have been given those responsibilities are not. if he had been, we would now be debating whether it was just the dci just made larger and whether we made any progress. that would have inevitably been the question. there are other questions that need to be thought about when considering whether or not the dni should have operational responsibilities. . .

i cannot imagine a more difficult position to be in than to be asked a question were in the officer has both to balance the interest of the president and what he knows to be or knows not to be the facts of the case. that is very hard. the advantage of having a dni, in my view, is that it does allow for some separation between what the dni can represent to the policy maker, the president, and his cabinet officers as being the judgment of the community, the information that it can supply. and he can be that of her, and he can make certain that there's not any concerns that seep out about the politicization of intelligence. to put it another way, i think he is a true buffer against that concern. and that is not nothing in the world in which we live.

second, i think he has the advantage of being able to work the domestic intelligence agenda with greater facility than any other intelligence officer or policy maker, for that matter, say for the director of the fbi. and again, that is not nothing. and something that is absolutely essential as not been fully aired. this singular failure in that 9/11 was not, with all due respect, whether the nsa was part of the dod or was an independent agency, but we did not get domestic and foreign intelligence properly integrated. which brings me than to a close. it seems to me that it has been at our statement to say that the dni has brought the two responsibilities as the principal adviser. one is to ensure the president that he has received that which the president thinks he needs

and what he wants to have, and those are not the same things. the president may want something, but sometimes he needs something else. that is the dni's role, to make sure he has both. second, it is to anticipate those future needs. we had a conversation this morning about where we're going with some of the collection capabilities. the dni has, if i can use that phrase, the luxury of standing back from the day-to-day execution, again, another reason for not giving him an operational responsibility. the day-to-day execution to think about where things are going and what discontinuities there might be. what does it mean to minimize risk and maximize opportunity? how do we put into training the kinds of changes that will take, trust me, a generation for them to work their way through. i spent a good time at the

pentagon. no one joined the joint chiefs. no one joins of the joint staff. one joins the army, the navy, the air force, and the marine corps. andy the eve those that each of those instances what each of those men and women bring to their jobs in the joint staff. -- and the eat thos that each of those instances have is what they bring to their job. it takes a while for that to work its way through. the dni has the opportunity to bring that kind of change over time into place. whether we make an orchestra director or a cabinet secretary, we can debate about which is the proper role or function. but i will leave you with this thought. as the principal intelligence

adviser, there are significant advantages to the dni not having an operational role first. and in second, in choosing what he decides to manage in the most direct way -- again, it is a very large community. it is very complicated. it cannot be managed by any number of people you could imagine bringing into dni staff. it is not possible. i was told by one former secretary of defense, thinking about the department of defense, 3 million people, and he said at any given point in time, someone is out there breaking the law. so what do you do about that? you have to manage it. going forward, we have to be clear about where we want him to place time, attention, and effort and what the benefit is that he brings to the president and to the members of the national security council of congress. thank you. >> thanks. i had a couple questions that will combine. members can voluntarily take

these on or not. i want to leave time for questions from the floor. the first question has to do with the u.s. dni relationship. for those of us in the intelligence committee, since 1947, if you work in cia, the will but the door was not dni. it was dod. there was the sense that every battle in the intelligence community, no matter how powerful the dci was, you lose the battle withdod. but the fact was, the secretary of defense, while he controlled most of the assets that the intelligence community, did not really have five minutes in a week to concentrate on budgetary or other issues with regard to intelligence. with the creation son of the dni position in 2002, the secretary of defense at a 24/7

set of eyes on intelligence priorities. i would have to conclude that the very significant success of the intelligence downrange and incredible capabilities we have now in isr, and not just technical abilities the collaboration, has sent in to do with the leadership of those two organizations. i would like any comment about this relationship going forward. the other question i would have is, i would assert that the intelligence community is subject to technological surprise today and in the future more than any time in history. this does not mean emerging technologies, but it means destructive technologies. that is where the ied came from to surprise us. toqdr was just published last february and mentions this with concern. we now have the world where rnd

is now distributed globally as opposed to when it was controlled very much within the united states. the question to go back to the last panel would be, are we prepared with regard to technological surprise? first question is with the usci- dni relationship, and the second one is if we are prepared. you have to really stick a technological surprise. >> i would say what technological surprise, are wen prepared areo, we're not. during the game plan? it is a work in progress. we're focused on it. it has improved dramatically, but we're not there yet. census was speaking, let me comment on the first one. i did relationship between the community with the creation of usdi has made it better but not where it needs to be.

the secretary commented that whatever we want the dni to do, it is big, hard, and complex. of the contras that to the most expensive, complex organization in the world, which also happens to be the most effective. it is called the department of defense. 3 million people moving parts in every part of the world. in one person is responsible for running the process. reyes, train, equip, operations policy, national security adviser, role for the president. awhat i am an advocate of it is having an appropriate statutory authority for dni that allows problems to be resolved, not punted. example, a joint duty is wonderful. took us three years. my predecessor worked for a couple years, and i worked for

the better part of a year, and when we finally got it, it was a compromise. it is not the community where we need to be because there's no enforcement mechanism in the community. that is why i keep coming back to the effect of the inappropriate role and authority in a complex and challenging environment, but without that decision authority, we're just debating our points of view. i would also extend this to the congress. it was mentioned by congresswoman harman, 88 committees and subcommittees overseeing dhs. the appropriation for this community, not all the, the major appropriation for the intelligence community is done in the defense appropriations committees and subcommittees. we have not had an authorization bill in three years -- five years.

my point is getting this recognized for its importance. it truly is important to the safety and security of the nation. putting it on par with appropriation oversight, authorization, accountability i think is what we need to be focused on if we talk about correcting this and making it better for the future. >> thank you. >> just briefly, i supported the creation of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. i think it makes sense for the secretary of defense that a person here she can turn to because a% of the budget is there. provided, the dni is still seen as the counterpart of the secretary of defense. the usdi serves primarily the secretary of defense and the dni deals directly with the secretary of defense and occasionally through the usdi. on technology, i talked about the collection paradigm. we're living in the midst of the

greatest technological revolution in history. therefore, intelligence always has to be ahead technologically of or the rest of the world is because the adversary always has what you have, what is available to you commercially. we have countless examples of that from over the years. my bottom line would be that avoid technological supplies involves having not just a technological defense but having a technological often spill your dramatically ahead of where everyone else is technologically. in the end, that is the best way to avoid surprise. >> i concur on the technological surprise. had thought it was a good idea to have a usds. [laughter] >> data/started on the sand. >> but for some of the reasons that he touched on. the phone calls from the dni only when from him to me. the protocol did not have week -- did not have me calling the

dni. that was the secretary's call. i did spend time with john and his successor and with a lot of the deputies. you bet. but the relationship was between the secretary and the dni. i believe it george tenet told us, and i do not believe we're breaking confidences, he said, look, the most of our relationship in washington is between the dci and secretary of defense. >> right. >> in my view, what has happened is that that relationship has now been adjusted with the dci very closely related in the relationship. what had been a bipolar relationship is now sort of a triumphant relationship for those matters which are affecting the intelligence community. and they have got to be on the

same sheet. it is not by accident that you often see proper away at -- array of personalities there. a person paying attention will look to make sure he has the right people in those jobs. >> thank you. i want to turn it to the floor. also, we did not get to the discussion about information sharing. if you have questions about that, throw it at us. >> thank you. my question is related to counterintelligence. if one looks at what is occurring within the borders of the united states, if you add together the number of personnel, terrorism and supporters, russia, the people's republic of china, i would say that while we have very good people working in counterintelligence, good policies, and a good strategy, we do not have the resources to conduct the kind of counter

intelligence that we need to. it is very labor are human intensive. i propose that we need a massive or a significant expansion of the number of personnel. it should be done in the way it is coordinated. i do not know what the military services might return to playing a role domestically, not in wiretaps or anything that would violate civil liberties, but as they did before in coordination with the fbi and expanding operations are certainly physical surveillance or things like that that could complement what the fbi is doing. >> i will start. on the resources, not enough, i agree. i do not think it is necessarily a people problem. i think there are lots of things that we could do in how we administer the process. something was mentioned earlier

as a claim that something the dni was able did do was address the clearance process. the clearance process was trying to make you go faster and not waste all the time. also in that it with that was a better way to administer the process from the ability for constant life cycle monetary. it does not mean you monitor it all the time, but you could. it acts as a deterrent. those who are on the inside after the clarence, they're in for life in canada scared it. i think it probably needs to be addressed. i do not know if it is quite as dramatic as the way you frame it. but it is something that needs attention. >> thank you. >> i would like to pose an issue or future challenge. that is cyberspace. admiral mcconnell has been outspoken about that recently,

some of the challenges, but what a lot of people may not know was that when admiral mcconnell was dni, was the catalyst for the efforts which led to the conference of for the security initiative. it was under his leadership that we actually achieved that. a tribute to his leadership there. but going forward, how should we think about cyberspace in the context of the dni? there was recently an article talking about an episode that showed the tension between operations and intelligence collection, and one that apparently, according to the article, a lefty their side very, very happy. going forward, i would be interested to hear your thoughts collectively about how cyberspace should be managed within the context of the dni. thank you. >> my view is the first responsibility of the dni and community is to understand the

threat and evocations of the threat and so on. it is with that knowledge that i intended to make the argument and the current administration. this is serious. there things happening that are of strategic significance as much as this wonderful information technology revolution is that we all benefited in with increased productivity and higher standards of living. we enjoy it. it is introduced perhaps an unprecedented level of risk. when you imagine -- i will use banking as my example. we did not have a gold standard. if you take all the printed bills and all the coinage, you get maybe 5% of our wealth. so where is it and how was it accounted for? it is in a database. my worry is not so much of nation states you're stealing information for advantage, my worry is an extremist group whose intent is to destroy or to downgrade or corrupt.

if an extremist group with the relatively low level of investment attacked us in that way, it could have, in my view, large-scale consequences. my views to keep that visible and understood, make it plain english. be willing to take a position on it. the mitigation of the issues often are imbedded in the intelligence community. the national security agency is probably half a trillion dollar investment. it is the only authorized force in the nation whose mission is code breaking. what we have come to realize over time is that codebreaking is often the in a blur for attack, which is what everyone wants to talk about, but is also the in a blur for defense. i think dni in the community has a dramatic and important role in this in making it trends letter bore her -- making it

translatable how would you defend .gov or .com? how would you do that using a community that has capability operating in a top-secret level to make it unclassified and useful at the speed of the net to? big challenge. my view is that the dni will be involved in this debate and activity for quite some time before we get a level of mitigation that we find acceptable. >> i would just say it is probably the most complex problem we have because it involves exploitation, attack, and defense. those functions are all spread around the u.s. government. probably somewhat at a very senior cross agency level who will get their arms around this. the other problem is that our vision of it is clouded because we have yet to have a demonstration on a major scale of what it can do. we have had the equivalent in

the cyber world of the embassy bombings in 1998 and the attack on the uss cole in 2000 in the terrorism world. it was not until 9/11 that we really got our act together, broadly speaking. we have not had that on at cyber security at. it may come. if it does, we better be ready. we better not be scrambling. >> i have a question for the panel and for the director. one of the analogies that which used in coming up with the idea of the dni was the hope in the intelligence community that we would create an equivalent to what in the military, at least from a civilians perspective, is the shared professional bond between officers. he mentioned that you join the army enjoy in the age of -- navy but from a civilian.

debbie, you become a military officer. there is a significant bond. there really was not in the intelligence community. to what degree now do you think the work force, that 100,000 people, with self-identify, regardless of what agency they're from, as intelligence officers? and are we at the level we should be, and where do you think we're going in the future with that type of cultural, share, a self-identification? >> well, first off, no one knows. but my instinct is, it is circulating around, most people identify themselves as intelligence officers. but the question is beyond that. i think it goes to education. there are a number of very fine schools in the intelligence business. but generally speaking, the idea of continuous education is not as embedded as a routine as it is in the military. i think that is part of firming

up everyone's dead in the vacation as part of the profession with standards, ethics, and stuff that are common across the threshold. >> having grown up in the navy, i had three enemies. russians, the army, and the air force. [laughter] >> in that order? >> about that order, yeah. it was not until i was part of the joint activity and a joint force that you really start to have of bond as a professional military officer. in my hierarchy, it is citizen first. even today with as much as we have a joint task force and so on, people still will i defy with their parent organization. which is not a bad thing. but they also identify with the united states of america and doing the right thing in bringing together the full

capabilities of all forces to accomplish whatever mission it is. i think we're better, but we are not -- the intelligence community has not yet achieved what the department of defense has achieved. it is most in the isolation of our community. we do not live in the other person's spaces and have a constant direction. >> i am going to have to cut the questions. thank you all for your time. [applause] >> thank you very much. there is a light snack outside if anybody is hungry. then we will get swiftly to the dni's speech in the next few minutes. thank you very much.

>> a quick story on the nuclear security summit from national public radio website. president obama and top officials from 47 countries began an unprecedented global summit here in washington today to forge a plan to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and keep them out of the hands of terrorists. the meeting is the largest gathering of world leaders hosted by a u.s. president since the 1945 san francisco conference that the the united nations. signy strategists are expected to emerge from the summit. president obama says he and other leaders to share a sense of urgency. we will bring you any remarks from the summit as they happen today here on the c-span network. coming up at about 12:45 p.m. eastern, the state department update on krygyzstan. that will be live here on c-

span. in the meantime, remarks by congressman ron paul at the southern republican leadership conference from this past weekend. [applause] thank you. >> ron paul! ron paul! ron paul! >> thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. it sounds like a freedom rally. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] well, it is great to see so much enthusiasm for the freedom movement and limited government. i want thank the host of the convention for and by now. i'm delighted to be here among friends. my wife is here today and i'm

very pleased with that, too. [applause] you know, this last week, our report came out on friday -- a report came out on friday from the treasury. it shocked even me, even having been concerned about deficits 35 years ago. yesterday, it was reported by the treasury that this last week, our national debt went up $106 billion in one day. i would say it is time to it end that kind of spending and get rid of the deficits. [cheers and applause] getting rid of the deficits is easily said. i guess everybody wants to get rid of the deficits. there is an effort in washington today, and our side of the

aisle, which is well-intended, might do some good, but i think it comes up with too shorts. that is dwelling on earmarked -- but i think it comes up too short. that is willing on your marks. -- dwelling on earmarks. you end up giving the money to the executive branch who will wasted even more than congress will -- who will waste it even more than congress will. earmarks are the responsibility of the congress. we're supposed to designate every single penny that we spend. we're not supposed to let the president do this. i do not like a strong executive branch. i want a strong congress that exerts its prerogative. [cheers and applause] what we need is not to tinker with earmarks, but to vote

against the entire package, the of preparation bills, until we get the budget under control -- the appropriation bills, until we get the budget under control. also, the definition of an era armark is very important. it is when your congressman says, why do we not get some of our highway funds back and spend it in our district. when it comes to earmark for building an embassy, which we are now doing in london, which is a fortress, it is going to cost as $1 billion. what are we doing that? it makes no sense whatsoever. we're tinkering around with some spending bills here and trying to build a highway. we have spent $1 billion on an embassy in baghdad. we're spending and another $1 billion on an embassy in

kabul, which does not make sense unless you think we have unlimited funds. we do not. this is the message that is coming today. [cheers and applause] the reason why the american people have awoken and are so upset and annoyed and are acting outside the party system is because the country b isroke and the people in washington -- is because the country is a@ @ @ @h thank goodness. but the other side of the chlorine is you cut spending. if we were so good at cutting spending, where were we when we had the chance? well, we have created -- [applause]

well, as republicans are the last several decades, we have created a credibility gap. we talk a good game, but when we get the chance to do something, we have not done the job that we should have i will tell you what though, we're doing a better job now, in opposition. the credibility is when we get the chance again, which i believe we will, how credible are we going to be? how well are we going to stick to our guns? how significant are we going to -- are we going to take our oaths of office seriously? if we did nothing else but to let individuals who you could trust that what all obey the constitution, -- that would always obey the constitution, we would get out of this mess in no time.

[cheers and applause] the question has been raised as to whether or not our president is a socialist. i am sure that some people here believed it. i know that this concord -- this conference has talked about that already. he deserves a lot of criticism. in the technical sense, in the economic definition of what a socialist is -- he is not the socialists. what he is is a corporatist. we have corporatists in the republican party, meaning you take care of corporations and a takeover and run the country. we see that in the financial institutions and the military- industrial complex. [cheers and applause] and now, we see it in the

medical-industrial complex, who runs maedicine. think of how corporations gap between the doctor and the patient -- got between the doctor and patient. . i have a piece of legislation that will be introducing next week. the simple thing would be to reject it. the next thing is to throw it

all lot. that is not going to happen. if there's one piece of legislation i will produce, it will probably be only one page long. [applause] and it will be to remove the mandate that you have to participate if you do not want to. [applause] i have a that if we if we always retain the option to get out, we can survive. for instance, education -- have been notice, it is a mess since the federal government got involved in it? you remember the old days of

the republican party when our platform said to get rid of the department of education? [cheers and applause] fortunately, we have had the private auction protected. you still have the right to opt out, educate your own kids, or send them to private school. [applause] in medicine, we need that same option. you need to be able to opt out of the system. they talk about the public option. everyone knew that was a term for a total socialized medicine. they did not win that fight. the corporations won the fight and benefited. if we allowed the people to get

out of the system, this means you could have medical savings accounts and deducted from your taxes. this would be so much better. they talked about the public option semi-times. how many times did they talk about protecting the private option? [applause] if we are going to get back to a balance, the constitution would get us there. we have to decide where to cut. when have we cut anything over the last 34 years? -- would have to cut anything over the last 30 or 40 years? we have accepted the notion that government should be doing all of these things. government really does reflect the prevailing attitude of the people. if a politician wants to run for congress and says i am going to vote against all of the

spending, traditionally, that guy lost. something is stirring now. in this election this year, that does not hurt your chances of being reelected or elected. [applause] we only have two problems in washington with spending. we have conservatives and liberals. they both like to spend. they spend money on different things. they like embassies, occupation, the empire. they like to be in 135 countries and 700 places. did you hear the news? just this weekend, there was a revolution in kurdistan -- kyrgistan.

we have bases over there. we are running out of money. no matter how badly you like to have them, all empires anend for financial reasons. that is what things are telling us today. [applause] if you want a strong national defense, it should be designed for defense and not to support preventative wars. it should not be to support wars better undeclared. it is rather conservative to say that it is good to follow the constitution except for war. let the president to work anytime he wants. if you want to the war, only congress can declare the war. the fight it. when it and get out of there.

-- go fight it, whenin it, and get out of there. [cheers and applause] ron paul, ron paul! >> politically, it is much easier and makes more sense to cut the militarism and the bases overseas than to cut child welfare here at home. i do not hesitate for a minute. i know we would be stronger for it. when we went to korea, i was in high school. that was 60 years ago. we're still there.

it costs us a lot of money. what we have to have troops there? we do not have troops in vietnam. we came back to vietnam. people were embarrassed about that. the imam, in our feet, are better friends and more capitalistic the north korea. north korea is not our friend. 20 years of the french and american trying to tell the vietnamese have to be westernized failed at a horrible cost to us. we have won more in peace than in war. they are our trading partners now. we can do better with peace and with war -- thank wit with war. if there is a need to go to war, it should be done properly.

the rules would be quite different. if you are an advocate of personal liberty, we are advocates for limited government, small government. small government is one thing. it is easy to say that we want less taxes and regulation. that is fine and dandy. but do we want to make sure that every individual has a right to life and liberty? i would say yes, everyone has a right to life and liberty. [applause] when we talk about protection of all life, i mean, the protection of all life, not just life designated by liberals. i believe premature life is just as valuable and should be protected. [cheers and applause] it also means that if you are going to protect liberty, you

will protect personal choices. we have no trouble protecting personal choices when it comes to our churches and intellectual interests. people are allowed to read, study, and what they want. as soon as it comes to something that we want to put in our bodies, all the sudden the government has to tell us what to do. i would say that we do not need the government to tell us whether or not you are allowed to drink raw milk or not. i would say that should be your own decision. all smoking and drinking are dangerous and harmful to your help. but those decisions are made by the individuals in a free society and not by the nanny state. [cheers and applause] it has gotten to the point where they designate your diet,

how much fat you are allowed to have, and whether you are allowed to have salt. those are problems. but why have we lost our confidence in ourselves that we can deal with this? dangerous things for our children should be handled by the parents, just as education is. [applause] we have a long way to go. we are in a very difficult situation. the reason we face the crisis is because we are bankrupt. no one can come up with a solution. everyone is arguing. the fact that so many people consider themselves conservatives and champions of limited government -- they are not acting within the party

system. they are frustrated. they want to see the credibility regained. it will involve cutting spending. you cannot pick and choose. you need to cut spending every place and get back to a balanced budget. [applause] more specifically, why are we in the financial crisis? is this something that just popped up and there's nobody to blame? we have this commission in washington studying it. they have this whole commission with a bunch of guys on their and a bunch of witnesses coming in. not one single person that is a member of the commission and non one single witness endorses free market economics, and that is where you'll find the economic answers. [applause] that free-market economists understand the business cycle, predicted the breakdown in 1971,

predicted all the events since 1971, the destruction of the dollar but we have lost 97% of our dollars in value to gold since 1931. we're rapidly moving into an inflationary stage. we're not over the financial bubble. the financial problem we have has just started. what i believe will happen, i hope i am absolutely wrong on this, but as time goes on, we're going to work our way into a situation that is going to combine the vicious downturn in the 1930's with the vicious upturn of prices and inflation of the 1970's. that will be very devastating, and that will indeed be a threat to all our liberties and institutions. medicare and medicaid are bankrupt. you cannot save medicare and medicaid by bringing in another $1 trillion medical program. [applause]

in the 1930's, they have a similar commission. they came to the conclusion that the problem was that the fall of the gold standard, which they did not. they also did not have enough regulations. we already have too many then. what did they do in the 1930's? they got rid of the gold standard and piled on all of these other programs and prolonged depression. that is what we're doing. the conclusion looks like it will be a lot more regulation. i am for a regulations. the number one regulation is to regulate the federal reserve system. that is what we need to regulate. [cheers and applause]

the beginning of the tea party movement came a year or two ago during the financial crisis. they knew about the tarp funds. those were appropriated by republicans and democrats. the money was wasted to bail out friends. nobody knew where the money was going. this upset a lot of people, rightfully so. when they found out the federal reserve created to dollars trillion out of thin air -- created $2 trillion and passed it on to friends, that created a lot of outrage. the federal reserve can loan money to other central banks and government. creating money out of thin air and making deals like that, it can be involved in foreign policy and who knows what. i will tell you what they cannot control. they can think that they are

improving things and get some gp numbers to come up, but they cannot protect the value of the dollar. that is what you need to watch. that will be the consequence of excessive government. that is what destroys nations and republics. it is up to us as the party right now of limited government. you cannot be for limited government halfway and rejected on the other way. the whole way has to be limited government. [applause] that is the only way we can regain our credibility. that is what is necessary. what we do as a party will not suffice. what we do between now and november will make the difference. they have to believe that we believe in what we're saying. we can say it, but are we going to do it? that is why we have people

drifting outside the party. if you want the people back agaiin and if you want the young people, you had better look at these viewpoints. about 100 years ago, freedom was divided into two pieces, economic liberty and personal liberty. personal civil liberties or the same as economic liberties for the town fathers. if you believe in civil liberties for personal choices, you ought to believe it for economic choices as well. we need to put that back together. in makes sense to the young people i talk to. there is a revolution on college campuses right now. [cheers and applause] they are not looking for handouts. they are looking for freedom so that they can get a job and take care of themselves. [applause]

the ultimate goal of all our political action should be to strive for liberty. that is what i am dedicated to. i have been doing it for a lot of years. there is a lot more interest right now, mainly because the country is in trouble. our goal should be for seeking liberty. why do we seek liberty? the purpose of a free society is so that individuals can be responsible for ourselves and take care of ourselves and our families. it is also there to seek excellence and virtue. that should be the ultimate goal of what we are as individuals. if you have an authoritarian government, that is what we are approaching. we do not have our privacy.

we have intrusion from government on everything we do. if we allow the government to take over this role, if we allow the government to promote economic equality like the liberal do-gooder's want -- they say it will make the economy better and fairer for everybody. we know that socialism fails. it might make them equal, but they will all be equally poor. [applause] the same argument can be made for those who say that will make you a better person by writing a lot of rules. the only person you have endangered by making mistakes is yourself. governments cannot do that. governments cannot protect you from yourself. that is what we're trying to do. i would say to give up on it. why not look to the rules and

regulations we have been given? they have been written down. it was the best document ever written. is just too bad that we don't ever follow it. i have a lot of young people come to my office. i am delighted to see them. frequently, the college and high-school students come in. they've gotten wind of the freedom philosophy. the command and their parents readily admit it. i will ask to discovered the freedom philosophy first. it is usually the teenager. they have made the parents listen to it. that really pleases me. when the young people come, i have a habit of passing out constitutions. the constitution is pretty thin. there are not a lot of words in there. everybody in this room could read it. i could not understand a lot of

what was in the 2000 page medical government -- document. it only took one page for me to discover i did not like it. the constitution is understandable. it is so great. the tragedy is that we do not follow it. i hand a copy to the youngsters and tell them i hope that they will read it. they will get a chance. a crisis is coming. your generation will make a decision on what the role of government ought to be. should the role of government be there to protect your liberty? should be there to run the economy, run your life, and police the world? the reason and give it to you is because i have not been able to get anybody around this place to read it. [applause] i know a lot of people in here do a lot of thinking for themselves. h.l. mencken said the most dangerous man to government is

the man who thinks things out for himself herself. that is what really counts. that is why a free society is so important. you have this privilege and access to the material. in the 1950's when i got interested in studying the freedom philosophy, i could not find the literature. it was not in my schools. it was not on tv or on the radio. it was not with politicians. you could find some books about economics and the foundation of economic education. the miracle for the freedom movement is the internet. the internet, the information is spread. they will never put it back in a jar. you cannot do it. people know about it. this movement is demanding liberty and limited government. it is growing by leaps and bounds.

let's hope and pray it changes the country. right now, we're in deep need of change. i thank you ver >> live now from the state department, a briefing on the situation in krygyzstan. speaking as the assistant secretary of state for south and central asian affairs. this began just a couple minutes ago. >> the un secretary general has an envoy, and there's also a kazakhstan special on avoid in their role as the osce chairman in office. i will be accompanied by the director for central asia at the nsc, and i stand rosenblum, who works for me and is the manager of galt sca assistance programs. my main goal will be to hear

from the krygyzstan administration about their assessment of the law and order situation. the steps that they plan to take during their six-month interim administration, to organize democratic elections and a return to democracy, and how we might be able to help them to restore democracy and economic growth in krygyzstan. the u.s. welcomes the assurances that have been made, that the provisional government will ensure that it manages this interim time and organizes a return to democracy in full accordance with osce standards. we also welcome the provisional government's relaxation of media restrictions, including its decision to allow radio for europe and radio liberty to resume their broadcasts. let me stop there, and i would be glad to take some questions on krygyzstan.

then i would be glad to talk about sri lanka. >> two things. one, does this mean that you have basically thrown them under the bus? >> no. this situation remains unclear. i think there is still disagreement with the new provisional government. the president of krygyzstan has refused to surrender to authorities. there's some of the new provisional government to look like to have him arrested. there are others are pragmatists who would like to perhaps see if there is a way to get him out of the country. the u.s. is not really taken a position in that. we think this needs to be managed by the krygyzstan themselves in accordance with their constitution. >> you do not think this is an

unconstitutional change in government? >> well, no change has yet taken place. we cannot make a judgment. >> well, if you look back a week ago, the situation is certainly different now than it was then. so there have been some changes. >> there have been some changes. >> i mean, 81 people died. >> they did. but that was not by the current provisional government. as you know, there were demonstrations that took place. many of the people who were killed the year for two, i think approximately 80 people were killed. many were killed by supporters of the president, according to the provisional government. that is something for them to sort out under their own constitution. >> so you do not see this as a coup? >> we do not. >> do you see any russian hand in fomenting the demonstrations that led to this?

>> i know there have been a lot of reports about that. let me say this, president obama and president medvedev had a good conversation, a brief conversation, in prague about the situation regarding krygyzstan. i think there was a convergence of views between them about the need to restore law and order. so again, i think we have had good conversations with the russians so far, and we will continue to talk to them and many other countries. >> so you do not see a russian hand in fomenting this? >> i do not really want to comment. i do not think we have enough information. >> [inaudible] do you have any other interaction with the russians on that? you mentioned that the president spoke. i guess it is bigger than that. >> i think our embassy in moscow has been in touch with russian

authorities about the situation does are the only contacts i am aware of. >> has the president there had any contact with the former government? >> we have not. >> one of the members of the provisional government said today that there would be a professional operation against him. .

>> the second question about the transit center, what does that mean that they will abide by the previous agreements? what specific agreement is there in place? is it for the transit center to be in use by the u.s. and its allies through certain time frame with the possibility of renewal? >> and ackley. as you recall last year, we -- exactly, as you recall last year we reached an agreement with the government of kyrgyzstan and if you'll recall, ambassador holbrooke was in kyrgyzstan not too long ago and he said that the government at that time continue to to agree to those arrangements.

we welcome that, of course. they have said that it will continue to abide by those agreements. and of course, we will talk any time with her and the members of the provisional government about these arrangements. >> as far as i know, it was one year, a one-year agreement with the possibility of renewal. and it will expire in the summer, is that correct? >> correct. and there are my number of other things that they will have to -- and there are a number of other things that it will have to sort out. again, they will have elections. when they are prepared to talk about that, we will have that discussion > 1. >> when does that expire? >> yudof to ask the pen -- you would have to ask the pentagon about that.

>> can you comment on reports that he might have been skimming off money from -- fuel money from veterans a base? >> first of all, i think he was here in the united states and in no one in the american government met with him. i do not know where he is now i think he has left the country. but again, you should probably ask the kyrgyz embassy. >> there was a report that he was involved in the financing of sales of fuel to the transit day and may have been making an inordinate amount of money on it. >> again, i do not know about the specifics of the fuel ranges. you should talk to the pentagon about that. i would be very surprised if there was any kind of skimming going on. we make every effort to be as transparent as possible and to

do everything in accordance with kyrgyz law. >> was the president part of the government? >> he is taking on more and more of a role in foreign affairs. in fact, he was going to lead the kyrgyz consultation to these bilateral movement last friday, but as you know, we postponed those as these new things came to light. >> but you were planning on it? >> we were. but i did not have a chance to meet with him. i did have a chance to have a short meeting with the foreign minister just to tell them that we were postponing those consultations. >> can you specified the status of the transit center? is it operational, or is it in limbo?

>> you would have to talk to the pentagon to the operational details. mike understanding is that the base is opened -- my understanding is that the base is open to, but that the flights had been diverted elsewhere until the situation clarifies. >> do you plan to talk to the russians yourself? would you talk to the embassy officials here with regard to this? >> probably when i'm in kyrgyzstan i will have the opportunity to talk to a number of ambassadors, i'm assuming including the russian ambassador. i'm putting my schedule together right now. any more questions on kyrgyzstan? >> your view on the parliamentary elections last week, do you see this as a process towards peace in our country?

and second -- >> let me get to that because that is a big question right there. sri lanka just organize their first nationwide elections since the end of fighting in may of 2009. the results are still coming in, but i think it is clear that the president there has won a fairly defect -- a decisive victory. a total of 45 seats are not yet decided. 16 of those were because of irregularities in polling in the central part of sri lanka and another 12 on the eastern coast. in both cases, there were allegations of irregularities involving mps from the ruling party preventing opposition supporters from voting. the election commission has ordered a recall in in those

particular cases. once the results of those polls are in, another 29 that they call nationalist candidates, which are distributed according to their proportion of each of the parties they are in will then be allocated. i think there's still some work to be done. one of the noteworthy things about the recent elections is that hard line and nationalist parties took a severe beating in these elections. there was a group called the jvp, now known as the democratic national alliance, they at one time had 45 seats out of 225 in the sri lanka in parliament. they are now down to 40 -- down to five. and the month party that is known jhu, they went from nine

seats to 10. that is an important result because these particular parties had imposed a kind of power- sharing with the tamils and with the muslims. the result of these elections really opened the way for the president to take important action to unify the country and get it back on the path of growth. it is an important opportunity for us to make progress on these issues of reconciliation, power- sharing, and accountability. >> it is said that is the first time in several decades of the country is enjoying peace. are they taking steps towards --

now that they are taking steps towards human rights, etc., do you think this peace will be lasting? >> i think it is important for the government to be taking these steps now. they have a very significant majority, probably a two-thirds majority when the dust has settled, and that gives them the power to amend the constitution and proceed with a lot of these steps that i just described. i think this is an important opportunity that should be seized. >> the tamelas and my note -- tameltamils and minorities were crying and what are you doing, mr. secretary, as the president

has brought the end of terrorism and so forth, but in order to unify the country he has to bring those people with him. they need food and shelter and home. >> i think the u.s. has been, i think, the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to the north. i am proud of the steps that we have taken to provide food assistance primarily to the tamils that were displaced in the north. i would not say that is the primary cause of whatever problems exist. the main need now is first to restore their political rights, which would be through the elections to a provincial council. i think iran does have plans to do that later this year. -- i think the government does have plans to do that later this year. and second, steps toward reconciliation, and an important part of which would be

accountability. the tamils have suffered some great human rights abuses. we think is important for that to be part of the reconciliation process that will occur. >> mr. secretary, for secretary clinton, this could be a great gift for the new year. the crux i'm sorry, what could be a great gift? >> -- >> i'm sorry, what could be a great gift? >> the humanitarian aid. >> we have been giving humanitarian aid and have done so for the past several years. >> the exact expiration for this agreement is this summer, not less -- not next summer, correct? >> yes, there are between governments, but yes. -- they are between governments, but yes. it remains in effect until the government tells us otherwise.

but it -- >> but expires this summer unless it is extended for another year. >> that is right. what does that mean that they can abrogated now? -- abrogate it now? >> this is a new government. >> i you just said that there was no change. -- i thought you just said there was no change. >> it is a provisional government. so far, she has expressed her intention to continue -- >> fair enough, but next week she could say no is what you are saying. >> she could. >> in other words, it does not have a set expiration. >> i'm sure this will be something that we will be discussing during my talks there. >> one question on india,

please. craigslist ictu sri lanka -- >> let's stick to sri lanka for the moment any of the questions on sri lanka? >> while you are there do you plan to talk to qubad fogh and his party or not? >> no, i do not have plans to talk to him. >> can you give us a sense of what happened there, the meeting, how the relations between the two countries are? there have been india -- reports in india about differences and issues. >> first, let me say that the amnesty has already provided a readout of that meeting. it was a positive and friendly meeting. i do not think there is any significant daylight between the u.s. and india on afghanistan or

any of the other issues we are working on. we have very close cooperation on all of those issues and i think the president and prime minister had good discussions on those as well as on the issue of terrorism. the prime minister's plans to continue to try to boost economic growth in india to get it up to 8%, 9% or 10%, can produce opportunities to reduce property and help the people of india. >> can you just clarify, does this mean that the u.s. is recognizing the provisional government as legitimate? >> no, we do not recognize governments. we recognize states. this has nothing to do with that. the purpose of this visit is, first, to go and make an assessment of the situation, but

also, to express the support for the united states -- of the united states for the pledges that the provisional government has already made about the return to democracy and to see how we might help and that and restoring economic growth. >> [unintelligible] >> again, it will depend on what they ask. >> as far as nuclear terrorism is concerned, there are many fears that nuclear terrorism, or terrorists, will have small weapons that could be censured for pakistan. -- centered for pakistan.

second, who holds the nuclear key that it will not go into the hands of terrorists? they're not word of god terrorism -- they are not worried about terrorism or terrorists in india, but that the program might fall into the hands of terrorism in the future. where do we go from here? >> i do not want to predict the outcome of this summit, but the president and many other leaders of this administration have expressed confidence in pakistan's management of its nuclear weapons. i will just leave it at that. >i think i will turn it back ovr to my friend, p.j., because i've got to run off to another meeting. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i will just continue a few announcements before continuing your questions. secretary ban ki moon will be your -- be here to discuss a range of multilateral issues. secretary gordon and others visited the polish embassy here in washington to personally expressed condolences of the u.s. over the death of the president and members of his delegation. as the secretary said in her statement on saturday, this tragedy cut short these lives

and will be felt deeply across the world, but their legacy will live on in a free and flourishing poland. but we certainly express our sorrow and share with poland over this tragedy. and the united states stands firmly with the people of northern ireland in rejecting those that would use violence as a tool. we will continue the ongoing efforts of the people of northern ireland to build and sustain a thriving, confident, and shared society. and the car bomb today in northern ireland should in no way deter momentum towards effort in realizing the good friday agreements, including the devolution of the justice powers from dublin to belfast has occurred today. the voting is underway in sedan.

we are satisfied with the starting of the process, but to refrain from commenting on how it is going into a voting is concluded there this week. the assistant secretary johnny carson has arrived in brazzaville, the republic of congo, where he will meet with foreign minister -- the foreign minister and president. the undersecretary for economic energy and cultural affairs addressed vietnam's foreign trade university today to highlight growth and opportunity and shared prosperity in the u.s.-vietnam partnership. thanks to an historic bilateral trade agreement, trade has increased in the past eight years by 700% to nearly $16

billion in 2009, clearly benefiting both countries. finally, ambassador for global women's issues started a two- week trip to lithuania, russia and egypt. the ambassador will meet with non-governmental leaders in all countries to discuss progress in achieving women's empowerment in the social and economic greenness and improving internal health. -- economic a rrenas and improving internal health. rugs is there a team out there -- >> will there be 18 when out there -- if a team going out there to discuss adoption? >> i think is next week. it was planned before last week's incident. but the consular for foreign

affairs will lead a team to rusher -- russia and details are being worked out, but clearly, this latest situation will be among those discussed. >> [unintelligible] >> it is possible. if the russians bring it up, we will be happy to discuss it. >> scott was out there for two weeks and has decided to come back before the action is even over? >> he did a great deal of -- >> i'm not suggesting that he did not do a lot of work while he was there, but as far as the timing, in the run-up to this as far as it will be delayed or not, and then suddenly he will take off? >> he has to work with the parties to help prepare for the elections, clarify the stance of

various partisans in the election, hibbert is a bit in a variety -- of the various participants in the election. he participated in a very -- a variety of work that was preparatory to the launching of the elections. >> why did he decide to leave now? >> his work is done. >> isn't his work also to help determine whether this election is free, fair, credible? >> actually, that is the work of the formal observers from the u.s. and the international community and the private sector that are involved in this. obviously, scott will pick up the process in the aftermath of the election. but basically, the focus of his trip was to help sudan prepare for this election. now that the election is under

way, he felt his work was done for the moment. >> what you think of these decisions? >> sudan had pledged that there would be a three-day block and inside there, that process, if there is any case there were there would be a delay in the voting, then an extension would be back in. >> a lot of the sudan activist groups are saying that this was a sham and that the government never really reliant on allowing the opposition -- really relented on a allow the opposition to have television coverage. this is including a referendum that they will add. >> as we have said, we have had concerns about the atmosphere and the environment in the run- up to the election. we will evaluate what happens now.

let's let the election actually occurre. let's let the international observers report on what they saw and then we will evaluate the results from there. that said, the election as we have noted is a significant step towards full implementation of the cpa. obviously, it is going to be a difficult election for sudan to carry out. they have not done this in a while. we will not be surprised if there are irregularities. there's been some evidence that there have been some difficulties in the first two days of voting. but if you support the election, and reform -- but we support the election and reflect the will of the sudanese people and will have more to say once it is complete.

>> the u.s. position is that we do not know the this election reports will people -- the will -- reflects the will of the people yet. >> we understand it represents a challenge for sudan. we understand that in the last few years there has been ñwasignificant conflict. but that said, this is an important step for sudan. but as to the particulars of the voting, we think it is important for the voting to take place and have the observers tell us what they saw and then we will see what the consequences are. we would like to see the results reflect the vote will of the sudanese people, understanding that given more than two decades since they have held an election and we recognize that it will be difficult. >> does the u.s. recognize that the current difficulties are

more a logistical challenge because you keep repeating that they have not done this in a while, or more of a cartoon government to regain the system? >> there certainly have been challenges in preparing for the election. certainly, more than the government -- more that the government of sudan could have done and should have done to create an -- an appropriate environment for the election, but beyond that, we think the people of sudan want to see the election take place. that is one of the reasons why we have supported this election as part of the comprehensive peace agreement. this election is an important milestone because there are a number of this steps that sudan is going to take. the future is clear about what it says about this election and

the election institutions that will be vital as we look to january and the upcoming referendum on the future of southern sudan. we thought it was appropriate to have this election, notwithstanding the likelihood that there would be considerable difficulties. >> you have our resident expert on india standing in front of you. >> yes, i know. he was good. two questions. one, after the secretary met with both leaders in pakistan, if there was anything on the sidelines that the u.s. was trying to bring them together here as far as their differences are concerned, and second, what officials are

saying now, they are focusing more on the housley case -- hadley case and he has a little more to talk other than he has pled guilty. >> obviously, we have kept india apprised of our ongoing investigation with respect to mr. hadley. as for us what has been discussed here this week, i have not gotten a readout on the bilateral between the prime minister and president, but i think this will be an ongoing conversation between india and the u.s. given the shared importance of combating terrorism here and there.

i'm not aware that we are going to try to bring together pakistani and any of the other officials here in washington. i think we will continue to encourage both sides to find ways to improve their bilateral dialogue [inaudible] -- their bilateral dialogue. >> [inaudible] >> we have encouraged discussions taking place between the officials. we think that is important. on not aware that that will happen here. >> could you tell us who is going to have the u.s. delegation for the funeral? >> we will have a high-level delegation. we are still sorting through it. >> are you aware of any policies as far as putting the president

and so many top officials on a single plane? do you know of any restrictions like that? i know that the secretary often flies with the president on air force one, but you do not have virtually all of the leadership on the same plane at the same time. >> the only policy i know is what happens in and around the state of the union. i do not know that there is a particular provision. but as a government, we are perched -- continually evaluating our contingency plans for our we would function in the event of a major attack. certainly, the planning has a serrated after the aftermath of 2001. >> are there any reports that syrian modified scud missiles have been moved to lebanon? you have information about that? >> i do not.

>> would you take the question? >> probably not. [laughter] i do not know how i can answer the question without giving you intelligence matters, which we generally do not share. >> do you have information on the south korean meeting with the deputy secretary? >> i think, if you are referring to the ambassador that is here -- i do not have clarity on all of the meetings that will be taking place this week with various officials. i have not seen a list on the pri's secretary steinberg's -- deputy secretary steinberg's

meetings, but i know that he will be meeting with him sometime this week. he will be meeting with the ambassador over the peninsula of peace and security affairs. >> can you talk about specific topics? >> i'm sure we will talk about the current state of affairs with respect to the six party talks among other things. >> could you comment on the street or that is very disrespectful to u.s. officials, of course, but also, discouraging other types of expression? >> it will not be the first time that the chavez government has infringed upon freedom of expression. >> during the briefing by the white house offices for the

nuclear summit, one of the officials said the secretary will sign today with the foreign minister an agreement on this position? >> actually, she will do that tomorrow. >> can we go back to kyrgyzstan for a moment? >> yes. >> you really not see any russian hand in what happened? >> i will not go beyond what mr. blake said. >> i remember what he said, which was nothing. and i'm a bit concerned. [laughter] i'm concerned that you do not know how to answer the question, so you are not. there seems to be pretty good anecdotal evidence that there was a hand. the credits assistant secretary blake -- >> assistant secretary blake is going to this afternoon -- our ambassador here in washington was anticipating a

bilateral consultation and has just arrived back in kyrgyzstan, over the weekend. i'm sure that will be one of the issues that secretary blake will be able to evaluate once he gets on the ground. >> is the ambassador is gone and the assistant secretary at is not there, the entire apparatus is gone? >> no, one of the reasons to go in there is to assess the situation on the ground and see what we can do. but he is not prepared to make a comment on all of the particulars about how this evolved over the past few days. >> can you say that you're concerned as to whether the russians may have had something to do with this? >> look, and is going to leave it where bob left it. >> one more. the answer to this has flummoxed me for years. >> we do not want to keep you flummoxed. the crux maybe will be able to un->> maybe you will be able to

unflummox me. this is a very disingenuous way when you do not want to comment on something to say that you do not recognize governments, but that you recognize the states. in a lot of cases you do recognize governments. in honduras and others -- i'm talking a recent -- aren't talking about recent events. >> it is not for us to take sides or to choose among competing factions. >> i understand that. what does recognition of a state entail? >> we have diplomatic relations with them.

but -- >> so, you do not recognize north korea as a state? gregg's and those that are members of the u.n., for -- >> and those that are members of the u.n., for example. north korea is a country. we do not have diplomatic relations with them, but recognition has different terminology in terms of the relations and diplomatic engagement that we have with a particular country. >> four years with afghanistan, they did not have -- they were not in the u.n.. there were represented in the u.n. by the non-taliban government. the recognized afghanistan? >> we did not have diplomatic relations with the taliban. >> ok, so you did not recognize afghanistan as a state.

>> i understand your his -- your interest in the history lesson here. >> i want to know what it means to recognize the country as a state. are there any countries out there that consider themselves countries that you do not recognize as a state? >> i think the magic number is 192. >> ok, are there any countries out there that you do not recognize as a state? >> i will take the question as to where there is -- whether there is a particular land mass on the face of the earth that we do not recognize -- >> somalia come out when you do not have a -- somalia, you do not have an embassy there. >> somalia is a country, but they do not have an actual government. >> well, it does, but not one that you recognize. >> there is a transition -- [laughter] look, let's stick to what

generated your question. there is a transitional administration that has taken over operation of government ministries. we recognize that reality. it is not for us to say that today, a leader of kyrgyzstan is one person versus another. what we recognize is there is a process under way that within six months time will produce a new government, one that we hope will be more democrat -- democratic. we will support that process. as we said last week, we support the people of kyrgyzstan and their desire for a more transparent and responsible governments of that reflects their will.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> today's state department briefing. coming up, will go live to today's white house briefing taking place today at the washington convention center, which is where this week's white house nuclear summit is taking place. live coverage when it gets under way shortly here on c-span. until then, your phone calls and comments from today's "washington journal."

host: we are going to start with a look at congress and economists warned against more aid to states. the author writes that states have been kept afloat by the economic downturn a critical federal aid, but with stimulus money said to run out soon, a report from concern economist argues that it could postpone and worsen the state's eventual recognition with budgets. hundreds of dollars to states. the aid peaks this year. states say they're still hurting and congress is trying figure how much aid to benefit and for how long. we'll read you more of the article in a moment and what's ahead in congress.

first though from san antonio and john, on our republican line. caller: good morning.. how you doing today? this is just a stinky way of raising taxes for the populat n population. i don't know people say government is going to give somebody something they don't have. they have people get it and they have to take it from you and i, the taxpayers. if a private business couldn't make it on what they either cut jobs or go out of business. let the state does the same thing. take california, they had an article the other day on california, where a retired teacher making 100,000 dollars. his retirement paid at $54,000. cut all this junk out. your going to be okay if you don't, go by the way of the dinosaur. >> there's a story this morning about - not about teachers but college professors that says

study fund as 1 point 2 percent increase. walter, independent? caller: good morning.i have the opinion that's probably a bit unusual in this situation. that is to say, the governors who are going to reject the money told washington to keep their money and all that. last time around on the stimulus, they aught to just stay true to that word and not have any given to them this time. the people who were willing to help the residents of those states and accept the federal stimulus money, should get credit for that from the last time around and receive it again. those people that rejected it last time should have to hold that promise. host: what if they want it this time?

caller: let's put it this way if they didn't want it last time but took credit for getting it any way, then - then they can't have it both ways. host: melvin, republican. virginia. caller: good morning.. we aught to look at the first stimulus and what it supposed to do and what it ended up doing. we're not the first obama stimulus. we were supposed to have no more than 8% unemployment. i think we should be worried about that and only use money for emergency purposes so, the thing is it's unnecessary to have stimulus every time something goes on or wrong. for anybody that agrees with the democrat side, could you keep race out of the equation for a change.

thank you. s>:@@@@n@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n @å host: miami, fernandez, a democratic collar. caller: hello. host: be sure to trindle in your television or radio. -- turn down your television or radio. caller: we have so many people losing jobs and how we did not have this mess before bush and everybody is blaming the president. i just want to make a comment that it is not obama's fault

that they are losing jobs. he just got into office. host: the story -- the question for you this morning is more money for states. host: 2 southland -- i think it is massachusetts. what state are you index caller: washington d.c. -- what state are you been? washington caller: dc.

host: go ahead with your comments. caller: most of the state in this nation are broke and for the federal government to continue using the fed as the vehicle to print dollars to further expand the debt of this nation is a tragedy. this nation has turned into a debt clayton nation and the economy will be screwed more and more as days go by. host: 2 southland, mich. and this is iris, go ahead. caller: i feel the government is just taking and taking an spending and spending. they have been earmarked for everything from bridges, highways renamed, street signs, etc. i think they borrow money when they charge you taxes on your salary and maybe they could add another $50, $60, $200 back from

what they do not use. we give them our trust and they give us back little "let them eat cake" kind of stuff. obama could travel less and do more by telephone and spend more time in the united states where he is elected president. or maybe cut his salary until his proves himself -- until he proves himself. and they should stop taking from our generosity and start instituting a flat tax. maybe we could finally be fiscally sound in this country and never did get a freer -- fair share. host: should congress provide more aid to states? congress comes back today. the senate is in first and then the house back tomorrow. the hill reports that battle weary house democrats are short

weeks easy vote ahead. they settled a number of a four- day weeks and relatively easy agenda items to give members plenty of time to maneuver for there are coming races. the only piece of -- and for their upcoming races. the only piece of legislation coming is for the estuary program. democrats will waste no time having sharply towards jobs to legislation, an area that many democrats are eager to shine a spotlight on. here is a front-page story on unemployment in the "baltimore sun" this morning. milton, washington, michael, a democrat. caller: i think we should

definitely stop giving the states money. everyone needs to cut back. here in the state of washington , they're starting to try to tax soda and bottled water. host: they are taxing you on bottled water in milton? caller: the washington legislature is talking about it right now. host: how much would they charge on a bottle of water? caller: the news was saying the truce -- 2 cents per can of soda and 5 cents per bottle of water. it is not good to get the economy going. host: it republican view from scott in oklahoma city. caller: i appreciate your show very much. keep up the great work. in oklahoma, -- well, referring back to college, there is no

such thing as federal money except that it comes from the states. that is an illusion that people seem to have. we get federal money and we are doing great. it comes from the states. the federal government takes out a bunch in their administrative costs before they ever give anything back to us. in oklahoma, we have a great solution to this. we have house bill 2810 put up by one of our key legislators here that put our federal excise money ine kept by the state treasurer and not be passed on to the federal government except at the pleasure of the legislature. the committee had that was supposed to let it be heard, he never did. >> we will leave this to go live to the white house briefing that

is just getting under way at the convention center. >> i wanted to start today with an announcement. today, ukraine announced a landmark decision to get rid of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by the time of the next nuclear security summit in 2012. ukraine intends to remove a substantial amount of its stocks this year. ukraine will convert its civil nuclear research facilities to operate with low enriched uranium fuel. this is something that the u.s. has tried to make happen for more than 10 years. the material is enough to construct several nuclear weapons. this demonstrates ukraine's continued leadership in non- proliferation and -- and comes in an important region were reno a lot of highly enriched uranium exists. with that, let me turn this over

to john brennan. >> [inaudible] >> we will both enter questions. >> good afternoon, everyone. the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, serious, growing, and constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security. over the past two decades, there has been indisputable evidence that dozens of terrorist groups have actively sought some type of weapon of mass effect. relative to other such potential weapons, which include biological, chemical, radiological, the consequences and impact of a nuclear attack would be the most devastating and lasting. thus, the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and to use it is the ultimate and most prized goal of terrorist groups. al qaeda is especially notable for its long standing in the --

interest in acquiring nuclear material weapons and the expertise that would allow it to develop a yield producing improvised nuclear device. al qaeda has been engaged in the effort to acquire a nuclear weapon for over 15 years. and its interests remain strong today. al qaeda and other terrorist groups know that if they are able to acquire highly enriched uranium, or separated plutonium, and turn it into a weapon, they would have the ability not only to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner, but also to kill or injure many thousands of men, women, and children, which is al qaeda's sole agenda. disturbingly, internationalized -- international organized criminal elements are keenly aware of their effort to acquire, nuclear material, which has prompted these criminals to

pursue nuclear material for their own gain. over the past decade there has been an increase in tourism sharing intelligence iran the world. -- are around the world. while this intelligence sharing is invaluable, it must be accompanied by collective and effective action by all nations of the world to deny and deprived terrorist criminal groups the opportunity to gain their related nuclear material and expertise that would allow them to fulfill their evil goals. indeed, our future and the future of generations yet to come to depend on our ability to safeguard these materials and expertise. while there are many different -- different nuclear issues, there are none more important than this one. that is why we are focusing specific the nuclear terrorism and nuclear security in the next two days.

these issues must be addressed with a sense of focus and urgency. thank you. >> with that, we will all take a series of questions. >> a question on ukraine and a question for mr. brown, if i could come on al qaeda. >> this highly enriched uranium, where will it be sent? >> the final disposition location is yet to be determined. the announcement and the agreement, obviously, having just a little bit ago. we will be working to provide some degree of technical and financial assistance to ensure that it happens. >> [inaudible] >> is among them, yes. >> you mentioned with regard to al qaeda that they had been seeking nuclear weapons for 15 years and you described our interest remains strong, you

said. can you point to anything they are doing today? >> over the past 15 years you have open testimony in court about al qaeda's efforts to, for example, to try to obtain uranium in sudan in 1994. you have the statements that the al qaeda seniors, including bin laden and al-zawahiri, have made a a about their agenda, which purports to be muslim. and there is a strong body of intelligence over the past decade that in -- and i clearly indicates al qaeda has been trying to procure these materials on the open market and with criminal syndicates. the evidence is strong. the track record is demonstrated. we know that al qaeda continues to pursue these materials. >> it follow-up on that same question, are you aware of any efforts by al qaeda to obtain

materials or expertise since the meeting that to place -- that took place? [inaudible] and secondly, are you aware of efforts at this point, continuing efforts, to infiltrate the body of trained scientists in pakistan who are training outside in europe? >> there have been numerous reports over the last eight or nine years about a tense throughout the world to obtain various types of purported material that is nuclear- related. we know that al qaeda has been involved in a number of these efforts. fortunately, i think they have been scanned a number of times, but we know they continue to pursue that. there has been, i think,

demonstrated interest across a number of years. one of the things we are most concerned about is that this is probably one of the most sensitive of their efforts, so it will only have very few people involved. it therefore requires very good intelligence work -- intelligence work done. i think al qaeda is looking through the world and for those vulnerabilities and facilities and stockpiles that would allow them to obtain nuclear reactors and materials that they can use, but also, to go after those individuals that might have access to the materials as well as the expertise that they need. >> is there any evidence that they have managed to do that? >> there is evidence of their attempts to do that. i would like to think that we have been able to thwart their success today. -- to date.

>> [inaudible] can you describe the nature of who these gangs are? [inaudible] >> before john ketsana to pakistan -- before javaughn gets to pakistan, i would read you from the readout of yesterday that the president indicated his appreciation of the broadbased 7

sentiment and used the topic of the conference to reinforce the prairie. the prime minister of pakistan has reiterated that pakistan takes nuclear security service and has agreed safeguards in place. and then on poland, no decisions have yet been made. >> [inaudible] >> i think scheduling is looking at a number of possibilities. . .

>> our concerns are global and that is why the president has brought these world leaders together today. >> the president was directly engaged on exactly this question when president sardari and president cars i traveled here in 2009 as part of that trilateral meeting. one of the important developments out of the announcement relating to the ukraine is we understand the concentration of these types of materials in the former soviet republics. >> is the president concerned that the united states would have to be kind of a storage place for nuclear materials?

>> the goal of this summit and the reason the president isn't so concerned about this is our general concern about the security environment in which this material is held. we do not worry about the security environment in which the sick -- in which those materials are held in this country. that might be in different places around the country. the president sees the threat of this type of material falling into the hands of somebody who wants to use it for their evil designs as the number one security threat we face as a world. this is just the type of announcement that we would like to see. i traveled with them that- senator obama to the ukraine in 2005 with senator lugar. we visited a facility that was

the equivalent of the ukraine's cdc. we walked out of room and -- into a refrigerator and someone took out a series of test tubes that were anthrax. suffice to say, i think the level to which we believe that type of material should be secured -- in 2005, that standard was not being met at the facility when to. -- went to. we provide the type of funding necessary to help many of these countries secure this material. we have assisted ukraine in a number of those projects whether it be biological chemical or nuclear.

>> in some instances it will be and we welcome that. >> what about materials being transported in this country? >> as we did with chile -- remember, we have a choice. we can take a flier on this being secured somewhere else in the hope that somebody with the type of design is that john discussed or, needless to say, in a tough economic situation, a person working in one of these labs that needs money making a sale. the american people feel more confident that the material of which not a huge amount can destroy an entire city -- i think they feel far more secure knowing that material is under

safe lock and key and guard in this country rather than potentially floating around somewhere else. >> you said that ukraine had committed to having the enriched uranium disposed by the time of the next the clear summit. what is that? >> that is 2012 and will likely announce the location for that tomorrow. >> mr. brennan, ukraine has almost 70 kilograms of uranium. [unintelligible] is that what you are talking about? well that all be disposed of or is there additional highly enriched uranium we don't know about? >> if my arithmetic is correct,

it is roughly 90 kilograms. i am under the impression that it is more than that. i don't want to get into a specific amount. it is enough for the construction of several nuclear weapons. i would say many, many times greater than the amount that was recovered from chile. that was obviously an important announcement in insuring that any of that highly enriched uranium is now under lock and key. >> mr. gibbs said that the united states has been doing this for 10 years. what made the difference and why is it happening now? >> there has been an effort over many years to try to ensure that nuclear materials will be safeguarded. this is one of the priority items that president obama had when he entered office and there has been a lot of work that has been done over the last 50

months in order to get to this point today where we can bring together so many world leaders who recognize there is a threat out there and it requires collective action because terrorist groups and international criminal organizations will look for the weakest link in a trade. that is why it is critically important that all countries take the responsibility seriously. >> mr. brennan, if you can clarify this ongoing threat you're talking about from these terrorist groups like al qaeda, is there anything specific now that intelligence is telling you that this threat exists, not just general threats are the last 10 years but anything actively going on now that intelligence can point to? >> i think you can point to a lot of al qaeda statements that point to their determination to carry out attacks on the u.s. and western interests as well as other nations. there is a significant amount of

intelligence that underlies those statements and those assessments that are public. al qaeda has demonstrated its determination and also extra impatience and going after particular types of capabilities. we know for certain that there are individuals who have been within al qaeda that have been given this responsibility. this is a very tough challenge for us to be able to look worldwide to see where al qaeda might be undertaking biological, chemical, or radiation programs. there is intelligence that indicates they continue their murderous agenda and continues to look for wmd capabilities to carry out that agenda. >> on iran and where china is in terms of a bracing tougher sanctions, can you give us an update on that? are they softening on that? >> let me not get ahead of the meeting that i think is about 50 minutes away. -- 15 minutes away.

we will do a readout of what happened in the meeting. we all have seen reports of the last several weeks of the progress that the p-5 +1 is making, including china. the president had productive discussions with president medvedev in prague in moving this along. others were struck by the notion that the president alliant the desire -- a line the the desire for its next step if china did not live up to its obligations. the russian president said he could not disagree with that assessment. >> these nuclear materials have half lives in the thousands of years and tens of thousands of

years. yucca mountain was being designed to store materials for that. time. >> we are not talking about the same material that would have been deposited at yucca mountain. i think you can find the location of many of the labs and security sites we have that are fairly commonly known on where this is. the notion of drawing and easily connected line to yucca mountain -- the final disposition could take the form of a lower enriched uranium in order to provide for the use in a peaceful nuclear program. i certainly think that is one

of the disposition ideas. because this is a press announcement, the final resting place for that material -- some of it may hear and some of it may not be here. my answer was to simply say that when forced with the choice of having the material stored safely here or taking the rest that it may or may not be secure somewhere else particularly in highly volatile regions of the world, our choice, quite clearly, is to have that here. >> trying to embark on a longer- term project and think about what to do with all of this material you're trying to get, this is a complicated question than just moving it from one place to another. >> my concern is that there are

materials that are out there that terrorist groups are trying to go after. we need to make sure we do everything possible as soon as possible to secure those materials and stockpiles and deny them to terrorist organizations. clearly, there will be a number of decisions and actions that will have to be taken in terms of the ultimate disposition and use of those materials but we cannot wait any longer before we lock down the stockpiles because we don't want to have any type of material ball into the hands of terrorist groups because the result would be devastating. >> [unintelligible] >> absolutely, to reiterate, this is -- obviously, in the former soviet republics, you had

overnight problem in the early 1990's. this is how the nunn-lugar program came to be. the ukraine has taken a number of positive steps including giving up a lot at the very beginning of that in the history of that. obviously, our preferred action is to insure the security. there will be a lot of things that are discussed with individual countries and collectively over the next few days. some countries have highly enriched uranium and some don't. some can play a role in interdiction and some can play a role in security. there are a host of roles for every nation to plight which is why the president has brought so

many people here this week. i think that is among a range of options. our hope is -- in some cases, with different materials, as i spoke earlier, our country has helped secure what is there. in terms of highly enriched uranium, our goal is to make sure that is secure. if the most secure place is to have it here, that is certainly our goal. >> what do you mean bike button- down -- what you mean by button- down? >> it is making sure that they understand exactly the nature of

their stockpiles and inventories and security procedures in place at various facilities throughout the world. does the movement and the people who work at these facilities. there is a gamut of responsibilities that nations have. there are some countries that have these facilities that need to do a better job of blocking down these materials and denying them for the terrorists to have an opportunity to use them. that is why these discussions have been taking place. these discussions have been taking place for the last 15 months. we need to make sure that we have a strong infrastructure in place. >> there is no general mechanism out there? these are agreements between nations. >> i can assure you that over the course of the next two

years, as i said, the united states will provide whatever technical assistance is necessary to insure that the movement of very dangerous and not easy to handle material is accomplished. we are not signing any formal mechanism today. the commitments made between those two leaders, the president feels confident in. that will begin to provide along with other nations of the world, the ability to lock this thing down. >> this morning there was an interview with the president of the ukraine. he said the future of nuclear materials would go to russia and he did not mention the united states the.

[unintelligible] if the material originated in russia, it would be returned to russia and the cave and the united states, it would be returned to the united states? >> i simply said that it could. this has yet to be finally determined. our goal is to insure that whether we are providing the assistance for someone else to secure it or whether it comes here, there is a range of secure options that are exponentially better than the up in the air risk that we face today with the ability for this type of

material to slip out of where it is and slip into somebody else's hands that seeks to do us and other nations great harm. >> it seems rather odd that you would announce this. >> this is 10 years in the making. the important thing is an agreement to move it over the next -- over the next two years, a substantial amount of that will leave the ukraine this year. we will work with and provide the technical and financial assistance that is necessary. from our perspective, the biggest thing is an agreement to get it out. the agreement to get it under the type of regime that is married for this -- that is necessary for this type of material. there is no doubt there will be

details that need to be worked out between now and 2012 when they have committed to doing that, understanding that over the course of the last 10 + years, the announcement we made today is what we had been hoping to be able to say. i think the president believes that the commitment that the ukraine and chile and other countries have made with regard to these efforts is something that will make the world demonstrably more secure. >> in speaking about the attempt by out at to get nuclear material, what is your assessment of al qaeda at this point in terms of material they can get or personnel trained to

could develop these materials? >> the ability of a terrorist group to acquire weapons is directly related to the vulnerability of those materials. that is what we are trying to address here. over the years, al qaeda has claimed that the already have such nuclear capability or weapons. that has not been proved. at the same time, it is difficult to disprove something like that. there is no indication i have bad al qaeda as a nuclear weapon capability. i am also determined to insure that they will not be able to obtain that type of capability and the best way to do it, as we continue to degrade and disrupt al qaeda, is to take away the opportunities they may have to acquire fissile material or the expertise that is required to use that material to create an improvised nuclear explosive device. we have been very aggressive on this front. we are looking -- working

closely with our international partners. the risk of that eventuality is a factor of the determination of al qaeda and the vulnerability of these materials. that is what this conference today is trying to address. >> with regard to ukraine, what is the estimated cost to the united states? >> i don't have an estimate on the financial part of it. >> not even a range? >> no. >> all other countries stepping up as well? >> this is russian in origin variabl. they will play a significant role in helping to secure that as well. >> will there be other countries that step or tomorrow? >> absolutely, the goal is to do all that we can.

we understand that our desire is to see this as secure as it possibly can be. that takes many forms. our assistance and the assistance of our partners and allies will certainly be important not just this week but in the coming years to ensure that the goal the president has outlined of securing all vulnerable nuclear material over the next four years is something that will have to be done with a host of countries. >> if the vulnerability of the materials -- would you say that the vulnerability of the materials have increased since the end of the cold war? >> one of the concerns is that by definition, as you have expansion of nuclear programs,

there is going to be an increase in the nuclear byproducts that come out of those facilities as well as the expertise that is available to run them. with the increasing availability of nuclear programs, the increasing prevalence worldwide, this is why we want to make sure we can work with all the countries of the world so they can do their part. the availability of this material is going to be a factor of how well we can plug the gaps and address the vulnerability through out there. nuclear programs have increased over the last several decades. >> should they get possession of this material, how long will it take for someone like al qaeda to produce a nuclear weapon?

we look at iran and it could take one year. what is your assessment? >> i talked before about the various affects whether it be biological, chemical, or radiological. radiological is a dirty bomb which is the way al qaeda could carry out a nuclear-type event but it would not produce a deal. it would not be a nuclear blast. those materials may be available. a chemical attack or a biological attack and have a tremendous effect with destruction and the terms of lives which may be limited. an improvised nuclear device, which is probably the way they would go cullum a lot of it depends on the material i can get and the expertise they have.

that would be determined to move in that direction. they have already said publicly that if they acquired that type of weapons capability, they would use it. i would not want to test the proposition of how much time they would take to create such a weapon. we want to focus on denying them the opportunity to use those materials for weapons of mass effects. >> [unintelligible] what is the biggest technological concern? >> we have concerns on the military and civilian side with

facilities and transport as well as the security measures that are put in place at these respective facilities. al qaeda and other groups are going to be looking for which avenues prevent them the best opportunity to recall -- to acquire these materials. these organizations residing countries where there are nuclear programs, including some that are part of nuclear weapons programs. we are trying to make sure that we can stay several steps ahead of torque -- terrorist groups by working with the countries to make sure they can button-down their facilities and take the proper steps to institute the protocols that will and/or over time. this is not a one time event. we want to continue this process where we can truly safeguard these materials. >many things are transported ona regular basis that we have to

make sure this happens in this safest way possible. as the country's move materials, we want to make sure they are fully aware of the vulnerabilities and potential opportunities that terrorists might use to take a batch of their transport. >> [unintelligible] >> this is a multilateral setting where the heads of steading government get together to talk about their responsibilities. there will be a series of multi lateral forms and bilateral opportunities where the discussions will take place about what the requirements are in order to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken. sometimes, countries will require resources or some

technical support and assistance so that they can put in place the procedures that are necessary. this will continue to move forward and we will have these discussions but certainly, the united states is willing to work very closely with other countries so that they can take the steps necessary to protect them, their neighbors, as well as a worldwide community. >> you have to speak up. you are in a different area code. >> the united states sells uranium from time to time to other countries. [unintelligible] >> i would have to find somebody who atnsc who has a better idea

of that. >> how many nuclear bombs does north korea have? >> north korea? i am not going into discussing the nature of that. i would say that you have seen this administration put into effect with the unanimous vote of the security council last year, strict sanctions to impede north korea possibility to move that type of weapon or those tests of materials and other types of materials out of their country through a very strong

sanctions ribs aim. >> are you thinking about raising a fund to help companies that can store their own nuclear materials? >>the nunn-lugar program has been highly successful at destroying different types of weapons systems in the former soviet union and soviet countries. the president and senator lugar worked and the program was approved in 2006. this was largely as an offshoot ofnunn-lugar and deals the civic with conventional weapons. from the collapse of the soviet union and into 2006, there was a

renewed investment on ensuring that conventional weapons also did not fall into the hands of people we did not want to see have them. i think we were in the ukraine again in 2005 with senator lugar and going through a facilitate that was very, very slowly destroying huge stockpiles of large munitions, big shells, the type of thing that, honestly, could easily be strung together to create the i andam ied. there are to be -- there are huge stockpiles left over from other years.

in the wrong hands, these materials could easily be used to do harm throughout the world. >> why are you not going to the united nations for the convention? >> 46 countries are represented here as well as a series of international organizations that the president believes are necessary to do this. i do not think this is

duplicative. the press and has a strong concern for the threat to john talked about the type of materials -- the type of groups that want these materials. the president believes we must do everything in our power and that is certainly not duplicative of what the united nations does. >> did you say it was okay that the uranium is moved to russia? >> all i said was that was one of the likely destinations for that type of material. >> also, the president said russia was very positive for the

next summit. >> we will have an announcement for the next summit likely tomorrow. >> [unintelligible] >> i'm sorry? [unintelligible] >again, we have a wide -- we hae a great number of countries and many have shown that this is the greatest number of countries that have been invited and assembled in this country's sense the mid-1940's. -- since the mid-1940's.

there are a host of roles that the countries represented here can play. some have that highly enriched uranium that we are seeking to secure and others can play an effort in how to secure that. others can play an effort in the interdiction of these types of materials in the event of a league where they are. i think there are it -- are a host of different roles that each nation will play here. the president wants their strong commitment to securing this blues and vulnerable material over the course of the next four years. i will take one more question. >> [unintelligible]

is there a greater incentive now than in the past to actually sell the material? -- salvage the material? >> there have been a number of incidents over the years that we no criminal organizations have tried to sell materials they claim arefissile materials. fortunately, most of these incidents sca that debatems with red mercury and other types of scams that are out there. we know al qaeda has been taken by some of them but they have not been deterred. they have tried to develop the expertise that allow them to distinguish between a s that is acam and those that are a deal.

there was open testimony in court about a cut in the mid- 1990's to acquire uranium from japan -- from a red. -- from i read. -- from iran. we have to make sure that none of that material is real but we are also aware of instances where there has been serious concerns that materials that are being discussed have the characteristics encompass -- and composition offissile material. >> thank you, guys. yes? we will have many weeks to play -- to spend the big wheel and play that name game. i have no doubt that i will get many calls before 6:00 a.m. and

we will play the name game. we appreciate senator hatch's addition. the president has identified and secretary clinton a job -- a capacity in which she is doing a wonderful job and the president will keep her as his secretary of state. i think the portion of senator hatch's comments that have gone less noticed are the comments that he thinks this has the ability -- the potential to get done quite quickly in terms of an announcement. that is our part. i think it is quite constructive that we see it from somebody as senior as senator

hatch and the role he has put on the judiciary committee of moving a nominee through the process in a way that gets someone seated for the next term of the u.s. supreme court. thank you. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might give may help in deciding the stakes. >> after 34 years in the supreme court, justice john paul stevens will set down when the court that this is a tour for the summer. the best place to examine his life and legacy is the cspan video library with more than 80 appearances on the c-span network. search it, watch it, clip it, and share it. the cspan video library, cables next greatest gift.

>> we will hear from the previous ambassador to israel and palestine. this is hosted by the woodrow wilson center and is about two hours. c-span3 c-span[captioning perfoy national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good morning and welcome to the woodrow wilson center and today's meeting. today's meeting is the 19th session and the forum series,

created in 2004. as some of you know, the woodrow wilson international center for scholars was established by an act of congress in 1968. it is our nation's official living memorial to president woodrow wilson. the center is a non-partisan facility towards dialogue and policy. we bring together the thinkers and doers, policymakers, scholars, and business leaders in the hope that open by laws will lead to better understanding, cooperation, and public policy.

we are delighted to have with us today five former u.s. ambassadors. the theft was coming from union station, ambassador frank. we are delighted to have with us our other guests. my colleague aaron david miller who is a public policy students will chair the meeting. he serves republican and democrat administrations. his most recent book is "the much to promised land." his new book, "can america have another great presidents?" be published by bantam in 2012. i must urge you not to make its

forthcoming cover story on the peace process. aaron is very good at finding pro bucket said points of view. could i please remind you to close yourself loans, do not answer, take a message during this session because it will interfere with our lives. we have an overflow. during the q&a session, we will take questions from the overflow. aaronm you have the chair, welcome. >> thank you. one of my greatest joys of being at the center for the last four years is to be able to work with you. i greatly appreciated. welcome and good morning.

15 months since the administration of a political transformer the president, this president, like many of his present tears -- predecessors, is wrestling with the problem of the much to promised land. his determination to see the creation of a palestinian state on his watch as it -- is exceeded only by the degree of difficulty in doing so. according to some, a year-and-a- half in, there are no negotiations. we are in the middle of a major risk with the government of israel. we have very little streak at -- credibility among the arabs and palestinians. according to some, not much has been accomplished these many months by the president. according to others, they have a different view. this is a potentially transform the president who needs to recalibrate the american relationship with israel. he is absolutely determined to

see a breakthrough on his watch, even if it involves the necessity of putting out an american plan. he has this to the contest himself and on his watch, a palestinian state will be born or it will never be created. also on his watch, iran their name -- mayor may not's the nuclear threshold. these are important calculations for the legacy of a president. i guarantee you he is thinking even now about that legacy. to help us make sense of these matters and others, we have identified and created a truly exceptional panel. but they will help us look forward but that will also help us look back. as an historian by training, i think looking back is important. it was mark twain who argued that history does not repeat so

much as rhyme. it rhymes. the reality is, what works and what did not work accords of the last four decades in america's area of israel -- of israeli- arab peace. if you do not know where you have been, the chances are, you really don't know where you are going. we have over one century which takes me out of this of experience when frank wizner shows up. more than 100 years of expertise and wisdom in dealing with the arab-israeli and middle eastern issue. but i think that is quite extraordinary. i would spend most of the morning reading their biographies which i will not do. i will introduce them, however,

in the order they will speak very briefly and undeservedly briefly, i might add. our first test served as ambassador to israel and egypt and in other capacities in the region and here. at the department of state. jake wallace is the cyrus vance fellow. he served as counsel general in jerusalem as well as the city and our embassy at athens as well as holding up many other positions. edward mineen is a fellow at gw. he was the ambassador to kuwait,

australia, etc. he holds other positions widely throughout the region. the president and ceo of a school in d.c. he served in many posts across the region. with that brief introduction, i turn it over to you. each panelist will speak no more than 10 minutes. i will ask a question of each of them and we will go directly to your questions. thank you. >> good morning. i want to clarify that the 100 years of experiments -- of experience is not individual. [laughter] i would like to say hello to joke deal thanhoj jioe gildenho.

president obama retains much of the credibility we saw one year ago and none of the criticism. he is extraordinarily still a superstar in europe. if you hear this morning criticism about the obama administration's policies, remember that that is an inside the beltway phenomena and not necessarily the way the rest of the were feels about -- the will address the world feels about what we're about to do. a lot to offer some constructive criticism and look ahead in the spirit of my introduction. we look back to see instructions and mistakes and then we look ahead.

they're rather stinging criticisms about how we failed to achieve the peace process. there is testimony offered a couple of weeks ago at the seventh in which i tried to dissect the obama administration's policies and approach the peace process and found both wanting. in answer to the first question that was posed, if we had a strong middle east peace process policy, i am not sure we would be having this session today. one of the first things to say about the first year of the obama administration is that the president's launched the peace process approached rather significantly and quickly by appointing george mitchell adds a special envoy literally in the first four days of the administration. by indicating it then and

subsequently, the peace process is an american national interest which is high on the agenda. from that moment, the administration seems to have blundered into a number of steps, none of which have had a success in advancing the prospect for peace. let me look at three issues quickly and take a quick look at the receptivity and mood in the region with particular interest in israel-u.s. relations which is part of the mandate that i have been asked to address. the question that the supposed is is the situation on the ground right? is it can do to reject conducive to having a peace process. one could say that the situation is far from right. the israeli government is now essentially a conservative or right wing government and seemed more interested in advancing the prospects of settlements than

enhancing the prospect of negotiations. the palestinians are at a difference politically and geographically. the ads in both communities is sour. one could say that the situation is not right for active diplomacy. on the other hand, for those who have studied or worked at relationships in this issue, it is not as bad as it has been in past years. in fact of public opinion polls in both communities continue to show signs of significant report for the kind of concessions that would be necessary if there were a serious peace process. the palestinian economy and the west bank while not perfect is certainly better than has been in recent years. palestinian security forces are being trained by american and other international traders and are now providing the kind of objective and independent security that we have long

demanded. it is very vibrant in the israeli economy. the public opinion poll continues to show great willingness to compromise their. past administrations working in equally challenging or in some cases even more challenging environments have succeeded in helping the parties make progress. we look at issue number 1 which is the environment in which a peace process has to operate, it is not perfect but i would say it is not a deterrent to an effort to try to advance the prospects for peace. what seems to be missing is the policy and approach. on these two issues, i would argue, that if we had our five been as with the president, what would we say? i would simply say, "mr. president, we don't yet have a policy and strategy. "

>> he would say we have a policy. i would disagree. yet to the 1967 war, if you ask american debt and cash -- diplomat what is the american view with respect to as peace settlement, he would say that she or she does not know. we don't have a view that we can articulate as a country. but we took a poll in this room, my guess is that we would have a very strong consensus about what it is that should emerge from peace negotiations. essentially, one other% of the territory that israel occupied would be transferred to the palestinian state with a one-to- one3 there be an emphasis on security and jerusalem would become the capital of two states with a democratic division and some creative solution, may be an international management solution for the old city of the

historical basis. settlements would effectively be withdrawn except for those places where there would be an agreement that they remain within the state of israel. refugees would have the right to return to the state of palestine with some accommodation by israel. we could come up in very short order in this room with a fairly sensible approach that i think also represent a consensus in the region. and yet, the american government does not have a policy that articulates that kind of approach. the first thing i think we need is a policy. does not plan or some who want to impose. does not something where we would tell party have to accept this and is not something we would pre-negotiate. it is american policy. i would articulate that policy soon so that not only with the

parties know where we stand by our own diplomats, an arm, ribs and public would understand where we stand, as well. we need a strategy. negotiations are part of a strategy because you will not have an outcome of this conflict without a direct face-to-face hard-nosed ago issues. we are missing out a number of factors that should be taken into account. union negotiations, percival. so call me to continue everest to build palestinian institutions. you also have to build up statehood. that includes the absence of a basket or -- that includes other processes. since 2002, an arab peace initiative which is very far reaching but it sat out there

with nothing happening to it. the arabs have taken no steps to aggravated and in that states has taken no steps to find out whether it should be added to. last june, the president's discussed one episode of the prescience and there were turned down. it was no contest to s for a single complex building measure. the element of strategy is to talk to the arabs about how they acted it what they call arabic is the agreement. one element of such an arab strategy would be to reconstitute and reinvigorate multilateral engagements. in the 1980's, we had multilateral talks on water, environment gun-control, economic matters. one resume peace and get experts

working together, people activities. tract will this policy is -- track policies and have arabs and israelis to meet in a room to work out their work differences. we want to activate the arab peace initiative. i would argue there's a fourth element which is not so much in the hands of government but which is very much something that places like the woodrow wilson center and other non- government institutions can do and that is to start dialogue within two critical communities, both of which have been left out entirely from the past peace process efforts and that is the refugee community among palestinians and the seller communities among israel. it is critical we find ways of talking to these communities. at the end of the day, if we do reach agreements, these communities will have a large say and whether or not the two

societies and up supporting the outcome. let me suggest a word about the bilateral u.s.-israeli relationship. if there is one thing that as this mini summit has revealed is that there's an absence of policy. we should be angry that our vice-president was confronted with the settlement announcement during his visit. to have a crisis over a neighborhood in jerusalem which under a democratic division of the city will and the state instead of better israel made no sense. it reveals the problem that identified earlier which is but there was no context for this crisis. . .

the community does not support israel. probably 99% for the american- jewish community is as devoted and loyal to the idea of israeli security and well-being as anybody else. a large proportion of this community today is willing to distinguish between the kind of support that israel needs to have to maintain its security and well-being. and the kind of support that perhaps it does not deserve with respect to matters of choice when it comes to issues like settlements. israel also has to do homework to understand the changes within our society where you can be pro-israel, and you can want the best for israel in terms of security and its well-being, but you can also be critical of israeli settlements and of other elements of israeli policies which are not conducive to

peace. looking back, we have lessons to learn about what succeeded and failed. looking ahead, the situation on the ground is challenging but not impossible. and a strong american policy and a strong american strategy, i think, has a chance of helping the parties reached the kind of settlement which is not only fair, which is also sustainable, which will help american interests as well in the end. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. you never disappoint. i am really happy to see the ambassador fresh off the train from new york city. just a brief word about frank, who is currently kirk -- foreign affairs of us a bit of his career spanned four decades and eight american presidents, including serving as ambassador to egypt, philippines, is a bit, and india. he has served as undersecretary of defense, policy, and for

international security affairs as follows numerous other positions in washington and abroad. this would delighted to have you. >> thank you. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. i appreciate being included in such a distinguished panel. i was struck as they listened, and he might as well continued on. he could have done my portion of the presentation this morning with greater facility and certainly greater insight. but i am privileged to have a chance to say a word or two this morning from the perspective of someone who served and lived in an remains associated with egypt. a key partner of the united states, a longstanding friend of this country for many decades,

and a serious partner and player in the peace process. the first point i would like to all of you this morning seems rather self-evident. and that is, there is no issue in egypt that has quite the importance as the palestinian-is really issue, nor is there an issue of foreign policy of quiet the same significance as the question of the peace process. this question of israel and palestine for the many decades since the late 1940's has played center stage in public perception and government policy and the way government officials and political leaders framed the dialogue of the country. there just is nothing quite like it. you look at egypt, a large nation with many other interests, the middle east, the mediterranean, and africa.

no issue comes quite as close to it as does the issue of israel and palestine. and that said, no egyptian public leader, no leader of government, will allow the issue of palestine and israel overwhelmed egyptian national interests as they see it. therefore, egypt must walk an extraordinarily fine line. the issue of palestine and israel is therefore a complex and multi dimensional one from the standpoint of virtually any egyptian you meet and talk to. it is first and foremost a question of justice. the egyptians at large with the question of palestine as an injustice committed and continues to be committed.

is a matter fell but all levels of society. is an issue that could put malls on the street in cairo. it can threaten domestic stability despite the size and strength of egypt's security forces. it forces government to give the question a certain amount of latitude and safety valve to the population at large. second, but that said, four wars have taught egypt a vitally important lesson, and that is that the egyptians cannot perform on the resolution of the palestinian question or on over committing egypt to the question of palestine. egypt must, and the consensus is quite broad, maintain peace with israel. third, no egyptian regime can

risk of fighting a fresh war with israel much less losing one and had a serious prospect of staying in power. if you want to put a fine point on that, egyptians are highly lively to the fact that they are lucky and feel fortunate to have relayed claim to the sinai which they believe is a sacred part of egyptian national territory, and they would not want to put it at risk again, not to israel, not even to space-hungry palestinians. nor do egyptian statesman of this generation look to the question of palestine and believe that it should be allowed to block the gips phenomenally important ties with the united states and europe, is

that the peace with israel makes possible for egypt. egypt is highly sensitive to the palestinian question is and the ability to become embroiled in radicalism inside of egypt, a lively fear that the fundamentalists, the jihad this will take the advantage of it and use it against the seated regime. it is for this reason, among others, the egyptian government remains deeply, deeply distrustful of hamas. when you stand back, not only the issue of palestine injustice or what ever of the powers the chip -- egypt's perceptions and relationships with us, it is also huge ships longstanding view that it is the great nation of the arab world. and that egypt must be front and

center in carrying the politics of the palestinian cause for word. to lose control of that would undermine egypt's position as she sees herself as a key player and leader in the arab world. mark my words, the egyptians do not believe necessarily there is a settlement in the offing to the palestinian problem. not a settlement, but they believe it must be addressed and managed, which therefore leads me to my second point, how do we and egypt would get the peace process together? what is the latitude, there room for play, between the two of us? it follows, therefore i would argue that apart from the strategic identification with the united states to which egypt

attaches great importance and believes must be met in a reciprocal manner by washington, egypt believes we must pay the closest attention in this bill full attention to the peace process and to the palestinian- is really a question. just as egypt seeks to shake the arab consensus and will resist any one who poaches on egypt's perception of her own place in shaping that consensus, egypt looks to the united states to recognize its centrality, to support egyptian diplomacy, to demonstrate respect for egypt's leadership, and to see cooperative approaches to the peace process wherever possible. i underscore this because i believe in recent years we have

slipped into the bad habit of quarreling publicly with egypt, criticizing her leadership on domestic matters, and failing to get a grip of the peace process, which has left egypt feeling isolated. it has been estranged by other matters as well. iraq being one of them. i welcome the decision of the president to go to cairo and spell of this nation in his view of the muslim and arab world. it was an inspired choice, one that needs to be followed up. i do not believe and do not argue with any of you today that the importance of egypt to us as the largest nation in the arab world means that egypt should have a veto over our approach to the peace process. but it does, i believe deeply,

remain in our interests to have an active approach, to make sure we consoled the egyptians and the saudis as well as others, as we launch new initiatives and seek to implement them. egypt's price for cooperation with the united states is not excessive. egypt wants to see the united states involved, even if there is not a quick and ready outcome to apply its settlement, as mubarak remarked to me years ago, in this land where it rains a very little, all of us need umbrellas. we need your umbrella to help us manage our crisis to the north. the sec and the critical point on the egyptian agenda is the importance of being kept informed and being listened to, of being sensitive to egyptian

perception and interest. and the third, also pretty obvious, is the egyptians look to the united states to be clear and flexible, but to approach the question with the determination, and use the powers and diplomatic solution with the parties both israel and palestine to move the process forward. let me close then with where i think we are. i will not pretend to speak for all of egypt. she has her own views. but listening to the egyptians, i can reflect some of the things that this administration has seemed to been clear that it cares. it cares about making peace, and it cares about moving ahead. but it has not succeeded in convincing its audience it knows

how to translate that sentiment into action. it is not simply and does not suffice to say that in direct talks are quarrels over housing is a national policy. these clearly are not national policies. and i join with dan and his remarks to you in saying that we do need a policy, whether it is a speech by the president or some other act of american commitment that spells out our positions on the key issues at play in the settlement. borders, jerusalem, refugees, security, normalization, the linkage to syria and lebanon. there needs to be, at this stage in our relationship to the region, a clear articulation of american views. and there needs to be an

articulation of the steps that will get us there. backed up by a bureaucratic structure, a political structure, if you will, at home, which the president, backed by the secretary of state, the best talent in this government in the team that has worked as teams have worked in the past to produce steps forward and the search for peace in the region. but most of all, the region and the judge will be watching for an indication of well. whether we have what it takes to commit ourselves and the president at our head to move the palestinians and the israelis to the tough choices that lie ahead. thank you. i turn the floor over to the next speaker. >> thank you very much. that was terrific. [applause]

>> thank you very much. in july and dan in saying thank you for putting together the panel of this morning. in jordan, where i come from or at least where i lived for a while, there is no issue i think that touches more to the heartbeat of jordan than a resolution to the palestinian question. it begins with the fact that the state's survival is in some ways wrapped up in that question. it is the regional situation, a domestic situation. but finally, it is just an emotional factor to the population of jordan. let me come back just a little bit on those points. the survival of this state. you know, king abella has come under enormous criticism within the body politic of jordan for

the treaty that is long as signed with israel, demands on the action front, others as well. members of parliament included. for the east bank community. to terminate the treaty, to expel the israeli ambassador. in all of these confrontational moments, the king has been eloquent in clear about his views, his policy, in terms of state. that is, he will not violate the treaty. he will not expel the ambassador. i remember being with him once on the hill with the house foreign affairs committee where he was told frankly by repetitive questioning by members about this very question. finally, in some rhetoric, notable its aspiration, said to them, congressman, i am my father's son. he gave his life to try to reach this point in is really --

israeli relations. and it will not change in laws that keep this up. he says it in arabic on jordan television, the treaty with israel will recognize the hashemite kingdom of jordan, it touching right on the issue that always plays under the surface. not always under the service. which was and is really -- which was an israeli view that palestine already exists. that it is more than 50% of palestine that exists already, therefore there is no need for another challenge or another state between iraq and the mediterranean. this recognition of the state of jordan's hashemite kingdom is this to bed. it was advocated early on and the philosophy of jordan being a palestinian state, which changed and initiated the that was no

longer his view of things. but it remains constantly a concern. i mentioned to you the emotional issue. one has to understand the emotional issue as well. the country, i think many of you have been there. you have seen it. you can see it on top of the hill. you can almost reach out and touch the west bank. you can see drizzling. yet, there is a barrier there, which is the border, of course. but this in time, 60% of the population of jordan traces itself back to palestine. it has family or property or both just across on the other side watching television, and they watch israeli television, probably more so than they do their own television. they see the reporting and what is happening to west bank villages. evidently, they become emotionally involved.

it it puts a lot of pressure on the government. i do not know how many times i've sat with the king when he was speaking with american officials, and he said, this remember very poignantly right before the iraq war, he said to the president, mr. president, if you're going into iraq, and he already said he hoped he would not, please help me deal with one of the two problems on my borders. and he was referring to palestine in said that i need an active peace process. and again, this turmoil inside the country and a concern that the way israel will solve its palestinian problems will be a transfer of population. this will be aggravated by this recent decision and announcement in the last 48 hours of israeli

actions on the west bank on expatriate's and others, anyone who does not have a resident per man, which i may talk about later. this raises prospectus of a population transfer. the keen is not his father -- the king is not his father. having said that he is, the son at least. but he is not his father. this is a poor 9 understanding his attitude. he did not lose jerusalem. he does not have the same stake. he has a strong commitment to the palestinian state because the state would solve the issue of jordan more emphatically than the treaty. it would also resolve the problems he has to deal with internally. u.s. me questions about lessons learned, and hazard a couple of thoughts which may be

controversial, but they are nevertheless my deeply felt views. the first is that often statement said we see made out of israel, and is denied usually statements by officials, but these statements will come out of a notable person, and it will seem very far fetched. and it will be dismissed by almost everyone. then if you look over time, you discover they actually become reality. that is the lesson that i have seen. on the arab side, said les dealing with the arab states is a very, very difficult. but you can deal with it if you do it in a forceful way. one of the things you often hear is that the arab street is not willing to seek peace, and i think it is a false conclusion. i believe there is a great

feeling, and this is certainly true in the gulf, a true in countries a little bit further in israel, but very, very true in jordan. i remember once being on the ridge looking over the west bank when these children came with a man. he was like a grandfather. the children running around them. there were probably four. is it like a lot of kids. he said with great passion, how much longer are we going to have to go ahead with the dispute? are these kids going to die still wanting to see peace in my land? i think that is a deeply held feelings. they look to the u.s. to be involved. they're deeply skeptical. they were really impressed with the president's speech in cairo, anticipating a very active and very positive effort on the part

of the united states. and this would perhaps leave me into what i might say to the president if i had so. one would be, there is a made in the arab streets for peace. so capitalize on it. the second is, there is never a right situation for peace and the middle east. i was a dead be the -- i was there in the 1980's when king hussein brokered with the reagan administration. there was a statement that he would make recognizing israel in return for us accepting the plo as an interlocutor. i got a call at about 5:00 p.m. the night before, but they were going to make the announcement. i was told, can you just confirm for me this is going to happen? he said, what you think the odds

of this working our? 60%, 70%. i laughed. he got furious. he said, this is not a joke. is it, you did not understand might chuckle. there is a 20% 25% tints of things working, they go for it. you do not wait for it to get to 60% home. of course the next morning, arafat came out and made a return to it -- made a ridiculous remark that there is the king. we tried competent measures. they work as long as they are supporting another process. i agree about the policy and about the need, the need for a policy in the pronunciation. i would say to the president, look, there is a need for very strong and active u.s. involvement, and people wanted. people wanted in the region.

i think the reaction to the president's statement that it is in the u.s. national interest for a solution, and of course i do note in my own mind from general petraeus'report of remarks that there is broad support, and we have seen this in polls, by americans. we have seen it among the jewish community in polls done. the jewish community as well supports an active, involved american participation in trying to find peace. i would tell him, look at the way the issues that are requiring attention have been dealt with over the past decade or longer. therein lies a broad framework for a solution. go there. work closely with the parties. get them to negotiate directly, but put it out there and go for it. >> thank you very much. [applause]

jake -- >> good morning. thank you, aaron, and also to the wilson center for the opportunity to be here this afternoon with such a distinguished panel. after having listened to my colleagues, i am not sure how much more there is to add, but i will make a few remarks. it is clear that we are at a very uncertain moment now in the middle east. the media is focused a lot on what they call a crisis in u.s.- israeli relations. i think what we're seeing now is not so much a crisis in relations between the u.s. and israel, and i think that will continue to be strong. but there is a crisis in the effort to start airing negotiating process.

that is why the focus is where should be. it is unclear how this will end or where it will go. i was in jerusalem for four years as a consulate general, as i think most of you know. i was responsible for our relations with palestinians in that job. i am going to begin by looking at the situation from the palestinian perspective, and as my colleague did, i will start also by talking about the situation on the ground. from that perspective, the current moment is actually quite positive, and it offers a real opportunity in order to move forward. to begin with, as dan mentioned, the situation on the west bank has improved quite a bit on the last couple years. i will be talking about the west bank, not about gaza, which is a difference situation. in the west bank, you have a

much improved security situation, and that has been due largely to the actions of the p.a., but they have been supported by the training officers of the u.s. and others. security officials will also knowledge that there has been a significant improvement in the situation on the ground. you also had an economy in the west bank that has improved quite a bit, particularly in the last year. all of this i think is due to resume again change in the approach and attitude on the palestinian side, in particular the changes that have been brought about by the prime minister. these changes have been going on for a while, and i think they have reached a point where we can say this is serious, and it is a sustained effort. the prime minister has also offered a context for this, which is his plan for

palestinian statehood within two years and building institutions of this now. while it is a better environment on the ground, it has not overcome the gaps on the issues we know about. i think it helps a lot. it helps create a context where we can begin moving forward. the palestinian leadership deserves a lot of credit for adopting a practical approach, focusing on improving the lives of palestinians in order to be to the creation of a palestinian state. when you look at the current leadership with president abbas and the prime minister, i think we can all agree that they're much better than any palestinian leadership we have seen. i would also said that they're probably better than any palestinian leadership we could hope for in the future. that is why i would say this old port to take advantage of this moment, relative security, relative economic growth, and getting talks started.

the absence of talks now is a destabilizing influence in the west bank, and if it continues indefinitely, it has potential to lead to violence and the broader deterioration of the situation, which would make peace even more difficult to achieve as we look up to the future. coming back to questions that were asked. what have we learned? how is the administration do? let me start with those two. i think the obama administration began on this issue on the right note. they emphasize the importance of the issues, the u.s. interest, and the president appointed an experienced on for a senator, senator mitchell, to give the issue the attention it deserves. in the past 15 months, the going has been rough. i think given president obama acknowledged that himself. much of the focus of the past 15

months as been on the issue of settlements. while i think there is a lot that we can learn from that in terms of the tactics and how to do that better, i do think it is important and i was correct to do administration may nin's -- maintenance and to deal with it in a serious way. i continued settlement activity which can be a serious problem. other trends in the west bank positive. this one is negative. i think the continued growth of settlements will make it much harder over time to find a practical solution on the ground that will allow for the committee to net two states, accretion of a palestinian state alongside israel. i think it was correct for the administration to focus on this issue. some say that while the contraction is only going on, but the settlement blocks will remain part of its zero. well, that is an issue that has

to be worked out in negotiations. frankly, the area within and around the settlement blocks is what is at issue. that will have to be discussed which when the two sides. and it is not a foregone conclusion will be the outcome of those talks. in the road map, there's an obligation on israel to freeze settlement activity. in the course of the past year, the administration to work with israel to try to implement that. what came out of that was the so-called moratorium the prime minister netanyahu announced last fall. unfortunately, the moratorium contains some of the exceptions it did not have much practical impact on the ground in order to improve the political situation. it obviously did not include jerusalem, which is what led to the difficulty we saw with vice- president biden's visit.

it's a bad deal with construction already under way. so there's a lot of activities to continue and they think something more will be required in order to address that issue. where do we go from here? i think at the core one needs to be done is to get back to negotiations. i would agree with my colleague that this is not a strategy than needs to be accompanied by other steps dealing with the region or the arab peace initiative, dealing perhaps with the multilateral track. but the essence of what needs to be done is to restart some are in negotiations between the parties. one way or another, we have to begin this process with the substantive issues discussed. this has to be done with the u.s. puts forward its own ideas or a u.s. plan or not. given the difficulties that we face in the last 15 months, i

think the idea of what has been called proximity talks or indirect talks is actually a good way to start. while it has been criticized in some areas as a step back from direct talks, i think it is actually a practical and effective and a low-risk way to begin to deal with what are some very difficult issues. you know, aaron mentioned the difficulty of these issues in his opening. the difficulty of the speech -- of the peace process would be more difficult than anything else on the table there. for the past 15 months, we have been in a discussion of our process. i think what we need to do now is get away from that and begin to talk about the substance and itissues. it is better to get started on substance aimed at perfecting the designing of the process. i also mentioned that this idea

of indirect talks is a low-risk approach. i think that is important as well. one of the lessons we have seen going back to camp david in 2000 is the high risk the symmetry is something we need to think about very carefully. in order to begin, i think a low-risk approach is better. also, negotiations have a way of the evolving over time. if it can begin, i believe the u.s. is in a position where we can begin to narrow some differences. and in that way, perhaps the format will evolve. you saw that in the past. it is a rigid format that was negotiated in 1991 and eventually evolved into the negotiations between israel and the plo in oslo which produced agreements we saw in the 1990's. finally, in terms of the process, i would say that having the u.s. firmly in the middle of the talks is actually a positive

thing. without that, at this we have seen, the talks can drift, questions raised did negotiations go on and answered, and possible openings are not fully explored. there's also no independent record of what was discussed and what was accomplished, which makes it much harder to build on. i think giving the u.s. and the middle of things is a good thing. i do not want to oversell this because we know that the gaps on the issues are great. but i think it is a better beginning process in almost every case. and now giving the environment on the ground and the leadership on the palestinian side, it is something we want to take advantage of. in closing, what would i advise the president if i have five minutes with him? first, i think that would make the point that time is not on the side of the peacemakers. there are many aspects of this

from a palestinian perspective. i think most evident is the situation on the ground and the growth of settlements over the past 40 years. over time, we see a situation in which it makes it much more difficult in a practical way to see if the solution is emerging on the ground. we have a deep division between hamas and gaza and five top and its allies in the west bank. this is a serious problem, something we can spend a lot of time on. i would say we should not allow this division to prevent us from trying to move forward. i thing moving forward in a way they can result in political achievement for the current palestinian leadership will help bolster them do this eternal division on the palestinian side. but on israeli side, i believe it is an emergency to find the

problems. many had graphic issues. but it is an important aspect. also, from a regional security decision and for the future of israel and security, i think it is a corn we finally resolve this issue between israel and the palestinians once and for all. i think we can only look to the example of how iran's influence has grown in last and 20 years in the region compared to an earlier time span. i think iran's growing strength makes it harder, and overtime this will become even more difficult. in my view, israel will be wise to try to strike a deal with current palestinian leadership. there will not be around forever. they may not be around much longer. i do not think we will find a better leadership on the palestinian side and what they have right now. if those leaders on the palestinian side fail in the future, the west bank will begin to look like gaza or south lebanon on. it is not in anyone's interest,

certainly not israel centrist. before it close, what i would advise to the president is to choose your moment carefully in which you engage in this issue. i think it is important that the u.s. put its ideas forward, but i believe you will have to put a concrete plan on the table as well as some point. but once you jump into this, stakes are very high, both for the region and for the united states, and the u.s. and the administration needs to be prepared for what will come and need to be prepared to stick through a difficult time once we get an this issue in a serious way. i will stop there. thank you very much. >> thank you [applause] >> is this on? ok. i want to make sure we leave time for discussion and questions, so since those were

discussing syria and the corrective movement, there'll be a 40th anniversary celebration this year. i do not think any to go on a long time because this regime has been through just about every challenge one can imagine and is still there. and to some degree, its behavior is predictable. not always, but to some degree. an israeli-syrian -- and israeli-syrian peace treaty brokered by the u.s. should be easier to reach than a final israeli-palestinian agreement. the broad outlines are well known. one constant is the regime's insistence that any peace treaty must require israel to withdraw to the june 4, 1967 armistice line in a reasonably expeditious manner.

i return for this tangible concessions, assad will need to be more flexible on several issues of vital to israel's political and security needs. but the core issue for the syrian regime is survival. having said that, let me point out that the syrian people generally back very strongly the assad foreign-policy, particularly israel and recovery of all. it has become a 30-year alliance with iran to neutralize a potentially more powerful of iran. this was not based at the time of any in the logical f. kennedy. one is secular and one is it the

fact a theocracy. i believe the rich and can be weaned from iran, but only at the end of a process that i would call a grand bargain. it is said that timing is everything. this dictum certainly applies to israeli-syria negotiations. to those who question serious commitment to peace, the correct answer is, we will never know until a final offer is on the table. i sense that most israelis -- are in contempt for a variety of reasons. netanyahu has reinforced this point of view by buying that he would make no such concessions to syria. republic opinion in israel is a alltel and can be changed. in its effort to promote israeli peace, the united states commander is -- during president

clinton's two terms, a largely referred to israel leaders to set the priorities and agendas and pace. u.s. dealings with syria in recent decades have oscillated from attempts to isolate and humiliate the regime, to providing it with an exaggerated sense of its centrality and importance. a middle course between those two extremes is needed. u.s. diplomats who have worked in or on syria are fond as stating that the only thing worse than dealing with the syrians is ignoring them. it is advised that this administration can change. he would like to move on two tracks. a u.s. mediated negotiations with israel, and that recovering all occupied syrian territory is in a separate bilateral tracked

and at normalizing relations with the u.s. the two are inextricably linked. if syria is shunt aside for negotiations with the palestinians, it will continue to play the spoiler role, and it will play it very effectively. the u.s. and israel must find a way to address both tracks simultaneously. in dealing with the syrians, i would advise the administration to keep in mind two words. respect and reciprocity. nothing will go well if those two words are not heeded. but the u.s. also, for its part, should make clear what we expect to come from a grand bargain. we should not put the prestige

of the u.s. on the line until we're confident the the outside regime understands that if and when they're presented with the june 4, 1967 line in a new relationship with the u.s. including removal of syria from the state sponsors of terrorism list and other sanctions, but they will accept the deal. accepting the deal will mean some things they're not going to like. they will have to end their current alliance with iran. we can acknowledge that syria has the right to have full diplomatic and commercial relations with iran so long as u.n. sanctions are not violated. but syria cannot continue to have it both ways. full peace with israel while supporting the iranian policies that are inimical to that very peace. this cooperation with north korea and iran must also seized. in return, we can pledge best efforts with arab and other

donor states to supplant any civilian aid or investment loss as a result of syria's the estrangement from iran. as well as assisting syria with its many problems, not least water security, soil salinity, an oil-field management. finally, a lot to say, even though there many issues it could cover, i would like to say a word about women on in the context of all of this. during the clinton years, lebanon, quite frankly, was on the table. if syria made peace with israel and requiring a normal political party, then neither israel nor the united states, in my estimation, care very much of syria was the hegemon in lebanon. a frank and respectful dialogue with syria would make it clear that while we understand that syria has considerable influence in lebanon, that it has

important allies and friends in lebanon, if lebanon is no longer a prize and we expect that while it is a sovereign lebanese government in steering government, we expect lebanon's sovereignty in the end to be respected. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. before we go to your questions, i will forgo the one question i wanted to ask. if you had five minutes with the president, would you say anything? they then have made their views clear. there's a strong consensus that this is a critical issue, time is running out of the president has to be very involved. and the time for process over substance, which has invited much of america's approach, has long passed. i have views on these matters. i am not going to share them with you today. i will only set of falling. hope is a very important and can never be abandoned. not if you have children and

even if you do not. the allusions however ours and the need to be seriously looked at. toward that end, i would simply pose four questions which i think need to be seriously looked at an answer. number one, can a u.s. president, however potentially transformative, substantive his own sense of leadership, perhaps for the absence of strong leadership that exists in the region? two, is a constant agreement between israelis and palestinians which resolved conclusively the four core issues of jerusalem possible? 3, or the current israeli and palestinian leaders willing and able to pay the price for that agreement? and finally, the u.s. it is really relation, there was a piece this morning that raises the question that this administration may be more or less interested in changing prime minister netanyahu's

behavior and more interested in changing him. the question is, can this administration did its relationship with the government of israel right? that is a critically important question. there has never been an administration that has not done series peacemaking and also engaged in significant fights with the government of israel. but the purpose of the fight was worthwhile the reflective, and left both countries' stronger for it. that is the critical question. we have a special relationship with israel. it cannot become exclusive. and that seems to me the critically important point here. can the in ministration reset its relationship with the israelis to make it functional when it comes to serious arab- israeli peacemaking? i do not know the answer.

i will ask you to return to handle the question. you have been very, very patient, all of you. it is much appreciated. >> ok. before we open the floor to questions, i was wondering whether any of the panelists would like to comment on the points that aaron and the other panelists made? >> i asked aaron if i can answer his questions, and the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes. thank you very much. let me focus on the fourth question. i think it is germane to the reason i am here. my role is former ambassador to israel. i think aaron has raised the question incorrectly because it is a one-sided question. the reason i say that is as i

indicated in my remarks, we, the united states, need to do a better job in understanding the needs, requirements, interests of the parties with which we deal, including israel. those parties also have to do better job in understanding us. i wrote a piece in the quality new york post" about two weeks ago, in which is suggested that netanyahu may have touched what i call the third rail of israeli politics. mainly, the question that is posed in the minds of israelis electorate is whether a prime minister knows how to deal with the united states. the israeli public has a lot of views about everything. you get a couple israelis in their room and you have 11 or 12 different views immediately. but there is one issue in which the israeli electorate public are always united, and that is the the what the leadership that can handle the united states, that can deal with the united states, and there is growing

questions. i am not suggesting unhappiness, but growing questions in israel as to whether or not prime minister netanyahu has found the key to dealing with this different kind of president. barack obama is a different president from what netanyahu was used to. he was comfortable dealing with some presidents in the past. you recall that he had a challenge relationship with bill clinton during his previous tenure. and the israeli public responded to that. part of the reason for netanyahu's defeat in 1999 was a dissatisfaction with the way that israel was handling the u.s. relationship. i think there is a responsibility on both sides to understand each other better. i think the president has not done as effective a job as he could in reaching out to the israeli public and talking directly to the people. in doing what he did, as frank suggested, so effectively to the arab and muslim publics through

his speech in cairo, he has not done the same thing through a speech in jerusalem. or even in tv interviews to israeli media. so the president does have to do a better job of reaching out to the israeli public. but i would also suggest that israel needs to do its homework as well. this is a president who looks like he has his sea legs, a significant victory in health care reform, a significant advance on relations with russia, and on the question of nuclear disarmament. today, there is the big nuclear summit under way. the china relationship seems to be at least on the demand. so you have a president who, after a year and perhaps grappling with what it is to be president, seems to have found some of the keys. i would suggest that prime minister netanyahu pay as much attention to how he handles the

relationship in his direction as the president might need to pay attention on how to handle the relationship with israel. >> ok. would you like to add something? >> on the fourth question, i will not. let me try the third. are the leaders of the region prepared to pay the price is required to bring about peace? as a general matter, it is a growing question, thank you. it is on the entire range, in i am and utterly convinced that the leaders are not yet prepared to pay the price required could they be brought to is a different matter. but as i considered the full range of choices that lie before the leadership in the region, i reflect on the fact that many questions have not even been thought through because they

appear to the questions that will never have to be addressed. let me just take several for examples. refugees. as anyone in the arab world -- has anyone in the arab world contemplated what it would mean to carry out a refugee division? what about king abdullah's decisions in the bay route decisions -- as anyone thought about what would be fully involved in a normalization arrangement? what does it mean to respect the borders of 1967 in return for peace? these are questions that will require in the arab world profound soul-searching analysis that i find absent at this stage. do i believe that the leadership of arab nations, i mean the principal ones, of course, are

capable of doing this? they can, but they have to find the opportunity. the opportunity can only be discovered when there is an active peace process. and then the questions are actually on the table and the challenges are before the leaders with their chance to make a decision becoming a reality. tough questions can be addressed at that time and answered. >> i would hazard a response on the first question, and that is, paraphrasing it, can the u.s., president obama, a substitute his own sense of leadership for that of leaders in the region? i would say that is really not the right question either. that he cannot, if you need totally, but he can exercise a leadership which is vitally important that the present time, a leadership role that no other individual leader can do.

and being active or even through his envoy, being a major participant. he can bridge between as other leaders, and i think he will find a response in all the capitals that we represent and others as well to that leadership, and they will step forward, i hope, and be able to move in the direction, and grapple with the issues. they all need to take action. .

>> high was recently in syria and the question came up of the syrian perspective it is the desire of the syrian government to see the turks involved with a good relationship with his real traditionally on one hand and a very tight relationship with the united states and a fresh lead very positive relationship with syria that turkey could actually

play a discreet but sensible exchange of the views of the diplomatic agent moving between the three capitals and said the menu out -- and set the menu out. with that, it could bring all of the parties to the table. i think there is a bit of pie in the sky and all of that, but it comes to one question. as long as the turks 191 -- some discipline and they're showing themselves willing to communicate with all the parties, they are doing it out of their own essential interest. they don't receive the middle east truly competed for by the iranians. they believe they have real interest that they must protect. they have sentiment -- that

interest of sentiment as well. the prime minister has those. he is no longer held at bay by his military as ihe once was. despite rhetorical excess is, we can look at turkey. turkey is a friend of the united states and is a nato member. without that friendship and without that membership, turkey does not have a lot of cards to bring to the table. so the turks have badly positioned themselves to be quite effective in the region -- so the turks have very positioned themselves to be quite effective in the region. >> i would take a different tact from frank. i don't disagree that turkey has

paid a -- played a positive role. but the first question that needs to be where it or the turks headed? there is a suggestion that turkey is in a prolonged process of redefining its role and its interests in a variety of regions. there seems to be a growing, although ehrlich and understanding in turkey, that it is not -- although a reluctant understanding of turkey, that is what to be a full member and it can look at other regions for more assertive -- for a more assertive set of self-interest. i think that improvements in the turkish-a syrian relationship which has not been

positive and some growing distance between turkey and syria -- turkey and israel. i think we are seeing not so much a firm decision by turkey on which way to go, but a casting about for a more firm ground on which to stand as it decides where it wants to invest. this comes against the backdrop of a region -- frank and i had this discussion in a different forum a couple of months ago -- in which the role that used to be known as the periphery, the non-share of nations, seems to be growing within the arab corps, where arab state policies and structure come under increasing stress. it is a time of great flux. i would be cautious in suggesting that there is some kind of an immediate role of

that, frankly, israel is going to want turkey to play. >> could i ask you to give us your name and the limit your comments and questions -- or, to a question. we are only taking questions. >> there was an article published this weekend proposing the inducement of drummond to the process. the drama is intended to head -- to wait israelis the into care about peace with the palestinians. -- to wake up israelis to care about peace with the palestinians. >> i would simply said that trauma, as important as drama is, -- i would simply say that

drama, as important as drama is, we have been far too preoccupied with the drama process and not enough with the balance of interest that needs to be struck in order to sustain and reach an agreement. that is what needs to be understood and program. i would trade that -- and probined. i would trade that for a real understanding and brokering with real substance, assuming that is possible. >> i agree.

>> by -- my question is to mr. daniel cursor. i want to ask this following question. do you agree or disagree with me on the two following points? first, you're very important question about the nonexistence of a u.s. policy and strategy toward the middle east, a stated fact that is always discussed across the united states, where rego, people mention this, but they never discussed -- wherever i go, people mentioned this, but

then never discuss it. why do they not discuss it unless it is behind closed doors? the explanation is that the political fallout of the united states coming out and saying, " here's the solution as the united states believe it should be in the middle east" would be very heavy politically. first, why is there no policy? second, is it not true that there is a distorted vision in the united states when you only focus on the issue of settlements and whether they should be built or frozen or permitted to be built again or should be frozen, whether they are not taking into account that the settlements are only one component of a strategy to try

to change the nature of the arab struggle. it is not only the settlement, but the demolition. there are roadblocks and 75% of the water resources are also used by the settlers in the west bank. so it is not only settlement, it is a whole panoply of issues. >> on the first question, i do not agree that the absence of a u.s. policy is a result of domestic politics. there is a strong view held among policy-makers that, if the united states were to exercise its role as an honest broker, it should not prejudice the negotiations by having positions on the issues to be negotiated. i think this is a fair point. i disagree with it at this point, which is why i am arguing

for it an additional policy. there is a domestic factor as well. there are a lot of things that go into it. it is not a full answer to suggest that it is only domestic considerations that this issue has up in result. on the second issue that you raise -- that this issue has not been resolved. on the second issue that you raise, as long as i have been a critic of settlement policy, it is about having a coordinated overall approach. but even your question suggested you were selective in what he would choose. there are a number of issues on which israel needs to be asked about and policy needs to confront those issues. there are at least a number of issues that palestinians and syrians need to be asked about and that the united states need

to confront. i mention a couple of them in my remarks. the continued incitement in palestinian education materials and the media, the absence of concerted action on part of authority to uproot the terrorist infrastructure -- syria's continued hosting of groups that most of the world continues to see as terrorist groups with headquarters in damascus -- we have a different definition of terrorism. but the fact is that most of the world does not agree with the syrian definition in this case, to be fair, there are more issues on the agenda with israel than simply sediments. but there are also issues on the agenda with syria and the lebanese that need to be taken into account as well. >> there is an overflow. you have to be patient.

please have very brief questions. >> how does how moss -- how does hamas factory to the question? -- factored into the question? how does -- how does hamas factor into the question? is more complicated to reach a deal. can the leadership on the palestinian and on the israeli side and do what is necessary to reach a peace agreement? it will be difficult on the palestinian side.

but i would assert that the important thing is to get in negotiating process going so that these issues can be framed. once the issues are on the table and the palestinian people can see what the choices are and be put into a position where they have to make a decision on whether or not to upset those trade-offs, i think that is how you do with the situation. hamas will probably be a spoiler in any process moving forward. we have to be aware of that. they obviously draw their support from outside as well, including state actors such as iran. the potential that hamas brings to the process cannot be ignored. but the process needs to be put on the table and let the leadership make decisions on

peace rather than the continuation of the current situation. >> we have no choice but to followed jake's recommendation. but to counterpoint, this is the kevin costner field of dreams school of middle east diplomacy, which is "bill that and they will come." if you can get a deal that so sweet and so enticing, they will. in the end, it comes down to one essential issue. can the palestinian authority be one dime and one authority and one negotiating position? the chances of any israeli prime minister -- and i am not here to write a brief for this prime minister -- the chance of any israeli prime minister offering what will take to persuade the

palestinians to sign an agreement are essentially slim to none. > thank you to all of you foa wonderful presentation. let me ask the panel. there was an interesting article in "the *" about the possibility of civil disobedience. how do you see that? is that realistic? what would be the potential in terms of them, the process -- in terms of outcome on the process? >> in the 1980's, there is a palestinian from jerusalem who emigrated to this country. he is now a professor at a university in ohio.

he was trying to teach non- violence and nonviolent methods to the palestinians as a way of asserting their cause and their rights and the like. as i recall -- and my friends here could be more precise -- but the state department was very much enamored of this fellow and the israelis were not so much. they were determined to deport him. despite a lot of protestations from the state department, they succeeded. that told me that the israeli is very determined to seat the moral high ground to the palestinians. maybe i make too much of that, but it stuck with me all these years. i think that's salam fiat is somebody who does recognize that -- i think that salam fayad is

and who does recognize the importance of planting trees. i think it is a very hopeful movement. it is one that i would like to see continue. it is one that i suspect makes the current israeli government quite uncomfortable. >> a question from the overflow -- what is the way forward concerning the settlement? is there any chance for a compromise? >> the issue of settlements, even as the ambassador recognizes, is critical, but it is not the only issue on the agenda. the proposal that most of us on the panel have now ascribe to of a u.s. approach, which is more comprehensive than simply

getting to negotiations, would subsume this question. with lemieux by that? behavioral changes -- what do i mean by that? behavioral changes will continue to be required on both sides. there has to be continued pressure on israel, in particular, to stop settlement activity. but that should not be the only factor in american policy making. in fact, i would suggest that, in the context of an overall approach where there is a negotiating process under way and the process of engagement with the larger arab world and the process of multilateral engagement that begins to talk about issues that are quite important but have not been talked about for some time, dealing with the settlement issue will prove to be easier. the israeli public will begin to understand that settlements are an absolutely bad investment. israel is pouring a lot of money

into areas that are not going to remain within the state of israel. if a peace process looks more serious, then the israeli public and the israeli knesset, those who have to take hard budgetary decisions, they will decide that this is pouring good money after bad. i would enveloped it in a larger peace process strategy in which it makes much more sense than simply isolating it as one factor. >> those points are up slowly valid. there's one additional consideration which circles back to leadership. our real strong, because he had legitimacy -- r.l. shootaround -- ariel sharon, because he has a legitimacy, can any israeli prime minister -- this is the core issue -- in a set of

circumstances, figure out a way to a next three quarters of those israelis into blocks that are proximate to the green line but will leave about 50,000 israelis in the west bank in settlements, communities that are not proximate? that is a nation splitting sort of decision. i do not want to prejudge it one way or the other. but it is a core question that needs to be asked. it cannot be asked and answered honestly now. it is something that is there and it needs to be faced up to very honestly. >> i would just add to that that the other observation has been made here that you cannot just talk about just this in the absence of talking about all the rest. we have not mentioned the poor demographics today.

there are a lot of discussions about demographics and how one deals with that. that is another issue that has to play in the israeli view of the settlement and what it will look like and what would be advantageous to them and their interests. >> i appreciate very much of the comments from me to view. i wondered why there would not be somebody on the israeli side of it, perhaps a former ambassador or something, to participate in this kind of discussion. there were questions minivet israel that would be best answered by them. -- there are questions that ma-- there are questions about israel that would be best answered by

them. if we can look get to the history of this area, the historical context, and the biblical context, this has been a for a long time. oslo should have resolved this. why hasn't the biblical and historical aspect of this huge problem -- i didn't hear a single word about its -- please explain to me about a jerusalem, which has always been considered the capital of the jewish people at the state of israel, it was united until 1948. why is that not also a critical portion of any discussion? how do we go forward. >> with respect to your first point, we deliberated quite purposely a panel of americans and american diplomats with

experience and negotiations in order to address issues related to american policy. we have had other occasions where we have brought arabs, israelis, and palestinians to these discussions. but this is about american interest in a critical time of american diplomacy. that's to be the primary point of departure. -- that should be the primary point of departure. >> on the issue demands made by prime minister netanyahu to recognize israel as an independent state, and the question of jerusalem, this is another reason why there needs to be american policy. i didn't know what american policy is on the first question. on the first question, -- i do not know what american policy is on the second question. on the first question, whether it is a formal recognition of some land which were simply -- of some language or in israel

that defines its own character remains for the parties themselves. it is not for any of us to define what israel is or is not. the recognition that they confront israel will include israel's definition. this is not solely an issue for american policy. in one article -- i like to write for the common people of york. i addressed the issue of jerusalem. in 1967, when israel unilaterally expanded the boundaries of the city, it expanded in a way that it had no relationship to bible history. it was done for practical and security reasons. but the definition of what is jerusalem and what will be the

capital of israel and jerusalem remains to be negotiated. jerusalem, even in the expanded boundaries, is large enough for two capitals of two states. >> i am sorry. no further comments. i am taking a question from the front, from the middle, and from the back. we have a lot of hands. >> i am from the alliance of egyptian americans. i would like to hear your opinion of a statement that came from a civil organizations here, carnegie and freedom, that were issued to hillary clinton on the issue and egypt and if we will not have a stable egypt by having free and fair elections and having a change of the

constitution as many people in that position ask for in egypt. change will cause further problems. i wish to discuss the. -- i wish you would discuss that. >> would you like me to respond? the discussion today is on the attempt to secure peace. but there is a linkage between the strength and stability of egypt's leadership and government and our policy and our ability to pursue our goals in the region. i have to be very blunt and very frank with you. i took issue with the editorial that grows produced in "the washington post" over the weekend. i think it is wrongheaded. it is not the way that you have influence with a friend.

the editorial points in referring to the carnegie, it treats egypt as if it is an enemy of hours or a nation with which we have a strained relationship. of course, the united states wants to see a democratic process under way, once a full consultation, wants a full transition to a stable outcome. but the weekend that that discussion is a different matter, not by hectoring. the editorial is a hectoring editorial. one can deal with the authorities in egypt and people in the political structure of the country and a polite matter, not one that inflames passions, but one that permits a sensible dialogue to take place. i part company and think that that is not the way that i would advise the president to conduct his dialogue with egypt. >> thank you.

yes. in the back, yes. >> i am leon weintraub. i would like those on the panel who have been ambassadors to egypt and jordan to talk about the nature of the peace between israel and these two countries. despite longstanding agreement, we have seen zero and a discouragement between exchanges between artists, intellectuals, writers, and any kind of elements of civil society. i would like to ask you if you think, number one, that is the result of a line laid down by the government? if it is not, if there is a

strong element within those egyptian and jordanian civil society is attempting to discourage that? it is, is it possible for either governments to do something that might encourage these elements of civil society exchanges? >> i can certainly speak to the jordanian side of that. when this -- when the peace treaty was signed, there was enormous exchange between jordan and israel, with people on both sides of the boundary moving in large numbers. i think there were 6000 to 8000 going to patrick in tours. many of my jordanian friends were telling me about taking their families to the beach along the coast of israel for the first time in a long, long time. there was a lot going on.

you did indeed have a public reaction to israeli actions on the west bank. having said that, we cannot forget that the relationship between the government of jordan and the israeli government are in a lot of significant perricos, security and political issues. there is a constant dialogue and a constant exchange between jordan and israel on many issues that are vitally important. that relationship would not exist, otherwise. you're quite correct. the public view in jordan is very hostile to the issue of israel, but primarily because of a failure on having process in the peace process. >> ok, the lady in the back. yes.

>> my name is mindy riser. i want to talk about the roles of russia and china. we are quite fascinated with the meanderings of chinese foreign policy and russia is moving in interesting directions. i wonder if you could project where you see these two countries being held for not. >> thank you. ok. >> russia is, as you know, a member of the quartet. one of the questions of the development in in american strategy is what to do about the quartet. i would urge the administration to look favorably on keeping the structure, but perhaps finding a better way of utilizing it then we have in the past. it is useful and try to conserve our approaches and speak with one voice. -- two concert our approach and

speak with an invoice -- and speak with one voice. china is the big question mark. there is a love of literature about countries looking of the chip -- looking at the chinese model of development. students are working -- there is a lot of literature about countries looking at the chinese model of development. students are working on this at princeton. having been to the middle east a couple of times recently, there seemed to be more questions about this growing then there are answers. chinese behavior in the region is still uncertain. china certainly has interests, particularly when it comes to securing long-term contracts for raw materials. but its obligations might be and what kinds of investments it might make in the region beyond those simply related to the raw

materials is one of the great questions, particularly in egypt where china has always had a reasonably good relationship, but the egyptian side spoke with a couple of months ago are confused over -- but the egyptians i spoke with a couple of months ago are confused. >> i would simply pick up with the challenge that ban left me and comment on the chinese. i think we are all in the process of watching the early stages of evolution of chinese form policy, albeit in the middle east are many other parts of the world. china's political expressions are going to start being more pronounced in its own immediate neighborhood, that it has not yet made up its mind about how to assert a political presence

inside the middle east. it is in observation mode, as opposed to an activists or participatory mode at the same time that is developing an economic stake throughout the region. china will not be applying for membership in the quartet. china will be observing for a while to come. >> the wilson center will hold a meeting on china and the persian gulf on april 12. -- on july 12. you may want to wrap up, please. >> thank you. >> are there any pressing more compelling and urges to make some final observations? >> i would like to make one very

quickly. for all the obstacles that are held there and they're easy to define, i do believe there is an opportunity here. with our president and his approach and his team, we have a chance of taking a leadership role anin moving this forward. >> i would second that. but also jack kennedy described himself as an idealist without illusion. on the issue here is really peacemaking. that is where we need to be, never giving up on the help of the possibilities, that comprehensive peace can be achieved. as the united states goes through this process, it has to go through it with its eyes wide open. >> valid. >> thank you all for coming. congratulations to all of my

colleagues for a terrific session.

>> the u.s. senate is back in session today after its spring session. they will vote to end a debate on the extension of monthly employment benefits. you can see it on c-span 2. congressional quarterly reporting this afternoon says that even though the reform bill is a party for the president, senate democrats are

not any closer to a deal this week. according to cq, the senators to concession with [unintelligible] if he gives too much away, he risks losing support from liberal democrats. republicans face the -- no floor debate has been scheduled for consideration of a financial industry reform bill. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might give me a little help on deciding the case. >> after 34 years on the supreme court, justice john paul stevens will step down. the best place to explore his life and legacy is the new c- span video library.

search it, watch it, click it, and share it. it is cables listed to america. >> last week, iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad released a third generation of centrifuges. he and his speech, he talked about the advancements in -- in his speech, he talked about the advancements in iran's nuclear program. >> in the name of god, the compassionate, the merciful, may god hasten the emergence of a mama -- of imam. the president is reciting verses

from the holy crosqur'an. i would like to congratulate you on the anniversary, actually the day on when iranian scientists master the technology to produce nuclear fuel. i would like to congratulate you and the iranian nation and all freedom-seeking haitians in the world on this vacation. -- on this vocation. i'm very happy and i think he died. once again, i would like to -- i'm very happy and i thank god. once again, i would like to cut congratulate all of you.

really, the achievements by iranians, we should be proud of the nuclear achievements by our own scientists, not just for the iranian nation, but for all independent nations and governments across the world. i would like to mention a point here. unlv our scientists are well aware of that -- you and all of our scientists are well aware of that, but it is not a bad idea to remind you of that. the iranian status with

international relations and iran's role in improving the situation of the world and pushing it towards justice and an-of respecting the lines of nations is a great one. today, the iranian nation is relying on a solid base for all good wishers and all freedom- wishers, freedom-seekers and justice in-seekers. -- justice-seekers. there is a deep on with other nations in such a way that almost all nations of the world

considered iran's achievements as their own and wholeheartedly celebrate iran's achievements. in the news and reports i have read, i have seen it all the way through. in more than 60 countries, i have been in contact with several levels and i have seen with my own eyes this a deep bond with the iranian nation. today, and accomplishments by the iranian nation account as a step forward toward real freedom and independence for all nations.

all nations are in line with that. the pace of the iranian progress on different fronts, especially in nuclear technology, which is very important, it is very proud of. look at the achievements unveiled today. we are prone to establish 60,000 centrifuges -- we are proud to establish 60,000 centrifuges. it can produce a the fuel needed for a nuclear facility in one year. with the replacement of the centrifuge which is developed for iran, the first generation

centrifuges -- the new generation will be more effective, using the same facilities without any need for physical expansion of the buildings and all of that. we will be able to provide nuclear fuel for six plants because the is six times faster. you can see that -- fuel for six plants because the line is six times faster. you can see that this she is 1.5 millimeters thick. at the core of this sheet, you will find a 7 millimeter field sheet.

-- a 7 millimeter fuelled sheef. with god's grace today and on the back of relentless efforts of our revolutionary people, we have holy mastered the different dimensions. we have full control over the different dimensions of nuclear technology. maybe we're the only country which possesses everything from a to z, from the exploration of mines to the processing that we

have prepared for enrichment. later, it will be the richmond itself. -- later, it will be the enrichment itself. they spin at a very high speed to separate hard coal and all that. if there is a lack of balance or a snag in this machine, in a matter of seconds, this machine will break down and collapse. there should be very careful measurements, very careful and carefully made alloys which have all been accomplished by local experts.

you can see they are being launched one after another. as for the production of medicines, there is a reactor in teheran. we produce radio medicines theire. 25 years ago, when they ran out of fuel, they delivered a shipment of fuel for us and we pay for that, of course. that ran out as well. as usual, we ask the i a t a -- the iaea to give as fuel. the director general at that time related our request to two countries. they said, okay, we will provide you with that fuel.

during the talks, they said that, in order to settle the nuclear issue, you give us 70% interest fuel and we will change that to 20% interest fuel and then we will return it to you for the tehran a nuclear reactor. we said, okay, we are cooperating and we have no problem on that part. anyway, they made a fuss about it. then they said they would like to take the stockpile of iran's uranium and make it impossible for ran to make an atomic bomb. under the regulations, under the law passed by them themselves,

we were supposed to make a swap anyway. knows what was necessary after all. -- no swap was necessary after all. there was no need for a nuclear swap. we accepted that. this was a usual thing for us. we are making 3.5% enriched fuel. we will get part of that to you. -- we will give part of that to you. after that, they made a fuss about it. they began -- they continued their selfish behavior and said that we would set a deadline for iran to swap for this, fuel and all of that. we said, okay, there should not be any deadline. under the law, you are obliged

to give as the fuel. imagine we would like to buy some kids on the international market. only the buyer -- some kinitemsn the international market. all of the buyer sets conditions. -- only the buyer sets conditions. if they do not provide us with fuel, we will make fuel ourselves. then they began to scoff at us and say that you are not able to do that and you have to buy it from us. anyway, we asked our own exports and they said, okay, we will make the fuel ourselves. they announced that iran had started in reaching uranium. then the superpowers began to

make propaganda and said they are unable to do it and all of that. then when iran made the first batch of 20% uranium, there were astounded. they said, ok, they can turn the field, but they cannot make it into nuclear sheets. but you can see here is the nuclear sheet. the term "cannot" does not exist in the iranian boat said larry. the audience is chanting "god is great." "death to america." on the last anniversary of the

islamic revolution, we've sewe e iranian scientists to [unintelligible] today, all iran has complete domination over the nuclear technology. it does not mean that we are at the peak, however, it in terms of nuclear know-how. there are no impediments before iranian scientists. whenever -- whatever the interests are and needs are, those who are watching this

would not like to see the iranian nation make progress. they understand what laser means, white the -- what the third generation centrifuges mean. the iranian nation, in the field of nuclear technology, they have reached a point where no power can deter the iranian nation from moving full steam ahead and making use of nuclear energy. i congratulate you and the iranian nation on this great achievement. there is another achievement in addition to the nuclear publishment -- nuclear accomplishment which i think is more important than the nuclear energy.

that is self-reliance of the iranian nation. this self-reliance is taking root in other nations as well. a nation that believes in itself, there is no copycat of reach for that nation, a nation -- for the nation. a nation that believes in itself will favor the taste of dignity, real security. today, with god's grace, the most self-reliant nation is the iranian nation. we held a different meetings with different scientists in different fields over the past four years.

of course, in the past, i held meetings with them, but the conditions that i see today are unprecedented in the iranian history. among the experts of any field, we see that we have made great progress in that field. when we ask our experts if they can make this or that, so far, i have not heard, "no," or a negative answer. our scientists have wholeheartedly tried to meet the needs of the country in all fields. today, iran is nuclear.

like their not -- like it or not. let's take a look at the nuclear issue itself. nuclear energy is clean energy and cheap. when the power plant becomes operational -- let's make a comparison. to what extent it will serve the national interest, it will benefit the nation. in one year, it should consume the equivalent of 7 million barrels a oil a year.

-- 7 million barrels of oil a year. that is that to $700 billion. we can trade that amount of fuel for a 1,000 megawatt plant. but the fuel that we use for this plant will only cost us $60 billion. not only is nuclear energy cheap, but it is clean as well. climate change is one of the challenges facing the world today. the whole of planteet earth has become one degree centigrade warmer. taking into consideration the mass of the