30s, then you'll see people running away from him left and right. i kept to see -- i hate to keep saying wait and see, but you've got to wait and see. >> questions, anyone, prerogative of the moderator. >> we can talk about sports. >> we haven't talked about trade. >> okay. >> i'd rather talk about sports. >> so probably the one challenge, and i'll look to aaron here, you've got all of this exuberance in the marketplace, when it comes to trade there are questions of renegotiating partnership, trans pacific, wants to list china currency manipulator. and then a number of, you know, enforcement mechanisms to use

commerce to bring actions on unfair trade. for many in the room or, you know, i can put my city hat on and we look at the antiglobalization trend that's been going on around the world and whether we look at the brexit vote or whether we look to current elections in france or potentially what's coming up in germany or all the other stories around this antiglobalization that helped elect trump, you know, the antitrade message was incredibly strong, what should we be thinking about, what should business be thinking about from a trade perspective, what do kru think the markets are doing and thinking as we go forward. i think one of the challenges is that you can have all of this potential stimulus on the tax side, we'll have questions around trade that's going to really, you know, pull down the potentially lead to, you know, a lack of glout in the economy, if there's -- lack of growth in the economy if there are terrorists.

>> it's going to be -- and insta deficit, almost, over night. he wants to have automatic reopeners in deal. take a step back. industry and jobs, and, you know, it's going to be a complete change, assuming you don't get the job. >> historically, the problem with terrorist and protection is trade policies you might get a bigger slice of the pie, the global over all pie is not maybe not as big or growing as fast. i think he wants the economy to

grow and he wants america to grow first and foremost. i think it's going to be one of the most important areas in terms of how the market reacts to that. i mean, in, putting ton rosy colored glasses, if he goes in and he negotiates better trade deals for america that other countries can live with, that's probably a good thing. if they retaliate, why wouldn't they retaliate, it could be a vicious cycle sort of situation. i think there's a lot of risk there in the markets that is not being priced in at the moment. >> let it sink in for a while. it's intended as a joke, but maybe a little bit too subtle. he'll get two briefings. one he'll learn about the whole ufo thing in area 51. the second briefing he'll get

and hopefully this will sink in is how america runs the world through its trade agreements, and through the different ifis and organizations. he'll be like, oh, that's why we do that. and he'll get the briefing that will tell him there's a couple of reasons why we maybe wachbt -- want to help mexico, why we'll have the current set of agreements that might be engendered to tpp they may be as much about military security as they are about economic security. there may be a reason why it doesn't necessarily add up ledger because it has an asset over here that's not counted in security. one of the things that i thought in post brexit is, we kcreated economic agreement so that we couldn't kill each other and i think we've gotten that

entirely. it's impossible to measure some of these trade agreements via the way donald trump and wilbur ross, puts it forward, we have a deficit with them and, you know, to some extent that's a negative for u.s. growth how you measure the import, but i think what he'll find there was some sense behind from the obama foreign policy trade policy. and it was on a numbers basis and don't be too shocked by this. america was less great as it was. as percentage of total gdp, the u.s. percentage is declined. the question is how do we maintain our greatness or being great at, essentially, authority over the world trade system, in a world where other countries

somewhat to our benefit, are getting wealthier and we do that through -- somebody -- i think it was mic made this point, globalization is a reality, our trade agreement is simply the rules by which we live in that reality. i'm just saying, i think he'll get the ufo briefing and he'll get the trade briefing and then we'll see where trade policies will be. i think tpp is history. i think it's an unfortunate fact that that's the case. i guess we could have stood the benefit greatly from that.

i don't know who is going to ultimately win the argument. i think he'll look for individual instances where he'll browbeating a company not to move or making some small move that does that. i don't he'll do it. >> he moves on china to import tariff, china decides its next big order for planes goes to airbus. >> airbus. >> right. >> that's why he can't do it. >> boeing knocks on the door and says, mr. trump, mr. president, look what happened and then he'll understand dynamic by which, i remember when i was overseas, you could -- for better or worse, we could argue about this. u.s. foreign policy was boeing foreign policy or it was bank opening up foreign policy. it was that's where the things that america would put on its list, we want boeing to be able

to sell in here that's what foreign policy all about. >> well, some. >> i think on that note, we've reached our allotted time. i want to thank aaron and ben and stooeeve and ben, and thanku for joining the panel. [ applause ] . the at&t time warner merger is subject today.

>> there's a car dar flendar fo term. to quickly see all of their

appearances on c span as well as many other videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at cspan.org. >> they voiced concerns about potential lack of press access and transparency issues with new administration. from the national press foundation, this is about an hour. press relations between the incoming administration and the press corps and what things will look like. we suspect things will look like.

each of the three guests will give a brief, five-minute or less on what the main issues they see coming on. i think we'll have plenty of questions from the audience. our three panelists are sh lucy who is the dean at the philip merrill college of journalism, we're in the face right here. before coming to maryland a couple of years ago, she was a couple of decades at reporter's committee for the freedom of the press. and she was -- okay, previously. before that, also a reporter and editor at st. louis -- i'm sorry, the pioneer press. jeff mason on the far end is white house correspondent for roiters and current president of the white house association who is going to talk about the role of the correspondents association and its interactions with the incoming administration. and kevin goldberg, an attorney at fletcher, most importantly,

he is the president of the chairman of the board, i'm sorry, chairman of the board and national press foundation, welcome to all three of you. i thought we get started with jeff, i mean, jeff if you could giver a sense of where things stand between the correspondents association and incoming administration. >> so the correspondents association started having communications, both with the trump and the clinton campaign as early as last spring where we just wanted to get the relationship started and explain what our expectations were in terms of press pool, neither hillary clinton nor donald trump had a full protective pool as a candidate, protective pool, for those of you who aren't completely familiar with that, is a group of journalists, 13 journalists including wires, print, tv, photography and -- still photographers and radio

who follow the president or a candidate or the president elect, wherever he or she goes, that enincludes being in the motorcade, on the plane for travel. so as you no doubt know, after president elect trump was elected, he did not have a pool in place because they did not have one in place during his candidacy kwhs which was a problem then, got amplified after his election. we have in the last few weeks made some progress on getting that pool structure solidified. he came to washington without a pool. they got some pretty bad press for that and this correspondence association weighed in on that. i weighed in on that on behalf of the correspondence association. we also weighed when he went out for dinner in new york without bringing a press pool. and i think they learned from

that, i think they learned from the negative attention and i think they also learned as, no doubt, you just learn when you're putting together an administration from scratch about what some of the aspects are that are important. we have been in touch with them and are in talks with them to do that. the pool is not going to be fully formed or protective until they get to the white house because they refuse to allow journalists on his plane, which we object to and we've made those objections clear, but they have made clear back to us that that's not going to change. so once he's here, then there will be the traditional structure of the pool flying in air force one and that's not something that i'm even putting up as a question mark, we assume that that will be respected. and they have told us that they do intend to respect the

traditions of the white house pool when they come and right now are taking them at their word for that, as well. i have been using the words cautious optimism. obviously, there were lots of things that happened during the course of the trump campaign that should give reporters and media organizations cause for concern. we haven't had a chance to address all of those with the incoming administration. we're sort of having a pry or theized list of what's important to us and the pool that's been at the top of that list, once we get that core piece of white house press business locked in. i think we'll be able to address some of the other issues as well. i think it's going to be a challenge, there's no question about that, and i think that there are a lot of unanswered questions, which we can certainly explore a little bit today, but a lot of -- a lot of what we have waiting for us are

unknowns. but i am not -- i am not one of the -- i do not belong to the doomsday example, despite some of the rhetoric that even people like respected former white house press secretaries are throwing out into the dialogue, i don't think it's in the interest of an incoming administration to declare war completely on the press or to blow up the press room or blow up the white house press corps, if they do, the correspondence association will be ready. i can assure you that we are preparing for worse case and best case scenario. at this point, the people we are working with have been working with us in good faith. we want to maintain and develop that relationship going forward.

. coming in with the new administration. >> sure. first of all, thank you for inviting me. and welcome to the college of journalisms downtown bureau. i hope you have a chance to look around. you're very -- we're thrilled that you're here. i thought i had talked about two things, one that i'm really anxious about and one that i've got kind of an, oh thank god attitude toward. when you're a reporter ordealing with media access involving the feds, other than following the president around in the white

house. jeff sessions, be afraid. be very afraid. kevin and i have both watched him for a very long time and i -- my eyes popped out of my head when i saw he's up for attorney general. -- his record as far as transparency goes, is terrible, his attitude toward the media, is irrationally bad. he's nasty and -- he, for example, went out of his way, i think it was six years ago to really try to shred efforts to pass a federal shield law, which the obama administration and eric holder, actually, on record

supporting. he was on the senate judiciary committee and watching him in those judiciary committee meetings and watching the way he would just get angry when there was an issue involving the media was really a wonder to be hold. the other issue that came up, when we were trying to get amendments to federal foil last year, he actually put a hold on it, what, twice. >> those are the ones we know of. >> yeah. >> and foya, which is actually the bright spot, i wanted to mention to you, federal foya, we were able, with the help of a lot of your employers and your colleagues and nonprofits and other good government folks, we were able to get some amendments to it since 1970, whoever the

incoming attorney general is when there's a change in parties, they send out a memo interpreting the freedom of information act. saying, when you have the opportunity to make a discretionary release, i want you to consider these things when you release it. sent out a memo, if you have an opportunity to make a discretionary release, release it -- unless you can see there's a foreseeable harm. george bush and john ash craft came in and they flipped it. they said, if you can come up with a reason, particularly of privacy or national security reason to withhold something under discretionary release, withhold it. obama came in and on day one of

his presidency said, went back to, essentially, to the clinton standard, so all of the agencies are required -- were required to abide by this attorney general guideline on how to follow the federal freedom of information act. and the career people would kind of go back and forth like a yoy. well, legislation, bipartisan legislation was introduced over the last several years and finally past and signed by -- passed and signed by the president in the spring, that makes that obama holder, discretionary release standard, the foreseeable harm one, law, so that ashcroft cannot come in and say, no, we're flipping it. that sounds like it's real, really deep in the weeds and kind of difficult to follow and

more than a little bit wonky, but it's real, really important. and there were some other improvements made to foya, at the time, for example, the office of government information services in the national archives has a little bit more power and some other things we can talk about if you would like to. but there also was eric holder memo, the obama administration, remember, and obama went after one journalist so-called whistleblowers than any president in history such journalists with these folks that they were charging with espionage. but in the summer of 2013, after the media really, really went

crazy over these orders for phone records for the ap and calling james rosen from fox, i think it was, alleging that he was a coconspirator so they can get a warrant and get around the privacy protection act. media pushed back and holder comes back with a memo -- just leave it, kevin, that's fine -- just -- they tinkered with the memo a couple of times, but what we've got from holder is essentially a guideline that says, we're not going to do that any more, and we're not going to go after the media for doing their job. again, a really, really important -- it's been a lot written about it. but what you need to understand is, that's a guideline, that's not a statute. and jeff sessions could come in on day one and revoke the whole thing. and a lot of people spent a lot of time working on this thing,

it will just go out the window. and i would not be shocked at all if that's exactly what he did. >> so, thank you very much. so, kevin, give me a sense -- we were talking ahead of time, you know, what's your biggest kind of worrier or fear going into this new administration? >> all of this. you know, it's funny right where lucy was ending, i'm thinking, you know, our job as attorneys is largely to think of the worse case scenario that could happen and maybe work back from there, right. and i love your optimism, jeff. i have some fears -- because i've seen a lot of things. let's be clear, a lot of these fears are actually because you -- you did say something that was really relevant that i 100% agree with. there are certain precedence in place and a lot of them are negative that were started in this administration, the current administration and will be

allowed to, you know -- will be built upon a fear by the next administration. so i've done a lot of discussion with attorneys for media, groups and trade associations. and just sort of so you understand my background, a little bit, i just don't spend full time running the affairs of the national press foundation, we have an unbelievable staff who does that. my day life, i'm a media attorney, and i represent the american society of news editors and association of alternative news media, we do a lot of policy work and including working with the white house correspondence association three years ago on a letter that complained, basically, to president obama about the lack of access that reporters and photographers were getting to white house events, right. that is a press dencedent that k the incoming president is going

to want to take advantage of, constricting access, controlling the flow of information and though it wasn't as, i think apparent in the current administration, one way he's going to take that, i fear the access will become much more -- i'm not going to be pay to play, but much more preferential, it will become access journjournal. the problem in all these areas you don't have a lot of good law to push back with. that's my big fear. there's not a lot of legal precedent when the president says we're going to have a meeting with the japanese prime minister. what you'll get is the hand out photo that we want you to see. but you won't see anything other than when we let you in the room and when you have that hand out photo. worse yet, we'll control who can be in the room because there are so many people that we can fit in there and who is going to get that, maybe it's bright bart not the washington post, it remains

to be seen. all of these have precedents that are difficult to push back on the legal sense, because lucy remembers, i think you were with the reporters committee when this happened at the state level here in maryland and maybe folks who were working for cns or others, remember, when a reporter in the columnist for the ball more son, we're officially told you will not be let into any event we don't have to let you into. we will answer your request, because the law mandates. we will not give you anything else and they went to court and they lost. okay. and that's the precedence that is most recent in this area regarding coverage of an executive official. that should scare people. okay. why should it scare people, because what you end up with and i know people don't want to go to this place, but i'll go there, you end up with propaganda, you really, honestly do, you end one a photo being given out which is what they

want you to see. i can get you from kanye to trump in one move on that. i'm worried about access. on the legal side where you do have some precedent and ground to push back, foya would be number one, there's a great body and other first amendment law that we can use in other areas, as my mentor and former boss and lucy knows and once said ditch schmidt, the greatest thing this country ever produced was not necessarily first amendment, but judiciary to uphold the first amendment. now, my fear there is, of course, if you know, media organizations don't have the money or the time to pursue foya cases in court like they use to. there we have the law is there -- you know, you did possible the press koe

conspirators. another thing i'm worried about, an early statement and president elect, sorry, that he might consider nondisclose sure agreements for all government employees, which has been standard within intelligence agencies, but not the defense. i'm sorry, intelligence of defense agencies but not others, what that cuts off is the flow of information to you, as reporters and to you as the public. i think that would be an unbelievable way to control information if you want to, i'm not sure it's something we should be happy about. we had talked about things like the antislap law, federal antislap law. it's a way to get frivolous lawsuits kicked out of courts, you know, and i don't know, does the president -- this president elect like frivolous liable lawsuits? there's ample evidence to say maybe he does or that his friends do or that -- millionaires who want to bankroll attacks on publications

would be more told to do so. that brings me to our last point, what bothers me is the cultural change we may see, things that in prior years were completely off limits and, again, i put my hope and faith that you are right in that they will respect the presidential pool. i put my hope and faith in the fact that the first amendment will stand up to all of this. but what i think you're going to start to see is sort of a culture shift where it's okay to go after we're seeing it already. it's okay to go after the immediate yarmedia. it's embrace today sue them. it's embraced to physically threaten them. this all becomes more -- you know, the word we've heard so much is normalized and that's what i fear most is that we have a massive culture change. i ooefr hea've heard from peopl

going to say this administration has been great. they came in current one, they came in with this unbelievable, you know, statement, we'll be the most transparent. i said if they one thing they wish they could take back, i think that line would be in the top ten. i think it was an unattainable goal to meet and they wished that many of time they had never said it. they failed it any way in a lot of regards. but there were a lot of things being done that i really fear for. efforts to harness technology to put information out to the public in a very proactive manner, you look at the 18 f office and gsa is a technology think tank, to do a lot of great things. that was a real positive, okay. i'm not saying i don't know if it's going well, i don't know if it's staying. you mentioned the independent overseer of foya, the counter balance to the justice department.

what will their future independence be. what is the future of the partnership which created a me trick for our participation and ability to lead on the world stage as a trance -- you know, as a country committed to transparency, all of these things were created in the last eight years, they were great. you'll see extensions of them or improvements on them or other ideas that are similar. and what i've heard about all of those things and seen about all those things that makes me worry for them, i'm not saying tli ear going away, every belief that they'll still be in existence and i want them to be, because they have created a culture within government that i know people can't quantify and can't see, but people have told me matters throughout agencies. that's really something that i think you will see, i feel you'll see a flip on it. >> thank you. quick definition here, you said, the 18 f office and gsa, what's that? >> it's an office, because the

general service administration is located at 18th and f street. so they basically build really cool stuff for the government to harness technology and put information out and i think it's really cool what they do there. it goes unnoticed by a lot of people. that investment in technology is something i would love to see continue. you talked about jeff sessions, when someone asked me what the new president will be for foya, i said, i don't know that he cares. when i saw his attorney general, his attorney general pick was, i got really scared. press friendly piece of legislation got through congress. >> there are quite a few members of congress on both sides of the aisle, foya truly is -- a

bipartisan effort when it gets right down to it. charles grassly is a big proponent of transparency, he uses those transparency laws himself and when he's -- he's chairing a committee, like judiciary, he can push those things. pat lahey, always been a big supporter. darryl, their motivation was to get information about obama out to the public. so they wanted transparency about what the democrats were doing. so it's -- there was bipartisan support to get it done and they did a few other things as part of it, and kevin was pretty integrally involved in it. so i talked about the presumption of disclose sure and

strengthening the fyi office. but they made foya a little bit more friendly by creating a portal that hopefully they'll be create ago portal, of course, you can also argue that this is the, you know, would be the full implementation of the amendments of 1996 if they were to pull this off. but they are going to be allowing requesters to ask nor document in one central place, so you don't have to be an expert on foya and sit down and go, oh my god, who would have that record. and it should be a lot more friendly and it's also got some new reportering requirements for the agencies and what they have to report on what their activities have been every year. the -- probably the most controversial part of the amendments x would be they're keeping a log.

they will -- they're suppose to be, now, taking the most frequently requested foya requests and once they fulfill them and they will be making them -- the sort of -- suppose to sort of sequester them and make them available to other people so that the next time somebody ask for that stuff, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. the other thing they're going to do is publicly identify who the requesters are. and so the question will be, are we going to come up with a little bit of delay so reporters can get their stories done. because there's been some reporter push back on that. i think anybody who has the time to go and scan all the records to find out who has been requesting what, that's, you know, on balance, this is a good thing to reveal this information. >> this is something called the release to one is a release to all, project. >> yeah. >> if you want to look it up.

that is automatically posted. >> theoretically. >> it would work, it would be available for through this portal and anybody else who came later could start there without having to file request, it's every time in time. your worry is going to get you're scooped by yourself. i mean, to unwind this.

>> this makes foya look more robust. >> but when it comes to just the sheer volume of what some of these agencies have to respond to and the cost of it, no, it's -- you know, federal foya -- it's really difficult to wrestle it to the ground. i do not anticipate what three-years to get. i think you're still probably looking at three years. >> well, i know we've got a whole bunch of questions here, i'm going to turn the mic over

and start with kate. we'll go to you next and go to you next. >> you've seen trump use social media. i haven't -- i haven't seen it as a harmful way. but do you think he's going to try to use that to bypass what he needs the press for? >> i think that was a trend that started before donald trump and he is using it particularly effectively and using it a lot. i think that this -- the obama white house also made use of social media as a way to they didn't cut out the press in terms of not doing press conferences and not meeting some of our access needs.

i think the media has to adapt and that's going to happen more with the incoming president, for sure. i do think that swings all the way towards a trump administration or a president trump only using twitter or social media and completely bypassing the press consistently then we as news organizations and members of the white house correspondents' association in particular will have to have a discussion about our strategy for that. because right now we are all reporting every single tweet. and right now i think we have a responsibility to do that because that is how the president-elect is communicating and we don't have -- that's the avenue that he's communicating with. if we don't get progress in our

push for access to him and to members of his administration and other parts of his new white house, then we'll have to have a strategy for how to deal with that. >> so part of how he's been successful at making the media his war and discrediting everything they said, regardless of what it was if he didn't like it. so people like marty baron are saying all we can do is do our jobs but how else do we fight against that kind of thing? >> fight against? >> against him discrediting everything we say whether or not he has a basis for it. clearly his supporters -- it resonated with them even though he had no evidence to support everything "new york times" or "washington post" was saying was bogus. >> i wish i had an easy answer to that question. i think at least part of the answer to that question is reporters have a responsibility to tell accurate stories and to put in accurate and full context and i think you're seeing that

at least from many publications. the day that the president-elect talked about millions of fraudulent voters having taken part in the election. most -- many headlines said "cites millions without evidence." that is important and critical and factual context. and i think journalists have a responsibility to do that. our -- the onus will be on us to continue doing that if that style of rhetoric continues when he's in the white house. >> i have an interesting -- well, i think interesting thought on that which is gleaned from -- in prepping for this and another meeting i was having to discuss all of these issues with other media attorneys i read a lot of articles on coverage of the campaign and some were related to legal and some were related to how do you push back. and one line in one of these articles, i can't even remember, said visuals will be more important than anything else. and i'm thinking to myself, that goes back to the access question

again. what was the one thing during the campaign that literally tripped him upmost? >> the video. >> the video. his own words. and so i think that's why the access matters. you can't stop him from tweeting. nobody wants to stop him from tweeting. that would be in itself its own first amendment violation to say you absolutely cannot tweet. but what i think has to happen -- what's going to obviously get more groundswell for the media being right and facts over narrative will be source documents. again, foia helps a lot. source documents, source video, not he said/she said back and forth as strong as the coverage is. it's putting everything out there in front of everybody and that's where controlling the access and the video and photos and things will be difficult to overcome. >> you mentioned photos and talked about the issue of the

abe meeting and handouts. we had an issue with that with this white house where the obama white house was relying too much on putting out official photos instead of allowing the pool in or in particular still photographers in. and we were successfully -- got that practice to change. and the way you do that is through having some unity within the press corps and a decision not to use the handout photos. we tried that with the abe photo from the trump meeting and it worked partially. the washington press corps and white house press corps was respectful of that decision not to use it. but we didn't do i think a good enough job of getting that message across to our colleagues in japan because the press there is more accustomed to using

those photos and once it goetzs out it's out so everyone can use it. but i guess the way i would wrap up that issue is the media and our news organizations, we do have some power there. and our power is in if we stay unified, saying no, we won't use those handout photos or -- and this has happened with the obama administration, too. if the white house says "we'll let in just a few people from the pool," if the whole pool says "then we're not going in. we don't accept that if our colleagues from print can't go in or we don't accept it if we don't have a camera person," then that unity is very powerful. that's one of my goals this year and was a goal we set in july before knowing who had won the

election that press corps unity and push for access could be two key criteria for the following year. >> so we'll go here and then dan. >> joyce from med page today. kevin talked about obama saying they wanted to be very transparent and how they may have come to regret those words. as a health care reporter, we have found access to the federal agencies especially hhs really tightening and them insisting more and more that if you're going to interview somebody you have to have a minder there and our organization when we report a story like that our policy is to mention in the story that there was a minder there. but i'm wondering if you can talk about what you're anticipating. >> i'm anticipating that to increase and some of the agencies -- particularly anything where i think it really was prevalent was anything where science was involved. you know, the climate change people and the health care people and they got really

sophisticated in the way they were sitting on you guys. i would anticipate this going to a lot more innocuous interviews. things that were so unbelievably routine in the past that they're going to try to pull something and i think your solution was a good one. every time they do it, say we were not able to talk to the number one guy in the world on climate change without having a public relations person there vetting everything he said. >> or just staring him down. >> just staring him down. you know, when asked this question, so and so was glared at by the public relations -- i think we have to do more of that. it's more -- particularly in these days when, you know, let's face it, fake news and all of that, we have to do more

explaining about our process because the one thing we hopefully have as journalists is credibility and one way to get credibility is to be be more transparent about where you got the information versus these guys who are sitting in their basements making stuff up. hillary clinton had martian parents or something. so i think a good word of advice would be -- i know it takes up space and time but mention that stuff. for one thing it says, yeah, you were actually in the room with this person. >> this was not something that started even under obama. it's been going on for years, it's just intensified again and probably won't go down so it's something you need to be aware of and it's difficult. we've, again, representing as & e, this is an extension of the access issue with the whca, and literally like 50 groups in total sent this letter and it

resulted in a meeting with jay carney and we talked for a while and there was supposed to be follow-up and there was follow up with the white house correspondent's association leading the way then it petered out. >> [ inaudible question ] >> and then about a year ago, december, 2015, i was part of a small delegation representing as&e and spj about that particular issue. we went in to meet with josh earnest and we had a good conversation but nothing happened. they took the meeting, they listened, we talked but kind of all -- you know, it was a lot of talk and little action and i think that's standard for administrations. they can say they listened but in reality nothing changes. and there's not a lot we can do to change it but what you're doing is one thing you can do. >> and that also kind of -- the

whole non-disclosure agreement that that federal employees are theoretically going to be asked to sign which only intelligence agencies have had to do in the past. if that happens for just routine stuff, that will shut down access to a whole bunch of agencies that you guys are used to covering. >> let's go back to jen. >> i just wondered, what do you think the purpose is of off-the-record meetings with the president-elect or the president or -- and how do you think that will play into this coverage? >> the only off-the-record meeting that i can think of that's been publicized is the one with the tv networks, right? it's funny you mentioned that one because when i first saw that meeting was happening i was frustrated because of that -- what i just shared with you

about press corps unity and i thought okay, here we go. the tv crews are going right in and we're not all on one page. the reporting of the results of that meeting then made me feel like, oh, that's fine. maybe we didn't need to be in on that one because it was not a meeting about access or at least that wasn't the main thrust of the meeting. it sounds like it was an opportunity for the -- it sounds like, i wasn't in the room, obviously, but it sounds like it was more of an opportunity for the president-elect to vent against broadcast coverage he did not find favorable. but to answer your question, i guess i would say that i think the way the "new york times" handled their meeting was terrific and, you know, having some off-the-report time with any principal that you're

covering can sometimes be valuable as long as it's done in -- as long as there's also a chance for an on-the-report piece. i can remember even in the 2008 campaign that being a topic sometimes when we were discussing on the obama press corps about whether we were okay with him coming back to the back of the plane and chatting with reporters. that was only okay if he had already done -- or if he was also doing some press conferences where we could ask on-the-report questions and i think that same principle applies here will we have some off-the-record meetings with his staff as we're working on access issues and working on preparing the way for white house

coverage? yeah, i mean not all of that needs to be -- they need to know that when they're sitting down with us that we are also negotiating in good faith and i'm not going to take everything i learned in that meeting and go out and write a really critical statement. that doesn't help me, either. but your question i don't think was about that. i think your question was more specifically having off-the-record meetings with the president-elect and i would say i think there needs to be balance and the balance of the two examples that i can think of in the last couple weeks of the television execs and anchors and the "new york times," i think the "new york times" example is the one to follow. >> we're going to vera then i'll come back to this side of the room. we'll start with james and then next to james. vera? >> this applies to covering trump as a whole but i'm going to use it as an example of the pool because i just got back

from the first time covering the trump press pool and there's this split in the people who do that in how to kind of go about normalizing the routine when they're inconsistent in the way they respect things like, for example, calling a lid or things we've gotten very used to. so on saturday they say in the morning we're done for the day but then it turns out they're not done for the day and people have to come back. but then yesterday, the afternoon, they tell me there's a lid on the day and i stay a couple extra hours because i don't trust it. then some people in the pool tell me that we need to start respecting it because if we come back and see we trust their word, then they will also -- that that's a way to normalize it and if they call a lid and we're still there for six hours, the term loses all meaning. so i guess my question is kind of what's a responsible way to normalize this kind of routine of covering him while not letting them walk owl over press access. if we don't respect it, they won't respect it. so there was an interesting split. some people thought that way and some didn't. >> so i'll define for the room for anyone not familiar with the term "lid," anybody not familiar

with that term? that is the term we use at the ends of the day when the white house, in this case i'll use the white house as an example, says the president isn't going to do any other movements on or off campus that are -- that the press would cover. which to be more specific, know vents on campus that would be open press and he's not leaving because if he were then the pool would cover him. so a it will basically means you're free to go and your question is on the trump side, at trump tower in particular, should we or should we not vice president it when they call a it will because there have been a handful of examples where they have called a lid and something has happened. >> and beyond the lid. they use this term that established administrations use and yet they don't treat them them the same way. >> anything besides the term lid? >> i just think it's a good example of how they will use things in the future where it's kind of "nothing to see here" and then we leave and something

happens. >> well, on that specific example i'm not concerned, in fact i'm encouraged by reporters not necessarily taking their word for it about a lid and i don't say that to be critical of the trump folks. i think part of it is genuinely they're still figuring it out figuring out how we work, figuring out what their responsibilities are to the press. i know that the one time that he went out for dinner new york and didn't bring a pool, hope hicks had given a lid to the press and then everyone rightfully sort of freaked out when they heard he had gone out for dinner and she had known he was going out for dinner. so i don't -- i mean i'm not there and i don't know what the individual conversations were, if she said she didn't know, i take her at her word, that was poor communications internally and they fixed it the next time and that's a good thing but when they get to the white house and

the press corps is there, calling a lid right now doesn't mean that all the reporters go home, it just means -- in many cases it means the still photographers go home because they probably don't have anything else to photograph but the rest of us hang around anyway because we're doing our jobs. will maybe some of the folks who might accept a lid as standard at the beginning of the administration stay a little bit longer afterwards in case this happens some more? probably. i would say that would probably be wise. but i'm not ready to extrapolate the very unusual experience of covering this transition at trump tower and applying these lessons to what happens at the white house. so it's going to be a totally different environment.

that said, i'm not naive and i don't think any of us should be naive about the risks. about respecting our vocabulary and terms like that. part of it means we have to be vigilant and in fairness we have to be sure that they get a chance to get it and to be explained what the standards are and what our practices and principles are. and we are working on that. >> james? >> james osborne. obviously presidents throughout history have been critical of the media. the idea of non-disclosure agreements for government officials have there been times when this has been flirted with in the past. >> yes. i think when bill clinton almost signed a version of britain's official secrets act and only a

last minute organization through john podesta and the newspaper associations of america made him realize, oh, wow, this is a bad idea. congress passed the bill and he was ready to sign it without thinking and it just seemed like a good idea at the time. so that would be i think one example. what do you know of more practically. >> in terms of other presidents ditching the pool, yeah, that's happened. it hasn't happened a lot. and it hasn't been an apples-for-apples comparison because they had a pool to ditch which at least -- we don't entirely have right now with the trump folks. we're mostly there, but we're not all the way there. i can think of maybe two times with president obama and that was very unusual.

>> i think there was one time and i have to have a sit down with some of my colleagues who were there, i wasn't there but i believe a colleague of mine said it happened once in hawaii. and there was one time in washington when he went out to get a sandwich or something and they had probably declared a lid and then he changed his mind and wanted to go somewhere and that may have been a poor choice by someone lower down for calling a it will. i'm not sure, i honestly don't remember what the circumstances were. and in both cases they always -- from the press point of view egregious and so we would have objectives no doubt. i wasn't on the board then but i'm sure the board did thereto wasn't an effort to ditch the pool under this administration. that doesn't mean we've gotten

everything we wanted. in my view, there's been an alarming decrease in the number of pool slots for summits that we cover. that's not necessarily something the white house has control over but an issue that we deal with. so that was a longer answer that i meant to give. there is some precedence for it. it happens occasionally. but there's not a widespread problem. i don't know if the trump administration can turn to anything to use as precedent. >> your november 16 statement about the ditching the press

pool at the new york dinner talked about -- it was breaking with decades of precedent. what exactly is the history. what did the press cool come into effect? >> well, the press pool has had various iterations for decades. everyone can remember there was a pool there with john f. kennedy when he was shot. it wasn't the same number of journalists we have now is communications were different, i've heard some fascinating stories about the two wire reporters the upi guy holding on the the phone and keeping the news from getting out. that's not a press corps issue we have anymore because we have these. i can't give you a specific

rundown of details. >> i did some research on this recently. we're talking probably 75 or 80 years in some form or another. >> so we'll go right there. >> i'm with first television and also a former fellow. i have two questions. maybe three. i wanted to start off with kevin because i want to go from kanye to trump. as you rattled off your list of concerns can you address libel laws because we know the president-elect has previously said he wants to open up libel laws so having to argue about that or the possibility of that having how that could impact what we do. broadly speaking to all of you if he could just -- and you touched on it as well. give us your prescription of

fake news and false statements. what's concerning to me is the tweet about illegal votes because, yes, while we wrote the story saying "yes, the president-elect cites no evidence" but still just as yesterday we saw his incoming chief of staff defend him on that point so, yes we're writing the stories but how much of it is sinking him, are we just writing until we're blue in the face and this fake news issue. >> so this is somewhat on this. i think this is a bit of a red herring, like the flag burning issue was. other than to say that again it gives credibility to others who might want to jump on -- he can't do this himself. he can't criminalize flag burning himself. i feel like allen iverson here. are we really talking about flag burning? this is insane.

but so, you know, i don't see anything about it. you did a lot more with the libel laws in the past than i did and working with the committee. you have a much better perspective on what can be done there. >> he can't do anything. as he said to the "new york times" "somebody pointed out to me that i could be in trouble myself because of things that i've said? the past. yeah, you think? [ laughter ] duh. so liable is a state tort. even when you have libel case venued in federal court, you are relying on state statutes and common law. so you would have to influence half of the local court judges in the country to make any impact on this whatsoever. i'm not worried about the libel laws. every once in a while people raise the malice standard issue.

that is a standard that was created in 1964 in the "new york times" v. sullivan case where for the first time they applied federal constitutional law to a libel case and where they said in the instance of a public official and then later a public figure they will have to -- the plaintiff will have to prove that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it's true or false. and i imagine mr. trump as a litigant finds that annoying. but, you know, you would have to sort of in four years to pull off something, let's just assume for the sake of argument right now four years have a sea change in the way libel law is operated

throughout the entire country, it just doesn't work that way. it just doesn't so he can talk about it all he wants but it kind of shows ignorance. >> i knew i should do better by giving it to her. the thing for me is i think it really makes me -- we were making progress on a federal anti-slap proposal that would be going to be useful for people who were sued. anti-slap is just a defense that can be used by a person who speaks out on the matter of public concern and is sued in retaliation. many suits are defamation lawsuits but they can be other things and generally these laws which exist in just under 30 states around the country but may or may not apply in federal court allow you as a defendant to accelerate the dismissal process and sometimes get your own damages, which is unusual under u.s. law. winning defendants do not get

their attorneys' fees paid for very often. and this would allow that to happen so it is a great thing for people who were sued just to shut them up. i'm not sure he would sign that bill if it were presented to him by congress. >> i'm confident he would not. if it had gotten to obama, he probably would have. but 30 states already have these statutes so what it would do is give those protections to the other 20 states and allow defendants to get rid of the cases early and california probably has the best functioning really, really strong anti-slap statute. >> it works. >> it works. it works really, really well. >> so which one are we taking next? there were two others she had. >> real quick. this [ inaudible question ]

encountering these false statements. that are also coming at times from the president-elect. >> that's another one where i wish i had an easy answer. i think -- i talked about this earlier today. i think there's a responsibility both from producers of news, journalists, consumers of news and public officials who are covered to be clear about what is actual news and what is not and we certainly saw over the weekend the potential consequences and ramifications of a fake news story being taken as seriously as this was which is awful. i don't know the answer. i mean, i know that some social media companies, facebook included, are taking it more seriously and i think that's good.

i encourage -- i had an opportunity to encourage both students and teachers recently to inform yourself about what are sources of news, legitimate sources of news and what aren't. clearly that's an issue. and that needs to be addressed. and i encourage people to look closely at sources, even within stories and to read and think critically. journalists have a responsibility there but the responsibility has to be shared by public officials. >> if i can just follow on that just a moment. last week stanford released a study that showed 80% of high school seniors -- i think it was high school seniors -- were not able to identify true stories versus false stories. true information versus false information. they don't have the tools to do that. one thing we're going to have to

do as a society is have a massive education campaign and figure out how to teach media literacy to everybody. there's some foundations and other nonprofits that have been working at this. in maryland we teach 400 students a year. we have a very popular media literacy class. there are ways to learn how to read something. the problem with anyone under the age of 30 is that they are more likely than an old fossil like me to believe things that i see on a screen. so there are ways you can learn how to read something on a screen, to look at the url. if you talk to a fact checker they have a way where they describe it they read things horizontally. most people read a story

vertically. they'll go right through it. but a fact checker looks at it wholistically and we have to teach people how to do that themselves. >> kevin was going to talk about kanye. >> one minute. >> then we'll go to chris and michael. >> so there are a lot of parallels in covering entertainers and sports to covering presidents with one key difference in both instances what we've seen in the last ten years is a change in the reliance on those you're cover ing to needing you. politicians can bypass you now, government officials can bypass you, entertainers can bypass

you, athlete cans bypass you. so as&e and other have worked very hard making sure access via the credentials you get can ensure you don't give up too much. that's what this fight is all about. so you go to a concert and they tell you what you can have your phone and when you can't. and then after two songs you have to leave. we saw this where he was on a rant and went on stage. we saw that for one reason. because there were people there with smartphones, you know where there won't be people with smartphones when a rant happens? in the oval office. what happens when the white house photographers leave and he goes completely off message with the prime minister of japan. is the white house photographer going to show a picture of the president talking down to the japanese prime minister? i don't know but i doubt it. that's why this matters. that to me is the case you make about why the access matters. kanye to trump. [ laughter ]

>> so chris johnson and then michael and then time for one more. chris? >> what's going to happen with the daily briefings in the white house, it seems wild speculation that they might not have press briefings, maybe a gaggle but nothing on camera and then trump being just -- just being so vain that he wants to be himself in the briefing room everyday. so i was wondering what your expectation is. >> it's a great question and i won't hide my frustration with former press secretaries advocating against having daily briefings and/or criticizing the mainstream media and using the mainstream media as the vehicle for doing that.

i find that frustrating. i don't have intel with the trump folks, i haven't had a conversation about their plans with daily briefings. i think genuinely right now they are not thinking that far in advance because they haven't identified who the press secretary will be yet. and once they have a structure for the trump white house's press team that will be the time you have conversations about how do you invasion the day by day operation going? i don't think anyone in the white house press corps would support getting rid of briefings. obviously clearly there's room for reform of some kind if a new president wants to add a gaggle instead of a briefing here or there or make it a shorter

briefing sometimes, there might be many people in the press who would applaud that but i myself and the white house correspondents association generally are not engaging in speculation about it because we haven't gotten any intel from them. all we've done is seen outsiders who are either trying to get influence for themselves or trying to get clicks on a story throw things up in the air. i would also add one thing to what kevin said. i'm not sure that a president obama, if he had went off script with a visiting leader, we wouldn't see that, either. >> but it matters. >> it does. but we have to be clear that

though there is -- based on the experience of the campaign, the media and reporters and journalists have a reason to have concerns about an incoming trump administration and access issues that said. we have many of these concerns already and would have had many of them regardless of who had won the election. >> yeah. i was not necessarily saying it was just trump. we're doing this forward looking. it is -- and i've been making that same argument pre-kanye. [ laughter ] >> so michael? i think this will have to be the last question. >> it was talked about how politicians are bypassing media using social media outlets but at the same time i think there's two trends going on as well where there's a proliferation of more ideological news media publications and i think pretty widespread belief, at least among a lot of conservative voters, that the traditional press is a liberal establishment and i wonder how you see those two trends playing out under

president trump. >> we just have a couple minutes here. >> run that by me again. how we see the trends of the proliferation of more ideological news organizations at a time that the public thinks news organizations that might not think of themselves as ideological are. whether -- who's getting access to trump is breitbart or somebody else or that trend. >> the short answer is i don't know. my guess is that, like any -- i can see a some comparisons between kind of a geographic connection -- and what i mean by that is when president obama won election more chicago media came and was interested in being part of the white house press corps. is it possible that after mr. trump's election that there will be more conservative leaning news organizations that will start covering the white house on a daily basis and perhaps get encouragement from the white

house to do so? yeah, probably. what we have control over from -- in terms of the white house correspondents' association is our standards for admittance into the pool will not change. thatch will apply to -- those same standards will apply regardless of your news organization affiliation and potential bent one way or the other. and we -- i mean, we can't -- we are a neutral association that represents a diverse press corps so we cannot obviously instruct our members how to report or what to report but we do have a certain standard for membership and not just for membership in our organization but for the pool which gets access at that white house regardless of who is in power. >> and i guess if consumers of news are being drawn towards more ideological outlets does that just continue to increase

this polarization that brought us to this point? i mean do you see a remedy to that? what direction do you think that trend line is moving? >> somebody else want to take that? >> nobody wants to take that. >> you're absolutely right. we're seeing a trend toward more -- people being more siloed and sort of operating in an echo chamber and again i think the only thing you can do is be vigilant in your reporting and then also it sort of goes back to the same thing i said about media literacy. we have to teach people what is -- we're not going to be able to report the truth because truth is so subjective but we can report facts. and realize that people are going to go to their preferred

sources of information but we have to somehow teach them what they're doing, you know? and what types of -- where these sources are of information are coming from. i think it's the only thing we can really do. >> i think with that we need to close it down. i want to thank all three panelists very much. [ applause ] so that's it for this afternoon. the paul millers, we and our panelists have been invited to. we're moving up to the national press club for reception so i want to thank the former paul millers who came and all the others for coming out and you very much. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning within just off his successful bid as house minority leader, tim ryan of ohio will discuss

the feature of the house democratic leadership, his views on the 2016 election results and donald trump's pending. we'll talk about how republicans plan to handle the affordable care act. and plus, new york university history professor will talk about the 75th anniversary of the bombing of pearl harbor and its impact on the world. watch live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. egyptian foreign minister spoke in washington, d.c. last week. the event focused on middle east issues and the u.s.-israeli relationship. he was introduced by a former u.s. ambassador to israel who is now with the brookings institution.

>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm delighted to have the opportunity to join bruce in welcoming you all to this 13th forum. it's also my special privilege and honor to introduce you to a very special guest, our keynote speaker this evening. his excellency the foreign minister of the arab republic of egypt. the foreign minister is well known here in washington as is his wife. we're very glad to have her join him this evening. he is one of the architects of the current u.s.-egyptian relationship, having served as ambassador to the united states between 2008 and 2012. in those dramatic years, his

steady hand, his wise judgment, and his diplomatic skills helped navigate the relationship through stormy seas, safeguarding and preserving the partnership between the united states and egypt. he left washington with the admiration and friendship of many people, including myself. during his long and distinguished career, he serbed as the representative of egypt to the united nations in london, buenos aires, new york, vienna and in many central roles in the ministry of foreign affairs in cairo. he is the very model of an egypt diplomat. in 2014, president assisi called minister shuckri out of retirement, back to serve his country as foreign minister. and in that role, as the

representative of the largest, most powerful arab country, he's one of the key players in shaping the middle east today. a task we need not envy. as part of his mission, he's been instrumental in the all-important relationship between egypt and its neighbor israel, which he visited just this summer, and again represented egypt at the funeral of the late president perez. this relationship between egypt and israel is critical for the peace and welfare of the two countries, but it is also central to the prospect of broader peace and cooperation in the region. cairo was and remains a key to regional stability and peace. while sadat was the first arab leader to make an official visit to israel, as we all remember,

in jerusalem, egypt was the first arab country to make peace with israel. it was the first arab capital to host an israeli embassy. and with president assisi's leadership and involvement, peace may again become possible. the relations between israel and egypt naturally depend upon a third partner, the united states. it is no accident that egyptian-israeli peace was cemented in a trilateral handshake between president sadat, prime minister begin and president jimmy carter. today, too, the strategic triangle between the united states, egypt and israel can serve as the cornerstone for a better, more stable and peaceful middle east. having had the opportunity to converse with president assisi, together with the minister

recently, i know that this is the egyptian president's vision. we're truly honored and delighted that he accept our invitation to accept to be on the forum tonight. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming his excellency of the foreign republic of egypt. [ applause ] >> thank you, martin, for that introduction. i'm honored and delighted to be with you tonight. at this important forum. and i'm definitely glad to be back in washington, to see so many friendly faces. ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed my pleasure to be back in washington today and to share with you egypt's perspective on the key questions of the guiding principles that guides egypt's foreign policy in our troubled

region. to explore with you how egypt and the united states can join forces to navigate such a terrible regional environment in such troubled times. five years ago, the dynamics that governed the middle east for at least six decades were profoundly changed. perhaps even irreversibly altered. a wave of large-scale societal change shook the region to its very core. launching a unique historic moment that is at once promising and alarming. how to navigate these turbulent waters is the key policy question of our time. and is indeed what will determine eventually to quote dickens whether we are on the eve of a spring of hope or a winter of despair. such navigation is quite inconceivable without some form of a guiding principle. a framework for making sense of the era we are in and a guide to policy therein. the crux of the debate over the significance of the historic

moment we are witnessing, as well as how to navigate it revolves around two contradictory positions. the first focuses exclusively on the opportunities for long-awaited change. its proponents argue that it is time for change. the structures of power and governance in the arab world. this is what the people want. and this is what they should get. at any cost. this is probably the thinking that has informed and continues to guide strategies of several regional and international actors, that sought to support change without necessarily being too fussy about their allies. and this is how several extremists and various terrorist organizations, including isis and al qaeda, found financial and military support in syria, iraq, and libya, to mention but a few examples. on the other end of the

political spectrum is another diametrically opposed position that is in the face of a wave of messy social change, to reverse the clock, dysfunctional governments that fail to address their people's aspirations, were on balance preferable to the warlords and militia leaders, or the terrorist threats. all that was needed therefore with a to restore the old regimes and do business as usual. however decadent and dysfunctional that may be. if the price of governing is to quash every legitimate demand for change and crush popular hopes thereof, then so be it. we are also quite familiar with the diabolical consequences of this strategy, as well as its inherent futility. in vain in any attempt to stop the legitimate calls for change and the march of progress.

the question remains, however, how to reap the benefits of this tidal wave of change whilst minimizing the price thereof. this is the corps dilemma of foreign policy planning. the course for egypt is pretty straightforward and our opening hypothesis is twofold. first, breaking through the historical impasse in a region in which more than 60% of the people are under the age of 30. second, compromising the institutions of stable states in the middle east is not the way to achieve much-needed and much-desired change. indeed the experience of the last five years has demonstrated beyond any doubt that

undermining the institutions of the nation state creates a political and social vacuum that is quickly filled by primordial institutions, sectarian militias, and outright terrorists whose ideologies are hostile to the hopes for democracy, modernization, and the revival of civic order. from syria to libya, from iraq to yemen, examples abound. the challenge therefore is to achieve change within the nation-state, not on the ruins thereof. the nation-state remains the most vital vehicle for modernization and change. in its more progressive versions is the embodiment of civic order and democratic principles and policies. that is the hopes that inspired the calls for change since 2011. egypt, traditionally the intellectual and political powerhouse of the region, demonstrated through the two

waves of its revolution in 2011 and 2013 that an orderly and progressive change which responds to the aspirations of the vast majority of population while maintaining the integrity of the nation-state institutions is a viable choice. egyptians demanded change. but they rejected the ruin of their state institutions in the process. they believe that they can have a democratic government that is at once representative and responsive to their needs and desires. forward-looking and boldly committed to ambitious reform. the foreign policy of this rejuvenated egyptian state is guided by principles that are deeply embedded in our millennial history and values. distrustful of conspiracy theories and conflictual world

views and respect for the independence of nations, while believing that regional and international interests are reconcilable and that there are always opportunities for regional and international cooperation to face the challenges of our times. if egypt could change and democratize its government, revive its regional role, and embark on the most ambitious program of political and economic reform in its modern history without undermining the integrity of the state, then so can our brethren, the arab world, and the region. this principle continues to guide our approach to our region. revive democratic and reformed nation-states are the answer to the civic uprisings that swept the region five years ago.

sectarian militias, bloodthirsty warlords and identity-based cleansing are by contrast the product of the civil wars that the democratic aspirations of several countries of our regions have regressed to. ladies and gentlemen, few would disagree that orderly change based on rejuvenation, reform and democratization of nation-states would probably be the best way out of today's turbulence in the middle east. and indeed this continues to be the guiding principle that governs egypt's policies towards the region. take syria, for example. with half a million syrians kills, millions of refugees and displaced persons, and unprecedented rise of sectarian warlords and terrorist groups, it's difficult to remember that this tragedy came out of

perfectly reasonable demands of things that these people were entitled to. however, those who sought to reverse the clock at any cost, the syrian people had to endure one of the bloodiest civil wars of modern times. how do we break the vicious cycle of destruction in syria? to start with, we need to accept that attempts to reverse the clock and restore the status quo in syria are as delusional as the reliance on militia-led transformation in syria. the way forward is based on two pillars. first is to preserve the national unity and territorial integrity of the syrian state and prevent the collapse of its institutions. the second is to support the legitimate aspirations of the

syrian people through a political solution that represents them all and furtherance an enabling environment for reconstruction efforts. this is why we continue to support the efforts of the united nations special envoy and we call on him to resume political negotiations immediately and without delay. it is also why we hosted two all-inclusive conferences for the various moderate syrian opposition groups in cairo in 2012 and 2015, which brought together syrians from across the political spectrum and demonstrated that they can agree on a comprehensive document that included a doable roadmap from transition to the current plight in syria. you must have all noticed that these documents were the foundations upon which every subsequent effort, syrian or international, to put forward the practical political sentiment, were premised.

ladies and gentlemen, the revival of a reformed state is not in a position to pass judgment on the suitability of national stakeholders, let alone to decide to exclude any of them on the grounds of convenience. the experience of iraq and the debacle in syria should have taught us at least that much. the same applies to libya. underlying the agreement was the acknowledgement that any viable sentiment should revolve around the three legitimate state institutions. the presidency council, the house of representatives, and the national army. naturally, achieving consensus among the three institutions in the wake of violent upheaval is not easy. problems and contradictions abound. and deadlocks emerge profusely. however, this does not mean that we can opt to take sides between the three legitimate institutions in moments of disagreement or, even worse, decide to alienate one of them in the hope that this might

speed up the process of reconciliation. in all frankness, several international and regional players have opted at one point or another to undermine one of these institutions or to replace the national army with allegedly benign militias. but not egypt, though. we remain convinced of the futility of political engineering and we do not think any non-libyan party is in a position to award or exclude libyan stakeholders. thus our vision for libya is based on an unwaivering agreement and follow a sequential approach. our duty is to encourage the presidency council to fulfill its duty to present a new, more inclusive and representative government of national accord.

subsequently we should all shift our attention to ensuring that the house of representatives meets to endorse the government and undertake its constitutional work in preparation for libyan elections that would bring about elected libyan governing bodies that exercise their full authority over a united and territorially intact libyan national state. meanwhile, we should devote our efforts to supporting the libyan national army's efforts in the fight against the growing terrorist organizations in libya. i could go on and explore other cases of troubled nation statehood in the region, say in yemen or iraq. but they all follow the same pattern. troubled nation states faltering and creating a vacuum filled by primordial organizations and sectarian militias. they can all benefit by the same answer. revive, reform modern nation-states based on ethics and full citizenship. the request for reform and modernized statehood is not the only answer to emerging threats in the middle east. it is also the answer to the oldest of the conflicts in our

region, the palestinian-israeli conflict. egypt, as you all know, was the pioneer of peace in the middle east. our vision is based on full nation statehood for everyone in the region. we committed to bringing to a successful end to more than six decades of this conflict without which we can now shift the resources of our region to more productive channels. the palestinians should not be denied the right to an independent nation-state. the alternative of a two-state solution is open-ended turmoil, even if in the short term things look deceptively quiet and manageable.

desperation and lack of any light at the end of what is indeed a very long tunnel can only be detrimental to peace and security in the region. what remains is a return to the negotiations in good faith. i would like here to rend you that president fattah el sisi has provided post-security guarantees. ladies and gentlemen, the rapid and large scale developments i have talked about in more than one area of our region obviously do not occur in a bubble. given the strategic importance of the middle east, it is only natural that regional powers may want to be involved in seeking to influence the course of developments in our region, benignly and otherwise. egypt appreciates that the stakes of the middle east are of interest to several international players. and whilst we insist on national ownership of all solutions to the arab world's problems, and reformed nation stays hood as

the key response to challenges of our time, egypt remains as always ready to cooperate with all our partners to bring satisfactory conclusions to the crisis that spread in our region. in so doing, we cannot accept any attempt by any regional or national actor to use substate intents and sectarian militias to further their interests. necessity of preserving territorial and institutional integrity and social cohesion of nation states is a core criterion of deciding whether or not we can accord with regional or international stakeholders in this regard. ladies and gentlemen, i am back today in washington, at the moment full of promises and challenges. i come from a country that is moving quickly to restore its leading role in a rapidly changing region. the egyptian people have

demonstrated their ability to take charge of their future through two revolutions in the span of three years. the first to initiate change and the second to preserve the nature of egypt's unique moral and social foundation. we recognize that we face monumental changes and inherent problems. but the current determination to deal with these challenges is unshakeable. egypt has changed in many ways. most important of which is the confidence of egyptians and their leadership and the faith of the leadership and the resilience and fortitude of the people. this confidence and this faith allows us to embark on a new chapter in our history, to deal with our problems head on, and to find difficult decisions and rise to the occasion to create a better future for our children and grandchildren. we recognize our shortcomings

and the necessity to achieve greater progress in the areas of political -- >> watch all of this event online on c-span.org. we're taking you live to capitol hill for the annual lighting of the capital christmas tree just getting under way live here on c-span3. >> we're excited this evening to serve as your master of ceremonies. and first i would like to extend a big thank you to the united states air force ceremonial brass band under the direction of captain dustin doyle. let's give them a round of applause. through supporting nationally

owned processes of reconciliation and revival of these states. houf how else can we face the growing threat of terrorism and how can we bring about a peaceful conclusion to the multitude of crisis in our region. the interests of our two countries are in clear convergence. in syria we can work together for a peaceful settlement according to the vienna process and geneva declarations. in libya work to support the full implementation of the agreement and an all-inclusive government of national accord. we both share the unrelenting commitment to the eradication of sectarianism and terrorism. we both agree on the unsustainability of the stagnation between israel and the palestinians. i could go on. but i trust that you have the idea. the middle east is in turmoil.

egypt is keen on working with the new u.s. administration to address the challenges thereof. i sought to outline our vision on how to address the challenges and i trust that you'll agree with me that this vision concurs with the stated goals of the new u.s. administration in the middle east. there by furnishing all of the necessary conditions for the revival of our much needed strategic partnership. i thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much for honoring us with a very serious speech, keynote speech frr what we're grateful. the minister has kindly agreed to a conversation in which i'll

have a chance to follow up with some of his points that he made. i was quite struck by what you appeared to be saying about a common agenda with the united states and the impation wlicati with the trump administration, you talked about restoring stability, and president-elect trump yesterday spoke about his focus being on promoting stability in terms of his foreign policy. do you feel that the kinds of principles that you laid out about eradicating sectarianism, restoring stability and promoting peace are in fact the common purposes between the trump administration in formation and the government of

egypt? >> there is a great deal of convergence. by the statements that have been made by president-elect trump and some of his advisers in terms of meetings we have had with president-elect trump during the campaign. there is a clear vision in this regard. a vision that corresponds to our objectives. our objectives is to regain the stability of the region and to create from egypt a point of expanse of what we have achieved in other parts of the region. i think this is a mutual interest that we share with the administration and it shouldn't be in any way conceived that the call for stability is the call for the maintenance of the status quo. but it is a call for an organized change and progression of a societal demands of the population of the region which have clearly indicated the

desire to forge ahead in a new fashion of inclusivity of demock zags of rights and inclusive society free from the scourge op terrorists and sectarianian pressures.