicly thank you, the american people, for being unreasonable and supporter and with incredible and it curvatures evidential political age provider unrwa has contributed one of the most

remarkable dynamics of human capital development in the middle east. our health and education standard shipping among the highest in the region. 700 schools run by trent lowe 22000 education staff for one half million boys and girls the if you parachuted the school system into the united states, we would be the countries third largest system after new york and los angeles but we run the system is expensive war occupation and blocking. addressing health needs are going to 31 clinics with 4000 helped start an average annual average of 3 million serve. unrwa has invested into the does and opportunity for palestine refugees against all odds. it has great human capital that many countries in the world would today indeed the palestinians for. while palestinians in the many others for an independent state of their own. but there's a very painful to mention sapping away this human development. we are always a to go to find a

just and lasting solution to the plight of the palestine refugees. nothing would be more born today from the perspective of principle international law and human dignity to it is a matter of common sense and increase the unstable middle east where it is time for international candidate to start addressing core conflict realities through a more concentrated and genuine political action. more than anything else it is insufficient political will and action that has contributed to 65 years of unrwa and refugee status for so many palestinians. even if by agency did not exist this large-scale community of palestine refugees which represents over one-third of the long-term refugees worldwide we continue to exist and what it needs and expectations and would have to be supported. one cannot wish for sloganeering this issue away. it has to be dealt with first and foremost as part of a political response.

given all the multiple and growing crises in the region many people expressed skepticism about the possibilities of a breakthrough. look at the clashes in jerusalem and gaza. i returned from both places six days ago and it is getting worse. skepticism is a luxury the world cannot afford. the consequences and cost in human terms are far too high and are growing exponentially. not acting today when 65% of registered palestine refugees are under the age of 25, when they're well educated but unemployed, determined to engage but with your prospects and limited movement of freedom to do so. this will lead me to despair where increasing numbers to choose a dangerous routes across the mediterranean and beyond. we can choose to close her eyes to the problem but we should be aware of what the landscape will look like when we reopen them. allow me to conclude with something in short supply but terribly needed for palestine

refugees. hope. in august 2014 during the gaza work in the rubble of a damaged unrwa school from a schoolbook was found. they belong to a young student aged 11. and it should read a poem and express an understanding beyond her young years when she said, hope does not betray. when we we inaugurated the school this past april, she read the poem. it sent a powerful message to all of us. hope will never die but it needs a serious, serious boost. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, matt. thank you for all the work that you and unrwa are doing. i know you are working to subvert difficult times, particularly with respect to funding but you have done a terrific job not only here in washington but across the united states. to promote the refugee situation of the palestinians. it's now my pleasure to

introduce dr. nic lutsey, one of our most foremost scholars with suspected arab world to add his enlightenment on the palestinian issue. -- dr. ni doctor. good morning. i'm really honored to be a debate with this distinguished panel. although unfortunately the circumstances of what we are talking about our i think are not really very auspicious or just to talk about the conditions that are happening today, and what is expected to be the future of the question of palestine. i believe that everybody has already done a very good job in painting and rather somber picture of what's going on. the conditions on the ground in palestine today and the dire situation looking ahead.

what i'd like to contribute, however, here are some remarks about what my humble opinion i think to be expected for the future of this tragedy, tragedy of a situation that has and i say unfortunately so far because it is going to continue, has lasted for over 67 years of dispossession. we don't kid ourselves anymore by repeating the dashed hopes of yesteryears and the peace process that could somma reconcile which to has become irreconcilable differences. and by the way, they are only irreconcilable because this hope for peace has not allowed, was not allowed to really take root and flourish. that's but innumerable attempts that either quickly became false starts or worse, started after, or start -- stopped short could have done the obvious examples are the oslo accords that

finally had president applaud declared palestine is not going to -- while israel is not abiding by what is supposed to be abiding by -- president abbas. this is an agreement that was an almost a quarter of a century ago and nothing has come of it. another example is obviously the 2002 arab league peace initiative that has since then been proposed and we proposed and rate offered by every arab summit meeting, and only to become just simply emir mention in a new cycle somewhere. what today's circumstances and fire conditions present are actually the following. one, a complete illegal israeli occupation of the west bank and goran heights, the latter subjugation as merely occupy territory to be settled and colonize as if it were an

uninhabited by people with a national identity and heritage and historic claim to the land. number two, illegal and inhumane daily treatment of hundreds of thousands of people trying to make a daily living like any other community. stop unnecessarily at innumerable roadblocks, arrested for showing the slightest movement. attacked as they collect or harvest from the field, prevented from accessing educational institutions and health care facilities. the latest is actually some crackdown in east jerusalem, closure of some of its sections. three, a daily reminder that violence begets violence, and occupation of a people yearning for freedom deprives them of the most basic human right of existence and personal safety. number four, and international community too busy trying to

distinguish unfortunate of the fires in the area to be able to at least pay some attention to the plight of millions of palestinians. want in this environment can be hoped to be a sane or logical or reasonable projection into the future? is what my humble opinion, in my humble opinion is a list of possibilities. none of them are tenable to any reasonable human being. one, the final closing of a once promising window for a two-state solution which two peoples live peacefully side-by-side. too many involved in negotiations between israel and the palestinians come every time israel and the arab world, a two-state solution provide a necessary and equitable compromise. and an assurance that it can be the basis for a peaceful middle east and the future. but over the years many have questioned the efficacy of such

a solution. even when it had a reasonable chance of success, on the grounds that it did not provide the necessary guarantees for secure and safe israel. many opined that sovereignty over jerusalem can't be divided. others blamed the division within palestinian ranks as preventing the arrival of the right mechanism to actually implement a two-state solution. excuses of marauding arab welcome descending on democracy in the middle east word liberally used to disparage talk of a two-state solution. those common-law courts themselves were a step towards that two-state solution india and the two-state solution was actually sacrificed on the altar of chauvinist revisionism and domestic israeli politics. number two, the triumphal arrival of a one state solution in which the palestinians are

coerced into living as subjects in a state of discrimination and second class citizenship, or yet a noncitizen subject or as a noncitizen subjects of the state for easy governance. this will not be a state like the division by palestinian visionaries in 1968 who saw a binational state on the territory between the river but one where full citizenship and rights are enjoyed by israeli jews and substandard national rights are reserved for palestinians. in that event i suspect israel will really be the subject of international ostracism and safety given its support in washington, but also a ground for continued violence and bloodshed. three, a continuing challenge for the zionist movement to decide is the nature and the

goal in light of the divisions at interpreting its tenets and mandate. the state of israel of affairs in israel today shows a house divided over whether to continue in the name of a science project to colonize and dispossessed an entire community and the nation. what also is essential in this regard is the realization that the continuation and possible success of the colonizing project in the west bank will mean the defeat of any pretense of a scientist respect to human rights and dignity. and subsequently the defeat of original project in its entirety. the politics of the possible and israel's domestic makeup arena will likely lead the original ideological project to its own devised. what is interesting in this regard is the seeming nonchalance of the leaders and supporters of the project about this quite possible possibility.

it would be -- number four, it would be naïve to the present, considering the present conditions and circumstances not to think that at least some of the palestinian youth, if not a sizable proportion of it, they see that the best hope for restoring some rights is the resort to extremist ideology that the middle east has experienced and loathed for a very long time. extremism is not merely a response. this self interest jihad recruiters capable of weeding a yarn of jihad and martyrdom, but specifically the brainchild of lost hopes and aspirations for a good life and a good future. in the absence of avenues for changing the dire conditions on the west bank and the gaza strip, extremism is likely to flourish to the detriment of everyone's security and peace. five, seeming continued

confusion in washington about the road ahead, at the unfortunate attended billy fellow palestinians and the arabs that the united states issue in on the whole process, and approves of the disposition of palestinians and that the disregard to the rights. i tend to the detriment of american foreign policy and role in the middle east. once again, political expediency and pressures cannot be the right to terminus of the foreign policy of a country that prides itself on its respect for human dignity and rights. what is happening and will happen in regards to the palestinian and question remains at the heart of the beast troubled and essential to u.s. policy in the middle east and to its standing among the arabs and the people of the world. who have through the government recently approved the admission of that very palestine as a member come as a member state in the united nations, and approved

the raising of its flag at the u.n. plaza in new york. the united states simply cannot continue to be blind to the fact that it is staring us in the face. thank you very much a plot back. >> thank you very much, and a winner from tom mattair is going to make some comments on the situation and some others come and that he is heard on the panel. >> thank you very much. those were for very well-crafted presentations, and mine won't be because my job is to listen and tell you what i heard and comment on what i heard. so what i heard from both

ambassador areikat and dr. zogby is that not very confident ashley is that they are not very confident that the political process can be revived by this administration or even possibly by the next one. that's of course disappointed. i recall work written by william quandt many years ago where he talked about the possibilities for making progress in the first year, second your, torture, et cetera, of any administration and basically concluded that the a few is basically the best chance for making progress because you had less difficulty overcoming domestic pressure. but at least in the view of these two panelists, that opportunity will not be seized

by this administration, and i understand why. both of them, all of them have spoken about the netanyahu government, that netanyahu himself who i agree is not committed to the peace process and not committed to the two-state solution. you did say in 2010 that he supported a two-state solution, but i interpreted the remark in light of other remarks that he's made, such as i know what america is. america is something that can be moved very easily. and, in fact, people spoke about the problems, how the promise of the oslo accords has not materialized. which i think is because it was an interim agreement and its

final goals were not clearly enough enunciated. and it took so long that opposed the process were able to mobilize their efforts against it. one of the opponents of the process was benjamin netanyahu. so i think this is really one of the most serious problems. we really can't mediate a peace process when one of the partners is not committed to the outcome that we want, the outcome that we say is in our national interest, and served as the president has said that the resolution of the conflict is in the national interest of the united states. so we had to think critically about what our failure means. we have said repeatedly that the status quo is unsustainable but we are getting with an israeli government that believes that the status quo is unsustainable,

can be managed, should be managed. eke out is better than the alternative of giving up territory. -- because it is better than the alternative of giving up territory. >> another point i would like to make is this. even if the united states, even if this administration were to try again, i think we are handicapped in the way we proceed. and that's because the people who are selected to do the work, i know many, many, many people in town and in academia who could've been good additions to the american negotiating team over the years and who were never asked.

and instead we have people who were working on the obama administration's last effort, which lasted for i think 12 months, and at the end of it, at the end of it, two of them gave an interview to a paper and said after the failure of the negotiations, and said we did not realize that the israeli government issuing new tenders for new housing construction in the west bank would subvert the peace process, or it was intended to subvert the peace process. and we did not realize that the building of settlements in the west bank involved the

ex-appropriation of palestinian land. wow. wow. most american undergraduates who study this subject know that. but two very important people running the program for the obama administration said they didn't understand that. i don't know if that's, what you call ignorance, or would you called willful ignorance. i'm not sure which one it is. >> it could be just dumb. [laughter] >> it could be. because of our domestic politics, i don't think we select the best people to represent us and to fight for the outcome that we say is in our national interest. and declared it is. other people have referred to the fact that it is an issue

that resonates deeply with the arab people, and it is an issue that does promote violence and promote extremism and foster extremism in the region. it's not the only issue in the region, but it is the issue that, through which arabs really see america and our real values and our real intentions, and it is what diminishes their confidence in us and our political judgment at our actual professions of partnerships within. and it certainly isn't the only issue that contributes to extremism in the region. certainly not, but it is an issue which does contribute to extremism and i'll give you one

example of that. .. >> one of his prin >> we have failed, i leave it to

the others to talk about what can be done. but just for the united states to get out of the way of the efforts of other actors and international community might be the best thing we can do. [applause] >> thank you, tom, as you could imagine, we have some very interesting questions. i will remain the question to some of the panelists as that might be the easiest way to answer your questions. one who has worked on the palestinian issue for a long time, israel and frankly the united states has been effective is moving the goal post. there's always an excuse. whether it's somebody happens, timing isn't right an american

president doesn't feel that it's appropriate. one the goal post keeps moving there's no hope. embassador we have quite a bit as you can imagine of questions for you but the continuing questions that keep coming up have to do with the future of president abass, he has made statements that he is not willing to continue no his position. the question is what happens to the pa, to the leadership, if there is any sort of agreement fata and jamas moving forward and weaving into the question about giving citizenship. why don't you call the bluff on that, if i may, you may answer

the questions? >> thank you, linda, well, i have to brag that maybe i am maybe the only official in the middle east who is willing to talk about the future of his president while he is still the president. i think we do have well established institutions or keep in mind that president abass is not only president of the authority but the executive committee which is the highest executive branch in the palestinan system. i mean, it's not a secret that he has been trying to hard to hold elections, we haven't had

democratic elections in more than almost 10 years now and unfortunately because of the political divisions that exist between jamas s&p lo, we were not successful in having these elections being held. i think the palestinian people deserve of democratic option, the majority of the leadership is in favor of that but if and when the circumstances arrive, i am sure that our existing political establish pent within the plo will be able to handle this issue. i remember before president died that everybody was saying, what's going to happen to the

palestinian people. so as for the reconciliation, unfortunately nothing is happening in terms of agreeing politically with jamass, continues to be a cornerstone, but once again, many external factors are impacting such progress. it's unfortunate that it continues, we would continue to exhort all of our efforts specially right now under the current circumstances. the one state versus two state, i think dr. harp, you know, summed it when he said that, you know, the creation of one state, national one state, you know, does not necessarily mean that they have achieved objectives in

terms of political independence and preserving identity. it will take our struggle to a different stage from that of political struggle and people under occupation fighting for justice and freedom to a different level of struggle for social justice similar to our brothers in 1948 areas who are almost 67 years after the creation, continue to fight for equality and continue to resist, so we are still committed to the two-stage solution. i know, again, that many are skeptic, skeptical about this proposition but in our view this continues to be the best and the most ideal outcome for the

conflict with israel. >> thank you. i'm going to give the tough ones to you. we have quite a bit of questions about the press and media coverage and there's one asking if there was a massive nonviolence movement would the press cover it, one of the questions i find mideast interesting how social media is galvanizing and similarity with south africa and i know, jimmy, you have done a lot of work, if not decades with the african american community and now we see the rise of the african american community you solidarity so you can you comment on those in. >> thank you, that's the changing demographics on the issues that i noted. i -- i frankly think the bds

movement is brilliant and important and it's em -- imminently supportable. would it change the dynamics here in the united states, i don't know. it's equivalent today with what my generation was doing with the human rights campaign that i started. young people have a different compass. today they have an extraordinarily different compass. they have more global, globally minded, tolerant and respectful of diversity and committed to justice, and in particular social justice. and so, yeah, i mean, everything from the way that social media is playing out, which is largely a function of younger people than older people and the way that bds movement is playing on college campuses is a function of that. add to that the role of african americans are playing, i think

you have that shifting dem -- demographic on the issue that i noted, how long does it take to play out, i don't know. but what i do know is that a mass nonviolent movement will serve to galvanize and even accelerate that shift in attitudes. i can remember having this discussion with leaders in the plo over there years ago and they would say to me, but if we -- if we mobilize the refugees in lebanon and march to the border, israelis will shoot at us. i said, they're already shooting at you. the point is you change the dynamic when you use nonviolent means. the problem with the jamass

suicide bombers or back in the old days the fedine attacks on here or there or whereever, they become the one person doing the one act, not the mention to fact that in the instance of terrorist these are immoral and they make net -- netanyahu as victims and heros and they don't deserve to be. would the press be able to ignore it? of course, they could not ignore it. it was horribly misguided. the use of violence, you never pick a fight that you can't win. and you can't win that kind of

fight with the is -- isaeli occupation. they come out of the turkey shoots. captive people being shelled from the ground and invaded at will. they come away -- they kill 70israelis and devastate the entire territory and they say we want a victory. how desperate can you be to translate to a victory? that's not a victory, that's a massacre. they're still paying the price for the foolishness of this adventure. we have to call it what it is. nonviolence, on the other hand, turns dynamic completely around. it's something that would cripple the israelis. they don't know what it is.

if there were no stones they wouldn't know what less what to do with it. those courageous people who are at the wall almost every week but in too small numbers to make a difference, they've defining a strategy that will work but there needs to be broader support for that. let me just say one thing at the end, all too often when we talk about this issue, we talk about justice. i remember something edward saih said to me, politics is not about justice, if it were the indians would be running america. it's about having power and the ability to use that power to accomplish objectives you want. you have to find the tool to use and that's not logic. i mean, it's logical, you can think in your mind of how to solve the issue, but to translate to political power requires levers and frankly, we are not going to win that fight here, but palestinians have the

ability to use the lever of public opinion worldwide in order to change the -- the dynamic and to increase political power. and i rest my case. >> thank you. [applause] >> thanks, jim. matt, we have two interesting questions for you. one is how the educated children of the unemployed adults are registered to vote on west or gazza strip, interesting question, i hadn't thought about that, that leads to the idea of voter rights. the next one seems to be quite a bit of concern regarding funding in united nations as see membership in icc, the activity not only in raising the flag but their move towards a member

sovereign state in the un, the opposition by the obama administration and the backlash by congress in cutting funds off. >> great, thank you. first, i would need to remind our emphasize that honra has human development mandate and not a political one. there are un factors involved in political part of it. i'm going to fall back on my old days of being in capitol hill. we are not involved in any of the political campaign or voter registration issues, we do register palestine refugees but for educational purposes. with regard to the funding of honra voluntarily funded agency, which means we don't get contributions from the united nations. so we are dependent on the

world. honra is a direct service provider, so unlike other ngo's or unicef, we actually do it ourselves. we have 30,000 palestine staff that are doctors, teachers and social workers. we have faced a lot of funding shortages. the world is in pretty tough economic times and so are we. the services and needs of refugees are growing. we have a crisis in every single field of ours. just put this in perspective of syria, there were only about 30,000 refugees out of the population of a half a million that required real social services like in any society, 10% of the population, disabled or needs assistance, today 96% of all those still left in syria, 430,000 of them. amount of providing nonfood items and food items and

emergency shelter is great. we did face funding crisis and a lot of challenge to palestine refugee community in particular. one of the things they have been able to count on is education. honra has always provided education, because we did not have enough resources to open the schools this year, there was a great concern that unrwa would not be opening the schools which brought a whole form of credibility and concern within the community. again, i would say it's a challenge for all of us as more and more fighting and wars take place to fulfill that. but, again, we do much appreciate the generosity with the u.s., which is our number one funder as they have been very generous to sister agency, united nations as well. thank you. >> great, thank you very much. and imad, i've got a global sort of regional question from the

audience regarding how the lebanese government and their security forces might deal with the possibility of uprising within the palestinian camps in lebanon and the e -- egyptian community involving jordan? >> is this on? >> yeah. >> well, the situation in all arab countries is not good. i know in the lebanese case palestinians are disallowed from certain -- actually a lot of jobs, a lot of employment categories. there's a lot of poverty among the palestinians in refugee camps. are outside the camp, obviously

camp security is given to the palestinians themselves to arrange for peace and order within the -- within the camps. sometimes things erupt within the camps and maybe if security officials within it could not deal with it, they can call upon, you know, lebanese police, but in general, palestinians have not so far have not been a concern as far as the security situation outside of the camps is concerned. although, you know, things considering that lebanon and lebanese state is not necessarily very -- can't stand on its feet because of certain political divisions, it turns

out that nobody really knows how the security situation in the country as a whole will -- will shape up. as far as the egyptian treatment on the crossing, it's -- i don't think it really is good for the palestinians. the crossing is more closed than open and it's opened only on certain days, certain days of the month, you can only import so many things, you can do certain other things and gaza strip is starving for anything to be imported to it that has been a resort of digging tunnels and trying to smuggle things from egypt into the gaza strip, except that had a problem with

trying to maintain the security according to how number one they understand it and how number, two, they need to deal with it as far as concerns about security across the border with israel. but whether these things can be -- you know, egypt has been flooding the tunnels. i think last i heard was probably out of 250 tunnels at one time only 20 of them had not been flooded yet. i'm sure the egyptian authorities are looking for those too also to close down. it's not only palestinian-e -- egyptian concern but with the peace with israel. >> final comments.

i have one question for tom. >> thank you. it's working? >> yeah. >> in regard to palestininas in other countries, it has very clear policy to respect the country and not to interfere in their internal politics. the situation in lebanon is more sensitive than the other countries, of course, syria is catastrophic and tragic what happened to the refugees there. we closely work with lebanese government on maintaining order within the refugee camps and we -- we have open channels with them to make sure that no external elements exploit the palestinian presence to destabilize any other country. we plan to continue to be

neutral and not to get involved in the internal politics of any country. just to respond to my friend, dear friend jim here on the violence, you -- we've been having leadership since president abass won the applications in 2005 that publicly and against a lot of opposition from many palestinians to denounce the arms struggle of violence, even in his speech yesterday he said that we will continue to political popular legal, diplomatic battle and we will never call on people to resort to violence. most of the escalation of recent violence is happening in occupied east jerusalem which is not control of authority.

i'm not saying that those people were not driven and given the reasons by israel to resort to -- to these kind of acts. i think starting point to defuse attention would be for israel to respect, indeed, not only rhetoric, existing arrangement that prohibits extremist and israelis from entering the camp -- compound to pray there. they end up divided it between muslims and jews. now they have control. they don't allow muslims as if abramham was jewish. this is exactly their objective.

they want to use prayer as first step and then they want to divide the place time and place and then they will have total control over. one step forward would be to stop these provocations and that would contribute significantly to the deescalation of violence. >> thank you, that's a great segue into the last question. tom, i'm going to ask you to be a psychologist for a moment. they believed truly that the land was given by god, this is a religious attachment to the land, all of it, greater israel is theirs, therefore when they built settlement it's not only their right but not illegal. what would it take within the u.s., within the united nations to ones and for all recognize that settlements in the u.s.,

settlements is a matter it is not viewed as legal. the rest of the world views illegal. what would it take for the obama administration to once and for all make that jump from illegitimate policies to settlements to illegal settlements? >> political courage. >> i'm sorry? >> political courage. >> say that a little bit louder. >> i think it would take political courage. if i recall correctly u it was our position before the reagan administration that these settlements were indeed, illegal. he is the one who changed that situation and -- and to go back to my earlier remark, i think that was the first

administration that had as a prerequisite for the middle east team that they know very little about the middle east. and that's been repeated. so it's a matter of international law, do geneva conventions prohibit deporting, te -- depopulation, prohibit sending your own population to it, it's clearly a violation of the geneva conventions. to stop saying it is illegal is a political decision not a decision based on the law. i go back to political courage. i don't know how much difference it would make to is -- isralis

are going to the right. all of the land is their god-giving right. so for example, once when i asked one of these people in settlement near hebron, what did he think about the west bank, he said, what is the west bank. i've heard about the bank of america, but do you mean judai and sumaria, that was how the conversation started. it didn't end well. >> i can imagine. i will turn to dr. anthony for closing remarks. >> this has been an excellent session in which various viewpoints, information insight, facts, documented, documented

that have lead to enhanced understanding specifically it was herbert hanzel who was president carter's legal affairs advisor in the department of state who was the one who said that the settlements are illegal. but even prior to that, the united states is a member of the united nations by treaty in terms of constitution articles 6, states specifically that all laws treaties and international conventions to which the united states is a solemn cig -- signatory are the supreme law of the land. the united nations charter is specifically addresses the

inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. you are not getting any clearer than that. resolution 242 and 358, do israeli government has accepted, specifically repeats the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, which the israeli government has accepted, ret -- ret >> thank you. thank you, dr. anthony. thank you. [applause]

>> and coming up in just a couple of minutes senate judiciary committee hearing with sentencing and related issues, proposed bill would create two mandatory minimums and a ten-year sentence for what's being called interstate domestic violence that results in death. we have it live for you starting in just a moment on c-span. congress back this week u to work on measure that would prevent a default on the the national debt. you can watch the house on c-span and the senate gavels back boo session with more work on the bill to cut fund to go sanctuary cities. we can see the senate live at 4:00 live on c-span2. we start our cast of cbc

coverage of elections results as well as victory and speeches at 6:30 p.m. eastern also right here on c-span2. tonight on c-span's new series landmark cases. by 1830 the mississippi river around new orleans had been a breeding ground partly due to slaughter houses. to address this problem, louisiana allowed only one government run slaughter house to operate in the city districts and the other houses took them to court. follow the slaughter cases. to help tell the history of this time period in the south, the personal stories of the butchers and the state of things in new orleans as well as attorneys and supreme court justices involved in this close decision. be sure to join the conversation as we take calls, tweets and

facebook comments using #landmark cases live tonight on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio and background on each case, order companion book, 8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmark cases. >> on washington journal this morning we took a deeper look at the iran nuclear agreement. >> it is the managing director for the washington institute joining us on washington journal this morning to talk about the next steps in the iran nuclear deal with yesterday sunday being what's called the adoption day, what does that date signify? >> guest: the deal signifies start of a clob. the deal was adopted -- i'm

sorry, negotiated back in july and endorsed by the security council. the deal made it through that review and made it through review in teran by the iranian parliament.ls now it's essentially october 18th, yesterday marks the time in which the states that are party to the deal have to start implementing commitments under the deal. now you saw president obama and counter parts sign order that would put sanctions relief into place, not right now but once iran finishes doing the things that need to be done under the deal, remove the core, start to moth ball or dilute your -- uranium and so support.

the deal is essentially under way. >> host: you use the term review. this was not treated in the united states as treaty. congress weighed in but they didn't get an up or down vote. howss about the iranian parliament, did they have to approve it before they could go forward? >> guest: it wasn't clear that the iranian parliament was going to review the deal until iran supreme leader that holds title suggests, parliament should review the deal. it underwent some debate. they approved it. even after they approved, parliament had to get subsequently approved by appointed council in iran. the process in iran doesn't move, routine like our process, more like an ad hoc process.

>> host: the steps that the united states and the p5 plus 1 will be able to take to observe that the iranians are indeed living to their end of the bargain, what do they include? >> the steps they need to take is get nuclear program to what will more or less be state in next 10 years. they need to go where they are now, a pretty robust nuclear program to lesser program and so that, again, involves taking out the core of their plutonium producer so it can't produce all that plutonium. that means taking cent center >> also it means to take very large stockpile of uranium and reducing significantly.

president obama has used 98%. exporting it or by down blending back into natural uranium. there's a number very significant steps. one question that will iranians will face, can they do all the steps, these are steps that they haven't taken inst a significant wayen before and how long wouldt take. >> host: who is the organization who is responsible that the steps w are being taken? >> guest: iae au, they're responsibling not only for monitoring but certifying that fact, iran has taken initial steps.il iaea has to certify that iran has cooperated with the investigation into past nuclear weapons research. this is another sort of controversial element of the deal which officials have been

speaking over the weekend. that investigation, iaea report happens in a timeline. this is a way to sort of put the issue to the side essentially. >> host: we are talking about the iranian nuclear agreement, the adoption day yesterday, we welcome your comments and calls, 202-748-1000 for democrats and if you want to c-span. u.s. today says obama orders waivers, directing administration to begin issuing waivers to iran nuclear sanctions but the waivers will go into effect only once iran meets obligation under the agreement limiting nuclear program. is there an idea of a timeline?

how long will those sanctions will be lifted and what's the monetary value of those sanctions? >> guest: i think the united states and partners and p5 plus 1 are interested in iran complying fully with the initial commitments. iranians have said that they think they can get this done in two months. a lot of experts that that will be long enough for iran to take initial steps. i i will anticipate next summer, implementation on which the sanctions will be lifted. in terms of the value of the sanctions relief, there's a couple of different partsof of this. iran will have some assets unfrozen which are being held in banks, that probably amounts to say $50 billion in usable cash, usable money, additional $100 billion which is tied up for various reasons, and

then it'll also mean the lifting of sanctions on iran's oil sector, various other sectors of iran's economy and there again the value of 10-15 years will be tremendous for iran. it means renewal of economic growth, removal of the isolation which iran has been under for decades now. >> is there a piece of that sanction that you mentioned, oil, for example, will the united states be able to import oil from iran or other goods? >> guest: you won't for be seeing any economic activity between iran and the united states, that would prevent an american oil firm going to iran. those sort of national -- >> host: mandated by congress. >> guest: sanctions that are being lift have secondary sanctions, these were the penalties that the united states was applying to say foreign firms that decided to do business in t iran.

the other sanctions that get lifted as of implementation day will be these united nations sanctions. really the u.s. sanctions are the ones will remain in place. >> host: what's the organization that dictates the date of that implementation or it's dictated by the agreement itself? >> guest: iran has to complete commitmentet before implementatn day with happen. those will be certified by the iaea, p5 plus 1, that iran has done these things. >> host: we have calls waiting. good morning, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, can you hear me? >> host: yes, we can. >> caller: the first thing that iran did, the second supreme

leader he gave permission of associated press or whoever. iran has missiles is under ground, why would it be under ground a thousand feet, and so before that january, they are showing whatrg they are going to do. and then the foreign minister is glowing. president obama is a fool. we are heading to a new movie, the little girl cry, that's where we are heading, so this is a combination on colombia university and harvard, this is dumb foreign policy and we are goingmb to pay for it, the whole worldwh. >> host: in addition to what larry said, conviction and the firing of the iranian test

missile. what's the general thought about why those took place? why they would do something before this adoption day took place? >> guest: what the caller is getting at it is a very narrow deal when it comes down to it. it only requires iran to take limited steps with regard to elementseq of nuclear program. in an exchange iran gets very broad sanctions relief. that was controversial. what we see from iran is really more the same of iran. iran made no commitment to change regional strategy. the united states did not require iran to change regional strategy. we do see iran sending more troops to syria. we see iran holding not just washington post reporter but three other american citizens. we see iran testing these missiles. another criticism of the nuclear deal, not only did not require

iran to change its strategy more broadly, not only did it not bring about more warming relations, u.s. opening to china didra in 1970's, missiles out of the deal as well. a lot of people including myself would say iran's missile program is part of nuclear program. but, in fact, the deal doesn't restrict missile activity, it lists some -- lifts some of the restrictions right up front and more of them in about eight years. frankly what iran did was a violation of sanctions because of the timing, because the deal hasn't been implemented yet. it's something that the president has agreed to allow under the deal. >> host: with this adoption day the elements of the nuclear deal are underway, we are talking about with michael, we welcome your comments.

202-748, 1000. >> caller: yes, sir, thank you for taking my call. i noticed a few things since iran deal has gone into agreement. number one, they already violated two things. went to moscow. he was told he could not leave the country, number two, you just mentioned the missiles. the missiles can already reach israel or anything like that. those missiles are meant to me to reach places like the united states. number three, they have not changed their rhetoric at all

aboutch wiping israel off of the face of the earth more or less are the great sattan the american of the united states. it seems that our agreement wants to sing kumbaya with the iranians while they put thousands of soldiers in syria and our p5 plus 1 included russia and -- i mean, it's a disgrace what is going on and everyonera not include the hostages. before i would have ever allowed iranians into that room, that would have been included those hostages would have been released before i ever would have allow them into the room. >> host: that's kelly in george, just to add what she said.

how does jason's case in addition -- add additional tension to the iran deal? >> guest: kelly raises the same issue that is the previous caller raises. this is a limited deal that frankly o left a lot out. we are not getting as a result of this deal a sort of broadly changed policy from the iranians. i think the administration has defended that in two ways. they said, number one, nuclear weapons are the biggest threat that we face. at least this deal gets those off the table. i think one could argue with thatse because, again u to the extent this deal affects iran's nuclear program it does so for a limited amount of time and frankly it only affects just one out of three elements of their nuclear program. it really just gets question of production of fuel, and we don't see broader change in policy from the iranians. this maybe is a first step in getting this biggest source of

tension out of the relationship, maybe now we can see a sort of broader reconciliation or steps towards a reconciliation between u.s. and iran. if anything, iran's actions have suggested the opposite, we will see at the very least a tngs of iran's hostile policy and look iranss not see not the united states but moscow or beijing for friendship. things like to continue to tension which were mentioned by the caller, are taken as evidence of that. as far as jason resigning, frankly i think that it's hard to know exactly what will happen with him now. it's hard to know whether he is being held against the united states,no whether he's being hed by hard liners but i think u.s. officials will have to press through everywi channel.

>> the subff headline in the wal street journal last week, he was convicted in tairan and the obama administration could be compromised and u.s. officials involved in iran diplomacy cri. how much of a concern was iran in your tenure during the bush administration? >> guest: iran was a tremendous course. over the say 2000's iran became concern as time went on as they made progress towards nuclear capability. it was 2002 sort of hereto secrete facilities were discovered in iran. there was a decision of policy, credible military threats while pursuiting a diplomatic

agreement. that basic sort of model didn't change over ten years. i think what folks, a lot of critics are unhappy about is they think objectives diplomacy changed a longer the way in the obama administration. >> host: let's hearam from mary, go ahead. >> caller: i would like to say that i agree with everything the young man has said as well as most callers, kelly hit a nerve. two other things i would like to bring up, one is i believe from watching the senate hearing, we are now required to help iran if they are -- remember the vie sus that -- virus that we were sending that bradley manning out

on. if anybody else tries to do that to iran, we are required by this agreement to help them and to save in israel tries to attack. second, i think we are also required, everybody keepsso sayg this is iran's money with the sanctions, however, america itself will be paying, i believe, it'sut about $10 millin a year for iran to inspect its own nuclear military sites. is that or is that not correct? >> host: i appreciate the call, mary. >> guest: these are issue that is came up in congressional hearings. the question is we will be required to sort of help iran guard against nuclear sabotage and what will be the nature of

military sites where the iranians have said military sites are off limits. and president obama said, no, that's absolutely not the case. there's no blanket exception for anys sites. on the first issue, there's a lot of nuclear cooperation that's offered to iran as part of this deal. it's under various sort of sub headings, nuclear safety, scientific research and so forth. they are no t meant to sort of be -- stopgaps against the united states or any other countries or responding to iranian cheating under the deal. they are not meant to help iran guard us in a sense. they are sort of extended as a form of sort of nuclear safety or civilian coon ration. -- cooperation. what we need to keep a close eye on is that these activities don't become a cover for other

countries helping iran with access of nuclear program which aren't allowed under the deal. but that will just require careful, monitoring inspection. on the second part about military sites -- >> yeah. >> one of the key i would say controversial i would say weaknesses in the deal is that iran does not give inspectors to go any time anywhere, if they feel that there might be a military site or any other site which is back and forth between iaea and a 24-hour period. the way this issue about the sight where, yes, perhaps iran is doing some sampling of its own with some level of iaea supervision, has nod -- not lead

folks in washington that this will be air-tight process. it false on the iaea and the obama administration to demonstrate that the inspection and monitoring process can happy in the way that satisfies critics and the national community. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. sir, in the first place this wasn't a treaty, it was an international agreement between six differentx countries, right, and i think the way it was set up all countries had to agree to the whole package. am i right? so you keep saying that obama allowed this -- what about the other five a countries? >> guest: it is an agreement when iran and the p5 plus 1

which includes, russia, china, the uk, france and the united states endorsed by the entire un security council. you're entirely right, it's an international agreement. i think from the perspective of the united states, the deal could not have gone forward without the united states agreeing to it. so the provisions and the deal could not have gone forward without u.s. the sort of not hardest line in the sense of for p5 plus 1, people were recall episodes where the french foreign minister was tougher than our own officials were. i think that it's fair frankly to say that whatever is in this deal it's not solely the ri responsibility of the united states, you can't simply dictate the terms, but i think it's fair to says. that the united statest some level is comfortable with the provisions. the administration is comfortable with the provisions and have been defending them, i think it's not in this case

unfair to associate these provisions with the u.s. negotiators. >> host: a couple of questions, with iran's new money they can buy bombs. when iran violates the treaty deal agreement, what will be the options for the u.s., i assume? we talked a little about that, go ahead. >> guest: i would say that nothing in this deal allows that and hopefully nothing in the deal makes it easier. the biggest concern is dual-use items but could have a covert nuclear purpose coming into iran, this deal attempts to police those kinds of purchases, but i would say that procurement channel as they call in the deal

is something that needs to be improved upon. as you look at it in the deal it's not sufficient, so we have to be careful not so much about the purchase of a full-flej nuclear weapon, it's a concern but one that isn't really affected by this deal, by the sort of civilian cover of purchases and related items. when it comes to violations, look, criticism of this deal is that the only penalty for violation which is prescribed in the deal is the full snapback of previously -- previously sanctions. the entire deal is essentially canceled. well, it's a very significant penalty and makes you think that it'll probably be applied in significant circumstances, when there's major sanctions. neither the united states nor europeanng partners have spelled

out in much detail as to how would we respond such violation. the concern is there won't be responses to smaller violations and that frankly when iiaea inspectors feel like they need access to the site, maybe they won't press the case for access. so this is again, it's a flaw that we'll need to address, we will need to come with amen ewe of options. >> host: complicating the launch of adoption day last week, well publicized launch and the headline in wall street journal said the day after, the missile didn't violate the nuclear deal and president obama was also asked about whether it did, he spoke at a joint news conference last week with the south korean president, this is what president obama had to say. iran, iranpect to has often violated some of the

prohibitions surrounding missile testing and our position with respect to un resolutions prohibitions and potential sanctions are unchanged with respect to missile programs. and i made very clear during the debate around iran nuclear deal. the we iran nuclear deal solvesa specific problem which is to ensure they don't possess a nucleary weapon. it does not fully resolve issues where we have a big difference. and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and where we have bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to

bad behavior in the region and around the i world. >> host: why wasn't nuclear testing, missile testing part of the w iran nuclear deal? >> guest: this one is a bit technical. it doesn't stop from conducting nuclear test. there's nothing in the deal that says iran can't do this. what the deala does is lifts a previous prohibition on such missile test that was found in un security resolution 1929. that resolution is till in effect, but it won't be come implementation day. so we are in this middle period now where those resolutions are still in effect but we contemplate liftingon them. basically what the president is saying, this doesn't violate the nuclear dealt but does violaten

security resolution. .. to watch a nuclear weapon at another country. iran would need an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the united states and one big concern is if the deal allows iran to continue to perfect the missile capabilities, if they choose to violate the deal in a future, they may be well-positioned to have just that capability. host: 15 or 10 minutes or so with michael singh heard republican line, kentucky, go ahead. republicanifelong and i always vote -- voted accordingly, but i have done a little research into how accurate ron paul was whenever

-- was inoffice office. he must be psychic because everything he said has come true and nobody listens to him. i am just curious where we would be today if ron paul was elected marginalized not by the establishment media. there are now doing the same thing to rand paul. rand paul leads in all the polls and gets more money from individuals, he he gets more money from the military, and now the media doesn't say nothing about him because they know he such a threat. >> host: a little off-topic. we are talking about the iran nuclear do. we go to tulsa, oklahoma. republican line. >> caller: yes. i had a friend in college, he

was from iran and his dad was in the secret service. i was wondering if the old shah is dead but the sun is still alive. are the still parties like that available where we could back up that would block people from doing this? something that would hurt like a cannonball. >> host: whatever happened to the green revolution in iran? >> guest: that green revolution which broke out in 2000 i was tremendously significant. a precursor to the arab uprising in 2011. you had 3 million people in the streets of tehran. it was crushed in a quite repressive brutal manner by the iranian regime. it set off an acrimonious political contest in thailand where you had mounting political opposition even within the regime's actions against the hard-liners against the supreme leader. and in many ways the election of

president ron hooner card as a pragmatist in 2013 -- president rouhani. away to release some of that pressure. i think the question now though is will the expectations that iranians have invested in president rouhani, that he will be able to deliver a better economy, deliver a better life for iranians, maybe he will deliver a lessening of some of the social and political restrictions iran faces. can he deliver on those things? iran has a parliamentary elections in march of next year and i think we'll end% ci this diplomacy with the united states has affected iran's internal politics when we watch those march parliamentary elections. one thing that is clear right now, the supreme leader has said no more duties with the united states. the iranian ports have said that the handshake that foreign minister had with the president

obama at the u.n. general assembly was espionage. this is a very controversial issue in iran, this idea of a further warming with the united states and i think there are plenty people against an. >> host: bpc has a map looking at iraq, fordo, the fans. but the foresight listed of these nuclear sites, which one concerns you the most? >> guest: in part what concerns them most about these facilities as none of them will be closed under this deal. so arak and natanz were the ones that were revealed in 2002. they been kept secret and covert and it argued nuclear weapons would work was being done. they are above ground. the underground facilities, the fordo facility that was revealed to the public by president obama with his french and british counterparts in 2010 is the one that is buried deep underground and really has no purpose, no clear purpose other than a

nuclear weapons or press. the iranians have built all these facilities in destiny that are in violation and the net effect, the end result after these 10 or 12 years of diplomacy is that all of those facilities to some extent will remain operational. i think the one that is most concerneconcern is the fordo fay because it's very deep underground, because if i ran 40 choose to eventually convert that to a weapons used, it is probably the most difficult for us to cope with, to contend with and because perhaps the lesson of the rings will take is a neat idea perform or well guarded facility. >> host: mclean, virginia, democrat's line. welcome. >> caller: good morning. thank you for your presentation. iran has had a nuclear program for a very long time, including under the shah, and at times the

united states has supported and encouraged that program. most of, a lot of the people work in the program were trained in the u.s. and so on, and it seems to me that since no new country, aside from israel which does have a nuclear weapons program, when the nuclear route all these years. this new deal will reduce the likelihood of further proliferation in the region, not only in the region but internationally. it will strengthen the nonproliferation regime, and as an indication when the iranian parliament approved the deal, one of the conditions or one of the things that the bill that they passed, one of the stipulations was that the government worked towards the

nuclear or disarmament of israel, which has the region's only nuclear undeclared arsenal. do you think that this deal will actually encourage israel to be more open about its nuclear weapons program? and perhaps ultimately lead to a middle east nuclear weapons free zone, which countries in the region have encouraged but which the u.s. with israel's agreement has generally tried to stymie. >> guest: if you look at the way nuclear weapons have spread over the past decades, it's not right to say there haven't been any new nuclear weapon states. effect was in india and pakistan develop nuclear weapons. we've seen north korea develop nuclear weapons. generally speaking nuclear weapons because of their

capability upset the balance of power in the region, and states which considers a nuclear weapons state to be a rival will want to develop nuclear weapons of their own to balance that capability out. i think the concern about this iran nuclear weapons just not that it's some upsets a gold standard in nonproliferation. it doesn't quite simply. because it does allow iran to pursue uranium enrichment. does allow iran to over number of years pursue heavy water reactors with plutonium. it doesn't require iran to account for his past nuclear weapons research. ulysse iran's rivals in the region like saudi arabia, egypt, turkey now suddenly have a stronger incentive to pursue nuclear programs of their own. maybe not to pursue an actual nuclear weapon at least to be ready to produce a nuclear weapon is about iran cheats on this deal. i think a lot of that decision-making also comes down to the question of the united states role in the region.

a lot of these countries feel as though the united states is disengaging. they see the nuclear deal as evidence of the united states wanting to sort extricate itself from the region's problems. so this says that now we have to fend for ourselves, before the report the desire to get nuclear weapons. i worry the effect will be the opposite, rather than reforms in nonproliferation norms globally and will actually undergoing to host the we are reading a lot of reports out of the newspapers and such an online. what are some your primary sources in terms of educating yourself on this deal above and beyond what's reported in the media? >> guest: in terms of private information one of those places to go is, in fact, the international atomic energy agency which puts out periodic reports and how is having complying or not complying with the diesel. i also look around the community in washington and elsewhere. there's serious nonproliferation experts friend of both sides of the deal, though supporting it

and those criticizing it. people like david albright of the institute for science and international security, people like, harvard university and is deputy director general of the iaea. people lock -- people like robert on board with one of the negotiators in the early stages, not respected think tank interview. i do think, i was the one thing which is quite important is when not reduce this to a partisan question. the question of nuclear weapons especially if iran's record of supporting terrorism is probably the most series of measures good issue we face. we can have our debate as to whether this is a good you are a bad deal but i think their import we approach the santa barbara subway, a question is how do we address any flaws in the deal, isn't going to be sustainable and how do we reinforce nonproliferation norms as a last call was suggesting globally so don't face this type of problem again in future. >> host: a couple of comments on twitter. this one from the white house.

it's get one more call from john was in wilton connecticut democrat's line. >> caller: good morning. thanks for your time. i'm still scratching my head why given the bush doctrine and the neocon doctrine which drove our foreign policy when the paper was written in 97 from bush's presidency. i think given libya? >> guest: , iraq, not afghanistan in total disarray our biggest ally, middle eastern egypt, that is now ruled by an iron hand, why did every single republican in the house and senate vote against the

diplomatic resolution to iran's nuclear deal? it seems to me they are all still clinging to this neocon strategy which was a total disaster for our country. money spent. so are you for this negotiate a treaty or not? >> guest: so the interesting thing about the congressional debate is that prior to this deal being signed there was very strong bipartisan consensus in congress asked how to approach this issue. you had iran sanction bill passing 99 to zero in many cases. which is unusual. these days is a very polarized washington for anything to enjoy the kind of support. which is in the congressional debate was it wasn't just republicans voting against the deal. you had quite a few democrats. the folks on offense were not republicans and many democrats who are conflicted about which way to vote.

even those who voted in support it's a with grave reservations that because they thought was a great deal but because they felt our other options had been foreclosed by that point. you see the concerns over the deal are bipartisan, widely shared. it will be again a big mistake to try to cast this in terms of the iraq war, libya, bipartisan, neocons and so forth. we hear that a lot the other thing is hopefu hopeful for resa series of nationals a good issue. whoever is the next president, ever let a been responsible for negotiating this deal. they won't have a personal investment in a. i think you will need to look at it carefully and see what are the upside, the downsides? tried to protect the upside and address the downsides. i think you also need to look for congressional help in doing that because it will be a sanctions component. how will we address iran's support for terrorism, what it's doing in syria and a bag.

do that not through direct military intervention but hopefully we can use these tools we have and which are so powerful like sanctions. so again i think it's not that these folks were expressing concerns about the deal were not in favor of a negotiated agreement. does this resolve the issue? i think they reached a conclusion that no in fact the best his kicks the can down the road and, frankly, will have to do with this begin in 10 to 15 years. >> host: you can follow michael reported on this and the coverage of this at washingtoninstitute.org, also on twitter. thanks for being with us this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> congress is back. the house back into more working on a measure that would prevent the default on the national debt. you can watch the house proceedings on c-span. one know we been told the house gop holds a special meeting tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. eastern on what they're calling their october agenda. we'll be watching to for you at c-span.

this and is back at about 50 minutes. expected to work today on a bill that would cut federal funding to sanctuary cities. no votes scheduled for today. the senate always right on c-span2 get while we wait for senators to come to the floor and get started today we will show you as much as we can do the splits "washington journal," a discussion about the trans-pacific partnership agreement. >> host: dan glickman is joining us. is former agriculture secretary, served in congress and u.s. rep from kansas 1977 to 1994 and served in the clinton administration as agriculture secretary. we are here to talk about the trans-pacific partnership, the trade deal that was recently agreed to. and help might impact agriculture and food safety and other issues. what does this partnership encompassed? >> guest: agriculture, although in other sectors of the economy are extremely involved

and subject to the whims of international trade. we sell more of our agriculture products overseas that we purchased here in the 20. trade is life or death for people who produce wheat and corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, livestock product and other things as well. this agreement while it's not heaven on earth, i try to tell people trade agreements are not going to produce an economic miracle. but the trade agreement is important for u.s. agriculture as well as other parts of used economy including industries that rely on intellectual property rights to keep american again and to keep us engaged in the rest of the world. it we have not done this agreement or congress doesn't approve the agreement, it will allow america to disengage which is not good for our country's economy. >> host: what's a process from congress approving it? how much time do they have? >> guest: i'm not exactly sure. it's either three or four months they have to approve this

agreement. it will not be approved until the beginning of next year when they vote will take place, but the agreement is set up ready to go to conquer them expectation is there will be approved. >> host: you had a piece in the hill, about the ttp, trade commission will authority pashtun trade promotion authority what section you think will benefit the most from a passage of the ttp by congress tried to all segments. there's some segments more valuable to trade like derek is much more vulnerable because supreme competition in more markets. wheat, corn, the basic farm commodities that russell barkley to feed animals around the world. those will benefit. certainly livestock products, pork and beef will benefit. without this agreement the problem is that america faces restrictions in the rest of the world of entry of our products.

in japan and other parts of the world take in southeast asia it's important that we break down barriers and we gained access to these markets and other things like, for example, restrictions on are products or sanitary purposes, food safety issues. those become matters of much greater conformity to allow operatives is a better access to those markets, more predictable access. it's not a miracle in and of itself but it is without this thing it will shortly set back american agriculture post to take us back to the passage of the north levick free trade agreement, nafta passed in the '90s. what was the role of the agriculture sector, your role? >> guest: i was in congress back then. i was a member of congress from kansas big is one of those controversial think i voted on when i was on the because trade issues are by and large not the most popular things you vote on

in the world. impact of nafta and north american free trade agreement became a symbol for everything that was wrong with the american economy, loss of jobs, a loss of image in the rest of the world. i think by and large nafta was good for america but it was not a perfect situation that a lot of people claimed it to be. that's what i think while trade is important that are other factors that will have a lot to do with the u.s. economy being strengthened as well post what would be some of those others trip to i've argued america needs to rebuild its infrastructure, roads, sewers, bridges, ports, airports, seaports, electric grids, water systems, you name it. the middle class would be benefited by both the trade agreement as well as by very significant investment in rebuilding our national economy putting millions of people back to work the same when we built the interstate highway system and 50s of what nasa did to

the space program in the '60s. wildest wet dreams is very important we can put all of our eggs into the trade agreement in terms of how to improve the u.s. economy. the second thing we need to be doing is a very significant rebuilding of american infrastructure so that with modern roads, modern bridges, modern highway systems and an electric grid that is very competitive. that's another part of a total plan to rebuild our economy. you also can't do it by being isolationist on trade. >> host: our guest is dan glickman, former agriculture secretary for trade and agriculture. here's how to join the conversation. you can also send us a tweet at c-span david j. dr. nafa for second and an issue of a product i was affected.

npr did a piece a week ago or so about the implications of that trade agreement. it was on anniversary of nafta. devote about a farmer in the u.s., a tomato farmer affected by nafta. they write is farmer said -- in the piece, they said according to the department of fresh tomato production in florida has fallen 41%. meanwhile, tomato production in mexico has gone the other way. florida tomato growers argue they cannot compete with a lower wages and less environment oversight in mexico. guest: >> guest: first of all those always winners and losers when you trade agreement. clearly some of the fresh produce can be grown much

cheaper overseas, particularly south of our borders that can be grown here. trade agreements have got to do a better job of protecting against exceptionally low wage labor. other items i just agriculture have done better since nafta. the livestock industry, pork and poultry and cattle. the grains have generally done better and if you talk to mexican producers they will tell you the exact opposite of what the tomato grows to you. able to america got too great an advantage as a result of the nafta agreement. that's a problem, you can't make a sweeping generalization about how good they are. the are some people who benefit more from some people benefit less. by large nafta was on the positive side for america at the were some losers. >> host: you come to this from agriculture state from kansas to make secretary of agriculture. what's your background with

agriculture before he came to washington? >> guest: my father was not in n the agriculture business but when i came to congress i would on the agriculture community and state over 18 years on the committee, and then president clinton appointed secretary which i was there for about six years but ironically after that i went into the motion picture industry were was chairman of the motion picture association of america now i'm at the i personally center and asked the institute when doing the best to promote our partisanship in government, which is not easy. >> host: you must have been affected by issues of not trade but certainly things like pirating. >> guest: trade was a huge factor in the movie industry because majority of revenues for the production of american movies come from outside the country. the biggest grossing movies and television is outside of the united states. so trade is a big issue and intellectual property protection from piracy is a huge issue. that is dealt with in pretty good stead in this trade

agreement, protection against intellectual property rights protection. >> host: we have lots of calls waiting. we first go to rochester, new york, and this is carol fo for n glickman. go ahead comic good morning. can you tell how the trade agreement will affect country of origin labeling of foods. the are some counties i would know we want to eat chicken processed were slaughtered in china. can you give me information on that? >> guest: the trade agreement is up on the answer that question specifically. it will permit countries do better disclosure in terms of what's contained in foods and where this come from but by and large most of those items are maintained within the country own regulatory system. it won't directly do with the problem you're talking about. >> host: on the issue of poultry trade under the tpp, the usd has put out a list of the benefits they're promoting the trade trade promotion authority. they say will provide

significant new market opportunities for u.s. exporters promote economic growth in 11 countries across the asia-pacific region and expanded expanding demand for u.s. food and agricultural products among nearly 500 million consumers outside the u.s. they say that tpp strengthens trade also provides new market access for export to japan, malaysia, vietnam, new zealand and bruni, countries who would not have been in before. >> guest: they would have been buying american product before but the market systems would be working as well because there were not market opening mechanism like this. if you look at east asia, south asia, these are huge markets, particularly in the livestock products and the grains. these people want to eat better, have a diet that is more in the middle class died. entity that they need large quantities of u.s. agricultural products. this will make it easier for the u.s. producers to sell into

those markets. >> host: let's hear from tom who is in daytona beach. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my comment is i went online, talking about nafta, and i've heard people say it's more of a bipartisan thing, as far as nafta. to vote on it was 61 republicans in the senate voted board and 30 democrats voted for nafta in the senate. in the house 234 of the republicans voted for nafta. that's in that house of representatives, and 200 on the final vote, 200 of the democrats. so the republicans push as nafta deal through. i'm from a small town originally in north carolina that was the furniture manufacturer of the world. all the furniture manufacturers were there. all those bases are gone.

you have to take into consideration that winning industry like that goes downhill, because of a free trade agreement, it's not a fair trade agreement. it affects a lot of people. you have suppliers that supply hardware, people, all types of suppliers. and all that, the problems we're having with paying into social city and things like that, those things are all important to you american people working. >> guest: i think he raises a point that's good in this context. there were some american businesses that were impacted negatively by nafta. particularly in the manufacturing sector. however, by and large the evidence is pretty clear that overall we gained more than we lost. but to somebody who lost it's not much consolation. i understand that.

to this agreement i think cleans up some of the nafta problems when it comes to worker rights, worker safety and related issues regarding labor standards but i think things are improved as a result of this. the other thing i would say is a lot of jobs were lost over the last 20 years not because of nafta but because of technological revolution, because of globalization generally, because of high-tech industries were quite less workers to do things. that's why we have to find a way to produce jobs in this country in areas that will benefit the united states and our citizens. that's why we building our country's infrastructure is a which produced a couple million middle-class, good paying jobs, and help the economy flow much more naturally with an infrastructure works. you go around the rest of the world. they are airports are better. they are seaports are better,

more modern their roads and highways and bridges are maintained much better than ours over all. on the site the on the part to country doing a good job. this is more problematic in terms of the future of the american economy than even the trade agreement is. so we have to do both of those things. you just can't only betrayed. you got to fix up america, heal the country itself through its infrastructure repaired. >> host: we saw a recent piece of yours, and op-ed, the "baltimore sun" at a number of other papers, a big plan for infrastructure and to write that the current infrastructure sounds wonky. ive on roads and nt infrastructure area you cross a river on a bridge and not on infrastructure. infrastructure means private sector jobs for americans, modernizing airports and fairways, power gridso accommode new fos -- >> we'll break away from this portion of "washington journal" as always you can watch it on our website, c-span.org. the senate back from the break about the gaveled into their expected to debate and talk

about a bill today that would cut federal funding to sanctuary cities. no votes expected on the floor today. live coverage here on c-span2. eternal god, the foundation of goodness, you have done more than we can imagine to draw us to you. draw our senators nearer to you, prompting them to find joy in your presence and inspiring them to obey your commands. as they remember how you have sustained them in the