that. indeed there are. and the answer is to learn how to work that as a judge so you don't pay attention to the abuses, so that you understand all that's at stake is two warring parties trying to get in the floor statement what they couldn't get in the bill and that you'll understand as well when that isn't at issue, and when that legislative history is enlightening and all i can say is it requires a lot of experience and you can do it better or do it worse but it's no harder than trying to work with some kind of historical thing that happened in the 15th century that was reported in the 17th century and blackstone said something about it in the 18th century or the 19th century and i don't know about it. >> now we're back to the constitution. i thought you were talking about statutes and legislation and some good examples. >> well, well, i think -- >> the roman emperor caligula is said to have had the

practice of posting his edicts high on the pillars so the people could not read it and would be fooled into disobeying it. a government of laws means that a law ought to mean what it most applauseably would -- plusibley would be understood to mean by the people to which is promulgated, not what justice breyer -- justice breyer has a very exalted notion of the role of congressional staff. >> i was in that role for two years, so i can understand why that exists. but that is no way to run a system of free men and women. the statute should mean what it seems to mean. and not what the first person to draft it had in mind. .

>> >> it is relevant to the constitution. the real question that came up is not something we're only you read the words, but you know the answer.

it is more like the word "cause " you really do not know. on that kind of a case, that post has nothing to do with it. what we are looking for is a way to find out. >> go back to the constitution. >> i think that the words are quite simple how you can find a right to abortion in the due process clause is so far beyond me that i cannot express it. even the people who agree with the outcome of roe vs. wade, they have admitted that the legal reasoning was flawed. once you say the word liberty isn't anchored, then you have

to wonder what is liberty. you have to give the court an enormous power over democracy because every new thing that we do bridge's democracy. it means that you cannot vote on that anymore. it is not up to the people anymore. it must be this way. that is simply not the road that we must go down. if we want a responsible democracy, only on important matters do we go 12 significance of such as whether there should be a right to die. all of this really important stuff. we cannot possibly dispose of those matters democratically by debating with each other and

voting. all the really important stuff has to be decided by the supreme court. by deciding what the purpose of the word "liberty"was. >> it was probably the word "rebellious." -- the values. if we understand what the heart of this is, we begin to understand how to apply it. that is a general statement. we then see how it is done. this is usually pretty difficult. and there we are permitted that -- what else can i say?

i am comfortable and you are less comfortable because this -- i am comfortable because this is the heart of the matter. when you get to the heart of the matter, and that is why i am after, and then what about the fringes? i am characterizing you, and you are better at that. you like it better if you could have it clearer. i would say that there is a tradition along that line, and sometimes that is called for and i think there is a tradition in my way, too. sometimes that is called for. that is the best i can do. >> gentleman, we have been over an hour. we are on my third question.

but i think our audience has been treated to an amazing evening and i have managed to stay out of the way. but we do have refreshments afterwards and we are most grateful for your taking the time out of your busy schedule to share your approach to the constitution. >> i think i persuaded them. i think i made some progress. >> it has been a great beer summit. thank you. [applause] >> you can watch this program out our website c-span.org. just click on "america and the

courts." join us next week for "america and the courts." saturday, at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span di. >> coming up next, senator john mccain campaigns in arizona with former running mate sarah pailin. and then, the group known as the coffee party holds a forum. and in the arab league summit. -- and then, the arab league summit. >> senator john mccain kicks off a series of events in his home state of arizona. the 2008 gop presidential nominee is running for a fifth term and faces a challenge in the state republican primary

from a former congressman j.d. hayworth. he spoke at a rally with former alaska gov. sarah palin. this event is about 40 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ [applause] [applause] >> hello.

it is such a pleasure to be here this morning. thank you for this wonderful turnout. thank you. i know you all had something to do with his wonderful weather so that we can also offer up this wonderful whether to our alaskan visitors as we always do. [applause] >> before i do my introductions, i would like to ask if there are any blue-star mothers in the audience? raise your hands. [applause] >> i am a blue-star mom, as well.

i like to get a special thank you to you. i am with you all the way. god bless all of you. [applause] >> i had the opportunity, along with my husband to get to know this very special family behind me on the trail last year. it was a remarkable opportunity. not only did the campaign, but we became good, close friends. tod palin is a remarkable man in many ways. [applause] >> i agree. i agree. he is an outdoorsman. he is an athlete. he does so many things that i was not only astounded to find out, but i marveled listening to his stories. he has taught his children not

only what they needed to know, but in the stories of his own experiences, they learned lessons of life. he is a good friend. he is a good family man. he is a great father. i am proud to call him a friend of mine. [applause] >> i know all of you came here to see my husband today. [applause] >> but, as you know, he brought along a friend. [applause] >> sarah palin is a remarkable woman. [applause]

>> not only is she a member of the nra, a working mom, a great governor of the great state of alaska, a western state -- [applause] >> she is also a woman that has a great mission for the united states of america. [applause] >> she needs no further introduction from me. let me introduce to you the great governor of alaska, under sarah palin -- governor sarah palin. [applause] >> thank you, so much. thank you, so much. thank you, arizona. thank you, so much. thank you, guys.

thank you, so much. thank you, so much. it is an honor to be here. it is wonderful to be here in a basketball gen. i love it. it is so good to be here. let me ask you first, arizona, do you love your freedom? [applause] >> we think of that. if anyone who has served past or present, raise your hand. we honor you, god bless you. [applause] >> god bless you. thank you, so much for the service, for the sacrifice. i was pretty excited when john mccain called me and ask me to join him on the campaign trail. i could not wait to get that team back together. [applause]

i am glad my husband got to come with me. we left the kids home. it is so cold in alaska. i hear people whining about this weather. it is pretty chilly at home. it is about five degrees below the approval ratings of president obama. [applause] >> it is cold. things are a little bit different. a lot has changed since that 2008 campaign trail. for one, i noticed this go around, no one supplied us with a teleprompter. we will start kicking it back old school and write in those

notes on our hand again. [applause] >> what is wrong with using the pour's man -- a poor man's version of the teleprompter? i have done it all of my life. we are a long way from those days of the 2008 campaign. a lot has changed. this go round, when we add up all of the votes, this guy is going to win. we will send him back to the united states senate. [applause] >> one thing that has not changed is the deep respect and admiration that i have for senator john mccain, a true american hero. [applause] >> it was the privilege of a lifetime to be asked to run alongside him. it is an honor to stand beside him today and asked you, ariz., for the sake of our country, sent him back to the united

states senate. john is a man of principle, a man of honor, a man of his word, a man of faith, and a man of the people. he loves this state. he spent 30 years fighting for the people of this state and the principles that you all hold dear. that has not always won him friends in washington, d.c., in that political machine. i have explained yesterday at a rally, that in decades ago i competed in a pageant. i get to speak as an expert. let us say that john could win any portion of the talent and debate, but no one would ever in him miss congeniality. that is a good thing. he has never been that company

man. and dead fish to go with the flow. he is not one to do that. he is not afraid to block the political machine. he is not afraid to go against the tide. formate, it was as a young mayor, then as a -- for me, it was as a young there, then a commissioner, then a not-so- young governor, i was inspired by watching him shake things up, and making sure that the corruption would not end in washington, d.c.. he had -- de corruption would end in washington d.c.. today, those issues are at the heart of a conservative movement that is sweeping this country.

it is putting government back on the side of the people. [applause] >> young man, stick around. listen to what we're going to say. maybe you will learn something. [applause] >> part of this movement that is sweeping across this beautiful country -- {crowd boos] >> john mccain, john mccain,

john mccain, john mccain, john mccain, john mccain, john mccain, john mccain, john mccain -- [applause]

>> i will hope that he sunday will realize that john mccain spent 5.5 years as a pow in efforts to defend our constitution which gives him the right to protest. [applause] the >> these issues are spreading across this country and this is a grass-roots movement that is putting the government back on the side of the people. some are calling this the tea party movement and it is a wonderful buying. it is a grassroots movement we are all part of this movement.

i have been travelling across the u.s. and meeting folks and ask me about my friend, john mccain at these events. -->> at these events. i tell him think about it. what is the root of the tea party movement? back in 1773, remember the freedom fighters fighting against tyranny and big government intrusion and throwing tea into the park the -- t into the harbor to protest? they are saying no more intrusive government. that is what we are doing today. that is part of that tea party movement. i just have to remind people that before there were these recent protests on main street and marches on capitol hill, there was the maverick in the senate fighting for the same

issues. john has been leading the fight against waste, fraud, and reckless spending for decades. today, he is leading the loyal opposition that is standing up against the obama, pelosi, read agenda -- reid agenda, and what they are trying to do to the country. remember when the obama administration proposed a trillion dollars stimulus bill senator mccain give them straight talk? he said this bill is generational theft. it is taking opportunity from our children. he voted no.

when the president began to waver in afghanistan, john knew the women and men in uniform deserved better. he asked him to listen to commanders on the ground. eventually, the president listened. [applause] and when it came to obamacare -- [boos] john fought against that government takeover of one sixth of our economy. he told the president that transparency in the legislative process has got to be real. it has to be more than just another campaign promise that is to be broken, which obama did break. obama, by the way -- doesn't something tell you something is wrong if fidel castro says this is a good thing and we do not like it? castro likes it. [applause] what a crock. the more you guys find out about obamacare, the more you're going to say it needs to be rebuilt. we need to undo what it is going to do to this country. when the pundits and talking heads said that in this day of age conservative ideals are dead, that conservatives will not rise again to these powerful positions of authority to lead this country, john mccain set out to put the fight back in the republican party. he met with a young, unknown

state senator in massachusetts and gave the guy some name recognition and some help. that man was scott brown. scott brown is helping out to lead the charge against growing government. we have some big challenges in front of us, big challenges in front of this great country. and we need that new blood. whinnied republicans like scott brown and others to be elected to cast those votes that will put our country on the right track and make us more secure and more prosperous. we need those who are willing to stand up and speak out for common-sense conservative solutions. we also need statesman and heroes like john mccain who have been there from the beginning in this fight and can lead us to a brighter future. he has the wisdom, he has the

courage to lead the way. that is why i am here asking for your votes. arizona, what do you say? will you send the maverick back to the united states senate? [applause] one thing that protestor hopefully will realize -- john has spent his entire career fighting to defend our constitution and fighting for common-sense conservative solutions. that is what his campaign for the presidency was all about. it was john mccain who warned us about what an obama administration could and would do to this country. it was john who warned us and to give us an alternative to the agenda. [boos]

there you go again. >> john mccain. john mccain. john mccain. john mccain. [cheering] >> i do not know. if there was any bit of fairness in the mainstream media today, perhaps it would look at that and condemn that as a little bit of violence. [applause] reverses a peaceful get absolutely rowdy assembly with you all here today, standing up for our freedoms, including the freedom to protest. god bless you guys for being here and for being strong. [applause]

as a matter of fact, let me take the opportunity to clear the air on what cbs is coming out of the mainstream media -- on what the b.s. is, coming out of the mainstream media, with the accusation that it is a group like this that is inciting violence. when we talk about gearing up for a fight to take our country back, we're talking about taking up arms -- meaning our vote in contested primaries. violence is not the answer and none of us here are going to

condone any sort of violence in these processes. [applause] do not let the left divert what the focus should be, it changed the conversation and get us off track. it is a bunch of bunk. even though our share of the votes did not carry the day back in 2008 -- second out of two. john mccain has not stopped fighting for you. he does not stop fighting for arizona or the rest of the country. he got back to work with the campaign was over. he did not take a break. he got back to work. [applause] back in congress, he introduce legislation and pieces of policy that were just the start of his continued good service

for this great state. you know, that does not sound like he is being a part of the party of "no." it sounds like he is leading the party of ideas and standing up for time tested troops. if you think about it, what is wrong with being the party of "no," when you consider -- when you consider what obama, pelosi, and reid are trying to do to the country, let us become the party of "hell no." [applause] john mccain is standing up for the truth is that made this country the greatest country on earth, a country we are so proud to be a part of. we are always proud of being americans and are not going to apologize for being proud of being americans. he believes that the government that governs least governs best. [applause] he believes the constitution provides the path for a more perfect union. it is the constitution. and knowing that only limited government can provide the

opportunity for prosperity for all of us equally. it is only limited government that can do this. [applause] that time tested truth that we all know -- we do not work for governments. government has to work for us. [applause] friends, that time tested truth, knowing that freedom is a god-given right and freedom is worth fighting for -- [applause] these are the principles that great men like ronald reagan and barry goldwater embraced and believed in. it is what john mccain is fighting for. he and knows it is america's finest, our men and women in uniform, who are a force for good in this world. that is nothing to apologize for. [applause] arizona, if you believe in the principles that made this country great, that helped us be the most prosperous and exceptional country in earth, and if you want conservative solutions and common sense leadership -- if you want real leadership and not just rhetoric, i ask you to vote for

-- so, ariz., if you believe in the principle that made this country great, that helped us be the most prosperous and exceptional country on earth, and if you want conservative solutions and common-sense leadership, if you want real leadership and not just rhetoric, i asked you to vote for john mccain. let us send the maverick back toladies and gentlemen, it is my honor and privilege to introduce your united states senator, a true american hero, senator john mccain. [applause] >> thank you, sarah.

thank you so much. isn't she magnificent? [applause] cindy and i have wonderful memories. our most treasured memory would be to get to know sarah and todd, the great americans they are in the great family the palin family is. i predict to you sarah palin will be around for a long time. [applause] tonight, thank you for turning out today. it is important that i recognize a few people. bear with me. one person who is here is a great congressman who it has served the state of arizona and the congress for a long time. he's a great friend and a great member of congress. john chadic is here. east valley is a fighter

against iraq and pork barrel spending -- against earmarks and pork-barrel spending. listen. you think i was unpopular? jeff blake will never win miss congeniality in the united states congress. he fights the corruption in washington and he stands up for the people of this country that do not have the lobbyists and special interests there. the great mayor is here -- scott smith. you're doing a great job. kirk adams, the speaker of our house of representatives. thank you to the principle of the high school. -- think you to the principal of the high school. my friends, i am grateful you are here. saratov are leaving here.

guess where they are going? they are going to search light, nevada, the home of the majority leader soon-to-be minority leader of the united states senate, or maybe not the minority leader. maybe just out of a job, a former majority leader. harry reid. do you know what the message is? it is health care bill -- repeal and replace. repealed and replaced. repeal and replace. if you do not -- if you do not, we are going to repeal them. let me mention to you something

you may have seen in that monstrosity. i read every page. i will tell you we're going to be finding out for a long time what this is doing to america. let me mention this morning's news. at&t will take a $1 billion noncash accounting charge that charges -- earlier this week, a steel, $100 million. valero energy, on and on. gm will take and $85 million charge. do you know who is going to pay for that? the taxpayers of america. that is outrageous, and unfortunately it is just the beginning. [booing] the liberal media and others are talking about the historic moment in our nation's capital. it was historic -- the first time in history a major reform

has been enacted on a strictly partisan basis, the first time in history a major piece of legislation has been enacted with the overwhelming opposition of the american people. the american people, my friends -- the american people will be heard, and we will repeal and replace. [applause] we will stop these sleazy chicago style sausage makings that went on behind closed doors. we're going to stop the louisiana purchase and the $100 million for a hospital in connecticut of your money. we're going to stop the sleazy deal that was made with the pharmaceutical companies that is going to increase the cost of prescription drugs to every american citizen. the president, eight times in

the campaign, said he would have c-span cameras in and find out who is on the side of the american people and who is on the side of the pharmaceutical companies. we know who is on whose side. it is the smarmy backroom deals that the american people do not want. they want replace and repeal -- repeal and replace. we republicans, my friends -- we in the opposition, we independence, we all americans are going to say yes. we want tort reform. why don't we have tort reform? why must doctors practice defensive medicine? it is because trial lawyers control the process in washington, my friends. this year, we could save $100 billion if we had port reform so that doctors would not practice defensive mechanism, so that the trial lawyers would not

make millions of dollars. we could still protect the patients. they are doing that in the state of texas, by the way. we could have good protection. we could have americans be able to go across state lines and have the health insurance policy of their choice. we could reward wallace and fitness. we could treat those with pre- existing conditions by getting pulls together so insurance companies could bid on caring for them. we can expand the ability of small businesses, the generators of jobs in america, to move together and negotiate with the insurance companies. we can do all these things. that is why we have to repeal and replace. repeal and replace. like sarah said, they are saying that we are the party of no.

my friends, on this health care bill, we are not the party of no. like sarah said, we are the party of hell no. hell no. >> hell no. hell no. hell no. >> let me say again -- this is all part of what is going on -- out of control spending, taxpayer dollars being spent, 1.5 trillion dollar debt next year, 12 trillion dollars in debt. my friends are spending money like a drunken sailor and the bar is still open. it is going to stop. we are going to stop it with the earmarking. let us have a little straight talk. we lost control and lost elections because we let spending get out of control. we got mixed up in the earmarking and abram of scandals. people went to jail. we cannot ever do that again.

we have to say to the american people we will stop this earmarking. we will stop this pork-barrel spending. we of committed generational theft. the greatness of america is about the fact that every generation of americans has handed off to the next generation a better nation than the one that we inherited. i cannot tell you that that is the case with the way we are doing business in washington today. so -- what we need to do? we need to begin the fight. first, we're going to challenge this law constitutionally. it is not constitutional to force every american citizen to buy any product. [applause]

i am proud of our legislature and our governor who stood up and said, "we cannot afford this. we cannot afford to have our patients on access thrown off. we cannot afford the increased costs in an already severely distressed economic situation. we are going to, after we challenge this in the courts -- we're going to register people to vote. we're going to get them out. ." we're going to continue the message to obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi. repeal and replace. repeal and replace. repeal and replace. stop the pork barrel spending. let me just say, my friends, two things. one, i am so proud of the men and women serving in the military.

[applause] i am so proud of the members -- i am so proud of the members of the arizona guard and reserve that time after time have gone to iraq and afghanistan and served with courage and bravery. and now, my friends, in the last three months, not a single american service member has been killed in iraq. you will not see that in the media, but we have succeeded. they just had an election. it is a messy election. we had a messy election back in 2000. but it is the only country in the middle east outside israel that there is a contested election. maybe the neighbors can learn from the example of iraq. in afghanistan, we will succeed. we will succeed if the president of the united states will stay. we're going to stay the course, not say we are going to get out. we cannot cut and run from afghanistan. we cannot allow afghanistan to return to a base for attacks on the united states of america. we have never had a more professional, better equipped, more motivated military than we have today.

recruitment and retention are the highest they have been since the beginning of the force. i want to thank our veterans who have been an example for the men and women serving today. the proudest moments of my life was the ability to serve with men and women in the military. the next time you see one of them in uniform, go over and say thanks for serving. that is all they want. just say thanks for serving. my friends, i believe, as chairman of the armed services committee, which i will be when we regain the majority in the united states set, that i can address the security needs of this country. the need of arizona is jobs and jobs and jobs. i can be effective. i will fight for you. i will pass for -- i will fight for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i need your vote. i would be grateful for it. i wanted and i work for you.

-- i wanted it and i work for you. -- i want it and i work for you. i intend to earn every single vote. with your help, i will have the greatest honor in my life, and that is the ability and honor of being able to serve the most beautiful state of america again in the united states senate. thank you, and god bless america. thank you. >> ♪ here i go again on my own going down the only road i've ever known like a drifter, i was born to walk alone and i've made up my mind i ain't wasting no more time i'm just another part in need of refuge waiting on love to carry me

and i am going to hold on for the rest of my days because i know i'm in need to walk along the lonely street of dreams and here i go again on my own. going down the only road i've ever known like a drifter i was born to walk alone and have made up my mind i am not wasting any more time. here i go again. ♪ tea party activists held a rally

in nevada today. we will show you that tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> coming up next, the group known as the coffee party held a forum here in washington. after that, from the arab league summit, comments from mahmoud abbas. then, from president obama and senator mitch mcconnell. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, a political roundtable with former virginia congressman tom davis and former texas congressman martin frost. howard dean offers his perspective as a doctor and

matt kibbe. washing and journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the renovation of the pentagon has made it much harder for a reporter to walk around. >> sunday, national security correspondent david martin on covering the american military here in the u.s. and in afghanistan. >> in the coffee party, a movement founded in response to the tea party movement held several meetings across the country this weekend. one of the advance was held here in washington and was attended by one of the coffee party's co-

rounders. -- cofounders. >> i wanted to start out by thinking our host. -- a thinking -- thanking our host. we are thankful to be here. we have two special guests for today. this is unusual. we normally get together and break up into smaller groups. but today, we will introduce our focus, which is how to improve the legislative process. how to have better representation in government and how to make our democracy better along those lines. that is the beginning of starting the movement. many of you know that i and the

crazy person that created the web page. two months later, here we are. i sought a very dysfunctional government. after spending one you're watching the health care debates, which looked like a legislative train wreck, i said that this says that all. what is wrong with our process? i do not know what the solutions are, and i am glad we are coming together as a community to come up with solutions. that is why the vice president of government studies is here and when that is a senior scholar at the woodrow wilson center. she wrote the book "the

freshman: what happened to the republican revolution?" we need to have a rich discussion about what potential solutions are. we will talk for about 40 minutes and then we will open it up to a conversation with all of you to hear your thoughts and feedback. i will start with beryl. why are things so bad in washington? >> first of all, i want to thank you for organizing this. it has really been an amazing week in washington d.c. because congress finally passed health care. it was a historic achievement. i think that everybody understands what difficult a journey that was. despite the passage of health

care reform, we still have a huge problem with government and our political system. our system is broken. we are awaiting action on other pieces of important legislation, climate change, financial regulation, immigration reform and a host of other issues. when you think about what the problem is, it seems to me that there are different aspects that need attention. one is a problem with congress and the declining institutional performance that we see. in the senate, we have moved from majority role to super majority rule. this is having to build the filibustered much more frequently. there were six or seven filibusters' per year and last year there were 130.

we need an unusual majority to pass any legislation or even to get people confirmed or take basic action on the part of that. a supermajority requirement is devastating for any political system. that is something that we need to change right away. the atmosphere of extreme political polarization, the partisanship that we have seen for a number of years is highly problematic. a few weeks ago, cnn had a national public opinion survey and it said that 86% of americans felt that the federal government was broken and that the system was not working. if we could spend a lot of time dissecting the problem, i am sure that everybody has plenty of ideas of what the exact nature of the problem is.

i would like to take a minute or two just to talk about what we can do about this. people are angry. they are upset. they felt frustrated. what i want to do is talk about a few concrete things that i think that people should talk about doing that would help improve our system and make congress more functional and help restore public confidence in government. if we do not get those things right, this other stuff will not matter. for example, filibuster reform has to be at the top of the list. when people talk about congress being broken and what we can do about that, if i were a czar, the one thing i would change would be the filibuster rules. when the founders set up congress, the wanted it to beat a body that did not rush into action, but they never envisioned the filibuster as a

way to stop legislation. they wanted it to slow down the process so that it could be thoughtful, deliberative and look at a number of different points of view. this idea that you would hold up legislation is contrary to the constitution. you could reform the filibuster in a variety of ways. you could basically allow filibusters and put time limits on it. over time, the threshold would start to drop. they could filibuster for up two weeks. and eventually, the majority would drop to 51. it lowers the threshold and imposes a time limit so that you cannot use this procedural mechanism to stop legislation.

that would be critical. any one senator could put a hold on a confirmation proceeding, and that means that the senate cannot act as long as that hold is in place. president obama has only 60% of its senior managers that are subject to senate confirmation process. he is not operating with his team because there are a lot of people that have not yet been confirmed by the senate because of senators have put a hold on them. a lot of times, the whole will have nothing to do with the individual merit of that individual. they are basically engaging and

taking that nominee hostage. this type of stuff has got to come to a stop. we need campaign finance reform. we could talk more about this this could open this to american politics. i am hoping that congress could pass legislation that would put a limit on that. otherwise, the 2010 election as one to be awash in big corporate money and will have an effect on what happens. we need to address redistricting. there are lots of things that people can do. i applaud you for coming out early on a saturday morning and being interested in thinking about the steps that we could do. >> a quick question before we go to linda but i have been dying to ask. >> how do we get rid of the filibuster rule?

>> unfortunately, to change any of the rules requires 67 votes. that is basically the rules. if you really want to bring change to the senate, you actually require an action by the senate and it will take at least two-thirds to change a filibuster rule or change the requirement to make any rules changes. the senate should make its rules for the two. between the elections and that at the start of a new senate, the senate should be able to make rules changes by a simple majority vote. that would mean that every two years, if there is a need to change the rules work with the process or raise the filibuster or lower the filibuster, that senate would have the power to do that. there is a group of young people

in the senate. they are committed to doing this. this is not a partisan issue. right now, democrats have majority. it is very conceivable that republicans may have the majority after elections. democrats will be the ones in -- be the ones engaging in the process. republicans will not be able to to any thing when they are back in charge. if there has ever been an area where there should be bipartisan agreement between democrats and republicans, it should be on rules changes. >> so, linda, give us perspective here. do you think that it is really bad or has it always been this bad we did not notice it because we did not have multiple cable channels? can you give us some perspective on this?

>> sure, thank you for having me. it is great to see all of these people on a saturday morning. last weekend, i went to prince william county to one of the first coffee party meetings. i think that people are angry. i think that people still -- people feel ill served. i was one to write my notes on my hand, but i had too many notes, so i brought them with me. 93% said that there was too much partisan fighting between democrats and republicans and very little cooperation. i think that, across the board, whether you are a conservative or liberal, people feel that there is too much partisan fighting. i am curious about who is in the room. for those people that are

watching at home, this is a sort of a hip area of washington. we may not have an exact cross section here. how many people here think of themselves as republicans? >> there were no hands raised. how many people think of themselves as democrats? how many think of themselves as independents? >> just about as many hands are raised as independent and a democrat. . .

>> about 70 years. i think the independent centrists, who are the people i am interested in -- i think they decide elections. everyone has heard about ohio. everyone has heard about the swing states. colorado, virginia has become a swing state. the states decide the presidential elections. specifically, the voters in the middle in those swing states decide who is going to be elected to the presidency or to congress. these are very important voters and they can debate their choices based on issues and the candidates, not on parties. these are the people who elected ronald reagan, bill clinton,

george bush, and barack obama -- end scott brown, for that matter, in massachusetts. the question about "is it this bad" -- she mentioned i wrote a book about the 1994 election and the republican revolution and the 104th congress that followed, the gingrich revolution. what happened to the republican revolution? i was working at ncr at the time. i traveled out to oklahoma to talk to voters the summer and fall before that election. they were angry. there were very angry. there were talking about term limits. throw the bums out. they did not like the negative campaigns and commercials on either side. they were fed up with the system. that is what brought us the republicans, much more so than

the contract with america and all of that. it is good pr, but the election was very much an anti-democratic vote rather than a pro- republican vote. it was two years after ross perot ran for president and got almost 20% of the vote, if you can remember that. that was a time when people were very upset about the deficit, very upset about government spending, very upset about the economy -- a time of economic instability. whenever we have economic instability, people are concerned and nervous and upset about their government. and i think they are worried about the bank bailout and they are feeling that main street -- we are helping wall street but we are not helping main street. and i think people are just very unsettled right now. as daryl mentioned, one of the factors i think is fueling this

discontent is this hyper partisanship and polarization in congress. moderates are disappearing from congress. you used to have a solid block of 30 or 40 moderate republicans. they have dwindled down to less than a dozen. moderate democrats -- you have a few more moderate democrats, mostly from the south and midwest. they are the most endangered democrats for reelection this time around. those moderates do not have a strong voice in congress, and i personally think that for example the health-care debate and the health-care negotiations would have been very different if we had a strong, a vocal bloc of moderates in congress in both parties who could make their voices heard. i think we would have had more bipartisanship in congress if that were the case. i am curious. when you think of congress --

the pew at research center -- the pew research center did a poll. what is the first word that comes to your mind when you think of congress? >> corporations. >> corporations? dysfunctional? that was the number one word in a pew research survey period of 20 words -- the top 20 words -- not one was positive of congress. dysfunctional was number one. corrupt, self-serving, confused, incompetent, ineffective, lazy, bad, suck, poor, crook, disappointed, gridlocked, idiots, slow, lousy, and terrible. [laughter]

those were the top 20 words. if i was a member of congress would be pretty concerned about my job security. as annabel mentioned it two weeks ago, if this was any other job, if that was your supervisors -- the people are the supervisors of congress. we are their employers. if that was your evaluation from your supervisor, you would really be in trouble. and so it is a serious situation. so, you know, that is pretty much it. i think those elected to congress pretended to be at the extreme ends of the political system. republicans, because of redistricting -- congressional districts tend to be very safe. once you are elected to congress, incumbency retention is very high. you have some years like this one, 1994, 2006, when you have a

turnover. districts are designed to be safe for the incumbent and be saved for a republican or safe for a democrat. republicans have become more conservative. democrats have become more liberal. there is not much in the middle. is this a bad situation? >> i have a couple of questions. one is for linda. evan bayh felt the polarization in congress is reflective of a cultural divide in the country, among the people. i wanted to know if you agreed with that. i'm going to go ahead and ask you the question so you have time to think about it. help us understand institutional reasons why we have people that are so partisan in congress.

does it have to do with the primaries? i want you to think about that. linda, do you agree with that? >> that the country as polarized as well as congress? i think there is something to that. i have spoken with evan bayh. as you know, he is leaving congress. to a certain extent, he is one of the more moderate democrats in congress. i think he himself feels stymied. his decided not to run for reelection in indiana. i know that he and lindsey gramm, a republican, have written a letter to the leadership of congress and asked them, "cannot we have monthly meetings were we all get together and have lunch and talk about our issues -- immigration or whatever it might be?" members of congress do not get together as a body. they have the republicans meet

in one room, the democrats meet in one room, and never get together. all they do is fight on the floor. the time when they used to go out to dinner or socialize with each other -- they do not do that anymore. a think to some extent that does reflect the larger world. i think we probably can to socialize with people who agree with us, and i think the media has become -- i am a journalist. i have been a journalist my whole life, and i am concerned about what has happened in the media. i am very concerned. when i was putting things together last night for this, the phrase -- remember the navy recruiting phrase? it is not just a job, it is an adventure? that is the way people used to feel about journalism. it was an adventure. it was an exciting pursuit. you were doing the people's business. it is not an adventure anymore. it is kind of like a bad amusement park ride.

the economic conditions are so rough for the media right now that i think there are a lot of factors that have made a lot of -- there is less reporting and a lot more opinion out there now. i think there are a lot more websites that sort of espouse a lot of opinions, and i think people can read what they want to read that agrees with them. i think a lot of times they are not getting different perspectives. i also think the talking heads on television kind of reinforced this. they can be very shrill. it can be very sensationalistic. do we need another story about brittany spears's underpants or sandra bullock's cheating husband or whatever the story du jour is? i think there is not enough substantive stuff. there is out there, obviously, the news hour on pbs.

there is good stuff out there. but there is also a lot of crap out there. i think people have to really work to be well informed. it is work to be a good citizen, which is why you guys are here and why i really applaud you. it takes a lot of work to be an involved citizen of a democracy. and that is what we need -- more active citizens who are going to make their voices heard. >> i agree with many of the things linda just said. when you think about why there is so much partisanship in congress, redistricting is crucial. we basically created districts that are very liberal and very conservative, created safe seats for 95% of members of congress. centrists and their voices are not heard very well. the media system aggravates this. the media system has become polarized and fragmented along with the political system.

the information system of a society being polarized and sensationalist -- you should not be surprised when the political system moves in that direction. the other thing i would point out, which we have not talked about as much, is the fund- raising system. you have to keep in mind that only about 5% of americans make contributions to political candidates. it is a very small group of americans. when you look at the republican fund-raising base and the democratic fund-raising base, it is a system that essentially rewards extreme political views. republican donors tend to be more conservative than their party as a whole, and certainly the country as a whole. on the democratic side, it is the same thing. democratic donors tend to be more liberal than democrats in general and the country as a whole. as our system of elections has been, more expensive -- have

become more expensive, they are spending more of their time doing fundraisers. the people they are talking to are much more extreme than the country as a whole. there are some people that blame public opinion for the polarization, but that is not supported by public opinion data. on most issues, american public opinion still resembles a bell curve. many of you have -- 20% liberal, 20% conservative. the bulk of america is in the middle on a bunch of issues. the problem is a mismatch between public opinion and congress. congress is much more polarized than the public in general. >> in terms of the causes for that, you are saying it is about fund-raising -- the reality of

fund-raising and the media? i am trying to see if we can figure other causes that can help us with solutions. can you think of other things that contribute to that? it is a big mystery to me. >> i think the institutional factors are a big part of the problem -- the money system, the way congress is structured, the gerrymandering that takes place at the state level. i think it is not a big mystery when you look at it. how you go about solving the problem is much more difficult because on redistricting, that is done by the state legislatures, subject to gubernatorial vetoes in each of the 50 states across america. if you really want to get involved in the political process, we are having the sense is that takes place. i hope all of you return your census forms by april 1, the

deadline. the reason why that is important is that the legislative redistricting will come out of the census numbers. literally, in 2011 and 2012 is when the big redistricting process takes place. people need to pay attention to that. it is one of these issues the general public does not pay much attention to, but it is one of those things. if you are upset that congress does not address health care, climate change, emigration, or anything else, redistricting is one of the root causes. >> before we start our conversation with you all, i want to kind of bring friends this way. one of the things i have seen with the coffee party phenomenon and movement is the fact that it seems like, as you mentioned, there is so much concern that some things have to change. people are tired of fighting. people come to facebook and on

the website with a sigh of relief, like "thank god people feel the way i do." i think we feel sometimes alone in this, feeling like there is only -- like we are the only one seeing what is wrong in the system and feeling so alienated from the political process. i think that as someone trying to start a grass-roots movement i want to address that alienation, the sense of alienation people feel from the process, in an ongoing way. there are campaigns. we have ways we can plug into the campaign process. beyond that, in an ongoing way, we do not have good opportunities to have input -- to have our voices heard. i wanted to see if we could talk about solutions considering that. we have to get people engaged in order to make these institutional changes and to change our culture.

>> i have some thoughts about that as someone who covered congress for a long time. i think you can make your voice heard, and i think you need to do it. i think people need to do it. members of congress -- we talked about fund-raising. it is true. they spend way too much time fund-raising. lobbyists give them donations. lobbyists buy access. and the former member of congress will admit it. but not necessarily buy votes, but they do buy access. the thing that trump's money is votes. the whole reason to raise money is to get votes. if you are the voters, you have the ultimate power and can make your voices heard. organizing is one way. a group of 10, 20, or 50 is more powerful than a group of one. you can ask to meet with your members of congress. we are just headed into the

easter/passover break. members of congress will be home for a week or two and will be holding town meetings. i suspect there will be a lot of tea party people showing up to protest the health-care vote this week. there has been a lot of ugliness over the past week and it is very disconcerting -- harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and this kind of thing. if you show up and meetings and say this is not how we want to behave in a democracy, we want to make our voices heard but this is not how we could work together, i think it can make a difference. if you establish a dialogue with your elected official -- you check in. you write them e-mails. you write them letters. you phone call. the show up to town meetings. you get them to know who you are. you get your friends involved.

this is what members of congress will respond to. they want to be reelected. they want to keep their jobs. they want to respond to their voters. that is how you do it. boaters can really make an impact. they really can. it is hard work. you have to stay on top of it. think of them as your employees. you are managing them. there are a lot of other more interesting things to do. but it takes work. but you can do it. i fervently believe that voters can have an impact on the system if they make their voices heard. >> jenny is going to come around with the microphone. before -- can i see a show of hands how many of you have questions so we get a sense? while. ok. -- wow.

ok. do you want to start from the back and move forward? how many of you have taken this on our website? this is 8 tool that helps us get a snapshot of where we stand politically, individually and nationally. it is an incredible tool that shows areas where we agree and areas where we disagree. it is absolutely extraordinary. sticking to this whole idea that we are very polarized, if you actually look at the data from the sphere, you see that where we expect division by gender, by race, there is so much more agreement than disagreement. i want you to take a look at the sphere and the data. i personally think -- and i think this accounts for why there are so many independents -- is we are actually not that

polarized on a lot of issues. it just seems like we are -- the story that comes out of the media is that we are very polarized. it's sort of thrives on that kind of conflict. no offense to all the media in the room, by the way. so, any of you want to -- >> i am jan johnson. i have been involved since i was a teenager in los angeles. i work for the federal government. i think there is a better way to communicate with congress. i was in immigration in march. i cannot make my voice heard by staff or by e-mail because i am always shy.

are there better ways to increase that message to make i and other voices heard in washington d.c. -- washington, d.c.? our hands are tied behind our back. we are working in a job or we cannot do these things on the job. >> i think one of the most important things you can do is write letters to members of congress. you can write columns for various media outlets. you can use technology to try and express your viewpoint. i think technology has opened up many new opportunities for citizen activism. we saw that during the 08 presidential election. we're seeing it among

conservatives right now who are unhappy with the current direction of the administration. i think there are lots of vehicles out there. the key thing is making it a personal appeal on your part. members of congress get flooded with communication, but a lot of them are kind of mass written generic things. they really want to hear from their constituents and they want to hear your personal stories about how various things are affecting you and what your ideas are. >> we are organizing a caucus with congress in april. we're going to break up into groups and about 20 minutes and discuss what we're going to actually tell our members of congress. ok. >> i am a senior democracy fellow. i wanted to shine a spotlight on

what you have all alluded to, which is how interconnected all the different areas of our democracy are. we have filibuster reform, we have redistricting. we can make our democracy and our congress not work well. there are different efforts at reforming different aspects of the system. one that has not been brought up that needs to be part of the picture is the breakdown of the voting population. we had very good turnout in 2008, but our vote turnout is low. we have a lot of unregistered voters. the election is skewed. far more people are voting -- people of color, young people

are not voting. members of congress and other representatives respond disproportionately to people who give them money. they also respond disproportionately to people who vote. a lot of the institutional barriers in the system need to be addressed. >> especially in midterm years -- this is a midterm year and it has been a superheated political year with the health-care debate. but voter turnout tends to be much lower in mid term election years than presidential election years. as she pointed out, the independent voters tend not to vote as often in midterm elections as they do in presidential elections. in primaries, you have the ardent liberals and conservatives coming out and voting. that is what you end up with with to get elected.

it is terribly important that people turned out and vote. >> there were demonstrations in massachusetts because scott brown, the new senator, won his victory in a relatively low turnout election because it was an off-year election. but he is just filling out the current term. he comes up for reelection in 2012, a presidential election year. turnout is going to be higher there. massachusetts tends to be more democratic at the statewide level. president obama is going to be on the ballot. it is going to be interesting to watch how senator brown votes over the course of the next two years. he is someone on whom i have high hopes that he is not always going to vote the republican line. if he does that, he is probably going to lose in 2012. >> this is a question for linda. you talked about the negative perceptions of congress, which

is sort of a big, faceless institution. what about the traditional point that even though people think congress is bad they like their own representative? that is a big problem. >> that is true. that is what the polling shows, although this year -- typically, polling shows that people may know or like their own individual member but as a holding congress is not doing a good job or is not a good institution. however, this year polls have shown they do not think anybody should be reelected, both republicans and democrats. no incumbents should be reelected. i think the discontent is so high this year that i think it is hard to point to, at this juncture, while democrats -- will they all hold on to the

majority or will republicans get it? i think all incumbents are at risk this year because i think voters are so angry about the lack of action. again, the passage of health care -- very hard to see, in march, how that is going to play out in november. it is way too early to know. i think we had -- i hesitate to say her name in this room. we had sarah palin yesterday saying the republican party is not the party of no -- we are the party of hell no. that may play with her right wing base, but that is not going to play with independent centrists who want some activity, who want some action. it is going to be interesting to see how the voters react come november. >> you want to start?

luks many of the people in the room -- i am guessing they are voters from the district of columbia. we continue without representation. i have written to other members of congress who are really my representatives, but they blow me off horribly both in letters and in phone calls because i live here and not their constituents. they view me as a nonentity. how can we influence -- how can we do more to have an influence and to get some federal rights? >> i think that is a good question. it certainly is the case. members of congress are much more interested from hearing from the people in their district and other states as opposed to anybody outside of their states. the advantage we have is really

proximity. there are members of congress that are going out and doing events all over d.c. if you go out and talk with them, you have the opportunity to have a face-to-face dialogue that people in other states do not have. >> i know darrell and i are both registered in the district of columbia. i am very irritated by the disenfranchised voter. the democrats said they would do something about it. i guess it fell down on the list of priorities. to have a voting boys in congress -- i was very disappointed. >> the copy party -- the coffee party -- this week shows a complete difference between the coffee party and the tea party. other than that, it is too soon to tell.

i know it is a general question, but what are the differences between the coffee party and the tea party? >> two main things. we are actually not try to start a third party. it seems like from what i have seen with the tea party that they are very interested in starting something like a third party. what we are trying to do is really change our political culture, our culture, so that it is a culture where there is a sense of civic duty and a sense of honor and a sense of responsibility and participating in the democratic process. what we would love to see is to have the majority of americans participating in the democratic process so that we have a government that truly reflects the will of the people. we deal with voter turnout. we deal with redistricting. all these things that are institutional issues -- if we can get the majority of americans as active citizens, we

are able to resolve many of these issues. i mean, at the very basic level, the way i see the movement -- it is a democracy movement. people want better representation. we want better government. there is very wide consensus. the second thing is -- what social change. we want political change, cultural change. how will we get there? the methodology is very different from the tea party, from what we have seen. i am not an ex-member of the tea party. everything is translated to the media, so it could be wrong. a lot of tea party people say i do not understand them. that is possible. but from what i have seen, i think there rules of engagement border on uncivil and destructive. what we want to do is have a methodology for social change that is really taken from the teachings of people like martin

luther king -- non-violent, peaceful, and constructive. yes, it is passionate and it is often critical and challenging, but we are not trying to destroy our government. we know that we need the federal government to be part of the solution. again, i think with the tea party -- their rhetoric sometimes feels to me like we have declared war on the federal government. it is like they are enemies. we feel like that is not accurate. it is the only apparatus we have for collective decision making and action. we need the federal government to be part of the solution. we want to have constructive, solution oriented conversations with people in congress, not go out there and say we are against you and everything you stand for. that is not going to help us deal with the challenges that we face.

in terms of agenda and policy and all that, we have to come together as a community and practice democracy. we're going to have to learn to deliberate in a constructive way. that requires changing some of our habits and may be adopting certain language that is more about values and about policy. we have to go to the deliberation process. ultimately, as a community, we're going to have to vote. we're going to have to put together a process -- a lot of it will be on line -- where we deliberate and we vote. we're going to say this is what people believe then and we believe this is the majority of americans. that is how we're going to have power. [applause] >> i think it is really important not to throw up your hands and say the system is terrible, there is nothing i can do.

you all have heard the same "by winston churchill -- the same quote by winston churchill -- democracy is the worst form of government except the other ones. you have to make it work. there are no options. there is no choice. >> picking up on what the lady said back here about being disenfranchised, i think we should make it a priority in the district, in so far as we communicate with representatives elsewhere, to have them put statehood at the top of their priorities and to lobby the president to come out for this. that is the biggest kind of redistricting you can do by adding two more democratic senators at some point in congress.

fund-raising -- i am getting sick and tired of the dnc. i get about 30 e-mails each day from the vice president down telling me -- >> all the mouth away from recall the mike away from mouse. >> i am sick of being told 30 times a day to contribute. there must be a more effective way of raising money. during the presidential election, apparently it worked. but when you get 30 a day -- they do not care but my opinion. they just want my money. >> just tell them to take your name off the list. >> that is not going to help them make money. the big problem is to get --

>> can you move your microphone away from her mouth a little bit? >> is this better? how are we going to get the tea party and the coffee party together? there is no way to have a dialogue. i know we can come up with clever ways to do this, but i think maybe we can do this -- we can have debates or quiz shows where people answer questions about american history or they have debate contests with essay questions so people have to learn how to formulate what they're really believe in rather than just saying yes and no. maybe it would promote debate. >> i want to clarify something. where i see differences with the tea party -- we are not the opposite of the tea party.

in fact, we have people coming to our meetings who identify with the tea party. it is a way for them to participate. it is an opportunity to speak up and participate in the life of the community. we are not the opposite. it is not an either/or situation. in terms of including them in our process, that is actually happening. on march 13, when we had close to 400 events across the country, tea party members did come to our offense. it ended up being a very productive conversation. that is the direction we need to go. we need a new model of civic participation. that is what we are trying to present with the coffee party. >> i am a student at american university. i am originally from rhode island.

we have an independent candidate for governor right now who used to be a moderate republican senator. anderson there are other candidates around the country to work centrist independent candidates who do not seem to be in the tea party style -- who are more moderate in their policies, rhetoric, and temperament. i wonder what the panel thinks about the influence of independent candidates in this election even though you say the coffee party is not an attempt to start a new party. do you think the independents who are running across the country and who are viable share thoughts, share the values of the coffee party. is there a connection there? >> what we are seeing across the country is an outpouring of candidates from a variety of

perspectives. you point out a former senator who used to be a republican and now is running for governor of rhode island as an independent. i got a call from a maine newspaper. they have something like 30 candidates running for governor in their states. one of the virtues of a time when everybody is upset -- i am expecting turn out to go up this year in the midterm elections. we are seeing more candidates. summer going to the republican or democratic party. some are running as independents. i think that is a good outcome and shows the discontent leading to positive action. [loud noise] >> i am awake. >> my question is --

[microphone feedback] i think that one of the problems is, in the media, we define partisanship as real differences between the parties. i think in multi-party democracy would be wonderful. we do not have one. the differences between the two parties are not enough. we have not heard a word about the war and the cost of war, things like what can we have health care, why can't we have jobs. we're spending this year at $1 trillion. i do not think that is a partisan issue. but it is a partisan issue in congress. the representation you see does not get respected in congress. nancy pelosi is arguably

representing the most liberal district in the country and yet she has voted for every war bill that has come across her desk, without exception. there is a problem with representation. we cannot find said tourism. the majority of people in this room who say they view themselves as independents -- it is not because they see themselves as in between this liberal democratic party and conservative republican party but because we think the democratic party has not represented debase them voted -- the base that voted for them. the question for me is control of the congress. it is not just about a civic 101 lesson about how we should talk to our members with public concern.

letters are worth a lot. phone calls are worth a lot if you can get through. e-mails are worth very little. they are the lowest on the hierarchy of what matters. but we do not have access because we do not have input. it is not just about making a $5 donation. we are not the corporations. citizens united at the supreme court -- every election for the last however many years has been controlled by corporate money. it is a much bigger problem than just this one decision by the supreme court. the question that i have is -- what is the kind of engagement that would allow us to transform, as the anti-war movement did, the political

climate in the country. how do we transform that into a position in congress? 78% of the public are against the war in iraq and afghanistan. hawaii twitter's let -- how do we translate that to 70% of congress? >> if i can gingerly suggest that this room is probably not reflective -- this is a liberal room. it is probably not reflective of -- about the same percentage, about 40% of people identify themselves as independents around the country. about the same percentage say they are centrist in their views. the smallest percentage consider themselves liberal around the country. i would say there is a difference between the democrats and republicans. i think we saw it in health care. there is a big difference.

there is a difference in philosophy, and we saw it played out in health care as we have not seen it in a long time. democrats believe that government can do things and solve problems. they were very much pushing, perhaps, their potential political detriment. there were pushing the idea of expanding coverage. republicans do not believe that government solves problems. they believe that everything should be done by private industry, people should take care of themselves with private enterprise. there was a stark difference i think you saw played out in the debate over health care. i do think the parties reflect different philosophies. >> do you want to speak to money and corporate influence? how fair is that. the think that is a fair statement that congress is controlled by corporations? >> is certainly is a fair statement, in the sense there is a huge amount of corporate money

that goes into both parties. based on the citizens united supreme court decision, there is going to be even more of it in 2010. if you are worried about what you can do to stem that corporate influence, the model is obama's campaign in 2008, from a fund-raising standpoint. what he was able to do -- he was a charismatic candidate. there's a lot of grassroots discontent over the iraq war and other issues. out of that, they were able to mobilize small donors. obama doubled the previous record. bush had 1 million contributors. i think that was in the 2004 election. obama had $2 million, the bulk of which were small donors -- the $5, $10, and $20 donors. that is a new model of fundraising. if it can be generalized to other races, house and senate

races, gubernatorial elections -- that would be the most transformative thing we could do. the problem is it has been hard for other candidates to replicate that model. obama was able to do that because he is a celebrity, he is smart, he is charismatic, and there was this grass-roots discontent. you need all those things. technology is starting to transform fund-raising in political races. that is a model -- my colleagues who are working on finance reform believe that is the way to go if we want to stem the power of corporate money in american elections. >> the american enterprise institute is working on campaign finance 2.0. the next generation. their idea is to give an incentive to candidates to raise the bulk of their money in small contributions -- to incentivize

this. 100,000 people giving $10 = $1 million. >> there are philosophical and differences that came out during the health-care debate. i think that is true. but many ideas in the bill came from republicans. >> there were some ideas that came from republicans. >> a lot of this -- i feel it is about gamesmanship. i feel we are still operating with his view that politics is a football game with two teams and it is about winning and losing. they took certain tactical positions in this game about health care. the position that the republicans talk -- a lot of that was rhetoric to me. this is about big government. we should always be scared of big government. a lot of this is about smart

government. it is not about big government. we need to take control of where the abuses are in the health- care industry. so that is not about big government. >> i think both things are true simultaneously. i think both things you're saying are true. i think the parties to look. there is no doubt they look at it as a bit of a game, a contest about winning and losing. i was talking about jim leach, the former government -- the former republican who is now at the endowment for the humanities. civility is a big issue from him. he was saying that if we can only rise to the level of sports teams, where they shake hands at the end of the day and respect each other as competitors, instead of name calling on the floor of the house of representatives, which is purely dispiriting -- there is a real

competitiveness. on the health-care debate, i think it kind of went down a road. i think the election of '94, the divisiveness in congress had been building. the gingrich congress was like the last nail in the coffin. things became very divisive in the 104th congress. the really dislike each other at that point in time and have not improved since. when the democrats won control back, they were like, "ha ha. we are going to get our turn and show you." in my opinion, if the democrats had reached out a year ago and allowed the amendments the republicans offered in committee to be added in the

floor -- there were stripped out. it is timely technical -- it is kind of technical. it might have worked. but once we got to the summer and the tea parties and the republicans saw the anger out there, they were like, "it is your baby. we are not going to help you. we are going to say no." it spiraled down. >> you have a question. >> i am from code paint. i live in washington, d.c. but i am from los angeles, california. i have a couple of comments. you were talking about one word that would describe congress. for me, it would be fear. the fear based rhetoric coming out of the republicans and the fearful less of the democrats to

respond. another thing -- what do you identify yourself as? i am a progressive democrats. -- a progressive democrat. i believe that what is going on was always going on. many of my family and friends are extremely involved in the republican party and it seems to be a one issue party. at the base, it is always one issue. i will tell you. when the bank bailout was going on and park funds were being distributed, the only people that were in front of congress was code pink. we were saying don't do this. none of the tea party was there. from day one, racism was the basis of everything that is going on now. i stood in front of the capital

the other night when they voted for the health-care bill and i was disgusted -- disgusted with the representatives in congress, the way they were on the dock and a. i have never seen anything like it. the word that came out of their mouse -- to stand there and congratulate the democratic representatives that were passing by and to hear the n- word being used by the t parttea partiers made me sad and upset. there was a group of staffers that walked by and got the word used on them. people shouted in their faces as there were walking back to their office. these are just staffers. i wonder what happened. we were all talking about term limits years ago and clean funding of elections. nobody talks about it anymore. term limits should have never

been dropped as an issue for us. i think the filibuster -- be careful what you do with the filibuster. i am afraid that if we get rid of the filibuster we do not know what we will get in its place. i think 95% of those representatives are reelected. in my home town of los angeles, henry waxman is going to get reelected no matter what. there is a great progressive democratic candidate, but she will not be elected because she does not get the corporate money and does not get the democratic party who baxter from the beginning and gives her $350 thousand. is the country polarized? oh my god is a polarized. all you need to do is be out there last weekend and see what the republican party was saying.

>> my point was i think that the tea party has been brilliant at creating theater. they create a space where media will come and they are able to present their point of view. i do not know if that is the best way to measure what is happening across the country. they created theater. that is why, to meet -- that is part of the coffee party, is to present a better assessment of what is going on with the majority. i honestly think we represent the silent and extremely frustrated majority. we've not been speaking up because we are not going to go out and create theater. i am not going to. this is what we need to figure out. we need to reclaim this public space. thank you again. we can come together like this

and feel like we are part of the process. that is why i do not want to create theater. the coffee shop is public. it is communal. we can talk and decide to take action. it would be lovely today if we could come to consensus about what we want to focus on, whether it is campaign finance reform or a focus on civility. whatever it is, let us talk about that. i want to take one more question and then break up into groups were we actually discuss what we can do, what we are going to say to members of congress and their staffers. one more question. andy, i give you that. >> they do so much. i want to go back to money and politics. the part of stability that breaks down is when people get so frustrated they feel their voices not being heard. they get angry. the issue of money and politics is not recognized enough in this

panel. when you are raising small amounts of money from a whole bunch of people, it is good to engage people. you need their vote. it is part of the democracy. you bring in the $5 person and they feel, when they give that money, they are in for the long haul. the men at the person is elected, that person is never seen from or heard of again. who is this? the large corporation. they get the lion's share at the table. i think that is the problem. we say we are a democracy, but we are really an oligarchy. this is a country run by corporate interests. when you have companies that have offices in 49 states and have given to congress $17 million in the last election cycle, it is hard to make your

voice heard when you only give a senator $15. you are not going to be heard. you are not going to have your phone call answered. how do we break the lock? we of the district, in the early '90s, passed an initiative called initiative 41. i don't know if any of you remember. it was to limit campaign contributions to $100 for anybody running for office in the district. it passed by 70% of the voters. even with all the money put against it, it passed 70% of the voters. the next legislative session, it was overturned by the city council. it was an unfortunate situation. the voice of the people really was not being heard. how do we get rid of the moneyed interests? the media loves the food fights. they love the screaming and yelling at each other.

that is what sells media. you know that. our media is dependent on advertising. advertising would pull away from lack of viewership. the media would be dead. money is the issue. we need to get some kind of campaign finance reform that is solid in place. the supreme court decision that was made earlier -- it pulled the veil off of the relationship. it is clear now that we really are run by corporations. . .

>> i think congress needs to enact some new campaign finance rules. factually, my understanding of what the administration is going to do now that health care has passed, initially, health care regulation and trying to address that issue and secondly, campaign finance reform. now is a good time to be talking to members of congress, explaining your point of view, arguing on pot -- on behalf of provisions and conjurations that match or double or triple. those are the types of things if

you are really worried about corporate influence in american life, those are the types of things that would make the biggest difference. >> would we be able to speak about money if it was not media? >> sherer, i mean, yesterday, just to amplify what dell was saying --%uác> assume the viewes at home know about the supreme court ruled, and we've made reference to it, but to make it lear, the supreme court ruling, the decision was that corporations are the same as individuals when it comes to local speech and are free to spend as much as they want on campaigns. we will see, katie bar the door this fall, we will see what happens with that. yesterday, there were two decisions by lower courts, one was individual contributions to advocacy groups may not be limited. someone could form an advocacy group about anything and people could give them as much money as they want.

this is a bit nervous making. but at the same time, contributions to political parties can be limited. we will see even more of this third party, independent group spending in the fall, i would predict. as it relates to the media, the financial pressures are very intense right now in the media. it is a difficult time for the media. there is no way to sugarcoat it. it is a difficult time. anyone who has worked in the media for any number of years knows friends who have been laid off, been forced to take buyouts. in this room, not to embarrass you or anything, but how many people subscribe to a paper version of a newspaper in this room? well, this is not bad. about 10 people raised their hands. but anyone under 30, you know,

nobody subscribes to the paper version of newspapers and magazines the income that they can generate online is much smaller than the display advertising for the department stores and what they used to get in the paper editions. they're having to figure out a new economic model for how to make money on the web. i'm just going to say it. as a journalist who has been a journalist her entire career, sometimes i am forced to write for free. people do not pay me for what i do. as the joker said in batman, if you are good at something on never do it for free. but you know, a huffington post is just one example. a lot of people -- places do not pay journalists. it is a very difficult time. and those pressures, you are seeing those pressures. staffs are being cut, media outlets are trying to figure out

how they can make money. i think there is a string of sensationalism, and i think to some extent people are to been driven -- are being driven to opinion. i think the media is may be floundering is too strong a word, but i think -- i think the media is -- maybe floundering is too strong a word, but they are trying to figure out to make this new form of communication work for them and find a new economic model. i feel pretty passionately about this, as someone who has spent her whole life as a public affairs reporter, in the same way i feel it is vital to have engaged citizenry, it is also vital to have a vibrant, free press. it is very labor intensive to uncover what i'm doing -- to uncover wrongdoing.

it is a lot easier to report on britney spears' underpants. the example that i use is the article in the san diego tribune that won a pulitzer a few years ago for uncovering a scandal about duke cunningham, the congressman that art -- that is in jail now for a bribe taking and other things. that bureau now no longer exists. it uncovered that story and it won a pulitzer. and that is the way these things are going. it is a serious, scary time. >> one more question. this is the last one. >> i'm a junior at georgetown university. a large part of the platform is changing the way washington works and changing the town and there has been some evidence in the last year that we have seen that. there is a good argument to be made that -- it may be too early

to think about this, but [inaudible] what does the panel think about that potential? >> there is a potential for there to be a third party and/or independent candidate in 2012. michael bloomberg, the mayor of new york, there has been speculation about him running as an independent. he would be likely perot in the sense of independent, plus rich. -- he would be like perot in the sense of independence, plus rich. if your independent and for running for president, your odds are not very good. -- if you are independent and torpoor running for president, r

odds are not very good. >> it is really hard to -- the advantage to that michael bloomberg has is that he can't spend $2 billion and it would not affect his net -- he can spend $2 billion and it would not affect his net worth significantly. but it is very difficult to mount a third party -- you know, i mentioned ross perot got almost 20% in 1992. going back to teddy roosevelt and the bull moose party of these -- at the turn of the century, it is very difficult to mount a third party challenge. there has been no history of success. i doubt this year -- i mean, i do not think barack obama -- we do not know how health care is

going to play out. but i think our discontent is with congress. 2012 is a long way off in politics. two years is a lifetime. but i do not think it is content is so high with barack obama is so high with barack obama that the time would be rino car0

it. meaning that corporations can afford to put resources behind hiring people to influence the government full-time. they are going to have this disproportionate influence over our system right now. they're gaining the process because there is this loophole in it. but we are voters, and this is a democracy. and i think this confirms what they have been saying here. we have got to take control over this situation as a people, as americans working together. we have to start with that agreement that there is a problem with corporate influence in our politics. the majority of people can agree with that. let's drop the party politics for now and focus on this

enormous progress -- the enormous problem, closing this loophole. that is the way we will have impact, instead of starting out with "find this," and "i am that." this is a political emergency. we will not get anything done with these problems in the process. i want all of us to be able to work together to -- work together for now without these labels that separate us right now and focus on these problems that there'll and linda have been talking about. -- that darrell and linda have been talking about. >> it speaks to this gridlock that we have had in congress. and if [unintelligible] i think the coffee party will have done an awful lot. the >> it is an emergency.

this is political 911. we need help. but we have to help ourselves. nobody else is going to come in and help us with this. we are the people. we have the right to control our government. anything you want to say? >> i would just say i hope the people in this room, the people watching at home, the people who are attending a coffee party meetings around the country, i hope that they stay involved, that they are still coming to meetings one month, two months, six months down the road. the measure is going to be the staying power and if you stay involved and stay active. members of congress are waiting to see if you have that staying power, if you will make your voice heard, if you will stick with it. i would encourage you to do that. >> how many people right now

feel like they want to stick with this? you want to work together on this. there you go. did c-span get that? [laughter] thank you very much. i want you now to see if you can come together in small groups and discussed some of the solutions that we have been talking about. and thanks for having us here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up next on c-span from the arab league summit, remarks by the arab league secretary and

palestinian president abbas. and then with the addresses by president obama and the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, followed by senator john mccain campaigning in arizona with former four running mate sarah palin. -- a former running mate sarah palin. >> on news makers this week, greg fugate, administrator of the federal emergency management agency, discusses the budget and oversight of fema and how the agency has changed since katrina. "newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. isikofeastern and pacific - span. >> students have a submitted winning videos on one of the country's strength or challenges. at a 30 a.m. during the program,

meet the students who made them. before a preview of all the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> at the open -- opening session of the arab league summit in libya, secretary of -- the secretary told attendees and that's peace talks between israel and palestine could end in failure. this 30-minute the event is courtesy of a 24 hour news network based in dubai. >> mr. chairman of the summit, your majesty, your excellencies

the mind your arab citizens, ladies and gentleman, this summit is held in may. critical moments and as we extend our -- this summit is held in a very critical moment and as we extend our gratitude for the chairmanship of this summit, it gives great responsibilities. i would like to express gratitude and respect for the state of qatar, which has put the seriousness and hard work into facing the challenges that the arab nation faces and has achieved a number of successes in its diplomatic and political work. i am sure that this will also characterized the libyan chairmanship. mr. president, majesties, excellencies, it has been 10

years since you elected me the secretary general of this league. next year at this time will be the end of my mandate. i worked very hard to preserve the framework of the collective work and to preserve the common interests and work hard to formulate a common ground for the arab political stances and to guarantee consensus among ourselves and a number of progress among educators, but you can see that it has been very slow progress and quite fragile. there might be needed to review the ways and methods that we use to be more in tune with the

times and challenges that face the region and the world. it is demanded of us in this summit to develop strategies and tactics to face the new challenges. in front of you is the report that i composed regarding the past mandate, the past cycle in terms of the various issues that face us, but it is important for this tribune to suggest the following. first, there is nothing wrong with the patriotic feeling or the nationalist feelings. it is a safety net that links the arab nations and consolidates the community of

these nations. it is not against modernity. the common collective arab work is not a slogan. it is not empty principles. but it is the line that we need to preserve and continue to work on in many regions in the world -- and many regions of the world show us the way. and we should not be exceptions to this. therefore, any suspicion, and the questioning of this, and work -- of this common work is unfair and is a suspicious attempt to bring us down. third, the common path of the arab league has not always been failures, but it has shown a number of successes, as i said

before, and even though i am not here going to present all of the success and of the -- all of these successes and all of the details, but there are a number that should be mentioned. a network of inter-arab that is being connected is a representation of serious, hard work. the natural gas network that has been implemented on a highway work that has -- between arab countries and the network of railroads, also, and the free trade agreement between the arab countries and starting to work toward a joint custom region and another couple of initiatives on social and economic fields dealing with women and children, and opening the way to a joint

arab works in decisions and in the framework of the arab league, the communities of investors, traders, and all kinds of industries joining in forums and agreements that are being passed with china, south africa, south america, india. all of these are good indicators of progress with the joint arab work. fourth, the arab reconciliation and facing conflicts and witrif that appear between arab countries are between the nations that are fed up with

fighting each other. some now represent an important framework toward this objective of arab reconciliation. many challenges are facing us all that are beyond the political crisis, palestine, the situation in iraq, yemen, sudan, and others, these are essential to arab society as a whole. there are situational challenges and what is called of the clash of civilizations. the muslim world and the arab world has now become a center of dealing with this and can only be collective to reform programs that are strong and sound. there are documents to

modernize and even though these were able to put some activity and energy, but they need reviewing. they need me launching. this is critical -- they need relaunching. this is critical and needs to be an important agenda of the summit and member states need to submit yearly reports on the levels of what they have achieved in this respect. number six, the major challenge is how to educate our upcoming generations to push them to prepare them -- to push them, to prepare them to deal with these new times. the 21st century is not just the century after the 20th century. it is a new era that brings new challenges that depend on science and technology. we need reform on education. it has been talked about a lot without any concrete steps.

we need to give a scientific research and a priority that it has never had so far. the with regard to the decisions that have been passed, or undertaking within the arab league. and the professions of science and scientific research, including nuclear technology. all arab states have joined the non-proliferation treaty, which indicates the country's willingness to acquire peaceful technologies. why there is this slow process, this is a question of regional security. the arab world is facing security threats. some of them are conjecture and some of them our strategic. the short-term one is about

terrorist nucleus' in a number of arab countries. the second is the possibility of civil wars. and here let me not dismiss our own responsibility. i think this is a problem that can only be faced if we joine together and have a joint effort. the strategic threats, i think that this needs to be discussed collectively. the strategic mention needs to include a number of points, and one of them is the nuclear dimension, which tells us of one nuclear power in the region, that is, is real, and another

possible -- that is, israel, and another possible one or probable one, and that is iran. we asked for a middle east free of nuclear weapons, and then of security threats in the region that exist or that might exist. of the security of the arab region and the regional security issues and the international security issues are all interconnected. we also notice turkey as a major player of the region and as a neighbor of the arab countries in the arab region. turkey is showing a highly

precise and highly effective diplomacy in the political way. on the other hand, we see iran strategically and tactically entering the same map, and from historic and geographic dimensions also, even though with stormy diplomacy that has influence on all the security situation some of the region. at the same time, the image is not cleaned from an israeli role that keeps strangling the lives of the palestinians and threatening us with what it calls the iranian threat and using all kinds of a virtual, or even a real, threats. the israeli interests, which has nothing in common with the arab interests, it is giving its own

description of why we should study the situation. but we should study this situation from a totally independent perspective from the israeli perspective. we also see that the shiite and sunni divide has been taken out of its historic commitment -- cocoon and is being used to exacerbate any other conflicts that have been brought from the death of history -- the deaths of history. and has been 1000 years since it has been active, but it is being used now. and i think this conflict represents the biggest and the most dangerous threat that the

region faces. i think it is no less serious or dangerous than the nuclear threat, and therefore, needs to be addressed seriously and swiftly. the question here is not about sectarian rivalry that exists everywhere in other societies and religions. it is at a level of threat that it represents and the goals of exacerbating ignorance that surrounds this view of the fragility of the education level and the intellectual level of the region. and i also mentioned some of the regional problems that also affected some of the country'ie with foreign intervention dimensions to them that are more serious when we talk about the possibility of countries being

split into a number of countries. this leads me to suggest the following first, that we need to start forming a unified position in terms of the regional security and start immediately to cooperate our positions. and to start immediately on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the summit needs to call on israel to stop developing its nuclear program and to put its nuclear program under international monitoring. we can accept that implemented in phases, but it is necessary that it has to be implemented before the summit of 2015. also, we need to give the right

for countries to develop a peaceful nuclear technology as the treaty provides for. also, we need for the peace and security commission of the arab league, the countries of the golf and -- of the gulf and the whole of africa, they need to keep a close monitoring of the security situation and threats of the region, including the possibility of creating a piece maintaining force, and arab peace maintaining force that is ready to be deployed within the framework of the u.n. no. 9, regional development. as i said in the beginning of my speech, the actions of some of

our neighbors in the region and the joint interest that we have an interest that are conflicting with us -- and i mentioned particularly our brotherly countries of turkey and iran. and i now also mentioned the african dimension that also interacts with us and need attention. in africa there -- in africa there is ethiopia and others with whom we have interests, a joint interest, and very close relations, like the problem that is involved in djibouti and in somalia, and our commitment to somalia as a member of the arab league. in this context i want to mention the countries of the sub-saharan, sunocsenegal , allf

these have historic and cultural links to us. in addition to our african countries around the sedasudan e mediterranean and southern europe. and this i suggest, that you decide that launching a body of countries, and all of these countries that i mentioned now, in addition, they can be launched from this summit, and i also suggest adding turkey. with the arab league countries, i also suggest looking at china.

its constitution stipulates that -- i as a just looking at [unintelligible] i also suggest looking at other member countries. i also suggest that foreign ministers of the arab league meet and the start implementing a step that will be historic and which will make the arab action very effective. maybe let me explain hear something about iran. the situation calls for, more than a rubber before, that we start an air of dialogue -- more than ever before, that we start an arabic dialogue to deal with issues in which i think the

secretary general needs to be involved. i understand that some members have concerns about some of the iranian positions, but this is not preclude the possibility of dialogue to determine future relations with iran. we disagree with a number of officials, but we have a joint history and a joint geography. we have a great number of common interests. this dialogue is the only possibility to be part of this regional body, this organization, this disagreement -- of this organization. this disagreement with iran has not stopped the dialogue, so why do we not have dialogue with iran? israel has no place among us as

long as it is seeing itself as a country above international law. [applause] and if it keeps going against the peace process, and if it rejects the possibility of a palestinian state with sovereignty, or withdrawing from arab countries, or respecting the arab identity of jerusalem, yes, israel has no place in such a regional organization. [applause] the peace process in the middle east, the efforts of the israeli-palestinian conflict, and the israeli-syrian and lebanese conflict may be in the past two decades, we have relied

on what on intermediaries instead of the -- relied a lot on intermediaries instead of the u.n. hosting the negotiations, as it was clear in the security council resolution 24438. we have agreed on an open-ended peace process, which has ended up being an endless peace process. israel being the occupied territories keeps doing what it has been doing for the past 20 years, settlement activities and war crimes. and the continuous changing of demography and the efforts of changing the identity of arab lands, including jerusalem. and that is leading to great frustration. regardless of all of that, and despite the israeli stubbornness and the double standards that we have seen in

the past decade, and up to now rejecting the basis of international law, but some developments have happened. we need to take them into consideration and build on top of those developments that can be described as positive. first, there is an international that is getting close to unanimity to refuse the policies of settlement, and let's hear president obama's position of calls for an immediate and total freeze of settlements. yes, we see steadfastness -- steadfastness against settlements. number two, there is also a universal position condemning

the israeli steps in jerusalem regarding the legality of such steps, or by considering them an obstacle to peace, or considering the unanimity around the two-state solution and the fact that the palestinians also need to be a viable state with sovereignty. third, the arab initiative that is -- that explains the commitments and responsibilities and obligations of both parties which might lead to an end to the conflict between israel and palestine. of five, any peace can be open- ended, but it needs to have a framework and time frame and a follow-up and on a string of such a peace process. in other words, it is not possible anymore to accept a peace process that is a theater

that is simply fooling people, or hatred for israel -- or a trick for israel to finish up the changing on the ground, or the changing of the ground or the judaizing of israel. this is coming from an air of solid position to refuse the israeli -- arab solid position to refuse the israeli steps, and also because the israeli stubbornness and arrogance has reached such high levels that even friends of israel reject the israeli policies.

we observe the israeli government to make one mistake after another. we also see rejection of the international community of such policies. our responsibility now is to follow up closely on the situation internationally and to take every opportunity to reestablish the rights of the bosnian people and the rights of the syrian -- palestinian people and the rights of the syrian and lebanese to have their lands back from israel, as is stipulated in the arab initiative. the policies that do not allow for any achievement of any peace in the region or does not miss any opportunity to reach international law, like what happened in lebanon, now is the time to put an end to such policies.

the commission and the arab league has started steps to take into consideration a number of alternatives and is now developing an alternative position that will be suggested for submission to leaders for deliberation and a decision. it is an unprecedented anpoint. we are very aware -- an unprecedented turning point. we are very aware of maneuvering tactics. the land and the geography are being changed and altered to make the peace process and to make it palestinian state impossible or to change the identity of jerusalem to what israel is claiming is unjust

narrative about jerusalem. i believe we need to be careful about what is coming ahead and discuss a number of options. one of them is the possibility of the total collapse and failure of the peace process. i wish for you to discuss this in your closed session this afternoon. iraq, yemen, and somalia -- the situation of iraq and sudan and yemen and the somalia -- and somalia is cause for preoccupation. we need to work hard to preserve the integrity of these countries. i would like to mention the recent elections in iraq and i wish to congratulate the iraqi people for this and also advances in progress between

sudan and what we have noticed foreseen the possibility of solutions in darfur and the very difficult negotiations that took place. also, we see some hope with regard to the south in sudan and with regard to the unity as an attractive solution. the key to the solution is development, possibilities of investment in a way that leads to real stability of the political and social and economic situation. i hope that work will continue through the arab league to achieve such objectives and that the commitment to solving the

problems and conflicts and challenges of its country. no. 10, reform of the lead. there are a number of suggestions from members on that we have -- that will be discussed in closed sessions. in the past nine years, i tried very hard to preserve the integrity of the arab league and to speak in the name of all arabs and to present an agenda that is based on the four pillars -- political, economic, and reform, and progress. i do not claim to have succeeded, but i have tried my best and with all of the tools and resources that i have and with all of the sincerity. . .

>> will fulfill its mission with a budget that is insufficient. the arab league is accused of being inefficient while the responsibility lay is -- lies on the member states. there will and their political activity is what needs to lead the arab league, not the other way around. i call you to review the budget and to double it so we can increase the level of expertise

that the league needs to work for the interest of the arabs. i am about to finish the second mandate you elected me for. is enough for me as a period of working for the arabs and their interest, and work to help them heal their rafts. i presented a number of suggestions and ideas. i wish you to look into them with all your wisdom and experience and your upholding of arab interests, particularly at this summit. it puts an end to the first decade of the 21st century. the next summit, i hope a new decade will bring prosperity to the future of the arab world in general. thank you so much. [applause]

>> the palestinian president spoke to leaders of the arab league summit in libya. but he warned the talks with israel will stop if they continue building their settlements. the announced concern when israel announced plans to build homes for sellers in eastern jerusalem. this speech is courtesy of al arabia television, a news network based in dubai. >> today, i address you, dear brothers, in the name of my palestinian people. it is our belief that the cause of the palestinian people is regaining its rights. this is the central cause of the american -- of the arab countries. it therefore represents, undoubtedly, a point of consensus on one of the strategic basises of joint arab

action in the future, particularly that we are living in exceptional circumstances, unprecedented and very dangerous conditions that will form a turning point in our history as a whole. the direction of the future will rely on how we deal with this phase of what we are going far -- of going through, and to what extent we are ready to face these challenges. there is no doubt that you are following with us the dangerous developments, and you know what israel is doing against jerusalem and the citizens of jerusalem. for some time, the occupation behavior has been escalating against the sacred town at a pace and concentration that did not happen in many decades --

the confiscation of land and building more settlement units. it has become a daily behavior. they are implementing ethnic cleansing. the mosque, the first and second of the mosques and the third of the holy places in islam has become a target of the occupation and the israeli extremists. these campaigns target the sacred places of muslims and christians, seeking tho alter the islamic and arab identity and to isolate the sacred town from the west bank, which is a decision that seeks to force the negotiations of final status.

in obstruction to the peace process as a whole, it was a clear breach of the agreement and the commitments and the guarantees that were presented, including the american guarantee letter that was given to us in the madrid peace conference and also the other declarations of international legality and looking down on the feelings of muslims and christians in the world. i always said, my brothers, and i renew faith again today, that jerusalem is the jewel of the crown. it is the door and the gate to the peace. we reiterate that playing with the sacred town by the occupation is enhancing the fire of conflict and furthering the

crisis and starting new wars in the region. we, as we salute today the practice of our people in the holy town as they face off with the rest of our people, everywhere, the new tasks against the mosque and against jerusalem. we renew our commitment to every grain of soil and every brick of jerusalem. we are committed to defend the capital of our country and to defend the church of the nativity and all the sacred places. we are determined that to support the courage of our people. we reiterate that there will be no agreement that will not guarantee the end of occupation to our land, and number one jerusalem. there is no meaning of a

palestinian state without jerusalem being its capital. brothers and sisters, at this time when we are fighting to defend jerusalem and our nation, our people, we are facing a confrontation -- a very heated confrontation on the peace process. we have welcomed all the sincere attempts to relaunch the peace process. we have welcomed the new directions of president obama, particularly the two state solution. we worked with the u.s. administration in a continuing effort to translate this vision into reality. we are preserving the principles of our position that were determined by the arab summit and the arab initiative, as we have reiterated these positions everywhere. we never came under influence and we did not abandon our role.

we cannot allow for the palestinian voices to be absent from any form. but we wanted to be brave and courageous and present to defend our rights. we have reiterated in all international forums that we are committed to the peace option, with which we believe. we believe that it meets the requirements the international community has established, and president obama, to relaunch the peace process and the negotiations, one of which is the total freeze of settlement activities in jerusalem and the rest of the occupied palestinian territory. the clear statement of the framework of the peace process

-- we have found understanding of our position in the world. they understand the uselessness of negotiations while israel's activities continue, and the understand the absurdity of negotiations at the time when the occupation keeps working to delineate the borders that respond to its expansion must be used -- its expansionist views, and this country with provisional orders that we reject. we reiterate our rejection today. i understand now that any peace process is doomed to failure as long as it lacks a clear framework based on what the international community and the international legality has determined. this has been cleared through the u.s. envoy, george mitchell,

in what we called the proximity talks, of which you have been notified through the follow-up arab committee. mr. mitchell has said the that the framework or the time frame would be 24 months for talking about all the final questions and solutions and that the borders of the frontiers would be set within the first 12 months. our work to relaunch the peace process on its previous tracks -- we are committed to all the arab initiatives and joint coordination with all of our friends and brothers in all our steps. but the continuation of negotiations needs real partnership and sincere partnership.

this partnership is contingent on faith in the true intentions of the other side, the israeli side, and its commitment to the letter and spirit of the previous accords. there is no need for resuming negotiations without agreeing on previous agreements. the decision of the palestinians to relaunch these proximity talks under the auspices of the americans -- this is not possible if the change in the situation on the ground, continuing the building of the settlements by the current as really government -- by the current israeli government, which has continued to commit crimes against our people.

gentlemen, i continue to say to the arab people that jerusalem and its surroundings are a responsibility that god almighty has bestowed on us. the settlement and the risks of division we need to stop all of that. i call on you to work seriously and swiftly to defend and to save jerusalem, to reinforce our opposition to this -- to preserve its cultural and religious identity. i want to reiterate the importance of us working on a number of points. one of them -- to call the international community, particularly the security council and the european union, and also the international organizations, particularly

unesco, to not recognize any unilateral steps that israel undertakes in jerusalem. we put the responsibilities -- they take the responsibility to stop such measures in the historic archaeological sites in jerusalem, bethlehem, and galilee, and the rest of the occupied palestinian territories. save it from the israelis. there are more than 150 such archaeological sites. the israelis are working to include them as archaeological jewish places, as they claim. they need to send international monitors to observe the israeli breeches on the ground and to prevent them from happening and to provide international to provide international protection to our peopl