the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 13, 2010, i hereby appoint the honorable brian baird to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god, you overcome the darkness with a gentle gift of life and quietly move us through the night to the fulfilled hope of a new day. when fully awakened by faith and attentive to love, give the members of congress the wisdom to dream great dreams for this country and the practicality of working today to accomplish great deeds that will secure and

protect us so we may live in peace and give you thanks and praise, today and through the ages without end. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate

on december 10, 2010, at 11:23 a.m., that the senate passed senate 1275, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 35591, that the senate passed senate 41, that the senate passed senate 2925, appointment, national committee on vital and health statistics, with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bills were signed by the speaker on december 9, 2010. the clerk: h.r. 3934, senate 3998. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. tomorrow for morni

what do you all think? do you have to be a moderate to govern? it goes on to say, the article this morning, that --

that is his opinion this morning. san antonio, texas. bobbie, democrats' line. what do you think? caller: to answer your question, i do think these days you have to be a moderate. but i wanted to make a quick atement. it is amazing to me how the

democrats will lake -- wait until this last moment to try to pass this bill and they had both houses. to me, it just makes no sense. host: before you go. you said you need to be moderate. why do you think that? caller: i think if you are for it -- too far to the left or isht in today's times it hard to gelegislatn to pass. that is what i think. host: california. jeff is and it d -- independent. are you there? at the i punched the wrong one. if you can, call back in or we will try to get on in jusa minute. on that tax cut deal expected to come through the senate this afternoon, that key vote, as many papers are putting it, is expect at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch live at c-span2. here is "the washington post."

it says -- host: theenate is hoping to complete the tax bill on tuesday.

fresno, jeff, independent line. go ahead. caller: i always felt that both parties have their points of view, and i always wished that when one party was in power that they could pass some of their points of view that i actually agree with and when the other party is in power that they can pass some of their points of view. an example. i believe w do need some type of health care and i doelieve weeed probably more green jobs, but othe other token i believe that immigration should be stronger than it is. so, i believeoth parties have their ideas and i wish they could govern that way. i am not sure if that is moderate or not. host: seattle, washington. david, democrats' line. caller: let me put oluck -- put it like this. when george bu was running the country for that eight years he was not a moderate and was a

conservative and basically ran the country into the ground. we elected barack obama specifically to get us out of the ditch the republicans put us and and then this tax bill which basically is trickle-down economic theory all over again. my thought as a liberal -- if the conservatives govern as -- governed as conservatives than liberals made to govern as liberals. host: presumptive speaker of the house john boehner sat down with "60 minutes," and he talked about the issue of compromise. here is what he had to say. >> we have to govern, that is what we are elected to do. >> governing means compromising. >> it means working together, it means finding common ground. i am not going to compromise on my principles nor am i going to compromise the will of the american people. >> you are saying i want common ground but not going to compromise. i don't understand that.

>> when you say the word compromise a lot of americans look up and say, they are going to sell me out. so, finding a common ground i think makes more sense. then i reminded him that his goal had been to get all the bush tax cut -- tax cuts made permanent. >> -- >> the did compromise. >> i found common ground. >> you are afraid of the word. >> i reject the word. host: do you have to be a moderate to govern? santa fe, texas, on the independent line. caller: this whole thing, i think you do have to be a moderate to more or less government. and there has to be will on both sides to do this. but the republicans, if you look at what the man in the senate has to say, he is not going to pass anything until he gets

these tax cuts. john boehner saying almost the same thing. how do you come to any agreement that has anything to do with both sides? i agree with the democrats- these tax cuts should not go through for the upper people at are making the upper 2%. and where all the tea party people that keep hollering about the debt? they are the ones that elected these people. so, where are they when they tried to -- they want common ground but yet they want to go one way. that is my opinion. host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: you are an independent so i assume you ved for republicans or democrats in the past. who do you think represents the

moderate faction of the party, one person who sticks out? caller: there is nobody on the republican side. i really believe, because they would not be doing what they are doing. and on the democratic side, mr. obama, in their light he was going to change the world but all he has done is change. so, there is nobody i really see at the present time that can do anything, to tell you the truth, because they are not going to be let to do anything. host: and mention it in his column of the idea of mr. bloomberg, the your city mayor, running for president. he was asked about that. >> do you think an independent could be president? >> i don't know. i am not going to run for president. i have a great job.

i will finish my 1100 or whatever days to go. and i will leave politics to the expert. >> do you think it is possible to scrap the two-party system? >> the original founding fathers did not seem to have an interest in party politics and i worked very hard in new york for nonpartisan election i will give a speech before an organization next week about non partisan redistricting. party has a place the party loyalty i don't think should get away -- in the way of what you as an elected official things. >> you said you did not want to run for president yet based on all of my reporting, you are taking a serious look at this, doing calculations about whether this could be something you could actually win. are you saying you are not even looking at the possibility of running? >> no, i am not looking at the possibility of running. i am going to speak out on those things that affect new york city.

that is my job. people say you should not be talking at a national level -- we created 55,000 private-sector jobs in new york in the last 12 months. much greater than the percentage we should create it our population. but we cannot do anything without help from the federal government and the state governnt. talk about immigration, regulation, the president out there selling our products -- >> if someone came to you saying, mr. mayor, this would not just be a vanity plate that you could win this thingwould you change your mind? >> no way, no how. >> your support is to create all of this budget should cease and desist? >> i do not think most of them to put it this bud's. yes, they should cease and desist, but most of this -- most of it is just because the press wants something to write about. bottom line is i have a great job and i want to go out having a reputation as a very good, maybe the greatest mayor ever, and i am lucky to of three

predecessors -- guiliani, dinkins, and koch who have all been helpful in making me a better mayor. host: "the washington post" with this headline.

one of those votes will take place today at 30 p.m. over the tax cut deal and many of you watching the senate floor on friday saw the senator from vermont mr. sanders talking about eight hours. we cover the whole thing. you can go to our website c- span.org and our video library or you can also search within the transcript of his eight hours for certain issues to the certain buzz words, that you like to hear him talk about. st. louis, missouri. do you need to be moderate to govern? caller: i think you do. to me, a moderate is someone who can compromise. and even though there are things you don't like, there are other things that are very important that they want to get done, so

they have to compromise and take the things that they don't like in order to get the good things that they do like. and president obama is looking out for the middle-class americans and the republicans are not and if anybody thought that his crocodile tears on 60 minutes was anything but crocodile tears i am afraid that they better think again. and i hope that these people are happy with the tea party and who the tea party got back in. host: are you happy with the tax-cut deal president obama negotiated -- are you there? are you happy with president obama negotiated? caller: absolutely. it is helping the american people. for two years we can accept because what has to be because of the republicans in order to

help the middle-class. host: tacoma, washington. ethan is a republican. caller: good morning. i thought, i do think you have to be a moderate to govern, especially in this lame duck session. the senate looks le it is moving toward as whole in these issues -- one to get out before january 3. but easily to bring anything to the table thereafter would be seen, anythinglse in the negotiating table. host: long beach, new york. joe is an independent. good morning pretty caller: i really don't understand the question. you don't need to be a moderate to govern. you have to understand what the problems of the united states are to fix them. we were the world's greatest power, the world's greatest economic power. we had an enormous industrial base, manufacturing base that

won world war ii and then broughtrosperity to this country that the world had nev seen before. and we took the economic base and send it overseas. gi your jobs away. take them. goodbye. send them overseas. now we are sitting there, 15% unemployment, $14 trillion debt, no money -- no manufacturing, no jobs and we are saying i wonder what the problem is. maybe we are not moderate enough. are you kidding me? du? host: i was on to estimate question. -- i was going to a him a question. robert, go ahead. caller: how are you this morning? host: doing well. caller: you have to be a moderate in a way to govern. but i don't agree with the compromise. i think the republicaparty gave it away when they get 13

months away. and they did not get paid for. they went back on their word. host: what was their word that they went back on? caller: they said they would not have any more debt -- and is piled debt up without being paid for. host: were you part of the tea party movement or a supporter of the tea party candidates? caller: yes, i was. host: so, you don't like this tax cut deal? caller: not all of it, no. host: what do you like? caller: the bush tax cuts ought to be voted up and down. on not to be any add-ons. and if mitch mcconnell does any votes on this with add ons from the democratic party, he might add on his resin to -- resume for another job. host: let me get your reaction to this, "wall street journal" editorial on what was put into

this tax cut bill. the hawkeye handout. what do you think, robert? are you still there? caller: i did not think you need

subsidies for ethanol. host: de think there wille backlash from tea party supporters -- do you do think there will be a backlash from tea party supporters? caller: i think there will be, yes. host: what should happen? caller: i am not sure what will happen but host: you mentioned earlier senator mitch mcconnell should resign or he might be voted out. caller: yes, on the extension of the 13 months of unemployment -- host: ok. caller: he did not have it paid for. host: in your opinion, these ethanol subsidies cannot rise to the same level as the extension of the unemployment benefits? caller: not on this particular bill. a bill of to be a stand-alone bill without all of the add ons. host: sanford, florida. allen is a democrat. caller: how are you? host: doing well. what do you think of the question? caller: i did not think you necessarily have to.

going back to what you talked about, the senate during the time of lyndon johnson when you could peel off moderate republicans and conservative democrats sometimes defected from in him. part of the problem, the way the party is working out, only the extreme and the party's vote, it is in the party's best interest to hold up things and to play to adjust their based -- their base. i think it is happening more on the rightut i am sure it happened on the left, too. for example, talking about the tax-cut deal. there are things in it i do not necessarily like. the ethanol subsidies, i do not necessarily like some of the tax provisions but i think -- i do not want to see taxes on working families go up, i do not want to see umployment benefits lost, so i think sometimes you

have to take things, accept things that maybe you don't like to get things you do like. it is not necessarily about being a moderate. there used to be a time -- where people could be principled members of their party but take votes and do things that were not necessarily popular. ted kennedy, nobody accused him of being moderate -- tip o'neill or ronald reagan, but they were able to get things done. that has to do with a sense -- there used to be a sense that people were really working together even though the -- what i talked about before about the way the parties are and the way people vote because they are playing to the extremes. host: that was allen, a democrat from sanford, florida. do you have to be a moderate to govern? we have about 20 minutes left.

i wted to show you the front page of "the baltimore sun." former lieutenant governor of that state -- state michael steele says he will make his plans known tonight about whether he runs for a second term as the gop chief. his plans are still a mystery and he is scheduled to have a conference call with members tonight wheree will announce his plans. michael steele on the front page of "the baltimore sun" this morning. the next zero call is from mclean, virginia. fred, independent line. caller: i think the way you frame the question and i think the way a lot of people are commenting misses the cynicism of the opinion article that you read. i think it was really more to the effect, do you need to be a trying year later -- triang ulator.

it really manipulating both sides against its other and dangled just enough carrots for americans to do not want to give up anything so their representatives can get reelected in our continuous election cycle. host: let me read a little bit more from the piece in "the new york times." the users, go byrne -- thomas coburn as an example of someone who sticks to his conviction yet can govern.

what did you think about that? caller: i guess he is a counter to the larger point i was making and maybe he does stand out as an out liar then pared -- allied air -- outlier then. i am not as familiar with his electors. but in the larger case, but congress house members, they did not have the freedom to stand their ground unless they play the middle. host: louisville, ky. jimmie on the republican line. you are next. caller: how are you doing?

i think it would help to be a moderate to govern, but i think the democrats lost their chance when they fail to vote on the tax cuts and everything before the election. they did not vote on it because they were afraid if they did they might get voted out. now that they got voted out -- i think obama got the best that could with what he had left. he did not get more because the democrats were afraid to vote before the election. now that they lost, they want to cry and holler. and i think it is all the democrats thought that obama didn't get what he really wanted. -- it is the democrats''s fault. host: also during t "60 minutes" interview john boehner was asked about the back and forth between the democrats and

republicans, and the use of e word hostage. >> he basically called you a hostage taker. >> excuse me, mr. president, i thought the election was over. people love the heated rhetoric during the election but nowt is time to govern. >> do you think his tone will make it more difficult for you to come together as we move forward on issues, or are you just looking it off? >> i've got a thick skin. and a lot of words did said in washington and you have to let them run off your back. the president was having a tough day. >> understanding -- >> i have a tough day from time to time myself. >> later in the interview it became clear that the president jack as hostage takers had bothered him. >> there have been moments of disrespect shown to president obama. >> there has been disrespect shown to me yesterday by the president. host: talking about whether not you have to be a moderate to

govern. here is an e-mail from robert who writes in -- new york, jeannie, democratic line. caller: i believe this country does not need a moderate ruler. the way it i >> president obama is about to sign legislation to speed of more children. it is co-sponsored by lady obama. this is live coverage on c-span. >> the hindu, everybody. please have a seat. good morning, everybody. -- thank you, everybody.

i want to ban all of the tradition -- thank all of the children and stff. and staff. give them all a big round of applause. [applause] we're thrilled to be here with all of you as i signed a healthy, hungry three kids act, a bill that is vitally important to the health and welfare of our kids into our country. but before i do this, i want with knowledge of view of the who playedork herare here part in givingportant this bill passed. on the stage we have nancy pelosi.

[applause] two outstanding senators, blanche lincoln and tom harkin who worked so hard to get this done. [applause] members of the house of representatives, miller, the plats.or and [applause] >> and three of my outstanding members of the cabinet to work tirelessly on this issue, secretary of agricultural, tom vilsack, and that happens to be his birthday today. happy birthday. [applause] arne duncan, our great secretary of education, and kathleen sebelius of health and human

services. [applause] not to sit it could not be here but they played a huge role in making this happen, harry reid, mike mcconnell, the ranking republican helped smooth passage of this bill, senator chambliss who was the lead republican, represented this warrior, cliburn, and mccarthy all played important roles. we're very grateful to them. give them a big round of applause [applause] it is worth noting that this bill passed with bipartisan support in both houses of congress. that has not happened as often as we look like all but the last couple of years, but it says something about our politics. it reminds us that no wonder -- no matter what people may hear

about how divided things are in washington, wheat and still come together and agree on issues that matter for our children's future and our future as a nation, and that is what today is all about. at a very basic level this act is about doing what is right for our children. right now across the country too many kids do not have access to school meals. often the food is not as healthy or nutritious as it should be. that is part of the reason why one in three children today in america are either overweight or obese. we are seeing this problem in every part of the country. as a result, doctors are now starting to see conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type ii diabetes. these should things they only used to see in adults. this bill is about reversing

that trend and giving our kids to help the futures they deserve. this is also about what is doing right for our country, because we feel the strains of treating obesity deep-related health concerns on the economy. debtow that the country's succeed in the 21st century have the best prepared, educated work force are around. we need to make sure our kids have the energy and capacity to go toe to toe with any of their peers anywhere in the world. we need to make sure they're all reaching their potential. that is precisely what this bill, a healthy, hungary, three kids act will accomplish. this legislation will help 115,000 children gain access to school meal programs. we're doing away with bureaucracy and red tape so that families do not have to block mountains of paperwork to get their kids the nutrition they need.

we are proving the quality of those mills by reimbursing schools an additional 6 cents per lunch to help them provide with healthier options. the first real increase in over 30 years. when our kids walk into the lunchroom we want to be sure they are getting balanced nutritious meals they need to succeed in the classroom. we are in power in parents by making information more available about the quality of school meals, helping parents understand what their kids are eating during the day. and did support our schools' efforts to serve fresh fruits and vegetables, we're connecting them with local farmers. we're also improving food safety and schools and boosting commodities like cheese to use in their lunch and breakfast programs. while this bill is fully paid for, it will not add a dime to the deficit. some of the funding comes from rolling back a temporary increase in food stamp benefits

starting in the fall of 2013. i know a number member of congress have expressed concern about this offset being included in the bill and i am committed to working with them to restore the funds in the future. we know that every day across this country, parents are working as hard as they can to make told the choices for their kids. schools are doing of it impossible to provide as nutritious food they need to thrive. communities are coming together pelletiereople leavd lines from the beginning. these folks are fulfilling their responsibilities to our kids. this legislation helps ensure we insure our responsibility as well. shortly after sending the first law establishing school lunches, harry truman said that nothing is more important in our national life than the welfare of our children. proper nourishment comes first

in attaining the welfare. today i am very proud to sign this bill that continues that legacy. not only am very proud of the bill, but had i not been able to get this passed, i would be sleeping on the couch. in [laughter] [applause] now i am very proud to introduce somebody who has done so much to shine the light on these critical issues related to childhood nutrition and obesity and exercise, america's first lady, my first lady, michelle obama. [applause] >> thank you. did you, everybody. everybody.you,

good morning. thank you, mr. president, for that very kind introduction. all kidding aside, my husband worked very hard to make sure this bill was on a priority in this session, and i am grateful to you. >> because i would have been sleeping on the couch. [laughter] >> we will not go into that. let's just say it got done, so we do not have to go down that road. i am thrilled to be here with all of you today as my has been silenced a healthy hundred three kids act into law. -- healthy hungry-free kids act into law. we wanted to share this moment with our partners, with the

students, parents, the teachers the community leaders like all of you here who have been so instrumental. our white house chefs have worked closely with educators at the school, and they have seen your commitment to serving high- quality school meals to all of your students. i have worked side-by-side with kids from the school as well as from bancroft elementary school to harvest our white house garden. we cannot have done it with all our students helping us. i saw how hard they worked and i also saw how afraid they work to try vegetables that many of them never even heard of. i also understand that there are students from merged elementary school that are here today as well. we had a great time last spring working of the sweat and exercise it and playing on the south lawn of the white house. with everything that all of your doing to get these children a

healthy start in life, you are fulfilling the mission of this legislation every single day, that is why we are here. i want to thank you all, all of our partners for what you have done, not just in hosting us here today but in making sure that we're doing the right to invite our kids. and i also want to echo my husband's thanks to leaders and members of congress, many of whom are on the stage in many of whom are not. you all have done a tremendous thing in making this day possible. this was truly a bipartisan effort, with passionate supporters from both parties putting in late nights and on weekends working around-the- clock to make sure that this bill that passed. because while we may sometimes have our differences, we can all agree that in the united states of america, no child should go to school hungry.

we can all agree -- [applause] we can all agree that in the wealthiest nation on earth, all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children, nothing. and our hopes for their future should drive every single decision that we make. these are the basic values that we all share, regardless of race, party, religion, this is what we share. these are the values that this bill embodies. that is why we have seen such as a groundswell of support for these efforts. and not just from members of congress here in washington, but from folks in every corner of

the country. it has been beautiful to see. from educators working to provide healthier school meals because they know the connection between proper nutrition and academic performance. french doctors and nurses who know that and help the kids grow into an healthy adults. at risk for obesity-related diseases like diabetes, heart disease, cancer. from business and labor leaders to know that we have spent nearly $150 billion per year to treat these diseases and who worry about the impact on our economy. from advocates and face of leaders who know the school meals are vital for combating hunger, feeding more than 131 million children per day. from military leaders who tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service

because of their weight. they tell us that childhood obesity is not just a public health issue. it is not just an economic threat, it is a national security threat as well. these folks come at this issue from all different angles, but they come together to support this bill because they know it is the right thing to do for our kids. they know that in the long run it will not just save money, but it will save lives. let's be clear, these folks do not just support this bill as leaders and as professionals, but as parents as well. we know that insuring that kids eat right and stay active is ultimately the responsibility of parents more than anyone else. everywhere i go, fortunately i meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. they're doing things like cutting down on the serbs and

try to increase for its and vegetables. they are trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime. but when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school and when many kids get up to half of their daily calories from school meals, it is clear that we as a nation have responsibility to meet as well. we cannot just leave it up to the parents. i think parents have the right to expect that their efforts at home will not be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallways. i think parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy foods that meet high nutritional standards, and particularly in these tough economic times when so many families are struggling, when school meals sometimes are the main source of enrichment for so

many kids, we have an obligation to make sure that those meals are as nutritious as possible. but by improving the quality of school meals and making sure that more children have access to them, that is precisely what free kidsalthy hungry act will do. both brought our children of the energy, strength, and stamina been need to succeed in school and in life. that in turn robs our country of so much of their promise. both could be solved when we come together to provide our children with a nutritious foods they need and deserve. that is why, " well over half a century we have made child nutrition and national priority. the bill we are signing into law

today actually has its roots in the national school lunch program signed into law by president truman after world war ii and also has roots in the child nutrition act that was passed just two decades after that in 1966. the idea for that act came to drum up priests who work with children in denver, colorado. many of the children are going hungry because they could not afford to buy lunch. the rev. thought that was unconscionable and decided to do something about that. he somehow managed to talk his way into a meeting with president johnson. he arrived at the oval office without any kind of presentation or speech. instead he simply brought an enormous all bundled with the children -- filled with photographs of the children in need. the rev. later explained that

the size of the total of all was the liberals because he wanted to be sure that would be big enough to cover up everything else on the president's desk. that is hard to do. it is a big desk. it is it to this day and moving reminder that the most important job of any president is to ensure the well-being of our nation's children. because we know that the success of our nation tomorrow depends on the choices we make for our kids today. it depends on whether they can fulfil every last bit of their potential, and we in turn can benefit from every last bit of their promise. that is our obligation, not just as parents who love our kids, but as citizens who love this country. that is the mission of this legislation, to get all of our children the bright futures they deserve. -- to give all of our children

the bright futures they deserved. now i am pleased to stop talking and turn this over to my husband so that he can get to work signing that bill. [applause]

there we go. [applause]

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

>> president obama leading harriet tubman elementary school

here in washington to go back to a meeting of senior advisers today. this afternoon, white house spokesman robert gibbs will be holding a briefing. we will have that live on c- span. also coming up this afternoon, c-span2 will have live discussion on recent efforts to regulate the financial markets. and the u.s. senate gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern, continuing debate on the bush era tax cut as well as long-term jobless benefits and a number of business tax credits. a vote to move the bill for which begins at 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can see that live on c- span2. the house meets for legislative work tomorrow. members are waiting to meet on the tax cuts and spending before they have final votes on those bills. >> the jian-li bulletin on ftc

recommendations -- john leibowitz, an ftc recommendations and do not track technology. "the communicators" on c-span2. >> each year we conduct our video competition called studentcam, asking students in grades 6 through 12 to think critically about our nation. washington theme is d.c., through my legs. we chose this topic but to better understand how 0 this affects you and your community.

>> a discussion on the state of u.s.-israel relations and the role of president obama in the middle east peace process. over the next hour and 20 minutes will hear from a professor from hebrew university and a panel of journalists, part of the annual saban forum at the brookings institution. >> welcome. thank you all for coming to this evening's dialogue. i'm tom friedman from the new york -- "new york times" and i want to welcome all of you here. again, i want to thank our touracos for getting us together. [applause] this is a great weekend.

to martin ended and the brookings institution, thank you as well. [applause] we have a really great panel this evening to talk about issues of politics and culture and society between the united states and israel. to my right is a philosopher who teaches at the hebron university at nyu. -- hebrew university at nyu. next to him is a columnist extraordinary. man to his right is david collins from the "new york times" and to his right is a man from the new republic. i have been having conversations for the last few minutes. i'm struck by the number of israelis who say, what is this tea party? and i'm struck at the number of americans who asked me, tell me about lieberman.

it really strikes me as a moment that wear for a first time in a long time there are new leaders crashing to leadership in both countries will not only do not know each other, but are really unknown to their respective allies and friends on the other side of the ocean. i want to begin the discussion by asking a simple question to our israeli and american friends. and what does america look like from israel and what does israel look like from america? to kick it off, what does israel like sitting from here? >> i guess i would say three things. the first thing is real looks like to me right now is a country that needs to be defended. israel looks thing is rea

like to me is a country that needs to be defended. for the first time there is controversy over the legitimacy of the jewish state and its means of self-defense. and again, it needs to be defended because its shares to two borders with islamist theocrats and they're doing their best to make sure there will be a third border. there is iran. we do not have to go through everything. about the so-ng bough called cold of ideas. the the legitimization of the two state a solution -- a the

delegitimization of the two solution would mean the delegitimization of israel. the fact is, is real is increasingly being called upon to defend itself in ways that are morally complicated, and even embarrassing. the pope called the asymmetrical warfare. it is a very cold way of describing the issue. the is -- the reality of israeli self-defense is the new climate. the first thing is that i think is really to be defended. the second thing is that i see society that swings between jordan and dread. i see a society that swings between -- a joy and dread. i see is decided that swings between being closed off to the

world and in an extraordinary openness to the world. is really coulter is -- literature, -- israeli culture, literature, journalism, film, it is the most extraordinary thing. on the hand, i see -- on the other hand, i see contained expulsion and devalization of palestinians from homes. i see them run amok with anti- arab sentiment. i'm talking in great generalities. i do not read polls. i am a humanist. i do not look at numbers. [laughter] i do not really break these things down this way, but i hear a society that is contradictory or paradoxical in this way and is volatile in this way.

and the third point i would make is that when one surveys the various realms of israeli life, society, economics, culture, politics, one could say they see extraordinarily exemplary of vitality. i'm not one of those people that things entrepreneurs are going to save the world, like you do. [laughter] but even if they do not save the world, they do a lot of wonderful things. the one realm of israeli life that seems to be in a state of complete decadence and this function is the political realm. it worries me enormously. -- and dysfunction is the political realm. it worries me enormously. i think there is in israel -- and i say, it worries me greatly -- a steady usurpation of historical thinking by political thinking. every long-term a historical problem is now thought about and short-term political ways.

the thing about prudence, credential thinking, people tend to think that credential thinking is a short-term way of thinking -- that prudential thinking is a short-term way of thinking. what i see more and more are major historical questions that israel has to face, is, it is in fact the case that -- if it is in fact the case that everyone realizes that the democratic caucus ticking disastrously -- the democratic caucus is ticking disasters -- clock is ticking disastrously. last night, we heard hillary and ehud barak as saying a way must be found.

fine, show it. i worry that there is a kind of inbred trivializing or liberalization this is anomalous to me because in all the other realms, israel seems to be exemplary, exciting, etc. in the political realm, i do not really have an explanation. an israeli view of america. you have just been to peoria. what does america look like to you? >> i told a joke. an employer was talking to one of his assistants and his assistant said to him, mr. prime

minister i have good news. we're going to have a drought this year. and he said, where we're going to have a direct? and he said, in the middle east. and he said, for a moment i was really worried. i thought you were talking about the midwest. by the way, there is one city they paid in peoria more than washington. it is chicago. -- they hate in peoria more than washington. theit is chicago. there is a real worry that america is losing its greatness. maybe it is temporary and maybe it is not temporary.

but the basic outline was saved through immigration. we were saved from extinction twice. for us, the united states [unintelligible] they realize how dependent they are on the united states. they start to complain about the united states, but they come back to office and we are a lot of comics. 6copics.

[unintelligible] we just had a fire on mount carmel and the first telephone call was from the prime minister of the united states -- to the united states. if you ask me how the -- how the israelis should look at the united states, and i'm not sure if they share my feelings. some of them do. we should look in concern to the united states because of your economic situation. we heard today that some things may be cut.

this is not what israel should be concerned about. what we should be concerned about is the reason why you could be cutting. [unintelligible] can you describe the situation in russia and we said good. and can you add two words and we said, no good. [laughter] >> you have heard all of this debate going on, what does israel like to you? >> my team is going to the conflict and unity. -- my seen it is going to the conflict and unity. we know that israel and the u.s. are held together by argument. i was in israel on a bus and i was on -- i was in israel and a

bus wanted to get around and i had to back up, and i backed into the car behind me. the guy behind me is furious. he gets out and he starts screaming at the bus driver and then he comes back to me and he hugged me because we are brothers in the war against the bus drivers. [laughter] this is a country that argues with itself. and this argument is personal because the israelis do not understand the distinction between the personal and the public. the stories i have about that, i'm sure everyone in the room can tell better stores then i. i had a friend was going directory assistance to the number of a restaurant and he asked for but never of a restaurant and the operator says, no, you do not want to eat there. [laughter]

and another version of that story, golda meier is talking to nixon and in those days you had to use an operator and the operator tells them they are both wrong. [laughter] in times of crisis, you see the country despite these arguments set up as one in one direction. it is like they are a heard all of a sudden. -- a herd all of a sudden. is ast confident that strong as it used to be. if you could point to because of that, it would be the income disparity, the social segmentation, the political segmentation, geographic segmentation, and narcissism. the fact that people are proud of their own opinions and less likely to defer to others. these happen to be the same problems this country faces.

but i am less confident that there is a very strong tribal and -- if you want to use the word, unity, but behind it. >> you are going back to teach at harvard. what is new in your perception of where america has been? >> it took me time to understand the united states coming here. and i thought always, almost theologically, american religion is the of the " religion of the book of job. by that i mean, it is [unintelligible] if you have a cancer, you did not eat right. you take the american

constitution and it is the bridges will be rewarded. -- the righteous will be rewarded. and i think the ultimate theme of this country is this. great effort is trust. if you take the constitution as it is, it is what it ought to be. this is something that is released actually think it's naive. this great power, this great sense of american society, mice -- my feeling is that something went wrong and for us, the sense

of six concern is not so much the economy, but the americans that responded to 9/11. i think they are very confused in the sense of what they ought to do. and at the moment, -- i remember the moment where it became the cradle of the previous administration were the way to fight the problem is changing the political culture of the arab world. we've got to change the political culture by amending them. i told the neocons, look, we both do not know about that. none of us know [unintelligible] and no different places in jerusalem. i can assure you,

[unintelligible] there was a big confusion the cost a lot to american power, which was based on a blunder. that if you just remove the tyrant, and you vote and you just transform into a jeffersonian believer from radical islam to a jeffersonian believer. i think it is something that weekend deeply the american power by disorienting its strength. it is kind of an idolatrous

project. it is almost like marxism and the proletariat. the proletariat was the middle class. the middle class. that also shifted. america is still today looking for the proper way to respond to these moments, signature, and yet, not clear about where it is going. they dropped the idea of transforming the arab world, and i think rightfully. -yeah, -- and yet, in afghanistan they did not remain in -- in an obvious way. i remember when george bush

said we are going to fight evil. and i thought, wow, evil is in the bedroom. and i think the other aspect coming from the israeli side, with all that i heard with the wonderful presentations and lieberman and mccain and they all kind of reaffirmed this bond, but i think we are taking it for granted too much. i think you made this point a few times. i think the israelis are taking it for granted. lytal support is being taken for granted in a way that is

becoming dangerous. -- vital support is being taken for granted in a way that is becoming dangerous. the thing we are fighting for, now this is something we cannot explain to anyone. to the americans, to the europeans, to ourselves. if our government were to say, though, our real interest iis in having certain security, but the way we were kind of dropped into this -- trapped into this, this is extremely harmful. i have two worries. i would say the sense of

gratitude to this place, it is the only place where jews are a home -- at home not in israel. the 9/11 issue is still not yet clear. and second, for us, to understand that it is coming from a secure place in the american heart. it is not something that can be taken frofor granted. it is too precious.

and we believe that we can somehow work of the problem. i will tell you the ultimate difference between israeli students and american students. in israel, nobody reads, everybody talks. in america, everybody reads and nobody talks. [laughter] in my experience as a teacher, that is the big contrast. and america, our greatest allies, we are counting too much on this kind of resourcefulness. the basic foundation of the attachment in this question if we play with it too much. -- is questioned and if we play

with it too much. >> if you have been here a week ago, there was a giant menorah. that a great power would have the view of the menorah in view of the president, it is a great thing. what is going on within the orthodox movement in israel, what seems to a lot of people some very disturbing racist expressions? >> that is under -- and of the subject. -- that is an ugly subject. when you talk about the american -- the so-called

american naivete, the most perfect example of what i know of what you're describing is just across the street from here in the supreme court. there was a famous portrait of john marshall in one of the meeting rooms. as a slogan, amado under the portrait is half of a famous latin proverb and the broader averages "let justice be done and the world parish." but the american painter dropped part of it and he took a picture of the justice of the supreme court was -- and said, "let justice be done." this american belief of, let's go ahead, let's fix things and everything will be fine, have to say i worry about afghanistan,

about iraq. i'm not so sure that everything was completely misguided in our response. in other words, i think that is perfectly clear to me that unless one is prepared to fall bought on a clash of civilizations' analysis -- fall back on a clash of civilizations analysis, which i think is a kind of bigotry, and believe that islamic societies just cannot do it, in which case the jewish state, certainly, but also americans and others, are condemning themselves to a pessimistic siege mentality. unless one is prepared to fall back on that, i think the basic idea, the faith, the democratic faith in the possibility of political reform in those societies has to be kept alive both as a moral matter and as a security matter. the argument about what happened

after 9/11 is that the very right wing bush to administration accepted the analysis of terrorism that conservatives used to denounce on the left. this used to be called the root cause analysis. in order to get rid of terrorist you have to get rid of terrorism and in order to do that you have to develop the society. you will recall people in the 1970's and early 1980's, reagan made a career of denouncing people who believe this. and i think george bush came along with the certain amount of wisdom that i attribute to him, and i think there is some merit to that. in that sense, there are criticisms of the -- of obama in the world insomuch that he represents the continued faith in the reform in the muslim world. i think that is a very valuable thing. about think that is naive. -- i do not think that is naive. the orthodox, i think that is a

complicated matter. >> there is something new going on there. >> yes and no. moshe knows more about this than i do. i think there is a new prestige, if you will, in the mainstream of the orthodox extreme, whatever that means. in the mainstream extra income i think there is a new prestige to openly xenophobic, bigoted, anti-era, anti-muslim arguments of a very classical kind. religion has its dark side as well as its lead side. >> why now? >> a mixture of fear of their surroundings and a feeling of strength internally about their own,, i think. what bothers me is the extent to which the political system permit some of this to seep into places that really matter.

i worry more about lieberman then i do about -- >> wait a second. let me just give to moshe. what is your take? >> in talking about policies and issues, i think this is one of the most important central subjects for the future of israel because it is not a struggle [unintelligible] what are we as jews in the world? there are many other voices. there is a struggle.

there is a struggle about what do we as jews stand for? there are those that talk in the name of jewish law, when anyone who knows jewish law knows that they have other far more humane ways. we should treat our minorities as equal. there are two issues that remain, if i want to pin it down. it is the way in which they talk the language. this is a horrible thing. some of this hatred comes from a

point of persecution and suffering, etc. but adopting the language of the week from the position of strength is lethal. what you have here is what i would call the benefit of the ugliest side of our tradition. the second issue, and i think this is important for all of our government, what does it mean to be a jewish state? you keep hearing in the rhetoric that this is a jewish state. they're taking our land. they are taking our this and that. i think one of the most important issues is the fighting over the jewish state with the

understanding that the jewish state would not be able to fight as a jewish state unless it treats its minorities with dignity and equality. and i'm talking not the kind of compromising of the jurors nature of the state by being humane to your fellow. you are compromising the nature of the jewish state if you are not. having the language of weakness for generation, and the other thing is the question of what it

means for us to be a jewish state. you mentioned, maybe if we lieberman -- >> not joe. i want to us, what should americans know about foreign minister lieberman? we do not know him well. and what should israelis know about sarah palin? is she jewish? martin, you go first. it is very interesting because maybe lieberman is the

son of the future in many ways. it starts with the numbers and i do not want to bother lieberman with numbers, or get into it, but radically, israel is changing rapidly. patella about it 20 -- >> batelle as about it. >> 20% of the population is armed. every year it becomes harder to live peacefully with both. the old orthodox was about 10% of the population and now they

are 20%. it happen rapidly. there is something they share, something very important. it is the alienation from the legacy of liberals and democrats is real. they do not feel at home in this society. it may be hard to explain. there was a famous speech where he endorsed a two-state and it

killed at once the left and right. we fought over territory. and everybody knows if a two- state solution is involved by the leader of the right, everybody knows what it means. it means that great israel does not exist anymore. what is the argument? the argument now is between all the jews and lieberman realized this. jews in israel are open to an argument that israelis are much more dangerous to them and

filled with more hatred and palestinians. israelis that are old, they talk jewish. i covered bosnia and everybody said there are no jewish serbians. the only jewish serbians are the jews. the rest of them were slovenian and so on. the only people who define themselves as is really proper are the children of foreign workers.

[unintelligible] but they hate arabs enough to become jewish, so they are jews. [laughter] and the rabbi except them. >> is lieberman someone we should be afraid of? or is he another hard right politician that once he becomes prime minister will be domesticated and fallen to this pattern? >> what is different is that lieberman has no movement, but he has an ethnic group that votes about 85% for this party, something that is quite unique in israeli politics. most of the parties to die after two terms.

-- most ethnic parties die after two terms. he managed to survive. and if you look at what he says, he is not a right winger. for example, he is ready to evacuate. he is very generous regarding the palestinians. but he backs is really part because he understands there is a big vote there. -- he? israeli power because he understands there is a big vote there -- he backs israeli power because he understands there is a vote there.

>> i just want to say something following the. all of these extremes the mainstream and the center, you know, we have members of three parties in our government. we have great people. you have to be a genius to understand the difference between them. [laughter] and they belong to three parties. the country is in real trouble. you have the israeli arabs wanting to be a democratic state. and you have the mainstream that

is divided about nothing. but rather than getting together and actually appealing to them, because we have great people, many good people. just get your act together. before it is going to be too late. and getting your act together is affirming the nature of a jewish democratic state in a genuine way and not letting the extremes control what we are. this is where you see, the old rivalries about nothing. the extremes also have

variations in them, but if it is a mainstream, let's get together to define who we are as a nation. then the public education, other issues. >> david, sarah palin, what should israelis know about her? is she good for the jews? >> i'm imagining her and lieberman on the way to reform. the first thing you should know about -- what you do know, she is attractive. the second thing is that she is really good at driving our liberal colleagues at the * crazy one person who is a book publisher found out that is not good to get support oven conservatives. it is good to offend the liberals and that will get

conservatives to buy the books. and in the media, she does not really care about government that much. over the last three or four weeks so many people have come of terror and said, you should be president -- come up to her and said, you should be president. you can see the seduction of that. the majority of republican primary voters think she is not qualified to be president. republicans have changed their primary process to stretch it out, so it will be hard for someone against the is published and to really win. she will not be the republican nominee. mike pence is more likely to be then her. she just does not have the intellectual rigor to understand -- to withstand that process. my one line explanation of the tea party movement is that they use at hostile means to achieve norman rockwell ends.

[laughter] what i mean by that is that they start with a radical method, but they want a wholesome america. if you talk to 80 party person, the typical guy you run into -- to a hottie party person, the 20 by the run into is that -- a tea party person is that he got a job and does not love it, but he is supporting his family. they bought a house when his neighbors could not afford. he sees the people who did not play by the rules, he sees wall street has been rewarded when he is getting screwed. he wants to go back to a in america where effort leads to reward. i completely sympathize with that. my problem with the tea party movement is the abbie hoffman part.

there is a disconnect between the policies they live by and support and the ideology they have surrounded themselves with. you can define a conservative by what year they want to go back to. i would like to go back to 1965 and start over. they want to go back to the articles of confederation, or at least say they would. in practice, they do not. but they have an ideology that precludes compromise and avoid all of the real issues. it would make them very hard to govern because the governing choices have nothing to do with the reason they give themselves for why they are there. >> what will happen? >> what is going to happen in the near term is that you have a bunch in congress. there are 85 freshmen in the house. but i think what you heard from erick kanter is that it is about representatives. they're much of smarter -- rarely in american history have so many already been professional legislators. these are not yahoos.

the one thing they care about is cutting spending. they do not care about cutting the deficit particularly, but cutting spending. experts from the heritage foundation and elsewhere have said, ok, you care about government spending. do you want to cut medicare? know. at do you want to cut the -- no. do you want to cut the defense budget? and l. the answer -- no. people who care about foreign aid, is real, are worried. -- israel, are worried. >> president obama of its 40% support in israel. sometimes you see less.

certainly, the least popular president in a long time. why is that? >> before we get to obama's popularity in israel, there is the question of his popularity in the states. there are would like to say a few things to amplify some of what david just said. the first one is that we recognize that at this point in our history, americans are in no position to give lessons to his release about the quality of politics -- two israelis about the quality of politics. i think our politics are exceedingly volcker at the moment. the hostility in the government that you just described is not just an ideological position, but a kind of fever. hostility toward the government is a very dangerous feeling. we had this debate between the federalist and the anti- federalist a very long time ago.

and the anti federalist did not come to washington. -- and did come to washington. obama democrats generally tend to ignore or squish the radicals. republican leaders have actually decided to hitch a ride. i do not see any real resistance on the part of the republican establishment to the tea party. there is some way in which the republican party has now decided to let its extremes lead in some way. that has to be noted. that is a significant development. i do not know exactly how to understand the politics of our country right now in the sense that i think there are two ways of looking at it, and on monday, wednesday, and friday -- i think

on tuesday and thursday and sunday we do not think about these things. the first one is that i think obama believes there is basically some american consensus out there and on each and there are some noisy extremes. very noisy, very extreme, but fundamentally, most americans want to fix things and solve problems. that is one model. the other model is that we are, in fact, a genuinely divided country, in fact, almost evenly divided. and these, evenly divided for every presidential election to be won by a very small margin in a place the, usually called ohio. i happen to think the election of 2008 was an optical illusion in that a center-right country elected a center-left president, but they are not reproducible.

-- i think there were circumstances, but they are not reproducible. the other thing is you have this whole game about -- that the whole country is pulling about who thbarack obama really is. it is tiresome because i think he should make clear who he really is. his key an idealist -- is he an idealist, an ambassador from another future, is he trying to just raise us to another level, does he really think he is the ambassador of the future? we are all in this game where we are trying to read his mind. it adds another level of confusion and volatility to our politics right now. plus there is the economic issues and we have are the spoken about the xenophobia.

there is a profoundly xenophobic strain in america right now. there is also a lot of dread in this country. one of the things -- i think moshe said that america's -- americans worry about its nation loses -- about the nation losing its grip is. i think that is right. one of the reasons we are -- losing its greatness. i think that is right. one of the reasons we are losing our greatness is that we are allowing our economy, and a matter how awful a state is in, -- no matter how awful a state is in, to stand in for our sense of self. it is never the whole story. when an unexpected strategic opening just opened for the united states in east asia, for

example, when the chinese overreached -- everything the chinese do they are said to overreach. when, in fact, they are just behaving as they do. but it opened it up for an even closer alliance with the united states for south korea. all this happened despite the miserable lives of our economy. the economy is not all we need to know. national self-esteem, you know, collective subject to the is a very powerful force in history. you can correct it historically, and so on, but our sense of place in the world cannot be allowed to be determined only by the troubles of our economy. for all of these reasons, i think that americans should not sleep that well.

>> you answered the obama question. is that his fault? israel's fault? nobody's fault? >> i think it is not really about the proposals that he actually raises. it is about the message of empathy that he does not generate. when he was in cairo, and then he had to pay dues to the israelis and he went to bougainville, that is a very bad the pilgrimage. he should have gone to jerusalem. he should have said to the , your concernsupo

are my concerns. but i think he has -- [unintelligible] but i think he has a good chance of becoming prime minister in israel if he runs, but i think it is because he empathizes with the people. you can compromise a great deal, but do not take lightly the genuine fear and concern about the security of the future. i think he did not do that. another thing he did not do [unintelligible] my mother does not like politics, but she says to me, i do not mind sharing jerusalem,

but do not tell me that i started id. people do not like to be blamed. the for the guild goes, the more left you are-be for the gilt rose, the more left you are. -- although further the guilt goes, the more left you are. i think it is a very basic human aspect of his address in the israelis -- his addressing the israelis not from cairo.

>> you can actually say anything to israelis if you first make it clear you know what neighborhood they are living in. and you can actually say anything to arabs and if you first make it clear you really want him to succeed. >> we have to take into account that we were spoiled for 16 years by two american presidents who knew how to have the israelis. [unintelligible] between bush and clinton. the israelis love to be loved. in many cases we did not deserve it.

about obama, the cairo speech was a careful mistake. i interviewed him after the speech. i was the only one who did not belong to the steering the -- the syrian guyanyway, there wase between the speech and the interview. david axelrod and rahm emanuel went in the and i told him -- in between the hardship palestinians suffered and the holocaust made by