the democrats' line. caller: during the recent campaign we had here, we had kendrick meek. at i had someone to it to the citizens' private fund, using organizations like the popular organizations where clients go in and file lawsuits, because they take money and use it for their campaign and basically leave the person that is lucky plan to -- that is the plaintiff in this particular situation penniless, and nobody does anything about it. and those that are members of the local church -- they go from church to church, to help fund the organization. i find that robbing people, legally doing it, and ignoring

it when making a complaint -- we have to find where the money comes from and i think we are doing a poor job on that. thank you, and have a great day. guest: i am not sure i totally understand the question, but in terms of disclosure, that is a very important part of the process now, because there is more ability to spend money. i think that a lot of voters would be interested in knowing as much as they can about where the support for a particular candidate is coming from. host: people are looking at the race in minnesota as a real test case of the citizens united decision. guest: well, the spending in support of the republican candidate there that came from the target corporation was one of -- i think what you saw there

was the consequences of a corporation, a large, well-known corporation, spending a lot of money on politics and then having to disclose, people knew about it, customers of the company saying they like somebody else in the race. i cannot remember the exact amount, but to a group in minnesota that supported a republican candidate -- their explanation was that they supported the candidate's position on business issues, and the candidate, as it turned out, had a record of opposition on gay-rights issues, which were important to some of target's customers, who basically have organized a boycott of target. under citizens united, companies like target and spend money on federal races as well as state races. the spending becomes publicly

known, then they may face economic consequences and things like boycotts. there are two lessons that might come out of that -- one would be to be more cautious, don't spend money, and the other is if you do spend money, don't do it in a way that it becomes public. these are the kinds of things that a lot of people looking at this situation, trying to make decisions about how and when to spend money, those are the issues they are looking at. the target case is a prime example of what the consequences can be. host: we are out of time. is there one last thing you want it to people about with regard to what to look for for spending and financing as we get into the midterm elections? guest: i think that, you know, there is going to be a lot of spending and it is going to be less regulated, but there will

be a pushback from those, including a lot of the colors we heard from today -- callers we heard from today who feel like we've got too far in the direction of deregulation. host: thank you for being here on thursday morning. as we close thursday morning, we always give out the unemployment numbers. the number of people requesting unemployment benefits declined for the second straight week, suggesting that the slowing economy is not causing widespread job cuts. the labor department says new claims fell last week might 6000 to the seasonally adjusted 472,000. economists had expected a slight increase, according to a survey by reuters. even with declines, clams are still at much higher levels than they would be in a healthy

economy, and when economic output improved rapidly, claims drop below 4000." we are going to have a live camera at the state department as secretary clinton hosts the relaunch of direct negotiations between israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas. it is the beginning of the trilateral meeting, in what the state department calls the benjamin franklin room. we are waiting for events to get underway.

>> real live in the benjamin franklin room of the department of state as secretary of state hillary clinton will bring together benjamin netanyahu and the palestinian president bad bad for their first face-to-face meeting since 2008. it will be the resumption of the middle east peace talks. the palestinian delegation has arrived and is seated on the right of your screen. the israeli delegation is not yet in the room. there are security concerns, and other salomon issues will be covered.

the major objective of the obama administration is to broker an agreement on a palestinian state within one year. officials have to get the two regions to agree to additional talks in egypt and the two weeks, and possibly to continue during the u.n. assembly meeting at the end of the month. president obama met yesterday with the leaders of israel and the palestinian authority, and also the president of andanpresident the keing, the prince of egypt. -- he met with the king of jor dan and the prince of egypt.

>> and again, a live look from the department of state where direct negotiations between israel and the palestinian authority are being re-launched by secretary of state hillary clinton. we see the palestinian delegation has already arrived, awaiting the israeli delegation. last night president obama hosted the leaders of israel, the palestinian authority, and the king of jordan, and the egyptian president at a working dinner at a white house with the four leaders. the president said, we are but five men, but when we come together we will not be alone. we will be joined by the generations of those who have gone before.

later today we also expect to hear from george mitchell, the president's middle east envoy. he will give an update. we will have it live on c-span. we also expect the peace talks to be the topic of today's white house briefing. robert gibbs has scheduled at 4 noon eastern. we will have that live as well.

>> and a looked again, live at the state department as we await secretary of state hillary clinton. the resumption of middle east peace talks here in washington, d.c. president obama met with palestinian authority that bad

and benjamin netanyahu yesterday along with leaders of both jordan and egypt. later today we will hear from the middle east envoy george mitchell, and even more at the white house briefing. on c-span2 are not, the second and final day of the financial crisis inquiry commission hearings. chairman of the fed ben bernanke is testifying now. it is live on c-span2. you may have seen flashbulbs popping. we expect this to begin shortly.

>> you just saw the israeli delegation now into the room, and here is secretary clinton and the principleals. >> good morning. [inaudible]

i want to thank all of you for joining us today to launch negotiations --[inaudible] [please stand by. ] i know the decision to stand at this table was not easy. we understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, born from years of conflict and frustrated hopes. the tragic act of terror on tuesday, and the terrorist shooting yesterday are yet additional reminders of the human cost of this conflict. but by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples

from the shackles of the history we cannot change. and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create. so, thank you for your courage and commitment. i also want to recognize the support of egypt and jordan which have long been crucial partners for peace. we appreciate the support of the arab league for the vision of a comprehensive peace embodied in these talks. i also wish to thank former prime minister tony blair, the special representative of the quartet for his leadership and effort -- his work in support of the institutional and economic development of the palestinian

people is critical to the success of these peace efforts. as we have said all along, progress on the strike must go hand in hand with progress in negotiations. and let me also as represented by this overwhelming turnout of representatives of the press from across the world, express our gratitude to many friends and allies who have worked so hard for progress toward our shared goals. to those who criticize this process, who stand on the sidelines and say no, i ask you us in the sector. as president obama's said yesterday, we hear often from those voices in the region who insist this is a top party, and

yet the very little to support their work that would bring about a palestinian state. now is the opportunity to start contributing to progress. for our part, the u.s. has pledged its full support for these talks. we will be an active and sustained partner. we believe, prime minister and president, that you can succeed. in understand that this is la the national security interests of the united states that you do so. but we cannot and will not impose a solution. only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the israeli and palestinian people. for many of us in this room,

this is not the first trip to the negotiating table. i look around and i see veterans from all three of us. we have been here before, and we know how difficult the road ahead will be. there undoubtedly will be obstacles and setbacks. those who oppose the cause of peace will try in every way possible to sabotage this process, as we have already seen this week. but those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here -- you have returned because you have seen the costs of continued conflict. you know that your people deserve the benefits of peace. the core issues at the center of these negotiations, territory, security, jerusalem, refugees

will get no easier if we wait. nor will they resolve themselves. success will take patience, persistence, and leadership. the true test of these negotiations will not be their first day and it will not be their last day. it will be all those long days in the middle, when the path towards peace seems hidden, and the enemies of peace work to keep it of scared. but we are convinced that if you move forward in good faith, and did not waver in your commitment to succeed on behalf of your people, we can resolve all of the core issues within one year. you have taken a first steps, but embraced the idea of a two- state solution which is the only path towards a lasting peace that ensures security and

dignity for both israelis and palestinians. i fervently believe that the two men sitting on either side of me, that you are the leaders who can make this long, a cherished dream reality. we will do everything possible to help you. this is a time for bold leadership and a time for statesmen who have the courage to make difficult decisions. mr. prime minister, mr. president, you have the opportunity to end this conflict and the decades of enmity between your peoples once and for all. i want to conclude by just saying a few words directly to the peoples of the region. your leaders may be sitting at the negotiating table, but you are the ones who will

ultimately decide the future. you hold the future of your family is, communities, people, this region in your hands. for the efforts here to succeed, we need your support and your patience. today as ever, people have to rally to the cause of peace, and peace needs champions on every street corner, and around every kitchen table. i understand very well the disappointments of the past. i share them. but i also know we have it within our power today to move forward into a different kind of future, and we cannot do this

without you. so now, let me turn to the prime minister who will make his remarks, followed by the president. >> thank you, madam secretary. i want to thank you and president obama for the many efforts that you have invested to bring us to this moment. my friend senator mitchell, thank you for your consistent effort, and your staffs efforts to bring a lasting and durable peace to our region.

president abbas, as i said yesterday in our meeting at the white house with the president of the united states, the president of egypt, and the king of jordan, i see in you a partner for peace. together we can lead our people to a historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflicts. this will not be easy. a true peace, a lasting peace would be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides. from the israeli side, from the palestinian side -- from my side

in, and from your side. but the people of israel and i as their prime minister are prepared to walk this road, and to go a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity, and good neighbors -- good neighbors to shape a different reality between us. that is going to involve serious negotiations because there are many issues in contention. the core issues you outlined, madam secretary, are things we have disagreements on, but we have to get from this agreement

to agreement -- a big task. two years ago, or rather, a year ago in a speech that i gave at the university in israel, i tried to outline the two pillars of peace that i think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues. and these are legitimacy and security. just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a palestinian state as the nation state of the palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize israel as the nation state of the jewish people. there are more than a million non-jews living in israel who

have full civil rights. there is no contradiction between a nation state that guarantees the national rights of the majority, and guaranteeing the full civic equality of the minority. i think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over. i also said yesterday that a real peace must take into account did genuine security needs of israel that have changed -- have changed since i last spoke about the veterans here, gathered at this table.

we have been here before. we fashioned the have broad agreement -- though hebron agreement, and another agreement. in the past year's new forces have arisen and we have the rise of iran and of missile warfare. a peace agreement must take into account the security arrangement begins these real threats directed against my country, realized with 12,000 rockets fired on our territory, and terrorist attacks that go unabated. president abbas, i am fully aware and i expect your people's desire for sovereignty. i am convinced that it is possible to reconcile that

desire with israel's need for security. we anticipate difficult days before we achieve the much- desired peace. the last two days have been difficult. they were exceedingly difficult for my people and for me. blood has been shed, the blood of innocents. four innocent israelis gunned down brutally. two people wounded. seven new orphans. president abbas, you condemned this killing -- that is important. no less important is to find the killers. and equally, to make sure that

we can stop other killers. they seek to kill our people, kill our state, kill our peace. the cheating security is a must. security is the foundation of peace -- achieving security is a must. without it peace will unravel, and with it peace will be stable and enduring. president abbas, history has given us are rare opportunity to end the conflict between our peoples, conflict that has been lasting for almost a century. it is an unprecedented opportunity to end the century conflict.

there have been some examples in history, but not many. we face such a task. to end the bloodshed, and to secure a future of promise and hope for our children and grandchildren. in the first book of the bible, the book of genesis, there is a story of how two brothers in the conflict -- brothers -- isaac and ishmael, joined together to bury their father abraham -- our father, the father of our two peoples. isaac, the father of the hebrew nation, it is my bill, the father of the -- ishmael, the

father of the arab mission join together in a moment of pain to bury abraham in hebron. i can only pray, and i know that millions around the world, millions of israelis and -- andinians and million, many of the millions around the world prayed that the pain that we have experienced in the last 100 years of conflict will unite us not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in washington, but will enable us to leave from here and to forge a durable, lasting peace, for generations. shalom, salaam, peace.

>> in the name of god, madam secretary hillary clinton, mr. prime minister of israel netanyahu, ladies and gentlemen, let me once again extend my thanks to president obama, hillary clinton, and george mitchell, and their teams for the unrelenting effort they exerted during the last month.

in order to start again the negotiation. ladies and gentlemen, now that we're launching these negotiations today we do know how hard the obstacles are that we are facing. negotiations should within a year lead to an agreement that will bring a just peace of international law and legality between our two peoples. what is encouraging as well and is giving us confidence is that the road is clear in front of us in order to reach peace. the road of international law as

represented by the national its security council and the general assembly of the nominations -- a quartet, and the positions of the european union, of the arab follow-up committee, and all these positions clearly for us represent international unanimity of the references, bases, and goals of international peace. we're also not starting from scratch. because we had many rounds of negotiations between the plo and the israeli government. we studied all horizons, and we also defined and determined all the pending issues. we will work on all the final status issues -- jerusalem, water, final settlement, and

releasing detainees in order to end the occupation of 1967 on the territories. and in order to create the state of palestine that live side-by- side with the state of israel. in order to end the conflict, and and the historic demands of the middle east, and to bring peace and security for the two people, and all the peoples of the region. once again, we want to state our commitment to follow on all our engagements including security, and ending incitement. we call on the israeli government to move forward with its commitment to end all settlement activities, and to completely lift the embargo over the gaza strip, and all forms of incitement. also, with respect to security, you do know, ladies and we have security

thing still being built. yesterday we condemned the operations that were carried. we did not only condemn them, but we also followed on the perpetrators, and were able to fire the car used from and to arrest those who sold and bought the car. we will continue all effort to take security measures in order to find the perpetrators. we consider that security is vital for both of us. and we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security. and therefore, we not only

condemned, but we keep on working. security is fundamental. ladies and gentlemen, once again, i want to stay together what i said yesterday at the white house meeting in front of the president of egypt and king of jordan [unintelligible] the talk represented their belief in peace. these two states along with other arab states do believe with others. that peace is of vital interest not only for palestinians and israelis, but for all in the region, and for the united states. when president obama said the

creation of a palestinian state or two-state region is of vital national american interest. the plo participates in these negotiations with good intentions and seriousness. it is adamant about bringing in just peace, freedom, and independence for the palestinian people. a solution for the refugees -- we've are attached to the international resolution. we do not want anything above, and we do not want anything under. we want to have a new era in our region the brings peace, justice, security, and prosperity for all. let me say that in 1993 on

september 9, we signed, mr. prime minister, what is called a document of mutual recognition between us and israel, between former president arafat and the other. in these documents we give enough to show our intentions are good. to recognizing the state of israel. in camp david, also, commitments were required from us. and when we came back with president clinton, we carried on with all our commitments because we respect our commitments and our agreements.

therefore, we start from here to reach a peace that will end the conflict. but that will meet all the demands and start anew era between the israeli and palestinian people. thank you, and peace be among you. >> i want to thank both leaders for their statements, and i also want to thank both their respective teams are here in both delegations. the people sitting here have worked very hard, some for many years. they certainly have traveled a long way to be here, and we are grateful for their commitment as well. today president obama and i, senator mitchell and our entire team are prepared to do whatever we can to help you succeed. we believe in you, and we

support you. so again, let me thank you for being here, and now it is time to get to work. thank you all very much.

>> n uc secretary of state hillary clinton there with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, and president abbas resuming middle east peace talks. they are taking place at the state department. both delegations are leaving the room, the benjamin franklin room. here you are seeing president obama at the white house. he held talks with the israeli and palestinian delegations.

later today we also expect to hear from george mitchell, the middle east envoy, who will give an update we will have that live here on c-span. that was seen last night at the white house. >> we also expect peace talks to be the topic at the white house briefing which robert gibbs has scheduled for noon eastern. we will have that live for you as well.

>> a live look da day two of the financial crisis committee hearing. you see ben bernanke there on the screen, and twitter, sheila bair. their report is expected later this year. our companion network, c-span2. >> why replace his judgment? >> in part, when we make these discounts we have two sources of production -- the collateral itself, which we do not really want to own. >> middle east peace talks were the topic this morning on the "washington journal."

two guests. one of whom was a former special adviser, to ehud barak. "washington journal" continues. host: as promised, with a roundtable about opening today at the state department of direct conversations between the leaders of palestinian and also the prime minister of israel. joining us at the table are two gentlemen who know about the negotiation process from a first hand experience. amjad atallah is from that new american foundation and his colleague daniel levy is also at the new america foundation, co- directing this task force. start by explaining your personal experience in these types of negotiations of people know where you are coming from. guest: with pleasure. my background is british but i became israeli and moved to

israel. adore my aren't -- army service i worked with prime minister rabin more recently -- but more recently advised in the prime minister's office. during a time before last i was on the israeli negotiating team , in the egyptian sinai in january of 2001. the closest we have ever come to an agreement. certain gentleman sitting opposite me in the palestinian delegation. guest: nice to be with you. very much like daniel, i was born and raised in the united states but i joined the palestinian negotiating team has a legal advisor in 2000 after cam data -- camp david before the tava talks. and i was promised and i was interviewed that they were confident there was going to be a peace deal before president clinton left office. they said it was going to be a six-month stints, very exciting, and i would be able to help the

palestinians achieve freedom. i ended up being there for three years of working on negotiations and my first encounters with the israeli negotiating team were in fact what daniel. host: is there anything different about this time that might suggest -- guest: not enough. is a momentk this for de--- deep pessimism to prevail, but one of the worrying things is there is not yet a distinctive approach on this peace process. if i was going to seek out what was different, it would be that as a president, obama has engaged early, on day one he appoint a special envoy, and he created a certain pressure on themselves by setting a one-year time line now. president clinton and his eighth year, president bush in his eighth year said i would get

this done. barack obama it is doing this now. his 1-year time line will expire as he enters reelected. i am not suggesting the american public will judge him on this. that is one hope -- the actual approach to getting piece done still has flaws. that if we are going to succeed it has to be ironed out. host: before we started the show, "the washington post" backers -- echoes the comments. do you see anything different that might augur for success right now? guest: i agree with the band that the differences on the american side. the israelis and palestinians have been negotiating for 19 years on and off and there have -- they have pretty much been negotiating the same terms. we know the israeli and palestinian positions. president obama is the wild card. he is what is different. but contact the nine states coming into the negotiation. this is the first time the

president of the united states says we have to have a resolution because it is a vital national security interest of the united states. different from all the previous negotiations in which the united states simply was playing the role of facilitator. host: the number of analysis pieces suggest that prime minister netanyahu is a key player this time. here is one of them in "the new york times." it rests on mr. netanyahu's shoulders and we heard the premise for himself -- prime minister himself suggested if he can bring along his constituency -- we all know where the left of center in israel faults. talk about what tools he brings to the table and what in the testing might have? guest: i did not think he really has carte blanche but not far from it. prime minister netanyahu, he will not be able to carry all of the right wing, but there is a phrase that the party has run

on -- political message. only the lilud can do it. it is the nixon to china thing. a two -- two models of the prime minister. the one who broke the mold was monacan bacon, who made peace with egypt -- menachem begin, remove the settlements, and with careful and determines guidance, he made the most historic peace deal is reached until the state. the other model was yitshak shamir. the first president bush had a peace conference, he attended it and later confided to his aides that my intention all along was to drag this process out indefinitely. the question is, which is prime minister netanyahu? at the same of the "new york times" ps there is a quote from

an israeli analysts, the key is whether enough pressure is exerted by the americans on benjamin netanyahu. host: by contrast, looking at the arab newspapers. a headline on this story -- abbas has the will and the way. what are his political realities? guest: a very complicated place. every palestinian was the same thing, an end to the occupation. on the palestinian side there is no one who doubts the sincerity of present abbas to achieve that -- president mahmoud abbas to achieve that. does he not have the backing of the public to strengthen his hand? the way the united states has played this hand, this is the weakest link in the chain. the united states in effect has not really tried to help establish a very solid unified

palestinian policy. it has tried to emphasize support for individuals. i think it does not even help the individuals it is meant to help. individuals need the backing of political parties. it would be as if president obama went into some very important negotiations, without even the support of the democratic party. so president mahmoud abbas has not been able to rally people not around the goal -- because everyone agrees on the gold -- but not able to convince them that president obama's policies of doing this through the oslo process, direct face-to-face negotiations with the united states playing a hands-off role, he has not been able to convince palestinians that is going to work. host: the issues are obviously complex and we could spend a lot of time setting the table but i really want to get to your calls and comments. we will put the numbers on the screen, lines/party affiliation. you can also send an e-mail or tter. i

the deadline for the moratorium -- guest: the night -- united states hoping that there would be a middle ground that they conform to their way through the end of september. the real problem for palestinians is one settlement construction takes place, home demolitions, it has a real and immediate impact on palestinians. they can look out of the windows and see the construction being built. in the united states it may work if you say, well, we are only going to be building in some areas and only building some kinds of buildings, only making them so high and only doing it in this place but not in that place. but on the ground for palestinians, and looks like the promise was broken. and if the promises broken only two weeks or three weeks into the talks, it is going to be very, very difficult for president a boss -- abbas to

maintain credibility if he continues negotiations without exacting a new understanding from israel. host: the prime minister faces pressure on the settlement moratorium. can you tell us how this plays into how the approaches the topic? guest: of course, the kind of moratorium prime minister netanyahu has been asked to extend is already a compromise. car out the tensions that prime minister netanyahu manage to get americans to turn a blind eye to. east jerusalem, obviously important to the palestinian side, and 3000 housing units are already under construction. he does face pressure. there is clearly a very significant political lobby of settles -- settlers and their supporters. he has chosen to bring them into the coalition. this is a right-wing coalition of choice. that is a switching may have to make eventually. the sense is that netanyahu perhaps does have the uighur

room to expend this, perhaps not been cleared to play but at least in practice. host: let us hear from our c- span viewers, beginning from a call from occurred on the democrats' line from baltimore. caller: i wanted to say, yes, i think that the peace process should have been took place. trying to stop human beings from making this person versus that person. i hope this peace process works. we are humans and we can all gather information and technology and we can help each other. i think right them -- right now, it is a lot of that politicians, people who are controlling

money. they are making us go against each other. i want to say to the first part, i am a young guy, i just started watching c-span. i was on you to, i see a video, and it was from somebody -- it was called helen thomas, the real jews, black people. basically, 12 tribes of israel and they were kicked l? could somebody explain that to me? guest: i cannot relate address the video that you saw, but you hit the nail on the head on the first two points. president obama has chosen to be the mediator.

he is not going to invite the parties to the room. he is going to have to close the deal the second thing you talked about, the vision for peace, you described with the middle east could look like after an agreement, and the president is with you on that. for the united states, the entire middle east will be a new place, a new dawn, if he can get this agreement. that is why is a security interest for the united states of course, it is important for the palestinians and israelis, but it is important that we recognize it is absolutely important for us to achieve this. host: stephen in brooklyn. republican line. caller: i want to comment on the two gentlemen you and i appreciate the arab negotiator. he seems negotiable --

reasonable. the other person, daniel levy, is the typical leftist point of view. you keep on hearing this over and over again, that if only netanyahu pressured the israelis to give in more and more, there would be peace. we are talking about two partners, a recalcitrant person is right wing israel. i will give you an example. there was an attack yesterday in israel. four jews were brutally murdered. so what did we get? we got condemnation from moscow abbas.

-- mark would abbas -- mahmoud abbas. he said there should be no bloodshed in the middle east. in these attacks against arabs, let us say, four israeli soldiers when they are defending themselves, he calls it in the airport attack. it seems like a minor point, but the so-called palestinian mentality does not look at this as an abhorrent act. host: let me give mr. levy is a chance to respond. guest: both president abbas and prime minister and the 10 yahoo! represent their own people, their own narratives --

netanyahu represent their own people, their own narratives. if something happens to palestinian civilians, as has past, the waysthe that he will express those casualties will be sympathetic, will be expressed from an israeli position. the israelis are concerned, number one. likewise, in a courageous condemnation from president abbas, he is still coming at this from a palestinian perspective. of course, a neutral observer can express equal empathy, but one cannot get that from the parties themselves. host: a tweet from ann -- guest: i think there is a bit

of political strong are many. the idea for hamas is to be a part of the palestinian movement. its priorities are domestic, it wants to be in power. it has recognized that right now there is little trust among the palestinian public that these negotiations a will succeed so they are hoping to capitalize on that. i think they are over region -- the terrorist attacks against civilians, hamas may have thought this would have rallied people to their side, but it may have done the opposite. the point is, they are a political party trying to make gains within the political framework. if they find a way to make those political gain on the democratic field, then it can pursue that course. it is pigeonholed and told no

matter what happens, peace or war, you cannot play a role, they are obviously going to try to break out of that box. the trick for the palestinian leaderships is to find a way to bring all the palestinian parties into one tent in which they can actually provide a space for a democratic pluralist system. hamas can potentially be a part of that, all the other parties as well, but we will not know until we let that process take place. host: joliet, illinois. sherry, you are on. caller: all the oppression that is going on with the israelis, palestinians, and has led to the terrorist situation around the world. what they want from the united states is to snuff out their

adversaries, such as iran. they want the u.s. to go in there and fight them, like we did in iraq, so no one is there to help the palestinians. this is all about the haves and have-nots. guest: 9 think it is a stretch to say that all the terrorism around the world is related to the israeli-palestinian conflict. i do think one of the reasons you psaltery -- president in the room yesterday with a determined -- determination to see this through is an appreciation that resolving this conflict is an american national security interest. that is not just president obama's perception, but the pentagon, david petraeus -- he put it starkly, talking about

the inability to reestablish the credibility to work in the middle east, to push back against its adversaries. as long as this palestinian grievance, which americans are seen as a continuing, this will be a complicated issue. there is a lose-lose that we have played out for many years, but there is a win-win-win where the americans get to charity, and israelis get their borders, and the middle east can be stabilized. the president should take one day over the summer and say that he will drive his arms around peacemaking, because it matters

to americans. guest: there was a pretty important to went to events that occurred yesterday. the u.s. and did combat operations in iraq and made a speech where he made it clear the u.s. had no intention of occupying or colonizing iraq, that we were ending our combat operations there. the next day he talks about ending the conflict in the gaza strip and west bank. in the middle east, those two things are very connected. if the u.s. wants peace in the region -- is the u.s. the good guy who wants peace in the region, are they an imperial power seeking to colonize? those are the two never does that compete each other. this was within a 48-hour period. he basically presented to the

muslim-arab world, we have no intention of staying, but also came the message to the israelis, we are getting some of iraq, you have to get of the west bank. he has to make sure that he achieves this. you said you want to get out of iraq and you do not, you will not get credit for it. you say that you want to end the arab-israeli conflict and you do not, you will not get any credit for it. guest: on the israeli side, the elections are scheduled for 2013. this is a parliamentary democracy, and a small parliament with 120 members, and there are over 12 parties represented. if you think cutting deals in the congress is difficult, you

should see israel. what usually happens is there is a no vote of confidence and go to elections. guest: the palestinian side is a bit more complicated. the presidential elections have passed without taking place, terms for the legislative council have passed without taking place. in fact, there is no palestinian politician in power today, in gaza or the west bank, that is there through any form of electoral mandate. the plo, above and beyond the palestinian authority, that which negotiate with israel, has not had a elections for its national congress either in dozens of years. so there is a crisis of legitimacy among palestinians,

partly because there have not been any way of renewing the mandate of any particular politician, no matter how popular or unpopular. host: newbury, massachusetts. eddie. caller: it is the palestinian issue of military operation. they did get out of gaza, but it was not much of a success. how do you keep a jew out of jerusalem? this is a kent -- ancient land. please explain the two state system. guest: that is a good question because it gets to the heart of the narratives of both people. when i was in negotiations, the palestinian argument was that we were seeking two states, but not exclusive of other population.

we imagined it would look a bit like canada and the united states, france and germany, where people would be able to cross the border. the israelis could be able to shop in palestinian areas, palestinians coming over to the israeli side -- and it has been repeated recently -- palestinians are not opposed to jews living in a palestinian state. we recognize the jewish people have religious and historic ties that will be the palestinian state. there is no objection to the jews living in the palestinian state. are they going to live in there as a palestinian citizen, as israeli citizens, under what framework? this vision of two states with multi-ethnic population is moving back and forth, this has taken a beating since i was in negotiations.

over the course of all the violence that has taken recently, specifically in israel, over two exclusive populations. i think there needs to be a conclusion in a two state solution that allows both jews and palestinians to have access to both countries. the more interaction there will be, the more peace will be strengthened, amongst the people. guest: i think there is no taking the jew out of jerusalem, and i would be against any plan that would do that. the question about the two-state option is the following. is there a jewish-israeli

political sovereignty in all of jerusalem and to data? if not, if there is access but not 70, we have a two state solution. if there is that aspect of sovereign control, then either the palestinians are given democratic rights and it is no longer an exclusively jewish state, or is apartheid. that is what we are trying to resolve. host: i want to share with you a piece in the "wall street journal" -- the headline on it --

it goes on to suggest capital coming into the region. here is the closing paragraph -- what do you think about that?

guest: it is true, we have been there before, and in a way, it is built on sand. the palestinians and build institutions of democratic governments in the 1990's and there was an economy that was doing fairly well for conditions of occupation. after all, palestinians cannot move from one city to another without going through an israeli checkpoint, could cannot come in except through israel. it is a captive market. under those conditions, palestinians were trying to develop. israel took down that system within 24 hours. basically shut down every ministry, factory, every company within 24 hours. what you see now is an attempt to rebuild that can get back to what we had in the 1990's.

yes, it is important to see this building, but even the growth figures -- the world bank figures the report also say, this is still only 1%, 2% above what existed in 2000. it might be better when things were really dismal, but not much better than when things were in 2000. host: anything to add? guest: we are not yet back to where we were with the palestinian economy. it would be great to see recovery in ramallah, as it would be great to see investment in detroit, louisiana, were sudan for that matter. to resolve the political conflict, however, we need a political solution. if the economy makes great progress, maybe it will be easier to combine everyone into one state.

it does not set aside the hard political questions. it is almost an irrelevance to this. >guest: the only foundation to political success is the economy. this is all meaningless but we do not have independence. if palestinians do not have freedom, this will not work. host: gain in massachusetts. independent line. caller: these settlements in israel were given to abraham thousands of years ago and down to isaac and jacob nobody is supposed to bargain with them. i will not live -- if my land the way for a piece of bread.

-- i would not give my land away for a piece of bread. this is the land of god. his promise is to his people. i love is real and i love america and i think the president is totally wrong on this and he is destroying the relationship between israel and america. this is the first time that this has happened to me. they are just so for of of what the bible says. he is bringing his people back to the land because of the messiah is coming back. he is not going to bring them back to have them be chased out. besides, hamas, the plo, are

terrorists. they make is will look like the victim. they will not be satisfied with land. they want israel to be destroyed. host: let me jump in at this point, something for each of our guests to respond to. guest: israel set itself up as a democracy, not a theocracy. much of the relationship that has been maintained with america has been based on that value. yes, there are biblical prophecies from which we draw inspiration. i am personally not an enthusiast about having a jewish the chronic state of israel, as much as a theocratic republic of iran. it may choose to define

themselves as a theocratic base, deriving its decisions from biblical prophecy -- if that is the future of israel, and i acknowledge that there are more and more people in israel who think in those terms -- then everyone who disagrees with that vision, others with a democratic system, will have to step back and look at how they want to relate with that israel. the american president can only work with the israel that he has in front of him. it is a democracy based on political systems, politics. thank delay, we do not have rockets launched into israel -- thankfully, we do not have rockets launched into israel every day and the true answer to security will be having the palestinians have their freedom. get two states. live in the real world.

it will be an unpleasant place to try to exist in, whether that is in israel or the united states. guest: your question is illustrative of a cynical bargain that the israelis made 20 years ago with the american right wing. the narrative of god having given the land to the jews, and american circles, ends with the messiah returning and converting them to christianity. the notion that they could make alliances with pat hickey, others, work to ensure their

political ambitions could be supported within the u.s. system -- what happens when israel decides it is in their best interest to make peace? what if they find it is in their best interest to make peace with muslim countries? when israel decides that have to make that choice for the security of the future of jews in israel, ironically, they will find there is a coalition in the united states who will be opposed to jewish security, freedoms, because they have actually imagined and bought into this vision of a warrior state, that israel will almost always be at war until the apocalypse. host: next phone call. caller: good morning.

i basically agree with the concept, the idea of having a solution that shares the land, and gives both sides a chance to develop and have prosperity. but let us get back to reality and not be deluded. we were moving in that direction of few years ago. begins a sudden, arafat an attack. now everything needs to be evaluated. nobody is talking about that today. i enjoyed the meetings last night, too, but hamas cannot be brought into democratic

leadership. they say they will never accept is real, they want the destruction of israel. hezbollah, in the north, the same thing. iran is harming both of them. we have a threat of terrorism that is a threat to the existence of israel. it is not a question of coming up with nice ideas traveling together through these countries. this is a possible to tuition that could generate. take a look at iraq would sumy's and shiites. shiith the sunni's and ites. i believe these hamas groups are just waiting and waiting. they tried to scuttle diplomacy

a couple of days ago -- host: let me jump in there. thank you. amjad atallah. guest: there is a lot of hate rhetoric coming from both sides. just one week ago, the head of the third largest -- fourth largest party of israel -- that is part of the ruling coalition in the government called for a play to wide on all palestinians. when you before that, a plauge for all arabs. his word is almost considered the word of god. as a palestinian, i can point to that and say, that is what rabbi joseph said, therefore, we cannot make peace with the

israelis, it is impossible to move forward. but in fact, the point of the conflict is to end it. if everybody was doing the right thing, saying the right thing today, there would not be a conflict. palestinian violence is not related to israel outside of the occupation. palestinian violence has to be understood within the context of the occupation. we want to end the violence on both sides. but that is not going to happen, absent peace. there is no imaginary state where peace is happening and nobody does anything bad, and then when that happens, everybody makes peace. at that one, we do not need to make peace because we already had it. guest: i would give israel more

credit in terms of what it has achieved in securing itself over the 63 years of its existence. these groups do not threaten israel's existence. they have a strong military, have proven themselves very capable. i often feel like we used these words lightly, and we do a disservice to what has been achieved by israel, in terms of creating a real effect on the ground. the challenge, how does one reduce terrorism down to a manageable portion, reduce extremism on all sides? i think it is clear there are circumstances in which terrorism flourishes. i would to just the circumstances of occupation, of the people being denied basic freedoms and dignity, are

circumstances in which it is much easier to rally people are ground to the cause of extremism. these extreme groups, yes, i have virtually no sympathy for the tactics used, groups like hamas. but take a look at this group that the prime minister may come about. they supported a former prime minister and said it was more important to save life than to keep land. it is true for the hard-liners on both sides. you can create an incentive system. there will always be naysayers. but you can bring in most of the hard-liners, if you are smart, and new technology they have a narrative that needs to be addressed -- -- and

acknowledge that they have a narrative that needs to be addressed. even in the u.s., look at who is trying to stablize things in iraq. can you say to this person, i understand your grievance, i am not justify what you did in taking american lives, but let me try to understand this grievance. if your grievance is my freedom back home, that is something i cannot do anything about. for most

>> this is all free online, washington and the world your way. >> middle east peace talks, multilateral talks are now going on at the state department between israel, the palestinian authority, secretary of state clinton, and the leaves of jordan and egypt. earlier today, secretary clinton opened the negotiations. we will show you her remarks and remarks from the israeli and palestinian leaders in a moment. later today, we expect to hear from george mitchell, the president's middle east envoy will give an update on negotiations. we will have that for you live when it happens here on c-span. also, robert gibbs has scheduled a white house briefing around noon. we expect a lot of questions about these negotiations. you can watch that live here on c-span. now the opening remarks from the

state department and this is about half an hour. [no audio]

>> i want to thank all of you for joining us today to launch in negotiations [inaudible] i know the decision to set at this table was not easy. we understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes, the tragic act of terror on tuesday and the terrorist shooting yesterday part yet additional reminders of the human cost of this conflict. by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history that we cannot change. and moving toward a future of

peace and dignity that only you can create. so, thank you. thank you for your courage and your commitment. i also want to recognize the support of egypt and jordan which have long been crucial partners for peace. we appreciate the support of the arab league for the vision of a comprehensive peace embodied in these talks. i also wish to thank former prime minister tony blair, the special representative of the quartet, for his leadership and effort. mr. blair's work and support of the institutional and economic development of the palestinian people is critical to the success of these peace efforts. as we have said all along, progress on this track must go

hand in hand with progress in negotiations. let me also, as represented by this overwhelming turnout of representatives of the press from across the world, and express our gratitude to many friends and allies who have worked so hard for progress toward our shared goals. to those who criticize this process, who stand on the sidelines and say," no," i ask you to join us in this effort. as president obama said yesterday, we hear often from those voices in the region who insist that this is a top priority and yet do very little to support the work that would actually bring about a palestinian state. now is the opportunity to start

contributing to progress. for our part, the united states has pledged its full support for these talks and we will be an active and sustained partner. we believe, prime minister and president, that you can succeed and we understand that this is in the national security interest of the united states that you do so. but we cannot and we will not impose a solution. only you can make the decisions necessary to reach an agreement and secure a peaceful future for the israeli and palestinian people. for many of us in this room, this is not the first trip to the negotiating table. i look around and i see veterans from all three of us.

we have been here before and we know how difficult the road ahead will be. there undoubtedly will be obstacles and setbacks. those who oppose the cause of peace will try in every way possible to sabotage this process as we have already seen this week. but those of you here today, especially the veterans who are here today, you have returned because you have seen the cost of continued conflict you know that your people deserve the benefits of peace. the core issues at the center of these negotiations, territory, security, jerusalem, refugees and others will get no easier if we wait. nor will they resolve themselves. success will take patience,

persistence, and leadership. the true test of these negotiations will not be their first day or their last day. it will be all those long days in the middle when the path toward peace seems hidden and the enemies of peace work to keep the obscure. we are convinced that if you move forward in good faith and do not waver in your commitment to succeed on behalf of your people, we can result all of the core issues within one year. you have taken the first step. you have both embraced the idea of a two-state solution which is the only path toward a just, lasting peace that ensures security and dignity for both israelis and palestinians. i fervently believe that the two

men sitting on either side of me that you are the leaders who can make this long cherished dream a reality. we will do everything possible to help you. this is a time for bowl leadership and a time for statesmen who have the courage to make difficult decisions. mr. prime minister, mr. president, you have the opportunity to end this conflict and the decades of the enmity between your peoples once and for all. i want to conclude by just saying a few words directly to the people of the region. your leaders may be sitting at the negotiating table, but you are the ones who will ultimately decide the future. you hold the future of your

families, your communities, your people, this region in your hands. for the efforts here to succeed we need your support and your patience. today as ever, people have to rally to the cause of peace and peace needs champions on every street corner and around every kitchen table. i understand very well the disappointments of the past. i share them. but i also know we have it within our power today to move forward into a different kind of future. we cannot do this without you. so now let me turn to the prime minister who will make his

remarks followed by the president. back >> thank you, madam secretary. i want to thank you and president obama for the many efforts that you have invested to bring us to this moment. my friend senator mitchell, thank you for your consistent effort for you and your staffs efforts to bring a lasting and durable peace to our region. president abbas, as i said yesterday in our meeting at the white house with the president of united states, the president

of egypt, and the king of jordan, i see in you a partner for peace. together, we can lead our people to an historic future that can put an end to claims and to conflict. now, this will not be easy. a true peace, a lasting peace would be achieved only with mutual and painful concessions from both sides. from the israeli side, from the palestinian side. from my side, and from your side. but the people of israel and i

as their prime minister are prepared to walk this road and to go along way, a long way in a short time to achieve a genuine peace that will bring our people security, prosperity, and good neighbors. good neighbors. to shape a different reality between us. that will involve serious negotiations because there are many issues in contention. the core issues that you outlined, madam secretary, are things we have disagreements on but we have to get from disagreement to agreement. that is a big task. two years ago, or rather one year ago in a speech i gave at

the university in israel, i tried to outline the two pillars of peace that i think will enable us to resolve all the outstanding issues. and these are legitimacy and security. just as you expect us to be ready to recognize a palestinian state as the nation state of the palestinian people, we expect you to be prepared to recognize israel as the nation state of the jewish people. there are more than 1 million non-jews living in israe who have fourthl all soberride spread there is no difference between a nation state that

guarantees the national rights or the majority and guaranteeing the civil-rights, the full equality of the minority. i think this mutual recognition between us is indispensable to clarifying to our two peoples that the conflict between us is over. i said, 2, yesterday that a real peace must take into account the genuine security needs of israel, they have changed. last year you spoke about the veterans gathered here. at this table. we have been here before. we fashioned of the hebron

agreement 12 years ago. in these 12 years, new forces have written -- risen in our region and we have had the rise of iran and proxy's and the rise in missile warfare. a peace agreement must take into account security arrangements against these real threats that have been directed against my country, threats that have been realized with 12,000 rockets that have been fired on our territory and terrorist attacks that go unabated. president abbas, i am fully aware and i respect your people's desire for sovereignty. i am convinced that it is possible to reconcile that desire with israel's needs for security. we anticipate difficult days

before we achieve a much- desired peace. the last two days have been difficult. they were an exceedingly difficult -- difficult for my people and for me. blood has been shed, the blood of innocents, four innocent israelis gunned down brutally, two people wounded. , seven new orphans. president abbas, you condemned to this killing. that is important. no less important is to find the killers. an equally, to make sure that we can stop other killers that seek to kill our people, our state,

killing our peace. and so, achieving security is a must. security is the foundation of peace. without it, peace will unravel. with it, peace can be stable and enduring. president abbas, history has given us a rare opportunity to end the conflict between our peoples, a conflict that is -- that has been lasting for almost a century. this is an unprecedented opportunity to end the century conflict. there have been some examples in history but not many. we face such a task. , to end the bloodshed and to

secure a future of promise and hope for our children and grandchildren. in the first book of the bible, the book of genesis, there is a story of how two brothers in conflict, brothers, isaac and ishmael joined together to bury their father abraham. our father. , the father of our two peoples. isaac, the father of the hebrew nation, is my all, the father of the arab nations. they join together in a moment of paying -- of pain and the two respective barry abraham in hebron. i can only pray and i know that

millions around the world, millions of israelis and millions of palestinians and many other millions around the world, pray that the pay and that we have experienced -- pray that the pain we have experienced, you and us, in the last 100 years of conflict will unite us of not only in a moment of peace around a table of peace here in washington, but will enable us to leave from here and to forge a durable, lasting peace for generations. shalom, salaam, peace.

>> in the name of god, madam secretary hillary clinton, mr. prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu, ladies and gentlemen, let me in the first place once again extend my thanks to president barack obama and to secretary clinton and senator george mitchell and of their teams for their unrelenting efforts of they exerted during the last month in order to launch the negotiations

on the final status between the plo and the israeli government. ladies and gentlemen, now that we are launching these negotiations today, we know how hard the hurdles are we are facing and we will face during these negotiations. negotiations that should within one year lead to an agreement that will bring a just peace of international law, international legality between our two peoples, the israelis and palestinians. what is encouraging as well and is giving us conference -- confidence is that the road is clear in front of us in order to reach peace. the road of international law and the general assembly of the united stations, the quartet,

and the positions of the european union, of the arab committee, and all these positions clearly represent international unanimity from the references and the goal of the negotiations. ladies and gentleman, we are not starting from scratch. have had many rounds of negotiations between the plo and the israeli government. and we studied all horizons and we also defined and determined all the pending issues. we will work all about -- on all the final borders, security, ordere and also releasing detainees in order to end the occupation that started in 1967, the occupation of the palestinian territories in order to create the state of palestine

that will be side by side with israel in order to end the conflict and the historic demands in the middle east. and to bring peace and security for the two people and all the peoples of the region. once again, we want to state our commitments to including security and ending intendment. we call on the israeli government to move forward on this commitment, to end all settlement activities and with the embargo of the gaza strip. also, with respect to security, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we have security apparatuses that are still being built that are still young, but are doing everything expected of

them. if we condemn the operations -- we did not only condemn them, but we followed the perpetrators, and we were able to find the car that was used in we were able to arrest those that sold the car. we will continue all our efforts to continue to find the perpetrators. we consider security is a right for both of us. we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security, therefore, we not only condemn, but we need to keep on working seriously. security is fundamental and very

sensitive. once again, i want to state what i said at the white house yesterday in front of president obama, mubarak, and king nasrallah. their participation represented the belief of the jordan and egypt of peace. these two states, alongside other arab states, believe this is a vital interest not only four palestinians and israelis, but for all of us in the region, and for the united states, as president obama cited, when he said the creation of a two state solution is a the vital national american interest.

the plo participate in this negotiation with good intentions that are serious and is adamant about burning just peace, freedom, and independence to the people of their land. a fair solution of the refugees, according to a resolution. we are attached to the resolution. we do not want anything above or anything under. in our to have a new eara region, one that brings peace and prosperity to the region. in 1993, in september, we signed, mr. prime minister, what

is called a document of mutual recognition between us and israel, between former president rubin. and issac in these documents, we show our intentions are good, with respect to recognizing israel. also, in camp david, commitments were required from us. when we came back with president clinton, we carried on with our commitments because we respect those agreements. therefore, we are starting here on a peace that will end the

conflict and start a new era between the israeli and palestinian people. thank you. peace be among you. >> thank you to the leaders for their statements. i also want to thank the members of their respective teams who are here in both delegations. the people sitting here have worked very hard, some for many years, and they have certainly traveled a long ways to be here. we are grateful for their commitment as well. today, president obama and i, senator mitchell, and our entire team, are prepared to do what we can to help you succeed. we believe in you, we support you. again, let me thank you for being here. now it is time to get to work. thank you very much.

gue [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> opening remarks from the state department on the multilateral middle east peace talks. later on, we will be hearing from george mitchell, the special envoy to the middle east. we will have that for you live. we will be hearing momentarily from white house spokesperson

robert gibbs, expecting him to field a number of questions on those middle east peace talks. for the moment, some breaking news off the coast of louisiana. the coast guard is responding to another oil rig explosion. northwest cable news is reporting this one occurred 80 miles south of grand isle, louisiana. 13 people were on the rig. cnn is reporting that all 13 were accounted for with one injured. the coast guard says their rate is owned by houston-based meritor energy. we do have a clearing house for hearings, as well as other videos on the c-span video website. while we wait for robert gibbs to take the podium for a press briefing at the white house, we will be taking a look at the articles and your phone calls from this morning's "washington

journal." ning is really being drawn, as i said from the open, the inquiry commission yesterday. one of the panelists who testified about lehman brothers is reported by the reporters watching it today as getting a sympathetic ear from of the coission, suggesting that if the gornment had helped him, his company, as they had others, that lehman brothers would still be around today and would not have been a bankruptcy of the size it was which people thought had a cascading effect. this is a way to get into the topic about whether or not you think some companies in the future whether you would be supporting keeping them in business to preserve jobs and prevent the cascading in fact, or you reached the point where companies should be allowed to fail and they for their miskes and there should not be government underwriting, bailout, loan guarantees, etcetera, for those who make

mistakes and get into bad situations. that is our question. we will begin with a telephone call from california. tracy on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: i believe that everybody has the right to pursue happiness and if you work hard, you can get it. but as far as the bailout, i don't think they should have more -- they should have enough capital to cover all of their losses. host: ok, thank you. republican line. calling us from los angeles, at an early hour. caller: i wanted to comment. i don't think the government should help any firm, and there are no firms that are too large to fail. there are perfect bankruptcy laws that are printed on the books. we just have to let the strongest firms survive and

those of that for some reason cannot maintain their costs, you have to let them go. we cannot interfere with our market system. host: thank you for your call. i mentioned about candidates. some candidates picking up on this theme. here is just one example. cath rodgers, washington's fifth congressional district. on her website, she has a series of pledges should see is putting forward. no. 5, reversed the wall street bailout. saying she had voted against the $700 billn tarp the bill and now our goal should be to make sure something like tarp never happens again. no company is too big to fail. thonly thing to bito fail as america itself. one candidate picking up on this theme of bailouts. let us go next toount prospect, illinois. this is bob on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, c-span. i feel good today. i just feel good.

of course, these companies should definitely be broken down. the battle -- debacle that the way the country was put in. can i just say one last thing? the reason i feel so good? i feel so good that joe biden and the president obama, they make me feel so good. you know, proud of this country and proud to be black. i want them to continue -- senator clinton -- to do what they feel because i trusted them. host: today the financial inquiry commission is going to be hearing testimony from sheila

bear, who as you know well, -- sheila bair, heads the fdic. and terms of r jurisdiction, there haveeen so far this year 118 banks that have failed and have been taken over by federal regulators. that is year to date. 2009, 140. back into thousand eight, during the roots of the crisis, just 25 that year -- back in 2008. reporter writing about this saying the problem bank list is growing. that number of 118 make it larger by year's end. they are goingo hear testimony also from fed chief ben bernanke. he has been talking about this o big to fail conce frequently paired here is one example of him talking about it way back in march when he was in front of the independent community bankers of america. he said the problems of some firms being perceived as too big

to fail is one of the most insidious barriers to competition in financial markets. ironically, the number of the firms gotarger and efforts to save them. we want to hear your thoughts about the concept of companies being too large to fail. bob graeme talked about this yesterday. let's listen to him. >> it seems to me that the key question here is, well there continue to be the political support to do what has been done in the past few months, which is to intervene at the time ultimate crisis. second, if that is suspect, that

continuing political support, of what are the fundamental ways to avoid reaching that point of extremists, there are many members -- there are many candidates this fall running on a platform of no more bailouts. and are commitng themselves not to support programs like the tarp program should they be effected to congress. whether they will be a majority voice or not is unknown. but that voice is certainly going to be louder in the next congress than it has been in the present congress. so, if you assume it is going to be more difficult to come to the assistance, and if the consequences of not coming to the assistance are as catastrophic as we described, then it seems to me it puts a particular premium on figuring out how to avoid getting to that

extremists. host: former senator bob graham -- how do we avoid getting into situations where companies need that in the future. talking about should a company big two -- be too big to fail. alexandria, virginia. democrats line. you are on. go ahead, please. ellis, speak up or we have to move on. caller: i am speaking up. host: what do you have to say? caller: nobody should be too big to fail. host: de have anything more to add? caller: the reason i think these people should be allowed to fail is because already the government has already bailed them out. and at this point, we are still working on bailing them out, yet they do't seem to be helping anybody else out here in this economy right now. and they are actively lobbying

right now in congress to try to get to -- republicans get back to office. part of this deal. it is all partisan. and it is all about politics. and what is going to come down to in the end is they say they don't want it to be failing -- ok, the republicans don't, but yet the democrats are saying they are trying to restrict this now so nobody can be too big to fail. and what we will end up is these big companies are going to get their money back, they will all buy into their way and they will -- obviously what we are looking at, where we were before. then we are going to be back in the same boat as before -- and they will bail out their buddies again. host: next is a call from a viewer in wisconsin by the name of alann our independent line. good morning. caller: should not be too big to

fail. break them up into smaller entities and put these guys in prison where they belong and this will not happen. both incumbes out of office. we are being fleeced. this happens every 20 or 25 years or more. and our politicians are in bed with these guys. that is all i got to say. host: allen from wisconsin. barry smith tweets a different point of view. kevin hall is on the phone with us from mcclatchy newspapers, following the commission but also deeply involved in reporting on the financial crisis and the government response. good morning. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: the headlines today suggest that the commission was sympathetic to the layman

brothers chiefs argument that if he had gotten the same kind of help from the federal government that lehman would still be around today. did you sense sympathy on the part of the commissioners a their questioning? guest: what they were focusing on, you are a good boy, you are a bad boy, you are a good boy attitude in how it folded. it is easy to kind of look back now with that attitude -- remember, at the time, the terconnectedness. i think one of the concepts that sometimes gets overlooked is these investors -- institutions that are so big are so interconnected. saving the six to help the healthy. -- saving the sick. but it is a little -- when he said he was surprised about this. when bear stearns failed, the

overnight weekend sale to j.p. morgan, that lehman brothers was immediately data -- identified as the next week fish and had many months to ppare for it. that it happened overnight is not quite true. host: maybe you can comment on the thinking of policy makers about the fact that >> we leave this program to go live to a white house press briefing with robert gibbs. >> a statement on hurricane earl. the president is monitoring and preparing for the storm as it continues to head to the east coast. on its current track, it could be to the east coast of north carolina by late tonight or early friday morning. last night, the president signed a pre landfall decoration for the state of north carolina, ensuring the state has what it needs before hand. fema has moved teams in two states along the east coast as resources where needed.

the minister provided the present with an update and fema is in close contact with the governors and teams up and down the eastern seaboard to ensure they have the support they need, should the storm makes landfall later tonight or tomorrow. i expect the president will speak with the met administrators again today and we will let you know -- fema administrator is again today and we will let you know when that happens. yes, ma'am? >> do you have any update [inaudible] >> obviously, talks are ongoing. we expect, at some point, in the next hour or so, senator mitchell, our special envoy for middle east peace will conduct a briefing on what has transpired today. i would say the president was

encouraged in his meeting yesterday by the serious attitude and that each of the leaders brought about these talks and about a long-term lasting peace for the middle east. all of this is viewed as a tremendously important opportunity. i think you all saw the pictures and apparel will statements -- powerful statements that were made by middle east leaders. i would also say, as the president did in the rose garden yesterday afternoon, there are still deep divisions, years of mistrust to overcome. that will not be wiped away in one meeting, or in one day. we understand that.

the failure, though, to try, is not something the president wants to do. >> these deep divisions that you speak of the, how does the administration plan to deal with it? are there plans for dealing with hamas? >> why don't i defer questions about what had been in talks today and tell senator mitchell has an opportunity to answer those questions at the conclusion of his meeting. yes, sir? >> in response to christina romer's remarks yesterday, she said the only sure-fire way for policymakers to increase aggregate demand or through the government spending more and taxing less. in my view, we should be moving forward. that sounds like setting the stage for a second stimulus. >> i will be someone brought in

my answer. -- broad in my answer. the steps that this administration has taken over the past of the -- over the course of the past two years, first of all, the team is looking at a number of ideas. he enumerated some of those ideas, including infrastructure. in terms of cutting taxes, there is a bill pending before the senate that you have heard the president's speech on that will and cut taxes on small business. if you go back to one year ago, outside of the recovery act, we pursued and the president signed legislation that allowed cash for clunkers.

in december last year, targeted measures that could be taken to help the recovery. those have included the bipartisan hire act which cuts taxes for those who hire employees. we have given states more money to ensure teachers and firefighters were not laid off. we expanded and continued unemployment insurance. the small business bill has passed the house. we will continue to look at and take steps that are targeted in nature to help continue the recovery, help create an environment where the private sector is adding jobs. >> we are all aware of the steps that have been taken, but what dr. romer has said is a lot more spending needs to be done. >> i would point you to what the

president said on monday. the president has talked about the idea is being looked at. the idea of a big, new stimulus plan is not in offering right now. i would interpret what you said to be very much in line with the president said. >> following up on jobs, what does the president expect from the jobless numbers, has the economic team come up with some second ideas? >> those meetings and discussions continue to take place. i will not get ahead of any of those ultimate decisions. it is not helpful for me to speculate on the jobs numbers. i say this for the benefit of anybody that is watching.

i do not know the numbers come i will not know the numbers. anything that is said in the next several minutes has nothing to do about my knowledge with the numbers. i do that because everybody gets nervous that if i make a comment, somehow i know. >> there is an oil production platform in the gulf that is on fire. does it present any of the same problems of the bp rig? q you know any more about the accident? >> here is what i know. i am told this is a production platform about 100 miles off the coast. i am told the depth of water is about 340 feet. so this is not a deepwater facility. as i understand, the well was not in active production. i will reiterate what i think

the coast guard has said. they responded to the preliminary report of a fire on board an oil platform in the gulf. the initial report we got was that 13 people were on the platform, they are accounted for, one is injured, and he is on his way out of the area. multiple coastguard aircraft, cutters were on route -- en route. we will continue to and gather information as it becomes president. >> does the president believe the inspection of oil rigs in the gulf coast are moving fast enough? >> i have not gotten an update

on that. i will try. we took a series of steps after the bp into debt, primarily around deepwater drilling. let me go -- let me not go too much further into what i have to. i will say, the president was in a meeting. i do not know if he has been notified. john brennan, who is in the meeting, the us. i do not know if he had or had not had a chance to discuss that with the president. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know who is on the scene. the coast guard, the production facility is located in federal waters. they are the ones responding. i do not know who the highest ranking person is. >> on middle east peace talks,

what is the president's role, going forward? does he feel like he has appropriately set the stage and secretary clinton is taking the lead? are there additional talks being planned, for example, with egypt, is he stepping back? >> i do not want to make any scheduling pronouncements. obviously, secretary clinton is the lead on this. george mitchell has spent a lot of time in the region, as well as the secretary. we have said this from the beginning, and as i mentioned the other day, one of the first things the president did upon walking in the oval office that first full morning was to make calls to leaders in the region. some of them were here yesterday.

i think this is true, the starkly, that when we are actively involved -- historically, that when we are actively involved, there is a better chance for peace. i cannot speak to what our involvement will be at different points. i will leave that for situational discussions. obviously, over the past many months, we have been actively involved and engaged, and will continue to be, and the best way that we have always felt to make progress -- the way they are doing today, sitting down at a table and having talks. >> does the presidency this situation more optimistically in previous administrations because of more stability in the west

bank, perhaps a mutual friend of iran become a nuclear? how do they view this compared to other administrations? >> first and foremost, the president felt that yesterday's meetings were productive. he felt each of the leaders were a genuine and serious about seeking peace. at the same time, we understand, as i said earlier, this is something that has eluded generations. we are mindful of that. we will stay engaged, we will do what is necessary. we hope both sides take steps that are necessary to build confidence to make these talks comfortable -- productive. >> does he believe a potential threat from iran is a grinning the sides together? >> -- bringing these sides

together? >> we have always said peace is in the best interest of both entities involved, regardless of what is happening in the rest of the middle east. >> the numbers of members of congress have gone through the floor in recent weeks for democrats. why do you think that is, why hasn't the president done more in the recess to shore them up? polling numbers, people running for office, their numbers have dived. >> the president will continue to make an active case for steps the administration is taking,

and why we have to move forward on that path. >> he did not do much -- >> i will say this. the president has been fairly active in both campaigning and raising money. what the president is helping the democratic national committee do is something that they have never done in supporting senate and congressional candidates. that is something we will continue to do. >> what was never done? >> the level of support. >> the snapshot we got today of new unemployment claims and productivity down, labor cost up, what does that tell you about the state of the recovery? >> let me give you an answer that is not necessarily based on one unemployment claims report.

i am somewhat hesitant to get into what will always the week to week swings of unemployment claims. it is safe to say we are in a markedly different and better position than we were a year and a half ago. our economy is expanding. we have created about 600,000 private-sector jobs brought the course of the year -- throughout the course of the year. there is no question, the trajectory of that recovery, particularly because of the issues in greece, have changed that trajectory. we have to continue to be mindful of whatever steps will be necessary to continue the recovery. >> what are those? what are you doing to turn things around, to put things on

trajectory? >> but as with the president will be addressing. >> you say the mine is moving teams along the east coast. can you give us some details? is moving team along the east coast. can you give us some details? >> yes, i will release something. >> assuming time is of the essence, can you give us a sense on how soon? >> they are still having meetings and discussions on this. i do not have any information. >> is not something that you would rather do sooner rather than later, piece by piece? >> again, the final decisions would need to be made before i

could talk about it. >> given that the recovery has so much to do with confidence, can you talk about your strategy in terms of talking about the economy, tempering the balance of conveying confidence? >> i would point to the president's speech to the nation about iraq. we are, and always have been, a special country. we are in charge of our own destiny. you have heard the president talk about the steps we have taken and the fact that, if you look at where we were at the end of 2008, first quarter of 2009, we have made important progress, but there is still progress to be made. that is when the president continues to look at ideas that

may help create an environment for more private sector hiring. that is why we will continue and make investments that are important in creating the jobs of the future. i think you will hear the president talk about a combination of that, expressing confidence that we are headed in the right direction, i'll be a not as quickly -- albeit, not as quickly as everybody would have liked. >> is the economy strong right now? what are you doing that is helpful? >> i think the president would say we are making progress. our economy is stronger than it has been in a while, and we have

continue to make this recovery even stronger. depths ofno doubt, the death what we entered were unlike anything since the great depression. we have a lot of jobs to create, holes to fill, and we have to get these people back to work. >> gm put off its ipo and roto until after the election. did the administration have anything to do with that? >> they are not involved in and onl not discuss ipo's based regulators watching what people do. >> let me ask an economic question another way. congress will be back in washington in a weekend house.

besides a small business bill, what is on the president's must- do list before they are back up campaigning? they do not have a lot of time. >> this is something the president has talked a lot about. i will spend another 30 seconds one more time. what this town does a lot is -- i know what you're doing, but what would you do next? small businesses have delayed their hiring decisions, expansion decisions, waiting to see what the senate will do on the small business bill. i do not want to discount the engine of our economy -- as the president said -- 60% of our jobs come from small business. there are concrete steps that we should take when congress comes

back to change that. obviously, the president is mindful of the tax cuts for the middle class that expire at the end of the year. the president will fight to ensure those middle-class tax cut are protected. that is something that will obviously have a robust discussion on, not just in the final weeks of congress, but through the final weeks of the election and after. >> from what i believe, nancy pelosi is worried, that as this tax base goes on in the senate, the white house will caved to pressure from moderate democrats to just extend all the tax cuts for one year. can you reassure her of that? >> i love that you are the nancy pelosi go-between, john.

i will reiterate what we have said throughout the debate. the president believes tax cuts for those in the middle class should be maintained, should be kept. the money that would be spent to keep those tax bridge for people who make $250,000 a year -- and let us be clear. the majority of the money that would be spent next year maintaining those tax cuts are for people who make more than $1 million of year. that is a statistical fact. if the republicans are bent on spending in additional $35 billion, i think there are many economists, certainly the

congressional budget office has looked at ways to stimulate the economy, extending tax cuts for the wealthiest -- those making $1 million -- is the least stimulus if -- stimulative way to improve the economy. please relay that back to nancy. >> a new chairman of the consumer financial protection agency, comptroller of the currency -- >> sorry, that caa thing is not going to work out. >> do you have timing of any of these? >> no, i did not expect cea and consumer to be done. expiresr's tenure

tomorrow. i do not have a tough one for those openings. >> did you say what the meeting would be about today? >> a series of national security issues. i do not want to get everybody nervous. it is something that the president does fairly regularly. >> in a speech on tuesday night, the president said there could be presidents -- patriots on both sides of the iraq issue. does he believe there could be patriots on both sides of health care, government spending, the like? >> sure. inherent in your question -- the president is not going to question the patriotism of people who have different views. they may have different policy views, but based on those disagreements, at least the president would not make the

argument that someone is more or less patriotic based on the fact that they share his position on a policy issue. >> what about this republican game playing -- can you have it both ways? >> let us take for instance what the president said on monday about the small-business bill. the president asked the republican party to end the blockade for needed and necessary aid for small business. what is undeniable is they have held up that bill. if the republicans are prone of holding up, they should have no problem with the president mentioning that. the i think that is somewhat different than questioning their patriotism for holding up the bill, which you will not hear

the president do. >> on a lighter note, any comment on the reviews of the oval office to court -- decor? >> i have not heard him give a review on the reviews. >> does he pay attention to color scheme? >> i know you will be surprised, but i was not consulted, stylistically. do not read anything into my suit. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know if he got some sort of credit on that. julianna? >> the rig explosion today is in shallow waters. would it have any impact on deepwater drilling moratorium?

>> not that i know of. i say that largely because we are still gathering information about the events at the site right now. obviously, there is a process that the department of interior around existing deepwater moratorium. it is hard to match those two issues of given that we do not know a ton at the moment. >> you said that you're not sure if the president has been briefed on this. the current investigation into deep water horizon, is it possible that that could be brought into focus, could extend into shallow? >> i will see if we can get an update. at this point, based on what we know, i do not want to marry the

two. >> tomorrow is the last day of christina romer. you said that you would hope to the fill that vacancy soon. with the economic team tried to come up with new measures, is it alt all significant that there s no way missing board member? >> we have a full and robust team that will be meeting with the president in about 15 minutes. as soon as we have an announcement on a replacement for the cea, we will let you know. >> could there be an acting interim? >> there could be. we will let you know. >> larry summers has said that he may travel to china next week. can you tell us what the agenda is for this trip? >> we are going to put some

stuff out on that in a little bit. let me wait for that. >> [inaudible] >> robert, you have said that there are no new stimulus plans in the offing, but at the same time, the economic team is looking for new ideas. as the president considered whether any new policy initiatives, other than what is in the senate, could affect economic policy this year? >> when i say in herington -- inherent in the question that i responded to earlier, -- measures that can be taken to improve the trajectory of a recovery.

obviously, many of those meetings are ongoing and we're looking at a whole host of those ideas. >> meetings are ongoing, the economy has been stalled for quite awhile. you have a short time frame here. is there not some sense of urgency? >> there has been a sense of urgency about the economy since we walked in here. we have had to take extraordinary steps to ensure this recession did not become the next great depression. obviously, we are mindful of this, but this is not a purely academic exercise. as jonathan mentioned, congress will soon be back, not for very

long, but obviously, i anticipate some of those decisions will be made. >> you said the republicans were hellbent on $35 million to the deficit, that there were more targeted ways to help the economy. how open is the president to eight payroll tax holiday as one of those targeted ideas? >> i will just say the team is looking at a host of issues. i do not think it makes sense to go into what those individual things may be. >> is there going to be a public announcement about the job numbers tomorrow? >> i believe that is the case. >> are democrats concern that

there are not more jobs being created? democrats on the hill, they say that it has really been the focus [inaudible] comments about the economy, iraq speech. >> i do not know exactly who you talk to. this president has been focused on dealing with the economic problems we face, the moment we walked in here. we faced a housing crisis, crisis in financial stability, 8 million jobs had been lost, the economy was contracting for years. the president has had to do with each and every one of those issues. we have made progress on addressing foreclosures. we have gone from an economy that was contracting to one that is expanding.

we have gone from shedding jobs to an economy that is creating jobs. we have taken the necessary steps. many of them extraordinary, to change the direction of our economy. the president will continue to dedicate more time to that than anything on his schedule. i will say this. because the president is giving a speech on iraq does not mean that he did not dealing with the economy. just like when there is something to do with in foreign policy or in the economy, it does not mean that he is not dealing with something internationally. i have only worked here since sometime in the afternoon of january 20, 2009. i have yet to come here and someone grieves me at the door and says, good news, there is only one problem today.

every morning, i hope someone greets me like that but i do not anticipate that to happen. >> has the president looked at the numbers, which showed a pretty dramatic slowdown in the recovery, and said we need something dramatic here? >> i think the president continues to ask the economic team for ideas which can help the economy now. part of this, obviously, there is no doubt the economic growth trajectory is not what it was in the spring. that is what the president has asked folks to look at. some of the measure that we see -- one i did not want to talk about 1 weeks on a blood claims weeks' unemployment

sales. you can look at car sales comparisons. they corresponded to cash for clunkers. we were selling cars at a rate of 14 million a year. that is what we would strive to get to but not where we are economically. certainly, from the past many weeks, the president has been kept up-to-date on the latest economic data. some of it has shown, as i said -- there is a change in growth. you look at something like yesterday. without everything happening in the stock market, you had a pretty large rally in the manufacturing index which

showed, for example, employment had improved at rates that people had not seen since the 1980's. >> it sounds like a answer is no to something dramatic, eye- catching. >> i do not want to mention any sort of measures that the president has not considered yet. >> if you do lay the ground work for modest changes, [inaudible] arguably, if you only do it for one year, it costs $7 billion. is unaffordable? >> i think if you were to extend the offer and tax cuts next years, the price tag is $35 billion. >> [inaudible]

>> i would not get into the hypothetical like that. the president does not support tax cuts for those that make, on average, $1 million a year. i think it is pretty safe to say -- i do not think of him being malicious to the republican argument -- their concern about spending. it does not seem to carry over to tax cuts for those who make $1 million a year. the president believes we should focus and our tax relief on the middle class. certainly, one, because we cannot afford to make reckless decisions and give tax cuts to people who did not need them. secondly, even if you did want to do something like that, as i said earlier, there are far more

stimulative ways to impact the economy. >> just a follow-up on a question about payroll tax holiday. would you be in favor of the additional extension of that? >> i do not want to get into each individual. peter? >> the president in the iraq speech said -- [inaudible] in terms of the way he prioritizes his time, can he show americans that the economy is his primary interactive? >> having been here since the beginning, there is nothing that the president has spent more time than on the economy, economic recovery, mental stability, housing.

i do not think there is any doubt about that. >> when americans see president obama travel abroad, take a vacation --[inaudible] >> that is an interesting way to phrase it. >> they do not necessarily see the things you're talking about. >> i am trying to think of an example that would help to eliminate -- illuminate. eliminate -- illuminate.