tours in vietnam'. i went to cleveland and had to dislocated hips. they diagnosed me with water therapy. i had to get out of the system eventually and see a private physician, who diagnosed me with my hips being completely shot. i had to have surgery. now i am back in and seeing a physical therapist and a psychiatrist, because my ptsd is out of sight. thank god for csr and the therapy they provide.

i was misdiagnosed. why won't they listened to the veteran when they come in? i've was searching for medication -- i was not searching for medication but for help. guest: i do not know why he had to go out of the va system. they have patient advocates in the facility.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

is producing a flexible system. on the contrary, it's producing what a constitution will produce, and that is rigid di. and we have to deal with an organization that is capable of passing laws in accordance with the powers given them by the constitution of the united states, which is the whole point of the constitution. >> america and the courts today, 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state hillary clinton addressed the american israel public affairs committee annual policy conference. during her comments, she referses to the u.s.-israel relationship as rock solid. however, she did express concern over recent housing

development in jerusalem, saying it hurts attempts to produce pea talks. this is 45 -- peace talks. this is 45 minutes. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you for that warm welcome and it is wonderful to be back at aipac with so many good friends. i saw a number of them backstage before coming out and i can assure you that i received a lot of advice. i know i always do when i see my

friends from aipac. and i want to thank lee rosenberg for that introduction and congratulations, rosie, you're going to be a terrific president. [applause] i also want to thank david victor and howard kohr and lonny kaplan nd j.b. pritzker and howard friedman and ester kurz and richard fishman and i better stop, but all at aipac's yours and staff for your leadership and hard work. and i'm very pleased that you will be hearing from a good friend of mine, congressman jim langevin, a great champion for israel. [applause] let's hear it for jim. [applause] and to all of you, all at aipac members, thank you once again for your example of citizen activism, petitioning your governments, expressing your views, speaking up in the arena.

this is what democracy is all about. [applause] and i am particularly pleased to see again that there's so many young people here. [cheers and applause] you recognize that your future and the future of our country are bound up with the future of israel. [applause] and your engagement today will help to make that future more secure. given the shared challenges we face, the relationship between the united states and israel has never been more important. the united states -- [applause] has long recognized that a

strong and secure israel is vital to our own strategic interest. [applause] and we know that the forces that threaten israel also threatened the united states of america. [applause] [applause] and therefore, we firmly believe that when we strengthen israel's security, we strengthen america's security. [applause] so from its first day, the obama administration has worked to promote israel's security and long-term success. and if you ever doubt the

resolve of president obama to stay with the job, look at what we got done for the united states last night when it came to pass in quality affordable health care for everyone. [cheers and applause] and we know that as vice president biden said in israel recently, to make progress in this region, there must be no gap between the united states and israel on security. [applause] and let me assure you as i have assured you on previous occasions with large groups like this and small intimate setting, for president obama and for me and for this entire

administration, our commitment to israel's security and israel's future is rock solid unwavering, injuring and forever. [cheers and applause] and why is that? why is that? is it because aipac campus 7500 people into a room in the convention center? i don't think so. is it because some of the most active american and politics who care about our government also care about israel? that's not the explanation. our country and our peopleare bound together by our shared values of freedom, equality,

democracy, the right to live free from fear and our common aspiration for a future of peace, security and prosperity, where we can see our children and our children's children should we be so lucky end of the future mother of the bride and certainly hoping for that. [applause] to see those children, those generations,, page and peace for the opportunity fulfill their own god-given potential. americans under israel as a homeland for a people to long oppressed and a democracy that has had to defend itself at every turn. adrian nurtured for generations and made real by men and women

who refused to bow to the toughest about. and israel's story, we see our own. we see in fact the story of all peoples who struggle for freedom and the right to chart their own destinies. that's why it took president harry truman only about a minute to recognize the new nation of israel. not mac and ever since our two countries have stood in solidarity, so guaranteeing israel's security is more than a policy position for me. it is a personal commitment that will never waiver. [applause]

since my first visit to israel nearly 30 years ago, i have returned many times and made many friends. i've had the privilege of working with some of israel's great leaders and have benefited from their wise old. i have maybe even caused some of them consternation. i don't think yitzhak rabin ever forgave me from banishing him to the white house now worry when he wanted to smoke. and over the years, i have shared your pride in seeing the desert blenheim, the economy thrive in the country flourish. but i've also seen the struggles and the sorrows. i is met with a big and the terrorism in their hospital rooms. i felt their hand, i've listened

to the doctors describe how much shrapnel was last in a leg, an arm or a head. i sat there and listened to the heart rending words that prime minister rabin's daughter, noelle, spoke at her grandfather's funeral. i went to a bombed out pizzeria in jerusalem. i seen the looks on the faces of israeli families who knew a rocket could fall at any moment. on one of my visits in 2002, i met a young mann named joe hae frerotte. he was only 26, but he was already a senior medic with mda

and he oversaw probe and to train foreign volunteers as first responders in israel. i attended the program's graduation ceremony and i saw the pride in his face as yet another group of young people set off to do good and save lives. i was also a reservist with the idea. in and a week after we met, he was killed by a sniper near a road block along with other soldiers and civilians. mda renamed the overseas volunteer program in his memory and it has continued to flourish. when i was there in 2005, i met with his family. his parents were committed to continuing support mda and its mission and suicide.

that's why i spent years urging the international red cross, introducing legislation, rounding up votes to send a message to geneva to admit mda as a full voting member. and finally, with your help in 2006, we succeeded in writing that wrong. [applause] [cheers and applause] as a senator from new york, i was proud to be a strong voice for israel and the congress and around the world. and i am proud that i can continue to be that strong voice as secretary of state. last fall, i stood next to prime minister netanyahu in jerusalem and praised his government's decision to place a moratorium on new residential construction in the west bank. and then, i praised it again in

cairo and in marrakesh and in many places far from jerusalem to make clear that this was a first step, but it was an important first step. and yet, i underscored the long-standing american policy that does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement. as israel's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due in to tell the truth when it is needed. in 2008, i told this conference that barack obama would be a good friend to israel as president, that he would have a special appreciation of israel because of his own personal history, a grandfather who flout the nazis in patton's army. a great uncle who helped liberate buchenwald. president obama and his family who have lived the diaspora

experience. and as he told you himself, he understands that there is always a homeland at the center of our story. as a senator, he visited israel and met families whose houses were destroyed by rocket. and as president, he has supported israel and word and in deed. under president obama's leadership, we have reinvigorated defense consultations, bedeviled our efforts to ensure israel's qualitative military edge and provided nearly $3 billion in annual military assistance. in fact -- are [applause] as rosie told you, or maybe it was howard, that assistance increased in 2010 and we have requested another increase for 2011.

[applause] and something else i want you to know, more than 1000 united states troops participated in juniper cobra ballistic missile defense exercises last fall, the largest such drill ever held. not [applause] president obama has made achieving peace and recognized secure borders for israel a top administration priority. the united states has also led the fight in international and effusions against anti-semitism and efforts to challenge israel's legitimacy. we did break the boycott of the turbine conference and we repeatedly voted against the deeply flawed goldstone reports. [laughter]

[applause] this administration will always stand up for israel's right to defend itself. [applause] and for israel, there is no greater strategic threat than the prospect of a nuclear armed iran. [applause] elements and iran's government has become a menace both to their own people and in the region. iran's president soulman anti-semitism denies the holocaust, threatens to destroy israel, even denies that 9/11

was an attack. the iranian leadership funds and arms terrorists who had murdered americans, israelis and other innocent people alike. and it has waged a campaign of intimidation and persecution against the iranian people. last june, iranians marching silently were beaten with batons. political prisoners were rounded up and abused, absurd and false allegations and accusations were leveled against the united states, israel and the west. people everywhere were horrified at the video of a young woman shot dead in the street. the iranian leadership denies its people rise that are universal to all human beings,

including the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear, the right to the equal administration of justice, to express your views without facing retribution. in addition to threatening israel, a nuclear armed iran would embolden its terrorist clientele and would spark an arms race that could be stabilized the region. this is unacceptable. it is unacceptable to the united states. it is unacceptable to israel. it is unacceptable to the region and the international community. so let me be very clear. the united states is determined to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause]

now, for most of the past decade, the united states, as you know, declined to engage with iran. and iran grew more, not less, dangerous. it built thousands of centrifuges and spurned the international community. but it faced few consequences. president obama has been trying a different course, designed to present iran's leaders with a clear choice. we've made extensive efforts to reengage with iran, both through direct indication and working with other partners multilaterally, to send an unmistakable message: upload your international obligations. and if you do, you will read the of normal relations. if you do not, you will face

increased isolation and painful consequences. we took this course with the understanding that the very effort of speaking engagement with strength and our hand if iran rejected our initiative. and over the last year, iran's leaders have been stripped of their usual excuses. the world has seen that it is iran, not the united states, responsible for the impasse. with its secret nuclear facility, increasing violations of its obligations under the nonproliferation regime and an unjustified expansion of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concerns about iran's intentions. and there was a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure iran's leaders to change course.

europe is in agreement. russia, where he just returned from, has moved definitely in this direction. and although there is still work to be done, china has said it supports the dual track approach of applying pressure is engagement does not produce results. the stronger consensus has also led to increased cooperation on stopping arms shipments and financial transactions that a terrorist, threaten israel and destabilize the region. we are now working with our partners in the united nation on new security council sanctions that will show iran's leaders that there are real consequences for their intransigence, debt they are choices to live up to their international obligation. our aim is not incremental

sanctions, the sanctions that will bite. it is taking time to produce the sanctions, and we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support or our efforts. though we will not compromise our commitment to preventing iran from acquiring these nuclear weapons. [applause] but, iran is not the only threat on the horizon. israel today is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history. the conflict with the palestinians and israel's arab neighbors is an obstacle to

prosperity and opportunity for israelis, palestinians and people across the region. but it also threatens israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic jewish state. the status quo is unsustainable for all sides. it promises only more violent and unrealized aspirations. stan underscores means continuing a conflict that carries tragic human cost. israeli and palestinian children a leg deserves to grow up free from fear and to have that same opportunity to live up to their full god-given potential. there is another path. a path that leads toward security and prosperity for israel, the palestinians, and all the people of the region.

but it will require all parties, including israel, to make difficult but necessary choices. both sides must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security or served their interests. nor has it served the interests of the united states. it is true that heightened security measures have reduced the number of suicide bombings and given some protection and safety to those who worry every day when their child goes to school, there has been goes to work, their mother goes to market. and there is, i think, a belief among many that the status quo can be sustained, that the

dynamics of demography, ideology and technology make this impossible. first, we cannot ignore the long-term population trends that result from the israeli occupation. as defense minister barak and others have observed, the the inexorable of demography are hastening the hour at which israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy in staying true to the dream of a jewish homeland. given this reality, these two state solution is the only viable path for israel to remain both a democracy and a jewish state.

[applause] second, we cannot be blind to the political implication of continued conflict. there is today truly a struggle, maybe for@@@@@@@ @ @ @ h$@ @ @ who claim peace is impossible and it weakens those who would accept co-existence. that does not serve israel's interest or our own. those willing to negotiate need to be able to show results for their efforts. and those who preach violence must be proven wrong. all of our regional challenges confronting the threat posed by

iran can, combating violent extremism, promoting democracy and economic opportunity become harder if the rejectionists grow in power and influence. conversely, a two-state thrution would allow israel's contributions to the world and to our greater humanity to get the recognition they deserve. to the world into our greater humanity to get the recognition they deserve. it would also allow the palestinian to have to govern, to realize their legitimate aspirations and it would undermine the appeal of extremism across the region. i was very privileged as first lady to travel the world on behalf of our country. i went from latin america to southeast asia. and during the 1990's, it was

rare that people in places far from the middle east ever mentioned the israeli-palestinian conflict. now when i started traveling a secretary of state and i went to places that were so far from the middle east, it was the first, second or third issue that countries raised. we cannot escape the impact of mass communication. we cannot control the images and the messages that are conveyed. we can only change the fact on the ground that refute the claims of the rejection if an extremist. and in doing so create the circumstances for a safe secure future for israel. and then finally, we must recognize that the ever evolving

technology of war is making it harder to guarantee israel's security. for six decades, israelis have guarded their borders diligently , but advances in rocket technology mean that israeli families are now at risk far from those borders, despite efforts at containment, rockets with better guidance system, longer range and more destructive power are spreading across the region. hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets on israel's northern border. hamas has a substantial number in golf. and even if some of these are still crude, they all pose a serious danger as we saw again last week. ..

and i will repeat today what i have said many times before. imad must be released immediately and returned to his family. [cheers and applause] unfortunately, so far this has not stemmed the flow of rockets

to hamas. they appear content to add to their stock pile and grow rich off the tunnel trade. while the people of gaza fall deeper into poverty and despair. that is also not a sustainable position for either israelis or palestinians. behind these terrorist organizations and their rockets, we see the destabilizing influence of iran. now, reaching a two-state solution will not end all these threats. you and i know that. but failure to do so gives the extremist foes a pretext to spread violence, instability, and hatred. in the face of these unforgiving dynamics, of dem ogfi, ideology, and technology, it becomes impossible to

entrust our hopes for israel's future in today's status quo. these challenges cannot be ignored or wished away. only by choosing a new path can israel make the progress it deserves to ensure that their children are able to see a future of peace and only by having a partner willing to participate with them will the palestinians be able to see the same future. them will the palestinians be able to see the same future. now, there now, there is for many of us a clear goal. two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. with peace between israel and syria and israel and lebanon. and normal relations between

israel and all the arab states. and normal relations between israel and all the arab states. [applause] a comprehensive peace. [applause] that is real, not a slogan that is rooted in genuine recognition of israel's right to exist in peace and security and that offers the best way to ensure israel's enduring survival and well-being. that is the goal that the obama administration is determined to help israel and the palestinians achieve. george mitchell has worked tirelessly with the parties to prepare the ground for the resumption of direct negotiations, beginning with the proximity talks, though the sides have accepted. these proximity talks are a hopeful first step and they should you serious and substantive. but ultimately of course, it will take direct negotiations

between the parties to work through all the issues and end the conflict. the united states stand ready to play an active and sustained role in these talks, and to support the parties as they work to resolve permanent status issues, including security, borders, refugees and jerusalem. the united states knows we cannot force a solution. we cannot ordain or command the outcome. the parties themselves must resolve their differences, but we believe-- [applause] we believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 67 lines with agreed swaps and israel's goal of a jewish state with the care

and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet israel's security requirements. [applause] the united states recognizes that jerusalem, jerusalem is a deeply, profoundly important issue. for israelis and palestinians, for jewish, muslims and christians. we believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree upon an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for jerusalem and safeguards it status for people around the world. but for negotiations to be successful, they must be built on a foundation of mutual trust and confidence. that is why both israelis and palestinians must refrain from unilateral statements and actions that undermine the

process or prejudice the outcome of talks. when a hamas controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames ace where after a terrorist who murdered innocent israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loved ones over the years in this conflict. [applause] and, when instigators deliberately mischaracterized the rededication of a synagogue in the jewish quarter of jerusalem's old city and call upon their brethren to defend nearby muslim holy sites from so-called attacks, it is purely and simply an active incitements. [applause] these provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly

inflaming tensions and imperiling prospects for a comprehensive peace. it is our devotion to this outcome, two states for two peoples, secure and at peace, that led us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in east jerusalem. this was not about wounded pride nor is it a judgment on the final status of jerusalem, which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. this is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it and staying there until the job is finally done. [applause] new construction in east jerusalem or the west bank undermines that niche will trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step towards a full negotiations that those sides say they want and need. and it exposes daylight between israel and the united states

that others in the region hope to exploit. it undermines america's unique ability to play a role, an essential role in the peace process. our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous and when we don't agree to say so and say so unequivocally. we objected to this announcement because we are committed to israel and its security, which we believe depends on a comprehensive peace, because we are determined to keep moving forward along the path that ensures israel's future as a secure and democratic jewish state living in peace with its palestinian and arab leaders. and, because we do not want to see the progress that has been made in any way endangered. prime minister netanyahu and i spoke, i suggested a number of

concrete steps israel could take to improve the atmosphere and rebuild confidence. the prime minister responded with specific actions israel is prepared to take toward this end, and we discussed a range of other mutual confidence-building measures. senator mitchell continued this discussion in israel over the weekend and is meeting with president abbas today. we are making progress. we are working hard. we are making it possible for these proximity talks to move ahead. i will be meeting with prime minister netanyahu later today and president obama will meet with him tomorrow. [applause] we will follow-up on these discussions and seek a common understanding about the most productive way forward. neither our commitment nor our goal has changed. the united states will encourage the parties to advance the prospects for peace.

we commend the government of president abbas and prime minister fayyad for the reforms they have undertaken to strengthen law and order and the progress that they have made in improving the quality of life in the west bank. that we encourage them to redouble their efforts to put an end to incitement and violence, continue to ensure security and the rule of law and ingrain a culture of peace and tolerance among palestinians. [applause] we applaud israel's neighbors for their support of the arab peace initiative and the proximity talks, but their rhetoric must now be backed up by action. they should make it easier to pursue negotiations and agreement. that is their responsibility. and we commend prime minister netanyahu for embracing the invasion and acting to lift road blocks and ease movement through the west bank and we continue to expect israel to take those concrete steps that will help turn that vision into a reality,

build momentum, comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza. from the time of david ben-gurion, who accepted the u.n. proposal to divide the land into two nations, israel and palestine, leaders like begin and rabin and sharon and others have made difficult but clear eyed choices to pursue peace in the name of israel's future. it was rabin who said for israel, there is no path that is without paying. but the path of peace is preferable to the path of war. and last june at our élan university prime minister netanyahu put his country on the path to peace.

resident abbas has put the palestinians on that path as well. the challenge will be to keep moving forward, tuesday what will be a difficult course. piece does bring with it a future of promise and possibility. ultimately that is the vision that drives us in that has driven leaders of israel going back to the very beginning. a future free from the shackles of conflict, families no longer afraid of rockets in the night, israelis traveling and trading freely in the region, palestinians able to chart their own futures, former adversaries working together on issues of common concern like water common infrastructure and development that builds broadly shared prosperity. and a global strategic partnership between israel and the united states to tap the talent and innovation of both of our societies, comes up with

solutions to problems of the 21st century from addressing climate change and energy to hunger, poverty and disease. israel is already on the cutting edge. look at the spread of high-tech startups, the influx of venture capital, the number of nobel laureates. israel is already a force to be reckoned with. imagine what it's leadership could be on the world stage if the conflict would be behind it. we are already working as partners. there is so much more we could achieve together. we are entering a season of passover. this story of moses resonates for people of all faiths. and it teaches us many lessons, including that we must take risks, even a leap of faith to reach the promised land. when moses urged they choose to follow him out of egypt, many objected. they said it was too dangerous,

too hard, too risky. and later in the desert, some thought it would be better to return to egypt. it was too dangerous, too hard, too risky. in fact they formed a back to egypt committee to try to stir up support for that. and when they came to the very edge of the promised land, there were still some who refuse to enter because it was too dangerous, too hard and too risky. but, it israel's history is the story of brave men and women, who took risks. they did the hard thing. because they believed they knew it was right. we know that this dream was championed by hurts all and others that many said was impossible. and then the pioneers, can you

imagine the conversation, telling your mother and father i am going to go to the desert and people thinking, how could that ever happen? but it did. warriors, who were so gallant in battle, but then offered their adversaries a hand of peace because they thought it would make their beloved israel stronger. israel and the generations that have come have understood that the strongest among us is often the one who turns an enemy into a friend. israel has shed more than its share of bitter tears. but, for that dream to survive, for the state to flourish, this generation of israelis must also take up the tradition and do what seems to dangerous, too

hard and too risky. and of this, they can be absolutely sure, the united states and the american people will stand with you. we will share the risks and we will shoulder the burdens as we face the future together.

secretary of state hillary clinton met with israeli prime minister. during their meeting he reiterated he would not freeze jerusalem's building. later that evening the prime minister spoke. he declared that israel must always have the right to defend itself. but first, an opening statement from the chairman david victor. this is about 45 minutes. ♪ ♪

♪ >> we are so honored to have the prime minister of israel here with us tonight. [applause] but before i introduce him, i want to first recognize a few very special guests from israel who joined us. defense minister, edhud barak. [applause] [applause] minister of national infrastructure.

[applause] and the prime minister's wife, sarah netanyahu. [applause] now, while sarah and the prime minister obviously have accomplished a great deal in their lives, perhaps the honor most part of this evening is the one recently bestowed upon their son. he one israel's prestigious national bible competition. [applause] this was quite an accomplishment and quite a distinction, so congratulations to him and to his proud parents. [applause]

in his long and distinguished career, the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has confronted the challenges facing the jewish state with courage, with passion and with moral clarity. as u.n. ambassador, foreign minister, opposition leader, and now in his second term as prime minister, he has been pursuing peace, security and economic growth for his country throughout nearly 30 years of public life. for decades he has warned the world about the threat of terrorism and radical islam. he has long recognized the danger of a nuclear-armed iran not just to israel but to the entire world and he has been among the most prominent voices

combating the international campaign that delegitimizes israel. today from the prime minister's office benjamin netanyahu is continuing to sound the alarm about all of these things. yet even as he traveled the world warning of the threats facing israel, he has refused to abandon his quest for peace, and he has never relented from his desire to improve both the israeli and palestinian economies. it is with these goals of peace and prosperity in mind that he has taken a number of bold steps in the past year. last summer he declared support for a demilitarized palestinian state alongside the jewish state of israel. [applause] now i will quote him here. in my vision of peace in this small land of ours, to people

live freely side by side in amity and mutual respect. a few months later, netanyahu took another bold and unprecedented step. he declared a ten month moratorium on all is really construction in the bank's. and while the palestinian authority still refuses to enter into direct talks with him, he has nevertheless taken steps to make daily life easier for palestinians by removing nearly 200 checkpoints and roadblocks in the past year. [applause] insisting on security while pursuing durable peace this has been his goal in the past and remains his guiding principle as israel head of government today. mr. prime minister, on behalf of

the 8,000 people in the room for tonight's aipac banquet i want to express my appreciation for the leadership you are demonstrating in the quest for peace and the we've consistently sounded the alarm about the threat of iran's nuclear program. we want you to know that we will do everything we can to ensure that the u.s. israel alliance remains on breakable forever. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome -- please join me in welcoming the prime minister of israel, the honorable benjamin netanyahu. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] thank you very much. i think it was woody allen who said that he spent a lifetime trying to arrive late at a jewish evened and never made it. [laughter]

i came on time. [laughter] with my wife, sarah, and it's a very good to be with all of you members of the obama administration, senators, members of congress, my colleagues, defense minister edhud barak, ambassador michael oren and the distinguished passengers from many countries, hard-core, david victor, all of the leaders and all of the members of aipac and the 1300 students who came from around this country. [cheers and applause] my friends, as the world faces monumental challenges, i know

that america and israel will face them together. [applause] we stand together because we are fired by the same ideals and inspired by the same dreams the dreams of achieving prosperity, security and peace for all. [applause] now this dream seemed an impossibility to most jews a century ago. you know this month my father celebrated his 100th birthday. [applause] that's not his only achievement, but when he was born, the czars ruled russia. the british empire spans the

globe and the ottoman empire ruled the middle east. during his lifetime, all three of these empires fell. others rose and fell. and the jewish destiny, the and the jewish destiny, the pendulum of jewish f from the depths of despair to new hope and a new beginning, the rebirth of the jewish state. [applause] for the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign jewish people could defend itself against attack, and before that, understand what transformation this was before that in our dispersion we were powerless, absolutely powerless to defend ourselves against an unremitting a barrage of savagery from the bloodletting in the middle ages, to the expulsion of the jews

from england and then from spain and then from portugal to the innocence slaughter of jews in the ukraine to russia, committing in the greatest horror of all, a holocaust. the founding of israel didn't stop the attack on the jews, but it merely -- well, it's more than merely. it gave the jews the power to defend against these attacks. i want to tell you about the day that i realized what this transformation was. it was the day i met him over 19 years ago he was in the same military unit and one dark night

during the battle in 1969 he was killed in a burst of gunfire. at his funeral in the galilee i learned something. i discovered that he had been born shortly after his mother and father had been freed from the death camps of europe. if heim had been born two years earlier, this daring young israeli officer would have been tossed into the oven light 1.5 million other jewish children. heim's mother told me that though she was in great anguish she was proud. at least, she told me -- and this is something i will never

forget as long as i live -- at least, she said, my son fell wearing the uniform of a jewish soldier defending the jewish state. [applause] and time and again, israel's soldiers were forced to recall the attacks of much larger enemy is committed to our destruction. yet, when egypt and jordan realized that we could not be defeated in battle, they embraced the path of peace, and we value the peace treaties we've achieved with both countries. yet there are those -- [applause] there are those who continue the assault against the jewish state.

there are those who openly call for our destruction. they seek to achieve this goal from terrorism, missile attacks, and most recently, by developing atomic weapons. it is instructive that the gathering of the jews to israel doesn't deter them. in fact, it when it's their appetite. iran's rulers say israel is a one bomb country. that is hezbollah says if all the jews gathered in israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide. my friends, these are unpleasant facts, but they are the facts. the greatest threat to any

living organism, to any nation is not to recognize danger in time, not to recognize the facts. 75 years ago, many leaders around the world put their heads in the sand. untold millions died in the war that followed. ultimately, to of history's greatest leaders helped turn the tide. franklin delauro roosevelt and winston churchill helped save the world. [applause] indeed, they deserve every applause. they helped save the world. but they were too late to save 6 million of my own people, the jewish people. the future of the jewish state can never depend on the good will of even the greatest of

man. [applause] israel must always reserve the right to defend itself. [applause] today an unprecedented threat to humanity looms large. a radical iranian regime -- [applause] [applause] thank you. thank you.

[cheers and applause] thank you. a radical iran and regimeuclearg the end to the era of nuclear peace that the world has enjoyed for the last 65 years. such a regime could provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. it might even be tempted to use them. in our world would never be the same. iran's praising bid to develop nuclear weapons is certainly first and foremost a threat to my country, to israel. but it's a threat to the entire region. it's a threat to the entire world. israel, thus, expects the

international community to act swiftly and to act decisively, to thwart this danger. but we always reserve the right of self-defense. [applause] and my friends, we have to defend ourselves also against lies and against the vilification. throughout history -- [applause] throughout our history the slander against the jewish people always preceded physical attacks against us. in fact, they were used to justify those attacks. the jews were called the poisoners of mankind, the fermenters of instability, the source of all evil under the

sun. unfortunately, as in the case of the physical attacks, these libel attacks against the jews did not stop with the creation of the state of israel. it's true that for a time overt anti-semitism was held in check by the shame and shock of the holocaust, but only for a time. in recent decades, the hatred of the jews has re-emerged with increasing force, but with an insidious twist. it is not merely directed at the jewish people. it's increasingly directed at the jewish state, and in its most pernicious form, it argues that if only israel did not accessed many of the world's problems would go away.

now, i want to be clear. this doesn't mean israel is above criticism. of course not. israel, like any democracy, has its imperfections. but we strive to correct them through open debate and through scrutiny. israel has independent courts and the rule of law, free press, and vigorous parliamentary debate. believe me, it's very vigorous. [laughter] you've just gone through a week of health care voting. in israel, every week is health care week. [laughter] it doesn't stop. [laughter] and i know in this city member of congress refer to each other as my distinguished colleague from wisconsin, the distinguished senator from california. in israel, members don't speak of their distinguished colleagues from both shivah --

we say well, you don't want to know what we say. [laughter] because in israel, self criticism is a way of life. and we also accept that criticism is part and parcel of the conduct of international affairs. but israel should be judged by the same standards applied to other nations and to other democracies. [applause] sometimes i think there is -- sometimes i think there's a triple standard. one standard for the dictatorships, a second standard for the democracies, and a third standard is a standard for israel. we should be judged by one

standard and allegations made against the state of israel must be grounded in fact. [applause] one allegation that is not grounded in fact is the attempt to describe the jews as foreign colonialists in their own homeland. [applause] this is one of the great lies of modern times. in my office i have a rank loaned to me by israel's to part with antiquities. this ring was found right to next to the western wall, but it dates back 2800 years ago. 200 years after king david declared jerusalem as our peoples capital. this ring is a seal of a jewish

official, and his name is inscribed on it in hebrew. the name is netanyahu. now that's my last name. my first man, benjamin, dates back 1,000 years earlier to benjamin, the son of jacob. one of benjamin's brothers was named shimon, which also happens to be the name of my good friend, the president of israel. [applause] you see, nearly 4,000 years ago, benjamin, shimon, and there ten brothers roamed the hills of

judea. the connection between the jewish people and israel cannot be denied. [applause] the connection between the jewish people and jerusalem cannot be denied. [applause] the jewish people were building jerusalem 3000 years ago, and they are building in jerusalem today. [applause] jerusalem is not a supplement. it is our capital.

thank you. in jerusalem my government is maintained -- [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. you're very kind. thank you. [cheers and applause] in jerusalem my government has maintained the policies of every single israeli government since

1967 including those led by goldamiere. today nearly a quarter of a million jews, that almost half the city's jewish population, live in neighborhoods that are just beyond the 1949 armistice lines. [cheers and applause] all of these neighborhoods are within five minutes from the knesset's. they are an integral and inextricable part of modern jerusalem. everyone knows -- everyone, americans, europeans, israelis certainly, palestinians, everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of israel in every peace settlement.

[applause] and therefore, building in them it no way precludes the possibility of a two-stage solution. [applause] and i want to say one more thing about our policies in jerusalem. you know, nothing is rare in the middle east and tolerance for the belief of others. but it's only been under the israeli sovereignty in jerusalem that religious freedom for all faith has been guaranteed, and we shall continue to guarantee that religious freedom for everyone. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, while we cherish our homeland, we also

recognize the palestinians live there as well. we don't want to govern them, we don't want to rule them, we want them as our neighbors living securely in dignity and peace. [applause] yet, israel is unjustly accused of not wanting peace with the palestinians. nothing could be further from the truth. [applause] my government has consistently shown its commitment to peace in both word and deeds. from day one, i called on the palestinian authority to begin peace negotiations without delay. and i make the same call today.

president abbas, come and negotiate peace. [applause] you know, that is so elementary and so obvious. you'd think we don't have to say it because leaders who truly want peace should be able to sit face-to-face with each other and negotiate peace. you can't successfully in a negotiation for peace if you don't begin at. so i call on the palestinian leadership. come and negotiate peace. [applause] of course, the united states can help the parties resolve their problems, but it cannot solve the problems for the party's. [applause] peace cannot be imposed from the outside. it can only come through direct

negotiations in which we develop mutual trust. that mutual trust that is necessary to forge a common future. last year i spoke of a vision of peace in which a demilitarized palestinian state recognizes the jewish state just as the palestinians expect israel to recognize a palestinian state, we expect the palestinians to recognize the jewish state. [applause] my government is removed hundreds of roadblocks, barriers, france, checkpoints, and this is facilitated tremendous palestinian movement, and as a result we have helped spur actually an incredible boom in given today's world economy, an incredible boom in the

palestinian economy. you have coffee shops, restaurants, businesses, shopping malls, even multiplex studios. just go to ramallah and that is not come about out of sheer terror. we have made it possible. you cannot do this if you cannot move tracks, goods, people, customers. that's been our policy. and we added to that an unprecedented moratorium on new construction and to dan sumeria. this is what my government has done for peace. [applause] now i ask you what is the palestinian authority durham for peace? [applause] well, you can judge for yourself. they have placed preconditions on peace talks, wage relentless international campaign to

undermine israel's's legitimacy and promote the maturing this goldstone report that falsely accuses israel of war crimes. in fact, they are doing that right now at the u.n. -- at the grotesquely maimed u.n. human rights commission. [applause] and i want to use this opportunity to thank president obama and the concourse of the united states for their efforts to thwart this libel, and i ask for the continued effort this week to fight this lie. [applause]

regrettably, the palestinian authority has also continued the unabated in sight against israel and the state-controlled media and schools and other institutions that come directly under their control. and some others, too. a few days ago in a public square meter ramallah, the palestinians named this square after a terrorist who murdered 38 innocent israeli civilians, including 13 children, including an american citizen, the photographer, gale ruben. they named a public square after this murderer, and the palestinian authority did

nothing. ladies and gentlemen, peace requires reciprocity. it cannot be a one-way street in which israel makes all the concessions and the palestinian authority makes none. that's got to change. [applause] israel stands ready to make the compromises necessary for peace, but we expect the palestinians to compromise as well to do their part. [applause] but there's one thing i will never compromise on, and that one thing is israel's security. [applause] let me express to you the

difficulty of trying to explain israel's security predicament to the citizens of the united states, a country that is 500 times the size of israel. so, i thought how why did this to bring it home. and i asked you to imagine that territory of the united states was compressed down to the size of new jersey. now i'm not speaking at new jersey because our ambassador michael comes from the new jersey. it happens to come from the right size. so, now you squeeze the united states down to the size of new jersey. next, put on the new jersey's northern border a terror proxy called hezbollah which fires

6,000 rockets into the small state. then imagine that this terror proxy amasses another 50,000 rockets to fire at you. now i'm not finished. you take new jersey's southern border and put another iranian terror proxy on it and call it hamas. and it, too, fires 6,000 rockets into your territory while smuggling even more lethal weapons into its territory. you'd think you'd feel real vulnerable? you think you would expect some understanding from the international community when you have to defend yourself? i think any fair minded person would recognize that we face security problems and challenges unlike any other nation on earth. [applause]

and therefore, therefore a peace agreement with the palestinians must have effective security arrangements on the ground, not just a piece of paper, on the ground. [applause] we must make sure what happened in lebanon and gaza doesn't happen again in the west bank. [applause] now let me explain what our main security problem with lebanon is. it's not israel's border with lebanon. it's lebanon's border with syria through which iran and israel smuggled thousands of rockets and missiles to hezbollah. and our main security problem with gossip is not israel's border with gaza come adis gaza's border with egypt under

which there are about a thousand tunnels dug through which hamas smuggles weapons to fire at us. my friends, experience has shown that only israeli presence on the ground can prevent or limit within smuggling. this is why a peace agreement with the palestinians must include an israeli presence in the eastern border of a future palestinian state. [applause] if peace with the palestinians proves its stability over time, we can review security arrangements. we are prepared to take risks for peace. but we will not be reckless with the lives of our citizens and

the one and only jewish state. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, the people of israel want a future in which our children no longer experience the horrors of war matt. we want a future in which israel realizes its full and great potential as a global center of technology anchored in its fall use living in peace with all of its neighbors. i envision an israel that can dedicate even more of its scientific and creative energies to help solve some of the great problems of our time. for most of which is finding a clean and affordable substitute for gasoline. [cheers and applause]

and when we find that alternative we will stop transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to regime that would support tour worldwide. [applause] i am confident that in pursuing these goals the of the enduring friendship of the united states of america, the greatest nation on earth. [applause] the american people have always shown courage, their generosity, their decency. from one president to the next, from one congress to the next, america's commitment to israel's security has been unwavering. [applause] in the last year, president obama and the u.s. congress have

given meaning to that commitment by providing israel with military assistance, by enabling joint military exercise and working on joint missile defense , so too is israel been a staunch and steadfast ally of the united states. as vice president biden has said, america has no better friend in the community of nations and israel. all i say that, too. [applause] for decades, israel served as a bulwark against soviet expansionism. today it is helping america stem the tide of militant islam. israel shares with america everything, and i mean everything. that we know about fighting a new kind of enemy.

we share intelligence. we cooperate in so many countless ways which i'm not at liberty to divulge. this cooperation is important for us, for israel, but it is also helping save american lives. [applause] our soldiers and your soldiers fight against fanatic enemy is that los our common values. in the eyes of these fanatics, we are you and you are us. to them, the only difference is you are big and we are small. you are the great satan and we are the small state in. now there's an important point here.

this fanaticism hatred of western civilization predates the stubble shunned of modern islam by 1,000 years. militant islam does not hate the west because of israel. it hates israel because of the west because it sees israel as an outpost of freedom and democracy that prevents them from overrunning them the least. that is why when israel's stance against its enemies, it stands against america's enemies. [applause] president truman, the first leader to recognize israel had this to say. i have faith in israel and i believe it has a glorious future not just as another sovereign nation but an embodiment of the greek ideals of our civilization

my friends, we are gathered here today because we believe these common ideals of our great civilization and because these ideals i'm certain israel and america will always stand together. [applause] thank you. thank you. ♪ ♪

>> as prime minister for 10 years, tony blair followed in the footsteps of leaders like

churchill, who also believed in the anglo-american bond. throughout his time in office, the united kingdom was our most loyal partner, in good times and bad. hours after 9/11, he said his country stands "shoulder-to- shoulder with america in this time of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world." the u.k. has sent more troops than any other country to fight alongside the u.s. in afghanistan and iraq. after his term ended in 2007,

blair could have done any number of things, but he chose to dedicate himself to pursuing peace between israel and palestine. he was appointed to be the representative of the middle east quartet, representing the united states, the united nations, the european union and russia as they traveled extensively throughout the palestinian territories to create the economic conditions that would be necessary for a viable palestinian state. to help improve the quality of life for palestinians. he has won the confidence of israel's leaders. just recently he added a new responsibility, helping to

build institutions. he knows his current job is as difficult as any county faces as prime minister, but he is pursuing peace with passion, persistence, and poise. i'm going to let you know that mr. blair to derive from russia. before that, he was in belgium. as soon as he leaves, he will be on a flight to turn up. he came to the united states to speak at the policy conference. [applause] please join me in welcoming a colleague and

friend, the right hon. tony blair.

>> thank you. wow. [applause] i have got a new suggestion. just get everyone else out of the middle east, and put him in there. up [applause] my job is to get an agreement between the u.s., e.u., and russia. i thought i should try something easy.

israel is a democracy, for people and politicians. citizens are governed other rule law. men and women have recourse before the law. [applause] in israel, you can worship in the way you want or not as you choose. there is freedom of thought and speech. israeli society is vibrant, its heart is electrifying, its culture open. in many respects, the middle east should regard israel not as an enemy, but as a model.

[applause] i admire the thought of the people. i met a young man. five of his family had been killed in a terror attack. he'd been blinded. there he was, proud to be carrying one of the twelve torches of the tribes of israel. israelis and palestinians are not destined to be enemies. i regard myself as a true friend of both, and months in and out, in my time, in small villages and towns, down in the

valley of the river jordan, in the hills of sebastia, even in gaza. i speak to businesspeople, security chiefs, generals, political leadesr, and of course the people themselves. in the overwhelming majority, i find a deep yearning to discover the path to peace. and i believe with a passion that the only solution that works delivers security to israel and dignity to the palestinian people. [applause] a state for the jewish people, a state for the palestinian people. once there is an agreement on

the contours, that is that. the end of all claims. a final settlement. it means the palestinian state has to be viable, independent, and democratic. this is the two-state solution. it isn't a slogan. it's the only path to lasting peace, and it can be done, but only if we understand the nature of the challenge. it isn't the sensible well- intentioned people cannot negotiate their way through issues at the border. [applause]

i think it was either -- there is a difference. we said we were two peoples divided by a common language. but anyway, as i was saying, it

isn't that sensible people cannot sit down and negotiate their way. they could. most people on both sides have a sense in their head of what the options could be. the challenge is not simply about what happens at the negotiating table. the challenge raises up from the breakdown of trust, and that is about what happens down the streets, in the daily experience of the people. what i tried to describe this issue to outsiders, i would say, first with a map, you can fit the whole of the israel and palestinian territories. i flew from helicopter from

jordan, across the west bank, landed at the connector for a meeting. it took less than 10 minutes. see how closely people live to regret it. remember that history. -- see how closely people live to each other. remember that people cannot and will not agree to a palestinian state unless it is sure that that state will be securely, properly governed. [applause] i would not take risks with my country's security. i do not want israel to take risks with beartheirs. israel cannot afford what

happened with gaza in 2006 happening with the west bank in 2012. rockets a few minutes from ben gurion airport cannot be survived. when israelis say they doubt they have a partner for peace, it is about whether they can deliver peace. [applause] the tragedy for palestinians is that the penalty for the extremism of the few is paid by the many in measures better off in heavy and sometimes aggressive. they cannot build an area at sea that constitute 60% the west bank as expansion continues in

disputed territory. so what can we do? first, we start negotiation. [applause] the israeli prime minister says he wants a two-dissolution. begin negotiating about it. for all of the issues on the table and floor, the senator, with whom i worked closely in northern ireland, is using considerable wisdom. obama, clinton, are fully behind this and pepper. reward their excellence. get the negotiations going. get a direct presence, as soon as possible.

secondly, let us that knowledge what has changed -- acknowledge what has changed. until the year 2000, and with heroic attempts by president clinton, we attempted to agree first, then ship reality around it. but it was not to be. thousands died, then came the withdrawal from gaza. it took 7000 settlers. violence and terror in return. the occupation deepend. gaza was isolated. faith in the peace process collapsed. ten years on, that faith has to

be restored. it cannot be done in one summer. it has to be done patiently on the ground. [applause] it cannot only be negotiated top-down. it has to be built bottom-up. peace will not come simply through agreement negotiated. it must come through a reality created and sustained. it means building institutions for the palestinian government, for prosecutors, civil police, the whole infrastructure of the rule o'clock. -- rule of law. it means treating those who commit terror as enemies not

only of israel, but of palestine. [applause] it is about the economy, jobs, standards, aspiration, ambition. it is about education, about children, taught peace in order to live peacefully. it's about human rights, equality, freedom, democracy. these things are the substance of statehood. the form of a state may be about borders, but lifeblood is about what happens within those

borders. [applause] that is the work my team and others are engaged in. here's some good news. they are trying to build the state from the bottom up. the palestinian authority has taken militia off the street, prisons and courthouses are being opened. in the last year, the judicial system handled more cases than the previous 10 years. i am regularly told, tell the palestinians there may be more we can do to separate palestinians are -- do to help palestinians there. the people were whom -- who i

work closely with deserve credit for the steps they have taken. many of the main checkpoints are now removed. israeli arabs are coming over the border, reflating the economy. the latest figures -- in 2009, not a good year for the world economy, the palestinian economy grew almost 10%. [applause] in 2010, for the first time, palestinian rvuenues will top $2 billion, donors will provide only one-third of the budget, down from half in 2008, and the deficit will fall. the money goes into a special treasury account certified by the world bank and imf.

[applause] in just over two months, in bethlehem, we will hold the second investment conference. last year we succeeded in getting the second-biggest direct investment product palestine has seen. we will show it tourism and viability. two years ago, i could not have gone to jenin. now i go freely. there, we will open a new industrial park where some months back, i sat on the israeli side of the line, talking to the mayor, and his arab deputy mayor. my point is this.

yes, the obstacles remain huge. of course. the distance is immense, the mistrust deep. but what you see nightly on t.v. is only one part of the story. too often, we see the hate. there is also the hope. [applause] sometimes people say to me, you used to be prime minister, now you spend your time in obscure parts of palestine, arguing why hospital workers should be able to travel into east jerusalem. they think i have gone down in the world. i feel sorry for them.

but there is one thing i have learned. in all the years of painstaking peacemaking in northern ireland. details matter. [applause] they may seem trivial to bus, but to the people who live them, they're the difference between paralysis and possibility. what i asked of israel is not to risk security, but to know that in changing the lives of palestinians who want peace, israel's security is not forfeited, but enhanced. [applause] learn from what we have done and let us do more. even in gaza, captivity is a

disgrace. prisoners should be released forthwith. [applause] ordinary gazans, opposed to hamas, should have water and sanitation. legitimate people should be able to do business, and children, half the people there, should get the care they need. this i asked, as well. what i ask of the palestinians is to realize one thing above all else. the two-stage solution begins

not with a state of land, but a state of mind. [applause] the mentality has to from resistance to governance current [applause] -- for resistance to governance. [applause] there can be no move towards terrorism. it is totally and completely without justification, and we will never compromise in our opposition to it or those that practice in it. -- those that practice ibit. .

[applause]

we cannot and we will not. and this is not simply an issue of israel security, this is a matter of global security. mine, yours, all of us. [applause] iran's regime is the biggest destabilizing influence in the region. israel understands that. but so do the arab nations. that's why the arab peace initiative launched in 2002 remains their earnest desire. the middle east region faces a struggle that goes far beyond its borders and encompasses much more than the dice pute between israel and palestine.

the poll lation of the arab world is set to double in the next decade. but what sort of future will it be? the those among them know that it should be a future of not narrow mind and religious bigotry and hostility but one conacross the divide are faith and geography we per sue together the common purpose the good of all humanity. this is a vision we share. one in which a just and lasting peace between israelis and palestinians can help strengthen. not because the conflict is because of the cause of the extremism, but because its resolution would be such a powerful har bin jer of hope. [applause]

no person of habe hamic faith can stay long in jerusalem without feeling they are in their spiritual home. jerusalem should always be an open city for all people who wish to worship free and without fear. [applause] and i like the fact that my young son's friends in london, numbered jewses and hindus and christians and i look at this united states of america, a patchwork of different races and faiths woven into one and i think this is the right way for the 21st century world. this is the world we want to pass on to our children. this is the world my father fought for when europe was plunged into the nightmare of an ideology that sought to treat one race as superior to others, the ideology that

brought us the holocaust, the most wretched abomination in human history. what we learned then we should learn still. that human beings are born equal and should live free. [applause] and it is in striveing for that ideal that the state of israel came into being. if one day israel can be secure , recognized, understood, and respected by the nations which surround it, if one day the palestinian people can have their own state and can proprosper within peace within it and beyond it, we will bang more than peace to people who have lived too long with conflict. we will lift the scourge of extremism and bring hope to the

world. now, that is an endeavor really worth dedicating one's life to. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> coming up later we'll have a couple programs from the alab reeg summit. we'll hear remarks from the secretary general and palestinian president. later tonight, arizona senator john mccain, who is running for his fifth term will hold a campaign rally with former governor sara palin. we'll have it for you here on c-span.

now, the president of the san francisco federal reserve bank at a town hall meeting in los angeles. [applause] >> thank you for your kind words. i want to thank everybody for coming today. i'm very grateful to town hall los angeles for organizing this event. it gives me the opportunity to explain how i see the economy shaping up in the months ahead.

and i would also like to use this occasion to talk about several issues that are high on the public policy agenda now. and in particular, i would like to say something about federal budget deficits, a topic as russell indicated, i've thought about for some time. i would also like to talk about the proper place of the federal reserve in our system of government. i want to discuss the topic and reasons for believing that such fears are misguided. of course, i should say why at the outset that my comments reflect my own views and not necessarily those of my federal reserve colleagues. well, let me begin with an

executive summary. that is that the u.s. economy has bounced back remarkably over the past year. but we still have a long way to go. at the end of 2008, the entire financial system was on life support, the housing market had collapsed, consumers and businesses were at the edge of panic, and the nightmare of a depression seemed like a real possibility. just a little over a year later, the financial system is stabilized. panic has subsided. and the economy is growing again. but we face important threats to the recovery. in particular, the job market is turning around only slowly. and that's prolonging hardship

for millions of americans. the unemployment rate was 9.7% in february, down a little from its recessionry high, but still in very painful territory. my forecast is that moderate growth will continue, inflation will remain subdued, and unemployment will inch down. the past few years have been extraordinarily difficult for many americans. and for a while, it felt as though every morning we at the fed woke up to some new crisis. by late 2008, financial markets had seized up, and incoming data showed the economy spiraling downward. around the middle of last year, though, the tide began to turn.

and in the second half of 2009, production picked up. home and auto sales revived, and businesses and households start d spending again. now, in especially welcomed news, the labor market, too, is showing signs of stabilizing. our economy has a natural dine mism and it tends to bounce back after periods of con-- contraction. but the downward spiral we faced a year ago was something extraordinarily dangerous, resulted in the most severe global recession since the great depression. in response, the u.s. government and the federal reserve, along with our counter parts around the world, we all acted decisively to rescue the financial system, to bring down

interest rates, and provide a range of emergency support. i believe these policies played a key role in breaking the downward momentum. there by allowing the economies natural dine mism to reassert itself. on the monetary policy side, the fed has pushed its traditional interest rate lever, the overnight federal funds interest rate, at which banks lend to one another, we have pushed that close to zero. and in order to provide further stimulus, we put in place an array of unconventional programs designed to speed the flow of credit to households and businesses. i'll say more about those monetary actions as well as the contributions of tax cuts and spending increases later on.

now, in many past recessions, such as the very deep one in the beginning of the 1980s, we had a sharp downturn that was followed by a surge in growth and rapidly falling unemployment. a pattern called a classic v-shaped recovery. this time around, though, i don't think we can count on such a robust v-shaped rebound. a number of factors underlie this outlook, but in a nutshell, it reflects the financial backdrop to the recession. growth in the past decade, especially in the overheated housing market, was fueled by easy access to credit. now, credit is harder to come by and a net constrange

resumption in the overall economy. the current quarter appears on course to post a moderate annualized growth rate of around 2.5 to 3%. the economy should gradually build up strength during the course of this year as households and businesses regain confidence, as financial conditions improve, and banks increase the supply of credit. for the full year, my forecast calls for output to rise about 3.5% and then accelerate to around 4.5% in 2011. surveying the economic landscape, most recent data show consumers finally coming out of their hiding places. retail sales rose 3/10th a

percent in february. that was better than expected. and recent gains in consumer spending have been notable. certainly in elect ron yirk goods but those increases have also been spread widely across many types of goods and services. now, my business contacts tell me that consumers are in a better mood. even so, they remain cautious and focused on bargains which may reflect ongoing concerns about jobs, income, and household finances. before the onset of the recession, the household saving rate was approaching zero. tens of millions of americans funded consumption by taking on debt. since the recession began, though, saving has picked up

and house holds have been reducing their debt loads. it's not quite clear how much of this reflects the reluctance of banks to lend and how much of it may be due to a more conservative mindset among consumers themselves. but either way, i don't think that the uptick in consumer spending por tends a return to the pace of consumption we saw during those go-go years in the middle of the past decade. now, of course what led the economy down was housing. and the great bust wiped out some $7 trillion in home values. in the second half of 2009, though, housing showed signs of stabilizing. i became hopeful that the sector would provide a significant boost to the

economy this year. now, the market seems to have stalled. home prices have been more or less stable since the middle of last year, but new home sales have resumed a downward slide and at very low levels. existing home sales spiked toward the end of last year in response to the home buyer tax credit. and they have receded markedly since then. that credit capires this spring -- expires this spring and that will be removing and important prop. with sales still weak, builders have very little incentive to ramp up home construction. the continued high pace of foreclosures also creates risk to the recovery of the housing sector.

mortgage drink siss and foreclosures are still rising due to the plunge in house prices over the past few years combined with high levels of unemployment. and despite the return to growth of the broader economy, we have really seen no let-up at the pace in which borrowers are falling behind in their loans. further additions to the already swollen stockpile of vacant homes represent a threat to house prices and new construction activity. >> now it's not always easy to understand the dynamics of the housing sector. last year, for example, the share of mortgages that was 30 to 89 days past due declined. and on the face of it, that looked like a hopeful sign. unfortunately, when my staff

actually looked at those numbers more closely, they discovered that the drop actually represented a worsening of mortgage market conditions. what you would like to see is drink wunt borrowers -- drink went borrowers becoming current. instead what happened was that drink went mortgages moved in the other direction to an even poorer performance status. many went up in foreclosure. all in all, i expected the share of loans that are seriously behind will continue to move higher and i'm also concerned that we had a temporary reprieve in new foreclosure's as the federal government's trial modification program got underway. but not all of these modifications will stick and

that means that some borrowers in the program could find themselves facing foreclosure again. at the end of this month, the fed will complete a large-scale program of purchases of mortgage-backed securities issued by fannie mae and freddie mac. lenders sell mortgages to these two agencies, which package them as securities sold to investors. last year, the fed began buying these securities as part of a series of extraordinary measures to promote recovery. at the time the program was announced, mortgage spreads over yields on treasuries securities of comparable maturity were very high. that reflected in part the disruptions that had occurred in financial markets.

i believe that our program worked to narrow those spreads, bringing mortgage rates down and contributing to the stablization of the housing market. financial markets have improved considerably over the last year. and i'm hopeful that mortgages will remain highly affordable even after our purchases cease. any significant run-up in mortgage rates would create risks for housing recovery. business investment also presents a mixed picture. we've begun to see a rebound in business spending on equipment and software. and recent indicators point to solid growth. at the same time, though, business confidence remains fragile. it's very positive that business leaders have shed their bunker mentality.

but they remain wary and exceedingly cost conscious. especially for small businesses when uncertainty continues to weigh on them. access to credit has improved somewhat but it's still a significant problem for many businesses. my business contacts speak of a so-called new normal in which companies open their checkbooks for necessities but not for items considered discretionary. this of course is much better than a year ago, when many companies deferred spending even on essentials, but it's not a recipe for robust growth. so what's all this mean for the job market? that's something all of us worry about. we worry a great deal about it. the u.s. economy has lost 8.4 million jobs since december of

2007, that's equal to a 6% drop in payrolls. and that is the largest percentage point decline in pay prols -- payrolls in more than 60 years. and we can never forget the people behind these numbers, our friends, families, neighbors who are really struggling to make ends meet. so i'm happy to see evidence that the job market is turning around. the pace of job losses has slowed dramatically. and had it not been for blizzard back east, in february, we might actually have seen payrolls expand. temporary jobs are growing. that's usually a signal that permanent hiring is poised to rebound. i was heartened when the

unemployment rate dropped in january to 9.7% from 10% the month before. and i was further encouraged when the rate remained there at 9.7% in february, suggesting that that wasn't just an aberration or a flash in the pan. in the months ahead, we could get a bump in employment from census hiring that's something that's temporary, though. given my moderate growth forecast, what i fear is that unemployment will still stay high for years. the rate should edge down from its current level to about 9 .75% by the end of this year. i think it will still be a about 8%, though, by the end of 2011 and that's a very disappointing prospect. in light of these continuing head winds in the financial

system, the housing market and the job market, i expect that the economy will be operating well below its capacity or potential for several years. economists use the term output gap to refer to an economy that is operating below its potential. we define potential as the level where gdp or output would be if the economy were operating at full employment by which i mean the highest level of employment we could sustain without triggering a rise in inflation. well, obviously with the unemployment rate so high, we are very far from the full employment level. and in fact, the output gap was around negative 6% in the fourth quarter of 2009 based on

estimates from the nonpartisan congressional budget office or cbo. now, 6% is an enormous number. it means the u.s. economy was producing 6% fewer goods and services than it could have had -- that it could have, had we been at full employment. in view of my forecast of moderate growth and high unemployment, i don't expect that output gap to completely disappear until sometime in 2013. that's quite a ways off. this idea of an output gap has important implications for inflation. we have a tremendous amount of slack in our economy. when unemployment is so high, wages and incomes tend to rise slowly.

and producers and retailers have a hard time raises prices. that's the situation we're in today. and, as a result, underlying inflation pressures are already very low and trending downward. when simple gauge of these trends comes from looking at the u.s. commerce department's price index for core personal consumption expenditures, that's an index of consumer prices that excludes the prices of volatile food and energy prices. these core prices have risen a modest 1.4% over the past 12 months, and that's below the 2% rate that i and most of my fellow fed policy makers consider an appropriate long-term price stability objective.

i just predicted that the output gap might not disappear until 2013. if the economy continues to operate below its potential, then core inflation could move lower this year and next. well, i would like now to switch gears and talk about federal spending, fiscal stimulus, deficits, and inflation. recent federal budget deficit numbers have been startling. the cbo estimates that in both the past fiscal year and this one, the deficit will amount to almost $1.4 trillion. for 2010, that equals about 9% of g.d.p. now, i want to say that i have

been a critic of large and persistent federal budget deficits throughout my career. i've worried in particular about the growing federal deficits that are projected after the baby boomers leave the workforce. if health care costs keep rising at the pace we've seen in years past, the federal debt could rise relative to g.d.p. in a fashion that will eventually become unsustainable. such long-term deficits pose a clear threat to our economic well being. when the federal government borrows on such a massive scale over a long time period, it drives up interest rates, and it sucks up savings that would otherwise finance productive private investments, potentially eroding living

standards. but it's important to keep these concerns in perspective. in times of recession, when private sector demand is insufficient to keep unemployment from rising too high, and inflation from trending too low, it's appropriate for the federal government's deficit to increase. at such times, reduced taxes and increased expenditures provide crucial support for the economy. and that was certainly the case in 2008 and 2009. indeed, during economic downturns, much of this support occurs automatically. recessions always bring lower tax receipts and extra spending for unemployment insurance and other social insurance programs. and the cbo estimates that in

2009, for example, such automatic stabilizers added about $300 billion to the federal deficit. but in a severe and protracted downturn, such as the one we just went through, these automatic stabilizers were judged to be insufficient. in both 2008 and 2009, congress enacted major stimulus packages that have added hundreds of billions more to deficits. the 2009 stimulus, for example, directly added about $200 billion or just under 1.5% of g.d.p., to last year's deficit. stimulus programs took a variety of forms. so far, most of the anti-recession stimulus has

come as individual and corporate tax cuts. there have also been sizeable temporary increases in transfer payments, such as expanded unemployment insurance, and grants to state and local governments, a as well as increases in direct federal spending programs. now, assessing the effects of this fiscal stimulus on the economomy is challenging. since we need to figure out what the economy would have looked like if we had not had the legislation. economists use a range of approaches to do these calculations. for example, they look at previous examples of fiscal stimulus. or, they analyze other varyations in spinding and taxation. and they developed computer models to perform simulations. each different method has its strengths and weaknesses, but

hopefully taken together they capture the applausible range of effects. the congressional budget office recently used a range of approaches to try to analyze how the 2009 stimulus legislation has affected the economy. and they estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2009, the stimulus raised the level of g. dmple p. somewhere in the range of -- gdp somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 3.5% and ry deuced the unemployment rate by somewhere in the range of a half to one percentage point. that is a very considerable effect. and i think it's somewhere to -- important to remember how dire conditions were in late 2008 and arly 2009 -- early 2009 and how rapidly the situation was deteriorating.

the economic environment at that time was as terrifying as any i have ever seen. and if the fiscal stimulus averted a catastrophe, i would deem it a success. now it's a year later. the economy is in the midst of a moderate economy. much of the stimulus spending is still coming on line, so it will continue to boost gdp for a time. but the effect won't be as pronounced since we're comparing this year's level to last year's already boosted level. the c.b.o. estimates that the effect on the level of g.d.p. and the unemployment rate will peak this year and then fade. so we can't rely on the stimulus to power an ongoing recovery. rather, what i'm tounting on is

a hand-off from government prompted demand to private demand as we go forward. in the next few years, as the economy recovers, the budget picture should improve. tax receipts will rise, and stimulus spending will wind down. so i'm personally not alarmed by the current enormous deficits. i see them as transitory and recession related. but i am very worried about the long-term structural deficit that will remain and will grow even after the output gap has closed. as i mentioned, much of that long-term budget gap is related to the aging of the population and health care cost trends. i was born a few years after

world war ii, and people my age represent the leading edge of the baby boom. tens of millions of people are following close behind. and, as a result, social security and medicare spending are projected to soar. the cbo currently estimates that social security and medicare will rise from about 8% of gdp in 2009 to 13% by 2035 and will eventually reach almost 20% of gdp by late this century based on their benchmark assumptions about trends and health care costs. now, many people are thinking about these long-run deficits and they're considering alternative ways of reducing them.

but with different solutions, what different solutions have in common is that they inevitably require us as a society to make tough and painful choices. the recent protests in greece were a tough fiscal austerity program has been composed, make it clear just how difficult these decisions can be. there is one count, though, on which budget deficit should plead innocent. and that is the charge that these deficits will ignite run away u.s. inflation. i simply don't believe that's the case. concerns that deficits cause inflation have a long history. and, indeed, in developing economies, there is plenty of evidence showing that deficits are often inflationary. the logic is that a government

can pay for its purchases through taxes, borrowing, or money creation. in countries with limited ability to collect taxes, and where financial markets may be poorly developed, printing money may be seen as the only way to pay for the activities of the government, and that often has dreadful consequences. however, in advanced countries with independent central banks, government deficits do not cause inflation. either in the short run or in the long run. these links between fiscal deficits and inflation have been studied extensively and the evidence is clear. japan is a case in point. that country has run enormous fiscal deficits for many years and its government debt has risen to very high levels.

yet, japan has been the recent textbook case of persistent deflation, not inflation. here's the rub, though. i've just asserted that there's no link between deficits and inflation in advanced countries with independent tral banks. and that word independent deserves special emphasis. because it's essential to a central bank's inflation fighting credibility. as long as monetary authorities have the freedom to fight inflation without interference, then deficits won't pull them off course. when we examine the evidence from around the globe, we clearly see that independent central banks have been more successful in delivering lower inflation. indeed, the very purpose of independence is to insulate

central bank decision makers from pressures that might distract them from their core monetary policy objectives. under our system in the united states, the federal reserve is an independent body shielded from interference from other arms of government. it is two objectives by law. maximum stable employment and price stability. the president appoints members of the federal reserve board in washington and the senate confirms their nominations. the terms of state governors were set at 14 years so that appointees to these posts would take the long view. in addition, a decentralized system of regional federal reserve banks was established in order to ensure that we hear a broad range of views from

around the country when we set monetary policy. well, -- while at the same time buffering us from political pressure. why does independence matter? because a decision to raise the fed short-term interest rate target may be unpopular. it raises the cost of funds for businesses seeking to borrow, invest, or hire. it leads to higher mortgage rates, and it boosts the costs of government borrowing. and here's the connection to deficits. in the future, faced with large and persistent federal budget gaps, some people might hope that the fed would help finance all that fiscal red ink by boosting the money supply and tolerating a higher level of inflation. an independent fed would find it much easier to stay focused on its statutory goals of

maximum employment and stable prices. an independent fed would allow interest rates to rise if needed to address inflationary pressures and would resist calls to montize the debt. by contrast, a central bank that wasn't independent might suck come to demands to keep rates low even if the economy were in danger of overheating. to my mind, this is one of the greatest arguments for preserving the fed's independence. i have seen vividly how independents works in practice. at meetings of the federal open market committee, the fed body that makes these interest rates decisions, we have always framed our debates exclusively in terms of how policy moves might affect our objectives of maximum sustainable employment and price stability.

we do not take other conversations into account. if economic circumstances call for higher interest rates, we act appropriately. indeed, i have personally supported an increase in our target for the federal funds rate on 20 different occasions. that said, independence comes with responsibility. entirely appropriately, we are accountable to the government and to the country's citizens for our performance. in regular reports to congress as well as prompt releases of minutes of our meetings, in speeches and other statements, we aim to provide the information congress and the public need to understand how and why we came to our decisions. future fiscal deficits are not the only source of inflation worries, though, these days.

to some people, inflation dangers also lurk right on the federal reserve's own balance sheet. our special programs to stabilize the financial system and stimulate the economy have pumped up our balance sheet from its pre-crisis level of roughly $800 billion to its current size of more than $2 trillion. that's a big increase. in broad terms, the main way we expanded our balance sheet was by buying assets, such as mortgage-backed securities, paying for them by creditting the sellers, and ultimately the banking system with reserves. that is, with deposits of the federal reserve. and those reserves are the electronic counter part to cash.

so why isn't creating all this money inflationary? why isn't it seting up a situation in which too much money chases too few goods, as the saying goes? let me answer this in two ways. first, expanding the fed's balance sheet has not in fact led to a surge in credit. lending has been quite restrained. banks have been cautious as they seek to return to financial health and they're keeping much of the money created by this expansion in their accounts with the federal reserve. second, that balance sheet growth and money creation have taken place at a time when the economy has been operating with enormous slack due to insufficient private demand for goods. in other words, the pressures pushing inflation lower that arise from underutilization of

the economy's resources have more than offset any upward pressure from our specialized programs and the net result has been that inflation has trended down. now, if the recovery preseeds, the fed will eventually have to make sure that this balance sheet expansion does mot lead to inflation. this means that we have to get the timing right for tapering off and ending our expansionry programs. in other words, we need an exit strategy that's designed to remove some of the monetary accommodation that's now in place. the question of how we will go about that has been the focus of a lot of commentary. let me outline for you how we're thinking about our exit strategy. traditionally, the main tool of fed monetary policy is the

federal funds rate, which is what banks charge each other for overnight loans. we have pushed that rate to zero for all practical purposes, that's as low as it can go. such an accome dative policy is currently appropriate in my view, because the economy is operating well below its potential and inflation is subdued. and consistent with that view, the feds' main policy making body, the fomc, last week repeated its statement that it expects low interest rates to continue for an extended period. as i noted earlier, in addition to administratoring standard monetary policy remedies, the fed has put in place an array of unconventional programs to bolster the financial system and stimulate the economy. among other programs, these have included secured loans to

banks and other financial institutions, and purchases of mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by agencies such as fannie mae and freddie mac. these programs were vital in preventing a complete financial breakdown. but as conditions improved, the need for such extraordinary support diminished. accordingly, the fed has already closed many of its emergency lending programs and will soon close the rest. i don't believe this is yet the time to be tightening monetary policy. but as recovery take firms root and economic output moves toward its potential, a time will come when it is appropriate to boost short-term interest rates. the size of our balance sheet raises some technical issues as we begin this process. but these are manageable.

when the time arrives to push up short-term interest rates, we will not have to sell off the assets we have acquired there by shrinking our balance sheet. we can instead boost short-term rates by raising the interest rate we pay the banks on the reserves held at the fed. a hike in the rate we pay on this reserves will cause other short-term money market rates to rise in tandem because banks will be unwilling to lend in the money market at rates below what they can earn in their secure fed accounts. eventually, i would like to see the federal reserves' balance sheet shrink toward more normal levels, and i would like the bulk of our holdings to be treasury securities, as they were prior to the crisis. selling off some of our assets could play a role in this

shift. but my expectation is that the fomc will reduce the size of our balance sheet only gradually over time. so the message i hope i've conveyed is that i don't think we're due for an outbreak of inflation. not in the short run, as a result of the fed's economic stimulus measures, and not in the long run as a consequence of massive federal budget deficits. if the fed acts responsibly by unwinding its recession fighting programs in a careful and deliberate manner, then we will avoid an upsurge in inflation in the near term. and, as long as the fed remains an independent central bank free to pursue its objectives of maximum employment and stable prices without interference, then there's no reason why it won't be able to keep prices stable in years to

come. let me stop there and thank you very much. i would be happy to take a couple of questions. [applause] >> now, just wait for the microphone to come to you and dr. yellen will take your questions. >> i have two questions. number one, what do you think the economic impact will be of the recent medical legislation? and, second, do you think outsourcing of production and the losses of state and local governments of jobs will continue to a long-term joblesses in? >> thanks for the questions. on the first question with respect to the impact of the health care package, i have not

yet seen any very detailed analysis of possible macro economic impacts. but from what i've seen, the cbo has scored from the spending perspective the overall package as slightly deficit reducing over the next ten-year horizon and most of the provisions affect spending only very gradually over time. so my best guess without having done detailed analysis is that it will not have very significant impacts over the next several years. on the question of state and local governments -- did you say state and local government spending? and outsourcing more broadly, you mean of jobs to other countries?

i guess outsourcing has been a trend that we have seen in our economy that has been going now on -- on now, over a very long period of time and not something that's recent. and it is certainly contributing to shifts in the u.s. economy in terms of how labor is deployed across different sectors. but in terms of jobs, if you think about it, before the financial crisis unfortunately struck our country, the unemployment rate in the united states had fallen to extremely low levels in the fours, and that was true in spite of the fact that outsourcing has been a long-run trend that we had seen. so i have confidence that the u.s. economy even with outsourcing and with trade having risen substantially is

important -- its importance in the economy, will -- we can continue if we generate the demabbed for our goods and services to find jobs for all americans that are able and willing to work. there has been some thinking in recent years about the roles that outsourcing might have played along with other factors, particularly technological change and a form of technological change that has tended to favor skilled workers at the expense of less skilled workers, that that set of shifts has had i think adverse consequences for wage inequality in this country and for the distribution of income, and we've seen over the last several decades a rise in the gap between what very skilled workers earn and what those with lower skills, less skills

earn. and i think outsourcing and trade could have played -- it's certainly not the sole role, but had some impact on that disadvantageous trend. on the state and local job situation, certainly states are being very hard hit. this year i believe will be even worse than last year. there's been some relief due to the economic stimulus package that's had some money to cution state and local spending, but there is a tough, tough time ahead for states and local governments. and that is one of the sources of drag i see on the recovery going forward. >> also a two-part question, please. how does or more appropriately how should the value of the u.s. dollar factor into  monetary policy?

and then, secondly, how would you respond to the argument that the level of full employment or in turn potential gdp has actually been lowered given what we've just been through? therefore, overestimating the value of the output gap. >> two excellent questions. on the first you asked how the dollar does or should impact monetary policy. and i would just say in normal times, as long as the dollar's movements are moderate and not disruptive or abrupt, the dollar factors into monetary policy via its effects on the performance of the u.s. economy, and in particular on the two things the fed has been directed by congress to care

about, namely what is it doing to the level of output or jobs in the economy, relative to full employment, and what does it mean for inflation? and a decline in the dollar tends to stimulate demand and give a boost to spending in the economy by making our exports more competitive and g ports somewhat more -- imports somewhat more expensetive. which tends to move domestic consumers in the direction of domestically produced goods. so in that sense, a dollar does tend to boost output in employment, everything equal. but it has mixed effects because a decline in the dollar certainly can raise the prices of imported goods that affect the consumer price index and can have an impact on the prices of commodities, pushing up inflation as well. and both of those things needs to be taken into account and

are factored into account in times when the movements in the dollar are not -- that may occur but are not disruptive. on your second question about gdp and what's happened to potential output, i guess i would say that the crisis has had several different effects on gdp. to some extent, it is causing a shift in demand and a meed for workers to move across different sectors of the economy, particularly outside, to move away from contracting sectors like construction and the financial services sector. and while those shifts are going on, the so-called full employment rate of unemployment or the natural rate of unemployment, what we would call full employment could be

boosted a little bit. and some of my colleagues have estimated that those kinds of shifts might have boosted the so-called narrower full employment, unemploimt rate a little bit. smabe from 4-3/4% to maybe around 5-1/4 now. but even if it were as high as that for a time, it would be transitory. that's not -- the actual level of unemployment at 9 plt 7 is vastly in capezz of, say, 5-1/4. so we have a huge output gap. now, with respect to other factors that affect potential output, that comes down to one factor is how much investment firms are doing. and this recession has been bad for investment. capital formation is something that boosts productivity, and

the fact that investment is falling so much, although now it's rising a bit, that's been a negative. but the overwhelming thing i see happening to productivity is that firms, as we got into this dedeep recession, and this is what i hear from all of my business contacts, is that they became heavily, totally focused on what can we do in our firms to reengineer how we do business to boost productivity. and not only did they lay off workers because their sales were falling and they needed fewer, but my business contacts tell me they went back and rethought about every business process they have and every activity they did, and they restructured things in ways that were cost cutting and that as the economy recovers, now as i said i see some hopeful

signs, temporary employment is going up. when i talk to my business contacts, they say it is going to be a long time before we start hiring workers. . .

. >> "america and the courts" today at 7:00 p.m. arizona senator john mccain is running for reelection.

sarah palin appeared with him at a campaign rally. you can see the event tonight at 8 of 5:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> the senate banking committee passed a bill that would overhaul the the financial relations -- the financial regulations for it the nation. it would create a new process for unwinding failing financial firms. now, a look at that markup session. this is about 20 minutes. >> i have been getting calls from some of our colleagues that their planes are landing and they will be here momentarily. we will begin the process here. obviously, we cannot do any business at all until we have a quorum. we can do other things, like make some opening statement. let me just share with my colleagues how we would like to proceed.

today, we are going to consider, of course, the original committee bill, "restoring american fincial stability act of 2010." as i said, there is a lot going on at this evening, planes coming in late and so forth. we have a vote scheduled for sometime around 5:30 p.m. or thereafter. my intention here early on is to at least have senator shelby and i make our opening statements, and then we will have some motions to make. obviously, we need to have a quorum in order to do so. i would like to proceed as expeditiously as we can on this matter. what i will do right now is begin by making some opening comments. they are very brief. despite the magnitude of this particular undertaking -- obviously, we have all spent a lot of time together over many, many months. a lot has been said in many places. but let me share some opening

statements, and then i will invite my colleague, senator shelby, to make any opening comments he may have. we will proceed from there, and hopefully by that attention we will have a working quorum. with that in mind, for three years now, as all of us are aware, getting back to our first meeting in this very room on home foreclosures in 2007, this committee has been studying the cost and the affects of the worst financial crisis since the great depression. some of the most prominent financial institutions in our nation have been destroyed or seriously weakened in the past couple of years. as bad as that has been, far worse damage has been done to millions of our fellow citizens, ordinary families across the nation, who did nothing wrong, but are paying a terrible price with this economic crisis. a staggering 8.4 million jobs have and lost. the unemployment rate remained

near double digits. in far too many places across our nation, the unemployment rate is over double digits, as many of us know. nearly 7 million have lost their homes to foreclosure. millions have lost their retirement funds. we have lost millions of small businesses. as our constituents have made very clear to all of us, americans are frustrated and angry about what has happened, and they want answers. how could this happen, and what are we going to do to make sure it does not happen again? we need to reform our regulatory structure so that a crisis on wall street does not destroy businesses and families across the nation. we need to create early warnings, so that we can spot and state institutions or practices, and stop them before they threatened the stability of our whole economy. and, we must protect american consumers, and restore their faith in the market and the financial system.

this is an enormously complex undertaking. i want to begin with a brief remarks by thanking my colleagues around the table for the hard work that has already been engaged in to put us at this stage in the process. all of you who watch cable news, of course, might get the idea that all we do in the united states senate is to throw a talking point at each other across the table. the truth is that a challenged like financial reform requires a lot of real, hard, honest work. whatever happens at this point, the members of this committee should be recognized for the very hard work they have engaged in in these many weeks and months. working as a bipartisan team, members of the committee cut tackled some of the most difficult and important questions, and produced a bill that will address some of these issues. the result is a bill that will update our regulatory system for the 21st century, keep pace with innovation, and be ready

for future crises as they happen. this bill has 11 titles to it, and rather than go through each one, let me briefly highlight the four critical pieces. this bill, number one, and will ensure that failing firms can be shut down without requiring a bailout or threatening the stability of our whole economy. number two, we will create an advanced warning system so that someone is always looking out for the next big problem to emerge. number three, our legislation will ensure that all financial practices are exposed to the sunlight of transparency, so the hedge fund and derivatives do not lurk in the shadows. we will compete on a level playing field. four, we will protect consumers from unsafe financial products such as the subprime mortgages that led to the financial crisis in the first place.

most importantly, this will restore our financial security, so that our economy can create jobs and offer middle-class families a chance to create wealth in our country. today, a full three years since we began to study the crisis, and after a tremendous amount of work and successful study, we have a bill in front of us. i know there is going to be a spirited debate in the days and weeks ahead, but i expect that all the members of this committee, and the full senate, will understand very clearly that we are moving forward in this issue. the stakes are far too high for the american people for us to fail in this effort. we will not fail, in my that you -- in my view. we will reform the financial system this year. now i turn to my colleague, senator shelby. >> thank you. we have worked together for nearly 30 years. for the last several years we have worked to achieve a broad, bipartisan agreement on how to

reform our financial regulatory structure. although it has been a difficult endeavor in many respects, both the chairman and i worked diligently to find common ground. i expect we'll continue to do so in the future. when we began to do this process, the chairman and i is shared many goals. we both wished to end "too big to fail." we believe our regulatory structure needed to be modernized and streamlined. we believe the federal reserve needed to be closely examined, and that consumer protections needed to be strengthened. finally, we concurred on the need to modernize trading, increase transparency, and make competition there. these broad areas were, and i believe remain, the common areas of this foundation pipit unfortunately, common ground continues to believe us. the chairman post a proposal

contains a number of positive steps. there is a foundation for broad bipartisan agreement. i do not believe we are at the end of the road, but rather just at another step in the process. as we move forward, there are a few things i think must be addressed in any final bill. first and foremost, we must end "too big to fail." the chairman post a first proposal expanded the problem by expanding the federal reserve's lending authority. although this bill takes some steps in the right direction, and believe it's still falls short of ending bailout and the associated moral hazard. the oversight is much improved however, i believe. through recommendations agencies and the congress, the financial

oversight council would work to strengthen our financial system and improve regulation paris -- improved regulation. however, we believe that in order to mitigate systemic risk, none of our efforts will succeed unless we enhanced private sector due diligence, and provide regulators who can be realistically objective. the issue of consumer protection continues to be a high priority for both german dodd and for me -- chairman don and for me. the relationship between banks -- chairman dodd and for me. the relationship between banks and consumers continues to be an issue in the media. the characterization of us against them is absurd and unconstructive.

reforming financial regulatory structure is a difficult and complex undertaking. it requires people of good faith to work cooperatively toward a common goal, and not an us versus them mentality. that said compaq -- that said, i do believe there is currently an imbalance in our regulatory structure between consumer regulation and soundness regulation. i do not wish to correct this imbalance by creating a new one. i am advocating creating new consumer protection and given parity with safety and soundness of oversight. while i believe a safe and sound banking system is the best consumer protection, there are steps that need to be taken to strengthen the role of consumer protection within our regulatory structure. there are a number of constructs that can accomplish this goal, and whatever organizational structure we ultimately settle upon, i will continue to insist upon the meaningful integration

of these considerations in both ruled writing and enforcement. i remain optimistic that this can be achieved. the derivative title does not yet reflect the work of senator gregg and me. the current language would subject derivatives to reporting, clearing, and execution requirement. everything would be subject to these requirements unless they qualify for one of the title's narrow exceptions. this ignores the risk of central clearing. instead of at taxpayer savings, this could expose taxpayers to future bailout of clearing houses. we need to carefully weigh the risks clearing house products that are complex, electric, --

illiquid and ill-priced. we should not make financial institutions jump through regulatory hoops that could keep them from creating jobs. regulators need to have access to immigration about people range of activity on the derivatives market. we need to shed light on all classes of swaps, including ones that the bill would allow to remain in the dark. in short, we need to establish a rational regulatory framework for derivatives that allows both transparency and economic growth. this bill also contains a number of provisions that are not related to price, including corporate governance provisions that would empower special interests. there are another -- there are a number of other provisions that, as presently drafted, would not

address the problems we face. all of these would need to be addressed, as we move down the road. those of us who have worked on this legislation know how difficult and how complex this undertaking is. nevertheless, we have made significant progress. chairman dodd's dedication and patients have been instrumental in bringing us this far. although i have a number of concerns, i remain today optimistic that we can, over time, reached an agreement that will garner bipartisan support. i just do not believe we are quite there yet. german dodd hat -- chairman dodd has made it clear that he intends to move forward without republican support. we do not think that would be constructive or productive to the endgame.

consequently, we will be opposing the bill at this time, but i pledge to the chairman that we will continue to work with him as the bill approaches floor consideration, in hopes of reaching a broad consensus. as i have said many times, if we place policy ahead of politics we can, and i believe well, reach an agreement that will not only attract significant support and the senate, but will also be good for the american taxpayer, our financial system, and our economy. >> senator shelby, thank you for those comments. it is certainly our intention to proceed along those lines. you pointed out that the product before you leap but an awful lot of the work you mentioned, and i am going to try to get us closer together in this very complex and difficult area of legislation. i look forward to that effort as well in the coming days.

i know we have had many amendment filed. i gather that the members have decided to withhold those not already folded into the managers ammendment until we reach the floor. i have worked with everyone this week and happy -- who has worked to have their -- and have worked with everyone who has worked to have their amendment folded into the manager's amendment. let me first turn to the manager's amendment, no. 471, that was filed on friday. it includes technical, conforming, and other non- controversial items. you all have it in front of you. i would ask the senate to modify it the amendment as outlined in

the amendment in front of you. hearing no objection, it is so outlined people all in favor -- is so outlined. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it. i'm going to move to the final adoption of this bill, among others want to bring up amendments. i am prepared to come back after the vote and be here tonight or tomorrow morning, however you like to do, so that members of the committee can be heard. inform our staff how you would like to do it, i will do it anyway you like to do it. if that is not the issue then i would now move to the committee adopt the original bill. i ask unanimous consent that the

staff be allowed to make technical changes. there are no objections so it is so ordered a would like to now ask us to vote on the final passage. is the point out to vote on the bill itself? is that correct? then let the roll call proceed. >> >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. schumer. >> aye. >> mr. bayh. >> he votes aye by proxy. >> mr. menendez. >> aye.

>> mr. akaka. >> aye. >> mr. tester. >> aye. >> mr. cole. >> aye. >> mr. warner. >> aye. >> mr. merkley. >> aye. >> mr. bennet. >> aye. >> mr. shelby. >> no. >> the boat is 13 eyes, 10 opposed. the measure is -- the vote is 13

ayes, 10 opposed. the measure is passed. >> i will be happy to stay anyone would like to make any additional comments. is there anybody else who would like to be heard? we have a few minutes. many members want to be heard? senator corker, no? the corker rule? if not, thank all members. the committee will stand adjourned. >> coming up later tonight here on c-span, arizona senator john mccain, who is running for his fifth term, holds a campaign rally with former alaskan governor sarah palin.

that is at 8:00 p.m. here on c- span. today, antonin scalia and steven briar speak on the constitution. is it a living document? >> do not pretend this is a flexible system. on the contrary, it is producing what the constitution will produce, and that is rigidity. we have to deal with an organization -- we have to be an organization that is capable passing laws in accordance with the powers given to us by the constitution of the united states, which is the whole point of the constitution. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the new c-span library has thousands of hours of video and every c-span program from 1987. this is cable's latest gift to america. >> in 2006, the united states began transferring some terrorist detainee's from guantanamo bay to terrorist de- radicalization camps in saudi arabia. since then, some program graduates have returned to terrorist activity. next, an event looking at de- radicalization programs and how they work. this is an hour. >> thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation. it is my privilege to welcome

you here, as well as those watching us on c-span, as well as those watching on our website. we would ask that all of you check to make sure your cell phones are turned off. for our internet years, questions can be sent to us at any time. we will post the program on our heritage homepage later today for your future reference. i think our program today is -- posting our program today is >> mr. crapo. -- hosting our program today is charles "cully" stimson. he has devised the secretary of defense on detainee issues worldwide. he has also served four years as an assistant to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. previous to that, he was a

homicide prosecutor in maryland, and a domestic violence prosecutor in san diego. he served three active-duty tours in at the navy, and continues to serve as a judge advocate general reservist in the navy. please join me in welcoming my colleague, charles "cully" stimson. cully. [applause] >> thank you. welcome. this week i had the opportunity to speak to some distinguished citizens about u.s. detention policy. in that audience or several world war ii exploits -- in the audience were several world war ii veterans. during that war, we had over four hundred thousand not see pow's here in custody -- overpowers -- over 400,000 nazi

pow's here in custody. no one would have thought of releasing them during a war. that is what we are doing today. i think we would all agree with that gentleman that we should not be rearming an enemy to commit islamic jihad during wartime. that is exactly what we did during the bush and administration for a variety of reasons, and that is exactly what the obama administration is intent on doing as well. those detainees that people most usually focus on are those who were, or are, at guantanamo. but this policy also existed in iraq, afghanistan.

nevertheless, people tend to focus on guantanamo. in afghanistan today, under the leadership of task force 435, military commanders are developing a sustainable and reintegration and combatant disengagement programs that, in time, will be transitioned to the government of afghanistan for their use after the military and detention operations -- pens ends -- ends detention operations. as many of you know, we started sending saudi detainees back to the kingdom for de- radicalization back in 2006. according to published reports, the recidivism rate for the program is around 20% or so, give or take. many believe that number may be

on the low side. three of those men have made their way to yemen and occupied senior leadership positions in at the al-qaeda organization in the arabian peninsula company most notably sayyid sabiq. he is believed to be behind the 278 attack on the u.s. embassy in sanaa. ibrahim rubaish and muhammad atef el-khabir became aqap field commanders. after the christmas day terrorist attack here in the united states, when we discovered the yen connection, and out -- viet yemen connection, -- the yemen connection, the obama

administration announced that it would temporarily suspend transfers. to many, that was a common-sense move. we have not yet established a credible -- a credible de- radicalization program, although there have been moves toward that. indeed, two key bombers in the u.s. says cole bombing were convicted by yemeni courts, but are a free man today. today, in this room, we are going to set aside politics. let us take that out of the equation and focus on the programs themselves. do they work? how do they work? what do they have, in terms of actual classes, teachings, philosophy, etc. hopefully, before the question and interpol time comeuppance

our panelists will offer -- before the question and answer time, our panelists will offer their opinions. these panelists our -- are friends of mine, and are uniquely qualified to speak on this topic. marisa porges has done extensive field work in yemen, saudi arabia, and afghanistan. he has firsthand knowledge of these programs and has been to saudi arabia five times, and spent three weeks in yemen this past fall. many speak -- many seek her advice on these matters. from 2006 to 2008, marisa served as an adviser on detainee affairs.

her responsibilities included negotiating with foreign governments on detention issues, including on trying to repatriate detainees from guantanamo bay. she moved from the department of defense to the treasury department's office of terrorist financing and financial crimes, amps -- and made an effort to stop terrorist financial activities. she is a commissioned naval officer, although she is a brown shoe, and she received a bachelor's degree in physics from harvard and a master's degree from the london school of economics. daveed gartenstein-ross, who i

had the pleasure of taking a roundtrips trip to guantanamo with in 276, works for the foundation of defense and democracy. he is the author of several studies about radicalization and homegrown terrorism. he rode an empirical examination of the radicalization process, and he has put his academic study of terrorism to practical use, including work on live hostage negotiation, border security issues, and law enforcement. he has testified before congress, and his writings on the war on terror have been published widely. you can see him on tv quite often. he has published, "my year

inside of radical islam." ladies and go first. marisa porges. thank you. thank you everyone for being here today. it is a great opportunity to talk about an issue which myself and those who have worked closely on detention have looked at for a number of years now, but which has thankfully become part of the wider public debate. i am going to start my talk by defining some terms. as an academic, we have to do it. let us quickly look at what is usually considered the confusing topic of an de-radicalization versus counter-radicalization. we are here today to talk about

de-radicalization. this is an effort to work with individuals who have been picked up, who have already committed acts, or who are supporting terrorist organizations. when they are in custody, what are we doing with them to try to rehabilitate them, change their mind set or behavior, so that when they are released they will not be as significant of a threat? this should be thought of as distinct from counter- radicalization, which is our effort to work with a is vulnerable populations such as impoverished youth in yemen, to try to forestall future radicalization and the long-term effect that that has. these are very broad tools in a counterterrorism toolkit. they are mutually supportive, but we need to be precise when we look at how we evaluate programs. when we look at de- radicalization, we are looking at those we have in custody and what we can do about them.

so, what can we do about them? how do you even develop a program like this? over the past five or 10 years, people have come up with two kansas -- two camps. on one side, people are focused on ideology. they believe we should focus on an individual's ideology, his beliefs, and approach the program from bad direction. think religious dialogue, religious debates, and a focus on the belief system behind the activity. at the other end of the spectrum are those who think that it is really about changing behavior. a program that is developed along this path would focus more on disengagement, trying to change an individual's activities. it looks like a rehabilitation program in a federal prison. at the end of today -- at the end of the day, programs

typically fall somewhere in between, depending on the country and the individuals involved. it is important to see the spectrum, because when we evaluate programs, inherently we look at which canada is working and where we should put -- which campu is working, and where should we put the program in between. i will go over some broad ideas at play, and then we will talk about a few programs. first of all, we have to consider what is the goal. is it a counter-terrorism gold? are we primarily concerned with those sweeps -- is it a counter- terrorism nicole? -- counter-terrorism goal? are we primarily concerned with those we have in custody.

how is the public involved or not involved in the program as a activities? another central question to ask is what is attainable on the timeline for those involved? as a policymaker, this is something we always need to be concerned with. how long do we think it will take to change someone's mind? do we have a deadline involved because we know we have to release somebody at some point? what are the capabilities? do we have the resources we need kaput such as a therapist -- the resources we need, such as a therapists? do we have individuals who understand the customs of those in custody who can afford ideas and make the program effective? who is running the program?

is it a government run program so late? is there not a government or public support -- is it a government run program soley? is there a non-government or public support? we are a non secular outside authority. we have another layer of difficulty when implementing something, when we are looking at indonesia or singapore, where we have a government working with their own citizens. these are factors in determining how a program is developed and implemented. the final factor, which is perhaps the most critical, and which i think we will talk about as well, is what are the factors of radicalization involved with

those we have in custody? how are we to understand those who we are holding? what pat did they follow to commit or join with a terrorist organization? this is still a widely contested debate, but factors that are concerned and have interplay to be the sources of de- radicalization include ideology, economic motivations -- whether they are enjoying a for the paycheck that comes with being a member, local resources, local grievances against the centrally -- against the central government. is it macro-grievances? how can we address those in a de-radicalization program? with that overview of the basic questions involved and the

concerns we need to address when we are picking elements of a program, i am going to quickly touch on two programs that are interesting for both their failures and their successes. as i mentioned earlier, i spent a lot of time looking at a variety of different programs. i am going to focus on a program in yemen, and a program in afghanistan. the former, the program in yemen, ironically was the first program in the arabian peninsula to be established. given the current state of affairs and the country, that is a bit curious, but it was established in 2005 to deal with mujahideen who had returned from afghanistan.

it was a heavily religiously focused program. phelan to the campus -- it fell into this camp that thought this was primarily an ideological. the claims that are made officially are that there was a 98% success. if you did a little deeper, my estimation is that it -- if you dig a little deeper, my estimation is that it was hardly a success at all.

many individuals were seen to return to the fight, either supporting activities or actually picking up arms. a few of them returned to iraq and became freedom fighters there. they were picked up or killed later. the interesting thing is that if you talk to people who went through the program -- and, of note, i met with a former senior member of al-qaeda and you had gone through the program, who had come out the other side not really changed, who has since reformed his ways, which is why i was able to sit and talk with him. he said it was a one note wonder. it was a cursory program, not very robust, that only touched on ideological component. left out things that were needed to help a prisoner reintegrate into society after the fact. that was not the focus of the

program. in his estimation, as well as mine, it became one of the centro in its vaults of the program, twitches -- one of the central faults of the program, which is now defunct. compare that to afghanistan. afghanistan is the newest program out there. it was started last fall. it is part of the new effort by general macau crystal to precast and reinvigorate -- in general mccrystal to recast and reinvigorate the reintegration of programs. they offer classis, they try to teach skills, and they offer art

class says. -- the offer classis, try to teach skills, and even of her art classes -- and even offer art classes. it is too early to tell how it has worked, but it seems to be a success. i have met with two x detainee's -- two ex-detainee s, who say they appreciate what is going on now and how it has changed. those who are coming out of the prison now have skills to bring

back to the villages. they engage differently with their village elders, and they appreciate the fact that those individuals are less likely to return it to terrorist activity because of it. this brings me to my overarching conclusion about these programs. how do you fit into broader strategies of dealing with terrorists? a in afghanistan, de- radicalization is a to will within a broader detention environment. it is a tool within a broader counterinsurgency effort. this is not just a tactical tool to deal with those we have a custody, but a tool that supports a broader strategic effort. i think this is the important part. de-radicalization should be part of a broader strategic counter it -- strategic counter- terrorism effort. the saudis are fully committed

to a worrying not just about those they have in custody, but those that are the peers, the friend, the brothers, the family of the detainees. they are concerned with further radicalizing those on the outside by means of their actions when the detainees are in custody. they are firmly committed -- i remember when i it met with the prince in -- a few years ago actually, and he said, i am concerned about what happens to individuals when they get out, but i am more concerned with the thousands more that are being radicalized by their perception of how we are treating those in custody. those are future terrorists. that is my concluding thought. we need to look at de- radicalization as a strategy within the broader counter- terrorism effort. it is a tool that should be used tactically, but a tool that has a greater strategic implications frankly, then -- then how we are

doing with the few we have in custody. i think it should be expanded wherever possible and more robust in countries where it is needed. it is really to get to the broader goal of draining the swap, as it were, of terrorist that will be coming down the line, and working on making de- radicalization one piece of the broader counter-terrorism tool. i would leave us with the thought that perhaps we need to realign our goals becomes to de- radicalization, fully supporting the idea, but trying to understanding it -- trying to understand it within a broader spectrum of policy. thank you. [applause] >> marisa draws a very relevant distinction at the outset of her speech, and that is the

distinction between de- radicalization and counter- radicalization. de-radicalization comes at the back end of a process. de-radicalization is what occurs after somebody has been engaged in terrorism and you are trying to get them away from it, either to actually change their ideas, or through disengagement. with counter-radicalization, that is an effort that comes at the front end. we are trying to prevent a community to -- prevent a community from tilting over into terrorism. the reason i referred to the first distinction she made, is because this actually goes to the level of risk that you confront. if you think about a counter- radicalization strategy, there is very little risk if it fails. for example, obama's speech in cairo served multiple purposes, but in one way, it could be grouped into counter- radicalization a in efforts, by

presenting a different phase of the united states to the middle east. it is basically a zero risk, unless you are so ineffective that you and up creating more terrorists. in general, if you fail, you just end up spending money unnecessarily, and you end up right where you started. whereas, with de- radicalization, you actually can face concrete risks. that is not the case, of course, for all de- radicalization programs. some programs are more informal, such as a program that was recently announced within at toronto that was serving a function in between when someone has adopted a radical ideology and actually resorted to terrorism. it was basically trying to break that linkage between accepting radicalism and actually acting on it. ultimately, if that program fails, that de-radicalization program, then you are back restarted without the program. on the other hand, de-

radicalization programs can present a danger in certain circumstances. when you are taking people who are convicted terrorists and putting them in a program where they will be released and allegedly to radicalized. -- allegedly de-radicalized. i agree with what marisa said, the de-radicalization strategy should be embraced as part of a broader effort against terrorism, but i think we need to understand the risks that are attendant to that. in particular, the way these programs are studied and the way these programs are understood and debated, i think we have one significant blind spot, and that is ideology. i will talk about that at some greater length, but first, and want to -- i want to point out

an important factor in the way we discuss and understand these programs. researchers face significant barriers in evaluating these programs. a valuable book on this topic is, "leading terrorism behind." the authors state we lack the necessary data to evaluate these programs, and that the government running these programs are only releasing the data they believe needs to be made pro -- be made public. i believe that is changing. some programs are quite a bit more transparent. singapore, for example, is highly transparent, in that it

post information almost right away from the ministry of home affairs announces releases, changes in status, and renewals of charges. that allows researchers to have a pretty good sense of at least the output of this program. my focus is more on the front- end, how people radicalized. part of what i have studied in that regard is the role of ideology in de-radicalization. marisa and i are on the same page that ideology is certainly not the only driving factor of what brings people to terrorism. there are multiple push factors, as well as pull factors. these are things like discrimination, anger over foreign policy and the like. likewise, there are certain pull factors, which might draw someone towards terrorism. astonishingly, to me, within this area, there is a question over whether ideology plays any

role at all. there are some researchers that strongly argue that it doesn't. a large part of a study that cully held up deals with the question of quantitative analysis. it looks at things we can measure externally that link people's radicalization specifically to an ideology. it codifies that, making the argument that it is faring -- a quantifies that, making the argument that it is far too early to remove ideology from the picture. because i believe ideology is such an important part of the radicalization experience, one of the team -- one of the themes that runs through my work, is the need to take ideology seriously. some researchers tend to have a flippant attitude toward understanding ideology the give

it short shrift. i believe it is impossible in to evaluate these programs without taking ideology seriously. there are some exceptions to that. independent -- in afghanistan, we have a much more of an insurgency situation. that is a broad based approach where we can take ideology out of the circumstances. looking at the yemeni program, i think that maria said did a good job of outlining how religious dialogue and persuading people of one's ideas about religion is absolutely vital to the success of the program. it also requires after carrot to get people into jobs -- after-

care to get people into jobs. i agree with marisa's view that this has been a failure. the other program provides post- release support such as jobs, housing, and cars. it is good to have the kingdom. it is good to have saudi arabia at's resources. part of that program is ideology: -- it is ideological. those running the program said they were misled by extremists and strayed away from a "true islam is deeply -- and strayed away from "true islam."

prisoners are expected to go through the rehabilitation program, to renounce their previous believes, and they will be given the kind of things we discussed before, jobs, apartments and the like. to me, the review of this scholarship and chose where people and of ignoring the ideological factors, even when they are important to the programs. in the book i mentioned before, the chapter on yemen made a very questionable claim, "the judge has made it clear that there is only one of versed in the chronic but -- person in the kuran that allows believers to

engage in self defense." anyone who has even a cursory knowledge kuran knows that that is not true. this is not a matter of opinion. the fact that researchers are repeating something that is factually incorrect is, to meet, indicative of the extent to which they are ignoring it logical elements -- ideological elements. they are not engaging in the religious texts that people are supposed to be debating in the first place. likewise, there were a few quotes from the same but that i thought were pretty interesting. whatever tampa is said that suspects werese