political profession malady? was it -- what is it about the armed forces in these countries, at least in the case of egypt and tunisia, looked like they are going to be a very major agent of change? we do not know for sure, but it looks that way. i think this is a question, in very good question for my colleagues who are not economists and deal with much more sophisticated issues than we do. which one? if you have a question. i think we will take one or two more, and then we will have to close. >> thank you very much. there are some misunderstandings on the finland example. before that, i just want to say

thank you for the talk. it is absolutely fascinating to hear it. i come from a fairly new nation, and to me it is liberation. it is revolution. we are all in horror, but it is magnificent in many ways. i just wanted to really offer one comment from the experience -- working for one of the international organizations. i work for the world bank. and when you talk about being trapped or what you are really powers -- or what your powers really are. in an economics way, it is the

privilege and so forth. how hard it is to get that message, it is truly humbling when you go to the events, and you do not know whether it is happening. people have that view that the banks have so much power, but when you really want to erase these things, it is enormously difficult. there is no way you can publish this. when you have, fortunately we had a vice president the comes from a country where he is to busting special interest. i now am an african region, and i have so much more humility in saying what you can really do.

when you talk about increasing the legitimate and so forth, and when you have a regime, you have to be so smart and get such good evidence and everything, and still it is hard. but we still publish the report. you have the experience of life lessons in a sense. in are really do not believe that there is so much you can do. even right now when i am working in african region, we have strong african politicians leading us right now. there is no way we can try to substitute government. the responsibility lies in the country. that really was my point, but i want to say about the internet

access, because it is not some government-sponsored regime. it does not work like that in northern europe. you pay for it, but access is there and you have to write to that access. the whole society is dependent on information. what is really interesting -- i do not live in the country, but i followed very closely. in rural areas it is not the government or the private sector that is bringing us. it is remote areas. you put that fiber link in the ground because they need it. it is actually the private operation. thank you. >> we will take one more question. i am sorry, i only have time for one more question.

>> we are when to break away from the last few minutes to take you over live to the white house. -- we are going to break away from the last few minutes to take you over live to the white house. president obama will be speaking about the unrest in libya. earlier today, secretary clayton everything will be on the table." the news indicates that anti- government protesters have been taking control of some of the major cities and towns closer to the capital. the opponents of muammar gaddafi are saying they will liberate the force. he is reportedly roaming the streets. the u.s. making efforts to get american citizens out of libya as well. waiting for president obama who should be here shortly. live coverage here on c-span.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good afternoon, everybody. secretary clinton and i just concluded a meeting to focus on ongoing situation in libya. over the last few days my national security team has been working around the clock to monitor the situation and to coordinate with our international partners about a way forward. first, we're doing everything we can to protect american citizens. it is my highest priority. in libya, we have urged our people to leave the country and the state department is assisting those in need of support. meanwhile, i think all americans should get things to the heroic work that is being done by our foreign service officers and men and women serving in the embassies and consulates around the world. they represent the very best of our country and its values. throughout this period of

unrest and the people, the united states has remained a set of core principles. these principles apply to the situation in libya. as i said last week, we strongly condemn the use of violence in libya. the american people extend our deepest condolences to the families of loved ones who have been killed and injured, thid. the suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and unacceptable. the orders to punish the people of libya -- these actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. this violence must stop. the united states also strongly supports the universal rights of the libyan people, that includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free-speech, and the ability of

the libyan people to determine their own destiny. these are human rights. they are not negotiable, and must be respected and every country. they cannot be denied through violence or suppression. it is -- in a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nation's and the people speak with one voice. that has been our focus. yesterday a unanimous u.n. message canccouncil sent a that they stand with the libyan people. it is the same message that has been delivered by the european union, the arab league, the african union, the organization of the islamic conference, and many individual nations. north and south, east and west, voices are being raised together.

to oppose suppression and support the rights of the libyan people. i have also asked my administration to prepare a couple range of options that we to the crisis. pond these are actions we may take and those that we will carry out through multilateral institutions. like all governments, the libyan government has responsibility to refrain from violence. to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need and respect the rights of its people. it must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities and face the cost of continued violations of human rights. this is not simply a concern of the united states. the entire world is watching, and we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. to that end, secretary clinton and i have asked the undersecretary of political

affairs to make several stops in europe to intensify our relationship with partners about the situation in libya. i have also asked her to travel to geneva on monday were a number of foreign ministers will convene for a session of the human rights council. there she will hold consultations with her counter partners and continue to ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of libya. and even as we are focused on the urgent situation in libya, let me say that our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere, including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy in tunisia and in egypt. let me be clear, the change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. this change does not represent the work of the united states or

any foreign power, it represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life. as one libyan said, we just want to be able to live like human beings. we just want to be able to live like human beings. it is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change. throughout this time of transition the united states will continue to stand up for freedom, stand up for justice, and stand up for the dignity of all people. thank you very much. >> president obama saying protecting american citizens in libya, the administration's the highest priority. secretary clinton will be headed to geneva for a meeting of the u.n. human rights council. earlier today, the un general council set up by lives in libya must stop, citing serious violations of human rights laws. the secretary spoke briefly in new york for reporters -- with

reporters for about 10 minutes. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. we are closely watching developments in the countries. we view the situation in libya with concern. the current situation is unpredictable and could go in any number of directions, many of them dangerous. at this critical juncture, it is imperative that international

community maintain unity and act together to ensure a prompt and peaceful transition. i want to underscore what my special advisers on the potential of genocide and the ability to protect said yesterday, the nature and scale of the attacks on citizens are egregious violations of the international humanitarian and human rights law. i condemn them loudly and without qualification, and those responsible must be held accountable in courts of law. ladies and gentlemen, in the middle east today we see people, especially young people, pushing the frontiers of freedom. yesterday the security council sent a strong and unequivocal

message, no violence and respect for human rights. the world has spoken with one voice. the government of libya must admit its responsibility and protect the people. and in the days ahead, we will engage widely with the states. this afternoon i convened a meeting some of my -- a meeting with my senior advisers. just a few moments ago, i also conferred with the secretary general. tomorrow we will go to egypt. [inaudible]

and department security. this weekend i sent a senior official of the department of political affairs, he will travel to tunisia. as you may know, the u.n. commissioner for human rights has already dispatched a team to to news up here again i welcome the decision of the human rights council to convene a schedule session on friday, including the possible establishment of an international inquiry into the events in libya. we remain extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation. the united nations commissioner for refugees has the appeal to libya's neighbors in europe and north africa not to return

people fleeing the country. let me repeat what i upset almost daily since the crisis began. the violence must not. attacks against citizens are a serious violation. and those responsible for brutally shedding the blood of innocent people must be punished. thank you very much. >> mr. secretary general, did the security council of one point discuss [inaudible] because that would be some sort of pressure. it seems that the u.n. does not know what to do. >> i understand that country's,

brought international community considering a broad range of options. >> mr. secretary-general, you tried the power persuasion for a long time with the market out the himself, yet he came out on tuesday with a very aggressive speech, which many people have come dened around the world. -- for a long time with muammar gaddafi himself, yet he came out on tuesday with a very aggressive speech, which many people have condemned around the world. >> as far as i am concerned as the secretary general of the united nations, that is why i have strongly condemned again and again on what he has done. it is totally unacceptable.

after long and extensive discussions and strong urge and appeal to him, he has not done them. this is not acceptable. that is why the security council and secretary of state have taken strong measures. i am sure the international community considering a broad range of options to -- >> would you support the security council to move in a stronger way, because the killing is continuing and libya? a stronger way to force his hand through sanctions and monday and sources of freezing -- would you support such measures? >> again, i leave it to the security council to discuss and, the future course of action. they have taken very strong action yesterday, and for any

further cause of actions, depending on the developed situation, i am sure that the security council and the broader international community's will consider this. >> so there were calls and the international community for no- fly zones, sanctions, and after three hours of negotiations, the security council came out with a statement, not even a presidential statement -- are you satisfied with that and you think the united nations security council will do and can do more? what you think they will reconsider? -- why do you think they will reconsider? >> again, as i said in a previous interview, specific measures, specific sanctions including specific measures including sanctions, the ones

which the security council needs to determine. the situation is developing rapidly towards a very dangerous situation, so therefore we need to carefully monitor the situation. i would continue to urge on the strongest possible terms to stop the violence, protect human rights, and the civilian population. the human rights council is meeting on this on friday, so let us watch how international community is doing. i am very closely monitoring. that is why i am dispatch of my senior advisers to the region for a very effective consultation. >> mr. secretary general, do you consider to establish your own investigation into the situation

in libya in the cas? will you investigate? >> again, i will have to wait until the human rights council will discuss this method on friday. the inquiry commission, on their agenda. i will see after all of this the discussions. thank you. >> would you ask muammar gaddafi to step down? >> all of these issues will have to see the development of the situation. the community has spoken strongly.

all let these things need to be determined by the people of libya for their future. we are continuously in closely following the situation. thank you. >> the secretary general from

about 3:30 eastern this afternoon at the united nations. about 20 minutes ago at the white house president obama condemned the violence in libya and said he is sending hillary clinton to geneva for international talks aimed at stopping the bloodshed. we will show you the president's comments just ahead of our prime time programming before 8:00 eastern here on c-span. we will keep you posted on the exact time. at 6:00 this evening we will bring you a discussion on the future of israel/egypt relations. until then, from this morning's "washington journal" a look at the impact of the health-care law on community health care centers. washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce you to our final test, dr. gary wiltz. -- final guest. thank you for being here.

what our community health centers and how long have they been around? guest: community health centers are non-profit community board that are serving areas of their country that are medically underserved. that is the first criteria that the areas we're located have to be medically underserved. the key element is that we are controlled by a board of directors that have to be 51% consumers, which is unique, but a very good way the consumers control the product that we put out there. host: that is a national standard? guest: that is a national standard that dates back to 1965. we provide primary preventive health care, comprehensive in nature, and we are open to all, which is a unique feature also. everyone that comes in, we break their ability to pay by means

testing and proof of income. so when someone presents themselves, they provide proof of income, and we adjust their pay according to a sliding fee scale. host: how many health-care officials are there? guest: we have 8000 locations. millionerving over 21 billio right now. we take care of the uninsured population that we serve. the current statistics regarding the breakdown right now are 38% of the people we're treating are uninsured. 37% have medicaid. 37% have medicare. 13% private insurance. have other means. the grant we receive, that is not counting care, because we have income, but helps subsidize

the care for the uninsured we treat. host: all but 15% comes from the public sector? guest: that is correct. host: what about the future of the new health-care law? guest: community health care centers were created in 1965 in an attempt -- under lbj in the war against poverty. we recognize way back then that there was a tremendous need in this country, particularly in rural areas of underserved populations. it started with humble and meager funding, and we have grown. we have enjoyed bipartisan support historically. before i get to with the obama administration has de, i want to make sure that the bush administration invested heavily in community health centers and we doubled the number of people we serve from 8 million to 16 million. in the president's budget he is

made community health care centers when a key component of health care reform. we have the largest network of primary care providers in the country. under his plan we were set to go from over 19 million to over 40 million in t next five years. by every means you can test us, we have been proven to be cost efficient, deliver primary comprehensive preventable care in the course of competent, very fast pace setting. guest: we are serving right now over 21 million folks. host: from federal and public other sources are about what? guest: about 25% of the total operating budget, but more recently ended a stimulus package we will create an additional 127 centers and serve an additional 3 million people. that is why today's cuts are so

critical, because of the do occur, the gains we have just made are at risk. we have now added that many more people to serve, 3.3 million people. one of the first things learned in medical school was [inaudible] 70% of the new people we e treating are uninsured. host: what is the total federal contribution to health centers on an annual basis? guest: right now over $2 billion. host: 4 viewers if you would like to ask questions about communy health centers. -- for viewers, if you would like to ask questions about community health centers. we would like to hear your questions or comments about that. in the continuing resolution,

how to community health centers there? guest: it would be devastating to us. the gains we have been able to make, the 127 new sites -- in particular, opened a new center and hired an additional 10 staff folks. if this cut is enacted, we will have to close the doors, and thiss that the worst possible time. if you are looking for a model care that has been proven to be cost effective, we have saved the system a tremendous amount of money over time, particularly in the medicaid csector. when you look at any entity in all the studies that have been done,e save the system money. host: how to save the system money? -- how do you say that the

system money? guest: people go to us instead of the emergency system. the emergey system is the most expensive you can get. we can save them because they do not present later with a disease that is a dance. advanced.t is host: specifically what are republicans suggesting? guest: there is a trust fund. the billion dollars is set aside, and we have the continuing resolution, the yearly fiscal funding that they are looking to cut $1 billion from. the gains we have made with that billion dollars, it did take that away, thawill undercut what we have already p into place, so it will affect all of the new access points and the increase of demand for services that we have been able to enact. host: i hav a crt that you brought with you that shows how

health care center patients are estimated to grow und the health-care law, but if the republicans are successful, what would happen to the 40 million people number? guest: there is no way we can reach it. as a matter of fact, we would probably slide back, because the 3.3 million that we have increased over the last few years would be at risk. host: really impressive growth when you look at it. 2003 just serving 12.4 million patients, all the way up to current data with 40 million. really and about 12 years. -- all the way up to the current year with 19.4. guest: we have a proven track record. this was during the bush years that we will ever to double the number of people search. we have been the safety net. there is a lot of talk about

patient centers, but we have been that historically center for 25 years. we stand ready. we are very confident we can meet these numbers. this is something we developed, the national association. we did a strategic plan that showed we can accomplish the plan given the funding. we can actually accomplish what we have said. host: of you were -- a viewer on twitter rights to know how much you are saving the country? guest: on the medicaid system alone we're saving over $6 billion. the cost that is put in their that is the primary preventive care that we talked about, early detection, and the number of people we have prevented -- say diabetics for instance that did not go blind because the

diabetes was under control. they did not have strok and heart attacks because it was under control. all of those things factored into that. there have been many studies that showed everywhere where community health care centers are located, there has been a decrease in mortality for the population we serve. host: republican on the line. go ahead, please. caller: i believe our health- care system is broke and out of control. host: any more about that, leonard? caller: yes, my father-in-law went in for a gall bladder surgery one month ago, and it was a 40 minute surgery and cost $41,000. the government needs to regulate the hostal's pay and pharmaceutical's pay. host: do you agree that the

system is out of control? guest: i believe the system is in need of continued reform. he just mentioned the hospital stay, and our goal is to keep people out of the hospital system. that is what community health centers are so vital and important as a cornerstone. we are a large part of th solution. i say this because if you can get in for primary preventive care early on, you can prevent a lot of diseases that prevent later on. if you have a cost-effective qualit model that is competent and shown the savings that we have had, why would you not want to invest in a program that has been successful? that is really the main point i want to make today. we're not making this up. we have proven statistics to bear what wsay. tell you about our

guest. he is a native new orleanean. your clinic is something that you join or started in 1982. 100 miles west of new orleans. tell me your story. guest: i grew up in orleans. i was born in the charity hospital system. i attended tulane medical school. i attended the court and get in return i had to pay back my service obligation in an underserved community. that is how i wound up in franklin, louisiana. july will be 29 years i have been there. i have been the medical director for 20 years and ceo for the last nine years. host: you clearly been involved at the sta level.

you have also been very involved in the national association. being a doctor to that many people is a consuming job. why are you going for the larger and national level? guest: if my brother and i had the opportunity to listen to john f. kennedy speak live in new orleans. and that brought the call of service to me. as i progress in my medical career, i realize when you can change policy, you could affect millions of people. i have had a very gratifying career with the patients i have treated over the past 30 years, and you get immediate gratification, but when you can change programs that affect millions and millions of people. lbj never treated a person in his life, but the policies that he enacted, when you think about it, they have affected the lives of millions and millions of people. i think policy is critical in addition to the primary hands on

a carrot that we get. host: we are learning more about the community health care centers and how they are making proposed cuts. $1.3 billion for the community health care centers. you can decide whether you think that is a good thing based on what you are hearing this morning. chester, conn. bill. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wonder how beneficial it would be if the federal government and the people of the federal government took your malpractice insurance for the doctors that serve your association and the facilities themselves and covered it under a self-insured program. what that benefit you at all? guest: cut is a great question,

and that is already happening. 15 years ago, in an effort to achieve the cost savings you just mentied, that moneys would not go into legal fees for malpractice and operational costs, the federal government created a federal tort claims act. all of the providers that work for us are covered under that, so we do not pay malpractice insurance. that is another key component to what we're able to do. host: c-span junkie writes this on twitter -- guest: another great question. as i mentioned earlier, we are locally owned and operated and controlled. i like to say that local people, solving local problems with local solutions with some of the room money. -- with some of federderal mone.

i do not know if you subscribe to this philosophy, but i believe the best care you can get is what is most local to you. that is what we do, and that is what we do best. host: east arms, new jersey. david independent. go ahead. caller: i want to ask what is so wrong about a single payer system? to cover all costs. it is just like if you have car insurance. you have car insurance, and you pay $49 per moh. i can afford $149 per month, but cannot afford $1,000 per month. guest: that is a very, very valid point. on a personal level, i do believe that concept has a lot

merit, because it does level playing field. just this past week, i saw two patients. one is $160,000 in debt and debating whether or not to declare bankruptcy. that is something we see as the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. a single payer system spreads the cost, but we have to live with of the con fines -- within the confines of what the current administration is. maybe in the future that may be something to solve, but if you look at the models we have in place right now, i think we are achieving some success in what we're doing. that is probably a topic for another day. host: we have been talking about the big budget problems and the states. the protests in ohio and wisconsin. the governor from florida, rick scott, has a piece this morning.

he writes -- can you decode that for us? what is he doing there? guest: i did not read that piece. i do not know how that would achieve the savings he is referring to. host: medicaid reimbursement rates are set by an agency here in washington. guest: that is correct, but the vary from state to state what is it will cover and will not. i know florida and louisiana is going to a managed-care system. when you look at the bang for the buck you are getting come if you're not getting the results that you are attending, there may be some cost savings that he is trying to achieve that way.

i do not know if you speaking to managed care or not. that is what we have been doing all along and community health ceers, is having patients navigate the system in th clinical outcomes have proven we have been more successful than a lot of settings. if you look at our cost compared to other costs, we're 25% l ess. i know i sound like a big proponent of community health care centers, because i am. we did not have the same proponents that we have. you are receiving wraparod services. in a private sector when someone presents -- a lot of times if you are at a diabetic you need all these things and cannot get other things you need to treat or disease. that is one of the big values that we bring to the table.

host: the nation's governors are meeting this weekend in washington, d.c. there are many panel discussions. medicare is going to be one of those topics discussed this weekend, as are job creations. you are hearing from dr. gary wiltz, talkg abo community health care centers. our next calller is from rhode island. dale, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is i am wondering if there is a verification to make sure when people walk into the clinic that they are u.s. citizens? and you take that under consideration at all? -- do you take that under consideration at all? guest: we are not in the business of documenting folks. we certainly emphasize -- we

want to make a conducive environment so that people will come in. if someone is carrying an infectious disease, the last thing you want to do is create a barrier. we asked for their ethnicity and language so we have interpreters and folks that can help us to provide the care we're trying to provide. host: they would be covered under the uninsured segment? est: that is correct. in the plan we're talking about, if you are fully funded, you will create over 200,000 additional jobs the country there is a tremendous need for all the books we're trying to cover. the economic impact of community health care centers is over $20 billion. not only is it a boom for the health-care populations in the

commities we serve, it is an economic engine. host: another writer writes -- guest: i would agree with that. host: whats the nursing a employment situation like these days? guest: there has been a tremendous shortage. those that do internal medicine, family practice, and then the support staff, and medical assistance. the whole health-care team has this shortage. the good news is the national service corps, the one that brought me to franklin, received increase funding. right now we have 10 providers at are getting a loan repayment. it is not unusual for people to come out of school with the debt over $160,000. if you work in a community health center, your loan will be

forgiven if you commit to three to four years. it is a very good prram. i agree there is a shortage of nursing personnel. our next call is from nelson. let me say thank you for your service. i am originally from northern louisiana. i understand exactly what you are saying, and we apprecia all that you do. let me ask you a question, how lks?you find dr. wil all we hear about is people with theories. here he has with a successful program. it would be beneficial to the listeners if we get more people like him talking about successful stories and not a political angle, but he is

talking about how this program is working and how what will even be better under the new health-care law. host: thank you for the call. it this is what a viewer writes on twitter -- doou know the current proposal put forth by the white house suggested cutting in that area? guest: it did not. it will increase funng so the numbers we could reach that we talked about earlier. host: virginia beach, virginia. george on the air. good morning. caller: with everything going on in the country, i would like to propose an idea that goes along with what has been happening. there seems to be a rift in the country. one of the things we are hardest hit with is the health-care dilemma.

i propose that we build a society of medicine. transition ourselves into reinventing our national prodt. our national proct could be medicine. i believe we could be providing training, construction, maintenance, logistics', everything. just about anything you can think of that goes ang with it. make it so it is based on service, just liked the military and along the same lines. military has to transport people and provide certain amount of service in order to repay for the traing. medical licenses could be prohibited from doctors who practice mcmahon -- medical licenses in the future unless they do a certain amount the future, otherwise there would not receive tax deductions or

malpractice limits. i do not think it is right that we make a profit from madison, so pharmaceutical companies and everything -- i do not think it is right that we make profit from medicine. that is all i have to say. guest: in a lot of other countries there is obligated service that have gone through the system where they have to spd time in an underserved area. that is why the national service corps can be such a great venue, because those that want to give back, it allows them to do that. even though they may not choose a career in the way that i have, is extremely gratifying. when you look back at your career in religious or serving those that are most in need, i can tell you from the people in franklin, it has been extremely gratifying to me as a position. they appreciate what your doing, and they do not mind telling

you. host: this viewer is obviously a testa emotional your linnaean. -- new orleanean. guest: it is near and dear to all of our hearts. i was born there. as one of the viewers alluded to earlier, the best care is what you can get in the rural communities. it was great if you live in new orleans, but if you are 50 miles away, i would have patients that would take a busnd travel three hours to come to charity for primary care. it was not until i got to the community health center that i realize you can really serve people and serve them well if you have the tools in the rural community. host: buffalo, new york.

cathy, a democrat. good morning. caller: i have a question. it the recipients that rely on government proams work to earn $95 or more per hour, could they then pay their own medical expenses? host: i am not sure about question period and i guess whether or not people can pay their own medical expenses at the clinic if they choose to? guest: yes, it is based on income. it is means tested. it is the ronald reagan doctrine up trust and verify. you cannot come in and say i am poor and have no money. you have to bring means to support that. if you're single, there is a certain amount. if you're married or have children, it depends on the defendants and the rate changes year to year.

and hoshost: a tweet from a vie- guest: if we are generally not unionized, but the administrative cost is less than 15% and our center, and less than 20%. we're very cost effective. host: can y compare that to a hospital? guest: i do not know. we watched the bottom line very closely. host: bombay, florida. chip, go ahead, please. caller: it is a real honor to talk to a doctor, especially one that knows ho to cook a red sh. i am a christian, and i feel like i have a word of the church. instead of supporting, self- serving television ministries

and building cathedrals, we should be putting our money into efforts like this. it is to our shame that we do not. thank you very much. host: related to that, at this your rights -- this viewer writes -- to take donations? guest: yes, we do. we cannot do the things we do without the strong support of community. we work in collaboration. the local hospitals, the home help agencies, all of the other providers that are involved in patient care, we work with them. we are heavily involved in this legislation that is called teaching help centers we're actually having students and residents train in our centers so that they get the experience of being in the community health center earlier in their

training and hopefully influences them to remain in primary care and work in the settings that we are currently looking to expand. host: rick, republican. caller: i served in the military and got hurt during training missions. i had two tbi's and twice mentally ill, and i go to the va hospital now and then recovering. i was severely hurt. i am recover. i do not feel sick anymore. -- i am recovered. host: 3 going to leave your comments and experience to stand as it does. you talk to me about the difficulty in that recruiting doctors how does that square with the visa program? guest: it was set up for folks

to come over in the country and train and return back to their country with the knowledge base. it has gone under reorganization in the past few years. we have had some success with some of them staying and being retained. the most success we have had is with the national service corps. at one point there were so many people applying, we were only awarded one in seven applications. host: for a medical degree? guest: this is for the scholarship. there is a tremendous interest and desire on the part of students to want to serve, but we never have the funding to fully fund it. under this new health care reform we have gone increased moneys, and it has been tremendous the way that we have implemented the program and got the money is to the folks who want to serve. they have helped us out

tremendously. host: 7 minutes left. democrat. in morning to you. morning to you. caller: we have a community health care center d we have a lady to write scripts for the hiv program. guest: our senior management team rights are owned grants. i want to make the point, we treat special populations, portugal early hiv patients and homeless patients, a migrant workers, seasonal reform workers. that is another part of what community health centers do. we have a really great career writing team, and we have been successful in securing quite a few of those. host: business administration has been a proponent of electronic medical records.

this question relates to that. guest: i am happy to report we are 70% implemented in our center. nationwide health centers are in the process of using the technology. host: did you get a grant for that? guest: we did. that ce from the stimulus package. the key is to marry high touch too high-tech. when you can manage having become -- compassionate, competent care we deliver connected to high-tech were you have an electronic system that is connected in the little system connected to the hospital. we are in the process of trying to create a statewide health information exchange where we can exchange the records right now.

that is going to have a tremendous cost savings to the system as we move forward with that. host: next calller is from texas. peter, republican. caller: what you do if you get a cancer patients -- what do you do if you get a cancer patient or broken leg? guest: the emphasis is on primary and preventive care. people seek care where they know they can get it. anyone who presents with that - when i hire providers, they almost have to be a social worker in a sense, because when we look at someone with not only the medical condition but the resources they have, we can address any problem they come in with. we help them navigate the system. those wraparound services are extremely valuable, because if you look at most medicare

recipients, if you get the medicare book and have an opportunity to do some late- night reading, try to read the regulations on how to navigate the system. weelp the patients to get through the system and get what they need. host: this is an interesting chart. it looks of the population served nationally by the community health centers. it looks at the help center population compared to the u.s. population. -- health center compared to the u.s. popation. the percen under 200% of poverty, 93, 99 in the united states. percent uninsured is 38% in the whole center population and 17%

u.s. population. rural population is 48% compared to 16% of all americans. just a little bit of time left. long island, new york. margaret, independent. go ahead. caller: i name is margaret. i am calling from long island, new york. -- my name is margaret. doctor should have their licenses tied in not be allowed to make money unless they serve as all people. host: how would you react to that? guest: we of taken an oath and that is the whole basis of going into medicine. unfortunately, and i have said

this to some of my private sector colleagues, you may be as altruistic as you want to become a but if someone can put together enough money to come and see you and present themselves and you diagnose them as being a diabetic, how do you provid them that tester at some of the medication, and all the things they need? this is the beauty of what we can do. we have all of those resources available to us, and it is because of the critical fding that we get from the federal government that allows us to do that. and to serve the uninsured. the statistics you quoted earlier, the people that do not -- the thing people do not realize is most of the people are working people that cannot afford health insurance. they are not lazy. they work, but they cannot pay $500 per month premiums. if they have pre-existing conditions, it is even higher. that is what we see on a daily basis. i think the programs that have

been implemented, particularly the ones we are administering, if they are allowed to grow, it can give us hope that we can get to the 40 million that we stand ready to serve. host: your bottom line message to congress is to not cut the funding. >> the budget will definitely be on the agenda next week. the house will advance a temporary government funding bill to keep the government open for two weeks after the next friday deadline. the house bill reportedly will have about $4 billion in spending cuts. this comes a day after senate majority leader harry reid said senate democrats will try to pass a 30-day measure to keep the government frozen at last year's budget levels.

the house and senate returning next monday, the house here on c-span. at 7:00 thursday, comments from the u.n. secretary general made earlier today at the united nations on libya. then the president. he spoke late this afternoon about the situation in libya. we will show his comments at about 7:55. earlier today, robert wexler said the president needs to offer a way forward in the middle east that reasserts u.s. leadership with israeli- palestinian negotiations. his remarks focused on the middle east peace process in the wake of continued political unrest. also speaking, a former adviser to its upper been -- to use the caribbean -- to itsak rabin.

>> thank you for joining us today for this discussion about the challenges and opportunities for peace between israel and the palestinians during a time of unprecedented change in the middle east. i also want to thank the foundation for middle east peace for cosponsoring this unique event with us. to use income glad well phrased, the middle east is at a tipping point -- to use a malcolm gladwell phrase, the middle east is that the tipping point. the hope is that the overthrown dictatorships will bring freedom and prosperity in the region. we are also concerned about the dangers posed by the new order. we have seen heavy bloodshed in libya, an exodus of refugees from to major, a question about egypt's commitment to peace process, iranian warships in the suez canal, and so forth. many dangers presented by the

current unrest. many countries in the middle east are extremely worried about the future. israel fears losing its allies. in this time of instability, there are thoughts it must take no unnecessary risks or cede land. however, there are others who believe the opposite. perhaps that are in the minority, perhaps not. the thinking is that during this time of unprecedented change, israel should broaden its alliances in the arab world. one important way to do so would be to try to conclude a peace treaty with the palestinians. recently, former prime minister olmert was quoted to say the danger will mislead some to

postpone peace. he added, "lead and make history. this is the time. there will not be a better one." is that the case, or is it too late with the peace process almost dead, thanks to internal politics? we are pertinent to have with us two men who know the crisis inside and out. they have been working on the issue for decades. they bring to the table their unique views about the challenges and opportunities posed by the new crisis, this unique time in the middle east. robert wexler is the president of the abrams center of middle east peace. he served in congress before retiring on january 2010 to lead the center. wexler was named one of the 50 most effective legislators in congress by "congressional

quarterly." he was named to the board with the list as one of the most influential leaders in the american-jewish community. he served as adviser on israeli issues to barack obama during the presidential campaign. dr. perry is the director of the institute for israel studies at the university of maryland. he is a former political adviser to the late israeli prime minister and founder and former head of an institute for media, politics, and society at tel aviv university, where he also served as a professor of political sociology. among to thank you both for joining us. it is an honor and privilege to have you here. we will begin with dr. perry for the israeli perspective. >> thank you very much. to say that a new chapter has started in the middle east would

be the most banal cliche ever made. the purpose of our discussion today is really to talk about israel. it would be a mistake not to put in a wider from work. there are very many questions, at least zero you are important questions that have been opened. the future of the middle east and israel really depends on these questions. just to remind you what they are, first of all is the position of egypt in the region. pour four millennia, egypt was the leading power in the region, and the source islamism, socialism, pan-arab islam, modern cinema, and peace with israel. the question is what path egypt will take. will it continue to be a leader, or will it withdraw into domestic issues and the more

introspective approach? these are questions we cannot answer yet. will all be the developments in the region at all? what will be the path of democratization? we have seen something similar to the fourth wave of democracy with the fall of the soviet union and eastern bloc. or is it more like the 1848 revolution, which did not have immediate effect, but took 50 years. what is the compatibility between arabism and democracy? there are many assets and him and published. it is an open question. there is tension between islam, between the major sections,

anti-jihad and jihad. there are questions about the future of the egyptian military, what path this will take in tunisian affairs. many look at turkey for the solution. this may have an impact on the smaller demesne we are discussing, israel and the arab world. i want to explain the perspective of the israelis that developed in the last month. you have at least two major positions. one is unfortunately very limited, very small. the other one represents public opinion and the positions of a political class. i will start by explaining them.

israel's strategic position has been dramatically affected with this development. it lost turkey two years ago as a strategic ally. it probably will lose egypt as a strategic ally in the future. then you have all the other questions that are still there, what will happen in the west bank and other countries in the region, particularly when you see a decline of american power in the middle east and a more political approach by the european states to israel. the government is trying to build note -- build new coalitions in western europe. india instead of iran.

but that will not suffice. analysis is deterioration. in the last three weeks, use of very many states -- bilateral, between the u.s. and israel. an uncertain path to the future. many palestinian presidents ran away from jail in egypt and came back to gaza. there was a bomb in the gas pipe between egypt and israel. even when that was solved, the flow of the guests did not always continue. in the sinai peninsula, they took over some police stations, killed over 45 police, and freed

more. there is a fear they will continue to support terrorist organizations. does that is more open than it was in the past. then there is the muslim brotherhood, which some many people discussed. on the one hand, you have a moderate voice, which was beautifully presented by the article published by david ignatius. they present one of the two janus cases of the muslim brotherhood. then you have the peace treaty with israel to a referendum, or tunicates linked to the palestinian issue. the issue of linkage of peace

between israel and egypt was a very sentimental discussion that was discussed during the camp david negotiations. we have a former american ambassador who remembers well the issue of linkage, how many hours they talk about it. suddenly, this became an issue. then you have many other expressions within cairo. not all of them were monitored here, but all of them were monitored in israel. it called for even more harsh positions relative to israel. one man came back after many years of exile and has talked about the liberation of luxor, total victory over israel. he supported suicide attacks in the past and said the holocaust was a deserved punishment from god to the jews. even some of the moderate arab parties, you hear different

voices. the way it is perceived, i will explain in a minute. there are calls you have for the first time since 1979, the iranian warships crossing the suez canal. legally, because of the constitution -- the constantinople agreement of 1888, they can do this. but since 1979, they did not. this is a beginning of a change to the israeli position. at the security council, the release said they think because of the disappearance of president mubarak, egypt did not pay a more moderate tone in tried to push the palestinians to become more moderate.

what has happened? the major think tanks, writers, and government officials -- how they see it this? they see a change in the arab stereotyped in israel. for 70 years, israelis had a clear stereotyped of the arabs, very negative and unified. there are shades of positions -- are not shades of position. there is one position, which is anti-israel. that began to change in the '90s with the peace process. in the last month, you can see again expressions there is only one sort of therapy.

prime -- a prime minister used to say "the sea is the sea." it would say that the arabs are all one and would always be against us. there are many films and parts of culture that show that stereotype. that story tech in the past month came again. one can see so many art films that are prejudiced by it. the traditional perception of the israeli foreign policy, which is the worst-case scenario, got again very strong. it declined a little in the past 15, 20 years, and again came back. at the outset, although he wanted to express positive attitude toward any democracy, he said, "we wish egypt the best, but want to be prepared for the worst." that is a typical thinking by

most israelis. you can understand a nation that 1/3 of its children died in the gas chambers would take that approach, but it became stronger than before. something that i see as-is a change in the traditional perception of the source of the israeli-arab conflict. until the second intifada, the political class in israel believed the source of the conflict was the and readiness of the arab people to recognize the existence of a jewish state in the middle east. the intifada changed this. the been -- rabin is the man who expresses this change, and realizes the core of the problem between israel and the arab people is the israeli- palestinian issue.

in the last month, it reverts to the previous perception. not everybody is talking about the danger of israel in the middle east, everybody losing its friends. if you have a friend, it is only a matter of time. they say it is the unwillingness of the arabs to accept israel as a fact in the middle with -- middle east. fourth is the ascendance of the religious element in the conflict. you have a tension between western civilization and eastern civilization. you have a conflict between 2 you on national liberation movements. and you always had the religious element. but israeli leaders and the arabs were capable in the past to contain the religious elements.

in the last several years, and particularly the last month, the religious element got a dramatic push and became much stronger. if you have that, every israeli knows three words in arabic, "slaughter the jews." my father used to tell me when he lived in jerusalem that he had palestinians shouting back at him. it is not the israelis. it is the religious element. israelis were used to it for so many years. it declined. now it came again. uc four very negative changes in the perceptions of the israelis

concerning the conflict. therefore, what is the solution? the majority school will say security comes before everything else, and so israel should look at their military dimension more than any other dimension. israel should strengthen its military position. israel should put more layers on the war, between us and the arab world, more barbwire. go back to the iron law protection. or using a modern term, israel is a mansion in the jungle. you have to be more ready to die. that is the majority, if you

write all the think tanks in israel. many of the journalists to talk to individuals, this is what you hear. the prime minister asked cabinet ministers -- ministers not to talk too much about the issues. but this is what you read. the other school of thought says the opposite. it says when the revolution started in tahrir square, it was a domestic egyptian problem. and so are the problems in other places in the middle east. however, if things continue, it will not take much with the israeli-palestinian issue to become a focus of the entire

middle east. therefore, the interest of israel is to diffuse that issue. the only way to do that is to take a very brave step, which should have been done three weeks ago, to take a very brave step and try to solve as soon as possible the israeli- palestinian conflict. if you read the minutes of the 36 meetings that prime minister olmert had, they were very close. israeli leaders, at the top level, should meet with the palestinian authority and negotiate the few issues that are still open, and they can reach an agreement if they want it. it is true that when you see some change in the palestinian

position, it seems the palestinian position has become more entrenched lately because of the feeling that time works for them, that public opinion moves toward their position. why should we her rebecs but i think the palestinians as well as the israelis will lose from the status quo. it cannot continue. it will have a terrific impact. therefore, israel should negotiate with the palestinians. i would be happy to develop that in the second part of our meeting today. two other points is israel and syria and the arab league. israel and syria were very close to an agreement. 10 years ago, the chief of staff of israel, who is now

deputy prime minister, told me -- israeli generals are always called by their nicknames. he told me we need three or four days to conclude an agreement. we were so close in 2000. the israeli military continues to advocate an agreement between israel and syria. you need only the political will by the prime minister to do that. if you have the military that supports an agreement, and the security issues were almost resolved, it can be done. this is something that should be done. i am afraid the israelis are not helped by the u.s. administration on this issue. the third cause is the arab initiative. once israelis realize the entire arab world will be willing to support israel after the

palestinians, it will change many positions. either of the three should start as soon as possible. the current situation is not very positive. you see very few advocates of that. the president spoke to that effect, but does not have a strong political position. you hear some slight announcements from the chief of the military intelligence unit, and even the chief of staff, when last week he ended his term. he said that israel should work hard to take out one of the states from the anti-israeli

group. i guess he meant syria. but when you ask him whether this should happen, he said he would give it one against 10, 10% out of 100, because of many reasons. i believe that netanyahu basically a accepts the analysis i explained to you earlier. second, and he has serious pressure from the more extremist parties in the coalition. third, we are getting closer to election year. after the second year in israel, you start to think about the elections. there are still four or five months this year to pursue in negotiation. there is a short time. within two or three months, it should be over. even within this coalition, the

moderates, like defense minister barack, became weaker. i do not see a near future to move by the political class in israel. the first thought will be the dominant one in israel. thank you. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the middle east institute for inviting me to participate. i would like to start with the conventional wisdom. sometimes conventional wisdom is just that, wisdom. in this case, i think it actually represents more of the wisdom of fantasy rather than the wisdom of reality. what is it i am referring to?

whether it is here in washington, in jerusalem, or in mollah -- ramallah, it is that the winds of change have overcome the middle east. arab nations have enormous domestic problems. the turmoil has created both the necessity and the urgency for arab leaders to focus on their own particular domestic and parochial issues. and the notion of either an appetite for an israeli- palestinian negotiation or after being that that are good to with up in the morning and think about it first or second is just utterly nonsense. likewise, in israel, as the

doctor has correctly pointed out -- israel has seen its bedrock relationship with egypt being literally twisted and turned upside down. what is happening in the sinai in terms of lack of control is terribly unsettling, justifiably so, to the israelis. the israelis are cautiously hopeful with respect to their ally, jordan. but they wonder what will be in jordan three months from now, six months from now, or two years from now. prime minister netanyahu, who had already stressed the security of his nation in the context of any negotiation with the palestinians has doubled down. essentially, although he would not put it in these terms, he is going to build fortress israel. who can blame him, and who can

blame the israeli people for not having that desire, having lived through the historical events that dr. perry roughly points out, having more recently lived through the intifada, and now witnessing turmoil that is for the most part unsettling to israelis. who in their right mind would engage in some bold initiative that causes the israeli public and the israeli nation to have to pay a significant price? in these circumstances, i could not imagine a political commercial you would run to support such a position. likewise, in rolla, president of bus is still reeling -- in ramallah, president abbas is still reeling from president obama's request not to pursue

the goals don't report -- goldstone report, and exposures in terms of the leaking of information. president abbas has chosen if not a more effective a more comfortable route. go to the united nations. in gauge in an international campaign to delegitimize the state of israel, with resolutions that attempt to mirror the language of the united states and put america in a difficult position. those are more comfortable positions for president abbas and prime minister netanyahu. let us talk about ourselves. unemployment is still not resolved in america. americans are most concerned about our own fiscal condition. we still have to create millions

and millions of jobs in america. the president was to talk about an economic message in ohio, in missouri, in wisconsin, and throughout the nation. he is not necessarily interested in putting his first focus, in terms of the american public, the israeli-palestinian conflict, not because he does not understand the seriousness of it or the calamity that could result, but because he has tried for two years. he appointed senator mitchell on his second day in office. he has gone to battle on both sides of the issue, and he has not seen a great deal of success. who could blame the american administration, particularly after the november elections, for reaching the conclusion we need to take care of america and get our own house in order? that is the conventional wisdom.

in most normal times, i might readily accepted. i might advocate it was the proper policy. but if there is one message, one lesson to be extracted from the events in egypt, for me is this. if anyone rationally believes that the israeli-palestinian conflict, that events in the west bank, in gaza, will sit idly by while other leaders, in a confined way, deal with their preferred set of priorities, we are sadly mistaken. unlike the events in libya, or events in iran, where america has limited leverage, a think it is fair to conclude that one of the few places in this immediate neighborhood in which america

still thankfully contains a significant amount, or possesses a significant amount of leverage, along with our israeli allies and the moderate palestinians -- this is the arena in which america, israel, and moderate arabs still have a great deal of leverage. i would argue that all the conventional wisdom has an obvious merit. but in fact we have two choices. neither is the preferred choice, but these are our choices. we follow the path of conventional wisdom. it may be one month from now, three months from now, or pro months from now. but invariably we will wake up and the headlines will not be egypt. it will not be libya. it will not be iran. it will be the west bank, or it

will be gaza. some catastrophic event has occurred, and the israelis will rightfully exercised their right of self-defense, and we will spiral into a catastrophic situation in one of the most emotional spots on earth. we can follow that path and hope it will be two years, three years, five years, or that it will not come. or we can take a different path, the path that requires, i am afraid to say -- if any of us are waiting for prime minister netanyahu or president abbas to make a bold move -- i wish that was the case. i wish both gentleman concluded it was in their self-interest to do so. but i am afraid that neither gentleman will do so. so the unfortunate reality is the decision rests here in washington. it rests with the obama

administration. i respectfully suggest that the administration, in its reconfiguration of american choices and options, conclude that now is the best time. i would not have argued this three months ago, that the american president should put out a set of parameters upon which the israeli-palestinian conflict should be determined are negotiated. but i would argue in the very near term that is what the american red ministration should do. let me go back to last week. there were a number of the steam to foreign diplomats in this town. -- of esteemed foreign diplomats in this town. these groups urged president obama to veto the resolution but for the security council condemning israeli settlement activity. i have to think that urging was misdirected.

it was not strategic in its ultimate outcome. the obama administration did the correct thing in issuing its veto. everyone understands that the veto causes america short-term damage in the arab world. on the one hand, the president is trying to at least get out in front of public opinion in terms of the turmoil and change. here it is. we stand alone against the world in condemning a resolution that at least attempted to mirror american policy. why is it that it was correct for the obama administration to veto the resolution? regardless of one's position on settlement, supplements are but one issue in terms of the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. just as it would not be appropriate in my view to bring a settlement issue to the

security council, nor would it be appropriate to give the right of return. nor would it be appropriate to have the security council on its own say israel is a jewish state, and say nothing more. nor would it be appropriate to handle just the issue of the future of jerusalem. there are many interlocking parts of the israeli-palestinian conflict. to highlight but one -- i would respectfully suggest it is not the proper course of action. equally important, if not more important, if we were to allow that resolution to pass, what does it say to the palestinians? why bother to negotiate with the israelis? just continue with the u.n. security council. for those of us who deeply believe the palestinian people deserve a state of, to live in dignity, and to have their own

elections, their own economy, and a viable state -- it is almost irrational to believe that a strategy employed in the un security council is going to get them to their goal. what needs to follow that veto is an american initiative, and i would suggest the president should take this opportunity in the near future to visit both jerusalem and from mollah -- and ramallah and it say, "two states 4 two people - -for two people." the borders of that state -- they will reflect the 1967 borders, with subsequent developments. there has been a variety of different negotiations. president abbas has gone as high

as 1.9% in terms of the exchanges. and they need to be done on an equal basis. prime minister olmert seemingly went as low as 6%. we can do the basic math. if all mark was at 6% -- olmert was at 6% and abbas was at 2%, the land swap a should be at 4%. it is apparent from israeli negotiating strategy in the past and their sensitivity today that the issue of settlements and territory is less about security and more about how many israelis, jewish israelis in so-called settlements, will have to be moved. it is irrational, appropriate policy objective of the israeli

government to not want to dislocate israelis, when this is said and done. the magic of 4% is that roughly 8% of jewish israelis who today find themselves on the eastern or outside of the 1967 lines will find themselves within the internationally recognized borders of the state of israel. let us go further. there needs to be the most explicit, robust security arrangement between the united states and israel, to make the israeli people comfortable with what would be about to occur. there are anti-missile defenses being tested as we speak that have great promise. there needs to be an international force, whether it be a nato force or whatever the compilation will be, with a significant american command.

that needs to be coupled with prime minister netanyahu's demand that there be an israeli command. that needs to be married together so that the israelis have enough interaction, enough defense, but not so much that president abbas feels his sovereignty is being infringed upon. it can be done under an american umbrella, a nato umbrella, where both sides could fill comfortable. jerusalem and jewish neighborhoods will need to be under israeli sovereignty. the palestinian neighborhoods need to be under palestinian sovereignty. there needs to be a special arrangement for the holy parts of the city. we can go further with the

palestinian right of return. that will lead to the state of palestine. this is not one state for the palestinians and a half a state in israel for the palestinians. this is one state for the palestinians and the jewish state of israel, with the rights of the minority protected, as they must be in any democratic state. these are the principles. they are not shocking. they have been discussed ad nauseum. but the truth of the matter is no american president in a definite way has said we are going to resolve the conflict based on the 1967 lines, with modifications that reflect subsequent agreements or developments. american presidents have talked about the palestinian position and the israeli position. i would argue it is time to state and american position.

it is only through an american position that we will avoid a catastrophic situation in gaza in a short time. the palestinian authority has done an extraordinary job in terms of building its institutions. it is not perfect. but it has done an extraordinary job in beginning to create the elements of a state. we need to give that extraordinary effort a boost, a presidential statement. and the president should not do it alone, i would respectfully argue. he should invite chancellor merkle, sarkozy, cameron, medvedev to join with him in traveling to jerusalem, so the israeli people and the palestinian people understand that this is a worldwide effort.

in by the united nations secretary to join with them. i would like to close with one. . as we see the beginning of democracy break out in the middle east, and who knows where it will ultimately land, why not argue forcefully, ethically, and morally the we will place our confidence in the democratic process that is vibrant and thankfully exists in the state of israel, and to a certain degree in the west bank, and to a lesser degree in gaza. let the president go and make the presentation with his colleagues. hopefully, prime minister netanyahu and president abbas will take that opportunity to negotiate in earnest. if they don't, i do not think we

should fret and conclude that are a part was unsuccessful. what we then should do is essentially challenge the israeli public to have a debate. i am very confident that the israeli democracy, the democratic process, will ultimately lead them to the right choice. i think the same applies to the palestinian people. only history can tell. i may be right. i may be wrong. it seems to me that process, that strategy, has at a minimum of at least two advantages. for the first time, as an american, and will be comfortable with either success or failure, we have done the right thing. we will support outlined a just solution to complex problem. we do not impose it. we provide an opportunity to two

states or two people who will have a democratic opportunity to debate it. simultaneously, from a purely american perspective, it will reassert american leadership at a time when many question our strength and leadership to the ability. i believe we will actually reinvigorate the region if we do this in a strategic way. that would be my respectful suggestion. one point, in terms of what dr. perry said that is very important. he talked about the fact that turkey is no longer a strategic ally of the state of israel. we can argue whether that is the case or not. i will concede that. what i will not say is that it should always be the case. just the opposite. the events in egypt, the

unfolding events in the arab world, make a reconciliation between egypt and turkey even more urgent. the issues that divide israel and turkey are far less complex than the issue that divides any of the parties in the region. it is a matter of politics, a matter of compensation, the matter of a acknowledging what happened in the flotilla and reconciling both points of view. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that very thorough analysis. i should not be up ed called " -- i should note the op ed, " obama's peace process moment." we only have one microphone, so

i think we will bundle two questions at a time. if people could please state their name and affiliation, we have a gentleman in the back. can we handle two questions at a time? i think so. >> [unintelligible] a quick point, and then a question. my point is with regard to the veto at the u.n., which at first was very concerned about -- i was very concerned about. i think even taking [unintelligible] you explain later that any resolution clearly is going to involve israel getting some territory.

perhaps the u.n. could clarify -- that clarifying it is illegal would make it harder to get the palestinian leaders to accept that swap. in that context, it was a good decision. it seemed a little bit like you did not mention what the u.s. position should be on how moss hamas. what would you comment be about that? >> will take one more question from this gentleman in the front. >> i am the chairman of "yes we can middle east peace." we are an interfaith group in washington, d.c. this is exactly what we have

been pushing. however, there is a flip side to this. it is called congress. this is why i think your experience in congress is so important. if the majority of congress, particularly in majority of jewish congress and senators, do not support obama and the peace plan, along the lines of what you said, he is going to be undermined significantly, and i think it is a point to go nowhere. on the other hand, if they have a strong majority, i think it would send a strong signal to the israelis and the palestinians. what you think about the prospects of that happening? >> let me respond to the second question first, and then to the first question. as to the politics of an american initiative, this is not an arena in which congress will lead. as a person with the deepest

respect for the institution of the house of representatives and the senate, that is not a bad thing. what i think is very important in analyzing are the politics there for the president, if he wishes to make this step. i would argue it is dependent on a certain set of factors. members of congress need to understand that the president is not a% committed, but 110% committed. they need to understand the president is going to the mat on this, that he has put the prestige and power of his office on the line. that is also why i outline, not for show, the significant desirability of bringing world leaders with him. this should not be just an american initiative, but should be an initiative that is blessed by our european allies, by the united nations, by russia, if

possible. this could be one of those extraordinary moments where reason and stubbornness prevail. i have every confidence that while people in congress will always play politics, as they should -- this is a political environment. but their recent and rationality will prevail because the members of congress that are most sensitive about this issue here deepest about the american- israeli relationship and the security of the state of israel. they will conclude that this type of strategy and policy is advantageous for america, israel, and the region as a whole. the american public i think will play a role. i have confidence, based on a variety of different polls, that at least 2/3 of the american

public will be highly energized by such an effort. there will be skepticism. there will be questions. rightfully so, but public opinion in america and israel will ultimately support the effort. what about hamas? that is an important question. i would argue this from two different perspectives. foremost, israeli concessions in the context of security position need to be contingent upon the performance. the israelis are not going to evaluate 70,000 people in 15 days. the evacuation from the sinai, when the egyptian peace treaty took place, took a considerable time. the palestinians are going to have an enormous burden. before any peace treaty were to become effective, there needs to be a referendum on both sides,

the israeli side and the palestinian side. it should not become effective until both sides pass it. palestinians need to have a debate as well. president abbas and his group are confident that if there were to put such an initiative to the people that the likelihood of it passing -- the importance of seeing more of leader show up in ramallah is significant. that is how you beat hamas. nobody should be naive. part of the security understanding the money to be negotiated is how you disarm or in some other fashion coopt hamas from causing the problem that it would appear to be likely to cause. some would 0.2 statements -- would point to statements hamas has made that they would abide

by a democrat the decision by the palestinian people. i do not trust hamas, but it would not be correct to not point that out. >> study think the israeli public and the israeli government would respond to what he is proposing a obama do? what are your thoughts about hamas? >> the majority would not support it, i think, but i can give another argument for why it we should follow your idea, which i think is very positive. if you look back to the history of israel and its relationships with the arab state, as a student of the middle east, you see that whenever the israelis and arabs negotiated directly, they could not solve the problem because of these basic assumptions that the conflict is

a zero sum game. if i lose, you win. you need a third partner to change the structure of the game. look at the israeli-egypt agreement. the issue was peace for territory. the egyptians lost piece. it was something i had to give to the israelis. but they gain territory. the israelis got peace, but lost territory. but it was beyond that, because the u.s. was a partner. both parties could gain more than these things. both egypt and israel got a huge amount of military and economic support, $3 billion for 30 years. a third party -- and it only can be the united states, and not europe -- can change the conflict to a non-zero sum game.

without american support, it will not be achieved. >> just to follow, i have a feeling we may be saying the same thing differently. public opinion polls in israel for the past decade -- it did not matter whether we were in the midst of an intifada or an economic boom in israel. the results are the same. 2/3 will support a peace initiative based on what i outlined. but more than 2/3 do not have any confidence will happen. if you got past that reservation, if the israeli people saw an american president flanked by world leaders and got an impression that maybe this was different than all the other efforts that have tried and failed before, i think you would not only see that 2/3 support.

it would be greater, as confidence i believe the same would be the case for the palestinian area. >> nobody over here? >> the woman over here? >> hello. i am a graduate student at american university. i'm originally from israel. i am wondering. you presented these two different scenarios in which israel closes off and the other with beautiful era of peace. considering that the la 10tter not mixture -- the latter will not materialize, walkaway do to prevent the deterioration? what can we do to prevent the

deterioration? >> in terms of both notions of 07 game and the formulation that robert wexler gave, i think you set up a path forward that speaks to the american political situations and the iranian situation. -- israeli situation. there are other aspects of politics that are waiting. i'll be easier with a veto if somebody else had stood up and wanted to go in that direction. there is a level there out negotiations. there is a special role in terms of american politics for the settlement issue which has been allowed to fester within

the israeli dynamic and within the u.s. political dynamic. this is going to be a hard nut to crack. if what you say in terms of the outline of agreement, it would be great. getting there is a great political level. there is the notion of palestinian politics before -- between hamas and others. these will politically come into play. >> @ the house preventing it -- the house prevent barataria syntax -- preventing deterioration. this is not new.

they have positive solutions but were seen to pass on security issues. the only solution is the right wing could say about the problem is really the perception of the iron wall. we have to be strong. one day, the arabs realize we are here. they will not be able to push us to the sea. how many more years to have to wait for that? i am afraid we do not have a good answer from the right-wing camp. the fact that a broker is a total surprise. it was a total surprise. the perception that we are strong enough and that they cannot revolt failed overnight.

i am afraid that this will happen again in the near future serious political steps are taken. >> to mr. stern's point with respect to the veto, i think you rightfully and correctly point out the danger of issuing the veto and following it up with nothing meaningful. will follow with a bold american initiative. it would be remiss to point out

with respect to the settlement issue. i understand the palestinian perspective. in fairness, some of the points he makes are actually ballot. settlements have been going on for decades. the left-wing government has been oftentimes the initiators of the settlements. the prime minister has been there. he has indoctrinated the plan. he may have signed orders. the notion that all this right wing israelis showed up and there is a problem, no. left-wing has been a part of it. in fairness, the settlements

never prevented the palestinians from negotiating before. that is true. what is also a valid point is that israel did provide a fairly significant settlement freeze for 10 months. hillary clinton correctly went and pointed out how it was unprecedented that the settlement freeze was mocked in the arab world for the better part of eight months. when it expired, that was the key to continuing. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot market has been insignificant and then 10 months later say we cannot continue unless he continued that irrelevant settlement. i think there are inequities on both sides. >> the gentleman in the navy?

>> a bold american initiative can only be taken by an american president and not by anybody else. it has been over a decade since any president has taken a bold american initiative. obama is the administration. how is it that bush and obama have done relatively good beyond rhetoric? >> hello. i am a writer and editor about these sorts of issues. this is mostly for the congressman. i would like the gentleman to respond. the outline of the presidential

plane -- plan that you put forward, most have been common to behind-the-scenes discussions and think tank recommendations for many years. they reveal that the palestinians were talking about such concessions. what are you saying the difference is that the palestinians have not yardy publicly rejected well privately conceding that it might be necessary?

i think the issue that most americans all be concerned about would be the rising price of oil. that will be their consent. i do not know they have political capital to use on this. >> let me start with a hammock. i think you are correct to point out the impact that the palestinian papers had. he asked a question, what is change. the change is that it would be an american position. it has never been an american position advanced by the american president. think tanks have talked about it.

this be what is different. if they did it, this would be a remarkable thing. there is a whole host of practices that we can outlined that will dramatically impact barack obama's and electability in two years far more than the

israel is/palestinian incumbent. the price of oil i grant you is more important in terms of the political impact. in fairness to president bush, all kinds are not created equal. president bush came to office having watched president clinton makes a heroic effort and voted himself to a degree that no american president has. he essentially saw failure. president bush i think

legitimately and rationally concluded that i'm not going to continue that fiasco. i have other things to do. it was not a tomboy -- com. the time. -- it is not a calm period of time. every saturday night, there is a bombing in jerusalem or somewhere in israel. it is not apples to apples. president bush was presented with an entirely different equation and 9/11 took our focus and change our perspective. i do not think it is fair to issue a great deal of criticism relative to president bush saying he had all this opportunity to make wonderful initiatives. it is a different world in different circumstances. as for president obama, i would differ. there has been little or no success.

unlike president bush, he said he would focus on this. i would argue that we did not pursue a particularly successful strategy in terms of of this. they can make a concession under islam as an opening act. it is unrealistic. why would he do that? that is what you do at the very end after you understood all the issues. for an american president to pursue a strategy, after the arab allies cannot do steps of

normalization. they tried sets a normalization. you need to step up to the plate and have a policy for east jerusalem that would be very different. i do not think this was particularly wise to do. >> being a veteran of the peace negotiations, i developed a different take on the issue of pbeach peace plans. we know what the solution would be. most israelis and palestinians know what it would be. it started with the clinton parliament and went on to the other agreement and then to the geneva cause.

we know how it is going to happen. there are slight differences here and there. what we lack is a will of both sides. only will will make it. this is not a issue. until now, there is no strong will and bald. now we are in a new situation. -- there is no strong will and bald. -- there is no strong will invovled. now we are in a new situation. the price is much higher than it used to be. that could change the perspective. >> we are out of time.

with all you have accomplished, you do not seem like the time to throw yourself under a bus. what you are saying is basically challenging the president of the united states to move out. you providing the will that he just talked about. i cannot imagine giving our political experience that you throw this out without having taken at some soundings. i did that are uc desperate times require desperate acts. i appreciated. >> maybe you are the bone. >> i do not want to give any incorrect impressions. my statement is mine.

i think there are a number of far more talented people than i that are coming to a similar perspective, concern that the lack of initiative will create a price that is untenable. while conventional wisdom would suggest otherwise, a significant bold stroke by the president may in fact be what is required. i believe there are very capable people in the demonstration that are considering these elements. for my role, and i am going to take this show where ever i can take it and try to persuade people i respect greatly. i am confident that secretary clinton and her team are

extremely capable of analyzing both the cost and the benefits of each one of the strategies. i think they are reevaluating as they should do. >> i think we have a journalist over here. she will bring you the microphone. all done it, sir. in the microphone. >> i never have trouble being heard. did you exclude some of the traveling? i notice you said france and germany. i want to fix the idea of how many people would be there. i just want to challenge my sons over there. he gave up quite more than an inch. israel is already there.

we will get up an enormous amount. >> i did include great britain and russia in the peace that i wrote. -- piece that i wrote. it would be wise to invite them and hope they would participate, shaure. >> i met whether they would have 1.5 or 2.7. the issue is the principal. it is less important than whether there will be an agreement. it is the principal. when you talk to people who are

involved in the negotiations, they more or less disagree. we will take it as light as we can. they will continue to say positively. we now they can understand it. they are waiting to get it up. this is the reason why they resign. it shows that they understood the point. we know what it says for the public. it is up to the people that are involved in negotiations. they know what the solution would be. >> thank you. >> i agree in part. i do however think in fairness the security requirements of the state of israel have been dramatically changed in the past several weeks.

the events that are unfolding has created an entirely different dynamic. it does not been negotiated before. the principals may be similar. there are parts of this resolution that are yet to be determined. >> take for example joan rivers. they are not sure they are stuck there. >> [unintelligible] we have membership forms outside. thank you for joining us. thank you to our fine panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> and about 20 minutes, more about the political unrest in the middle east. president obama commented on the violence in libya, calling the blood shed "outrageous and unacceptable." hillary clinton was sent to geneva on monday for international talks aimed at stopping the violence. at the u.n., ban ki-moon is calling for unity in the international community to insure a peaceful transition in libya. you can see the president and the u.s. secretary general here

on c-span at 7:40 a.m. -- 7:40 p.m. eastern. >> it is important that the house moved to avoid a government shutdown. >> we have a responsibility to make sure there is a government shutdown. >> with concerned about a possible government shutdown, see what happened when the government did shutdown in 1995 online at the c-span video library with every program since 1987. search, what, cook, and a share. -- search, watch, and share. programs on the civil war including the use of espionage in its effect on the war's outcome and the role of women providing care for soldiers and maintaining the home front. we will get a behind the scenes look at the china trip. the american history television on c-span 3. for the complete schedule, good to c-span.org/history.

>> the conference of mayors is holding a working opportunity summit this weekend. a meeting focus on how it has affected the work force and what america is suing to helping low- income populations. vincente great talks about the budget and efforts to sell johnson the district -- to sell jobs in the district. this is 15 minutes. >> i am delighted to be here with all of you and talk about efforts that we are involved in here in the district of columbia. we have some very unique challenges in the district of columbia. our budget woes are probably similar to other cities. we just went through a time where we close the gap. relative to our budget, that is quite substantial.

we have a $5.2 billion local budget. that is a substantial sum of money. we did it in a variety of ways. for the first time in many years, we now have a workforce environment. there will be three others. independence day, day, has a significance to us as we challenge deeply in terms of having independent that everybody else in america enjoyed. about one hand, it'll be $20 million. they are engaged in minimal disruption in government operations.

i am pleased with the support we got from our forces, especially organized labor. they recognize that we are in a very difficult situation where we continue to be challenged. we are facing a problem this fiscal year of nearly 5 $1 million, which is a huge challenge for us given that we have already done it. and do not know that i like the symbolism. it is what it is. in terms of fiscal year 12, it begins the october 1. we are trying to determine what measures we will take. it could be a substantial amount of cuts. we could be looking at trying to generate additional resources as well in order to close that gap. i say that to say that as you are in the nation's capital, i

urge you to spend every dime you have. [laughter] , often. go out as much as you possibly can. we take credit card. we take checks. we would. ious -- we would even take iou's at this point. this is a nice segue to talking about education. i cannot agree with him more in terms of the emphasis on education. we have been involved in a substantial education reform effort here in the district of columbia. old simile, it will contribute to a more competitive work force. right now, our unemployment level is around 9.6%. that is substantial. when you start to look at the disparities across the city, we

are truly like charles dickens. when you go through the east, the unemployment line is remarkably high. the unemployment i heard this 19% pa. there are extremely high levels of unemployment. many go to 8, it is unbelievably high. the unemployment level is over 30%. that is among the people who are continuing to look. the press rarely given another 10 or 12%. -- the apparently given other 10% or 12%. one of our shredded cheese is to focus. i ran a platform of education

efforts. we had some things even before i was elected to this position. i was a share of the council for four years prior to that. one thing i am most proud of is what he mentioned in his introduction. that is an emphasis on pre- kindergarten services. i believe that kind of early intervention will have a profound impact on the teacher readiness of our young people and our young adults to be able to participate in the workforce. we indicated that we were going to aspire to universality.

i do not know, but i do not believe there is another city at this stage that has reached a point where we can say that we have every three and four year old. education reform actually began in 1997 in the district of columbia. i do not know the extent to which you have a charter schools, but for us is as created a competitive environment and education that will move down tremendously to the benefit of our children and their families. to give you a context, we have about 74,000 children in public education in the district of columbia. 40% of our children are in charter schools. we have about 28,000 children in

charter schools. 52 charter schools and at 93 campuses. frankly, one of the things that is done is our public education problems more competitive. we have seen a decline in decades. we had 145,000 children in traditional public education in the district of columbia. by the end of the last school year, we were down to 44,000. for the first time, the enrollment data will be released in a week. for the first time in decades, we will actually show growth in our public school enrollment. it will go up probably 2000 to 3000 children. we think it is a good sign in terms of the emphasis on

education and the outcomes for our children. in terms of a continuum, and think i was involved in -- we have no community college. every jurisdiction in america as a community college. we have now created one. it has been phenomenally possible. we have four campuses in the city. this is the continuing education and work force aspect that has relevance for our city as well. frankly, it has helped us to more crisply define the admission of our state university of the district of columbia. they have tried to be all things to all people. it is focused on becoming a first class, for your flagship

institution. the functions they would perform in now have all gone over to the community college. we believe first and foremost that the emphasis on education is ultimately going to get this out as some of the problems that we had. for us, it is not just an absence of jobs. in some areas, it is the opposite. we had 25,000 new jobs created in the district of columbia last year. the problem is that the skill sets required for the jobs are a mismatch with the skill sets that the people who do not have jobs brain. the challenge that we have is being able to close that gap. they have joined us and our administration. he will have irresponsibility in terms of economic development --

will have a responsibility in terms of economic development. one sign will be how we expand the economy in the city. we have been defined as a government town. that is true. that will never change. there are probably north of 200,000 jobs in the government. one of the problems that we have in this city is that 70% of the job are flooded by people who do not live in the district of columbia. this is revenue that is generated in the city every day but blocks out every day. i am realistic. able to taxbe that appeared to be work hard to try to increase the percentage of people who live in the city who actually occupied the jobs. our first responders, we have only 19% of our police officers

who actually live in the district of columbia. and even smaller percentage of firefighters. about 12% of our firefighters actually live in the district of columbia. we are stepping up an emphasis on academy. a part of that will be in our high schools as part of a technical education program so captured the attention of these kids while they are still in high school and health plan help them develop careers as first responders. we are trying to leverage our relationship with the federal government. the biggest construction pride date in the near-term in this nation would be the location of homeland security to hospital campuses. of the next six years, there will be 22,000 construction jobs that will be associated with

that. there will be 14,000 permanent jobs that will either be located or relocated to the campus. the opportunity that transcends that is what we have in terms of addressing the problems of what i mentioned before. it is the highest in the district of columbia. what we are working to do is try to integrate the homeland security with the community so there are amenities and businesses that are developed in the community. one of the worst things that happened is that we wound up with an enclave for people go into the campus each day, go out and have no relationship over the community. we have so few amenities in either of these that we hope they will be able to do that and be able to generate quality jobs.

we just doubled in number of sit-down restaurants that we had in toward a seven -- in ward 7, from one to two. we are focusing a lot of our attention on creating new modalities of transportation. they have a fabulous street system. we are committed to developing a streetcar system in the city. it will take to fully mature the system that we envision. it will take 20 years. we are starting now. we laid the first tracks for the first line. it to be a 37 mile system. we also know from experience

that it has a major impact on economic development. he probably been through the pearl district. it was challenging. it is a thriving and economic area at this stage. there are all kinds of amenities. a couple other things i will mention. we are looking to grow tourism as an industry here. it is a substantial part of our economy -- economy. rows of focusing on green jobs. -- it is also focusing on green jobs. we presented to them a sustainable energy utility. that will allow us to begin to develop an increasing number of green jobs in the city.

it will bring additional companies. there is a vermont firm -- the subcontractors are all district based firms. the irresponsibility is over at the district based firms. the final thing that i mentioned is that we have an opportunity to the city. it has changed substantially in the last few years. we are looking to see an

opportunity to see the district columbia increasingly as a step. what does that mean? the insurance industry is required to maintain high levels of reserves, hundreds of millions of dollars. many of the reserves are maintained. the reality is it is an offshore location. there is an offshore location because of the advantages that accrue to the companies. we are looking to create the same advantage in the district of columbia so we can become competitive to be able to attract those reserves. it to occupy office space in the city. it will create jobs that currently do not exist. we are very challenge.

we are challenged by virtue of being 600,000 people better disenfranchised. with that they $0.6 billion in federal taxes each year -- we have had s $3.6 billion in federal taxes each year. on the other hand, we also have a responsibility to build different futures for our children and a more robust work force to the city. these are some of the efforts we are focused on. we will be focused on it. thank you for having me today. i look forward to working with all of you around the table. we are tackling the same challenges from one city to another. >> we all have a responsibility to make sure there is no

government shut down. >> with concerned about a possible government shut down, see what was said when the federal government did shutdown in 1995 online at the san -- r -- online at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. this weekend on "american history tv" programs on the civil war including the use of espionage between the north and the south and the effect on the outcome and unemployment providing care for soldiers. we will get a behind the scenes look at the 1975 china trip by president ford. for the complete we can schedule, go c-span.org tune/history. >> the associated press said that the scope of muammar gadaff's was whittled away as towns are closer to the capital.

international momentum is ending the violence against demonstrators. general ban ki-moon spoken new york today. -- spoke in new york today. >> i come from los angeles. something shut my schedules. we are watching developments in bahrain, yemen and other countries. we are watching with concern. the situation is unpredictable and could grow in any number of directions, many of them dangerous. at this critical juncture, it is

imperative that the international community to maintain unity and act together to ensure a prompt and peaceful transition. they advise this. they picked it up yesterday. we make sure the scale do not violate international humanitarian and human right. those responsible must be held accountable in course of law. ladies and gentlemen, in the middle east today, we see people -- especially young people -- are pushing the frontiers of freedom. yesterday, the city council --

they each sent a strong and unequivocal message is, no violence and respect for human right. the world has spoken with one voice. i condemn my advisers of the broader situation. a few moments ago, i also confronted the general of state. tomorrow i will dispatch to egypt.

as always, it is of the highway one of the human rights. this weekend, i just spoke to a senior official. as you know, human rights has already dispatched an attempt assassination. we will convene a special session on friday including the possible establishment of an international inquiry into the events and libya. we remain concerned about the humanitarian situation. the commissioner for refugees and have -- and has appealed to

those in north africa and not to return people fleeing the country. let me conclude by repeating what i have said almost daily. attacks against civilians are a serious violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. those responsible for brutally shedding the blood of innocents must be punished. thank you very much. >>that would be some sort of pressure considering the un does not know what to do.

>> i understand it that countries and the international community are considering a broader range of options. >> you tried the power of persuasion. a long phone call one not be himself. he came out on tuesday with a very aggressive speech. many people have condemned it around the world. what else is and ammunition that you had besides breeding in calling for stopping the violence? what can be done that will force the libyan regime to listen? >> as far as i am concerned, that is why. i have strongly condemned again and again on what he has done.

it is unacceptable. after such extensive discussions, and after such a strong urge, he has not heeded the to that. they are considering a broad range of options. >> would you support of the security council to move in a stronger way? the killing is continuing in libya. in a stronger way to force his hand through sanctions and money than sources? would you support such measures? >> i leave it city council that the course of action.

they have taken very strong actions yesterday. i am sure the city council in the international community will consider this one. >> there are no-fly zones. after three hours of negotiation, the security council came out with a statement. you can do more. why do think they will reconsider? >> as i said in my previous interview with journalists, the specific measures like the no- fly zones and some other specific sanctions including specific committees, the ones on

the security council need to determine the situation. they a developing toward the base rate -- toward the very dangerous situation. we can very carefully monitor the situation. they can protect the human rights in the civilian population. the council is meeting on this special session. and let us watch how the international community is doing and applaud them. that is why i'm dispatching my senior advisers for a very effective consultation.

>> but you planning to establish our own investigation into the situation as you did in the case -- as you did in a previous case? and of the council was considering that yesterday. would you investigate? >> i will have to wait until the human rights council will discuss it. i understand that establishing the investigation into the commission is on the agenda. i will see it after all these discussions. >> we dubieties -- [unintelligible] >> all these issues will have to see the development of the situation.

they have spoken strongly. i have gained all these things. it is to the people of libya for our future. they continuously and closely follow the situation. i will have an opportunity. thank you. >> at the white house, president obama also spoke about libya today after a meeting with secretary of state hillary clinton.

>> secretary clinton and i just concluded a meeting that focused on the ongoing situation in libya. in the last few days, by security team has been working around the clock to monitor the situation and coordinate with our international presence about the way forward. first, we are doing everything we can to protect american citizens. that is my highest priority. in libya, we urge our people to leave the country and the state department is assisting those in need of support. meanwhile, i think all americans should give thanks to the network were due to the work that is being done by the men and women serving -- i think all americans should give thanks to the men and women serving. they are out this time of unrest and the people across the region, the united states has

maintained a set of core principles which guide us. the principles apply to the situation in libya. as i said last week, we strongly condemn the use of violence in libya. the american people extend our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all who have been killed and injured. the suffering and bloodshed is the outrageous. it is unacceptable. so are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters and punish the people of libya. these actions violate international norms. this violence must stop. the united states also strongly supports universal rights of their libyan people. that includes the right of peaceful assembly, free-speech, and the ability of the libyan people to determine their own

destiny. these are human rights. they are not negotiable. they must be respected in every country. it cannot be denied through violence or suppression. in a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and people of the world speak with one voice. that has been our focus. yesterday, a security council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in libya, support accountability for perpetrators, and stands with the libyan people. the same message has been delivered by the european union, the arab league, and the african union, the organization of islamic conference, and many individual nations. north and south, east and west, voices are being raised together to oppose suppression and support the right of the libyan people. i've also asked my

administration to prepare a full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. this includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners or those that will carry out the multilateral institutions. but all governments, the libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need and respect the rights of its people. it must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities and face the cost of continued violations of human rights. it is not simply a concern of the united states. the entire world is watching. we will coordinate our assistance and accountability measures with the international community. secretary clinton and i have asked bill burns to make several stops in europe and the region to intensify our concertation

with our allies and partners. i've asked secretary clinton to travel to geneva on monday where foreign ministers will convene for a session of the human rights council. they will hold consultations with their counterparts. we will ensure that we join with the international community to speak with one voice to the government and the people of libya. even as we are focused on the urgent situation, our efforts continue to address the events taking place elsewhere including how the international community can most effectively support the peaceful transition to democracy and both tunisia and egypt. let me be clear. the change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. the change is not represent the united states or form power. it represents the aspirations of

people who were seeking a better life. as one libyan said, we just want to be able to live like human beings. we just want to be able to live like human beings. it is the most basic of aspirations that is driving this change. throughout this time of transition, the united states will continue to stand up for freedom, justice, and the dignity of all people. thank you very much. >> in a few