they are >> we are also witnessing the danger posed by a change of the new order. we have seen bloodshed in libya and the refugees from tunisia, the recent passage through the suez canal of iranian warships and so on. many dangers presented by this front. there are many countries in the middle east to are worried about the future, but no one country feels this more acutely than israel which fears losing its primary allies in the east and west. there are many who believe israel must concur down and guard the status quo, and lane

not seed any land but there are others who believe just the of seven. -- believe just the opposite. it is during this time of change that israel should reach out and one way to do so would be to begin to try to pursue a peace treaty with palestinians. the recent prime minister was quoted as saying there is a danger this could mean it's and it -- mislead some for hope and peace. my advice is don't wait, move, lead and make history. there will not be a better time. is that the case or is that too late? with the peace process virtually dead, we are very fortunate to have with us two men who know the israeli-palestinian crisis

inside and out. they are going to bring their own very unique views about the challenges and opportunities posed by the crisis at this unique time. the hon. robert wexler is the president of the s, daniel abraham center for the middle east. he represented florida's 19th district before retiring. he was named one of the 50 most effective legislators in congress. in 2008 he was named to the list of one of the most influential leaders of the american jewish community. he served as an adviser on middle eastern issue to president obama during his middle eastern campaign. dr. yoram peri is the director of the new institute for israel studies at the university of maryland. he is also a former political

adviser to the late israeli prime minister and former head of the institute for politics and society at televisa university. -- at tel aviv university. we will begin with dr. yoram peri. thank you. >> 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 status of our discussion is to talk about israel but it would be a mistake not to put it in the wider framework. there are very many questions. at least four questions that have been opened. the future of israel within the middle east depends on these questions.

for four millennia egypt was the leading power in the region and [unintelligible] terrorism and even to modern cinema and the peace with israel. the question is what half will egypt take? will they continue to be a leader or withdraw into domestic issues and more introspective approach? that is a question we cannot answer. what will be the developments in the region at all. what will be the path of the process of democratization? are we seeing something similar to the fourth wave of democracy or is it more like the league of

nations which did not have any immediate effect. what is the compatibility between democracy? a very interesting question. there are so many interesting articles that will be published. many of you have read most of them. the tension in between islam between the two major perceptions is jihad. each one of them we can discuss at length. this is the future of the egyptian military. each one of these questions will have an impact on a smaller demand we are discussing that is israel and the arabs.

i want to present to you the perspective of the israelis that developed in the last month. like any other case you have at least two positions. this one is very limited and very small. the other one which represents the public opinion and positions of the political class. i will start with explaining them. there is a clear understanding that israel has been dramatically affected with the developments. not only that it lost 32 years ago a strict magic ally -- strategic ally, it will probably lose egypt. and other questions what will happen to other countries in the

region particularly when uc a decline and a more critical approach taken by the european states. the government tried to build new coalitions, new europe instead of western europe, via instead of other [unintelligible] but that will not suffice. so you see the analysis is deterioration. already in the last three weeks use of very many states bilateral between israel and egypt that shows unpleasant tasks in the future.

the many palestinian prisoners ran away from jails in egypt and came back to gaza. there was a bomb in the gas pipe between israel and egypt. the flow of gas did not continue. many took over some of the police stations and killed more than 25 policeman and there was a danger they will continue to support terrorist organizations against israel. gaza is more open than it used to be. then you have the positions of the muslim brotherhood on which so many people wrote. you have different voices. you have the moderate voice which was presented by the

article published three days ago. he will present one of the two faces of the muslim brotherhood. you have other positions and other ideas, including demands to put the peace process with israel -- to make it linked to the palestinian issue. the issue of linkage was a very fundamental issue that was discussed during the negotiations. we have the former ambassador who remembers very well the issue of linkage. suddenly it is again an issue. and you have very many other expressions within cairo. not all of them were monitored

here but with israel which calls for even more harsh positions. he came back after many years of exile and spoke about the liberation and the victory over israel. he supported suicidal detection in the best and said the holocaust was a deserved punishment. even some of the moderate arab parties you hear different voices. that is perceived by the israelis -- which i will explain in a minute. then you have for the first time since 1979 the i iranian warships crossing the suez canal. legally they are entitled to do so because of the agreement of

1888. it should be opened by for the last 30 years they did not. all of that is seen as a beginning of a change of positions. the last one happened two days ago at the un where israel fought because of the disappearance of president mubarak, egypt did not play a more moderate tone in trying to push the palestinian position to become more moderate.

>> they had a very negative stereotype of the arabs. these are not shades of position. there is one position that is anti israel. that began to change in the 1990's. within the last month you can see expressions were only one sort of error of. the prime minister used to say the seas is the same sea and the arabs is the same kind of arab. mainly there is only one kind of error of. there were many cinemas showing this. this came again and went to see- so many articles printed. second, the traditional

perception of the policy which is the worst-case scenario got very strong. it declined a little in the last 20 years and again it came back. on the alex said he wanted to express his policy attitude towards any democracy so he said we wish egypt the best but we have to be prepared for the worst. that is a very typical way of thinking by most israelis. you can understand a nation where one-third of its children disappeared in the gas chambers has that approach. third, something i see-is a change of the traditional perception confirming the question what is the source of the israeli conflict?

the political class of israel believed the source of the conflict is the un readiness of the arab people to recognize the existence of the jewish faith in the middle east. he was the man who would express this change. he realized the core of the problem between israel and arab states is the israeli- palestinian issue. in the last month we referred to the previous recession. now everybody is talking about the danger of israel in the middle east. the problem is not the palestinian, it is the unwillingness of the arabs to accept israel.

fourth is the descendant of the religious element. the conflict is a multi layer conflict. you have tension between western civilization and eastern civilization. you have a conflict between two national liberation movements. both leaders were capable in the past to contain the religious element. in the last several years that element that dramatically pushed and became much stronger. and the israeli knows there are three words in arabic, slaughter the jews. my father used to tell me when he lived in jerusalem.

in a 30's he had palestinians shouting this. slaughter and jews, not the israelis. it is the religious element. israelis were used to it for so many years and it declined with the beginning of the peace process. now it came again. uc four very negative changes in the perceptions of the israelis confirming the conflict. therefore what is the solution? the majority school would say security comes to for everything else. so israel should look at their military dimension more than any other dimension. israel should strengthen its

military position. israel should put more of layers on the wall separating the arab world or more barbwire, go back to the iron will perception or using a modern term the defense minister says, israel is in the jungle. you have to be more ready for that. that is the majority if you read the think tanks. many of the journalists you talk to -- this is what you hear. the prime minister asked his cabinet ministers -- ministers not to talk too much about the issue. this is what you read in the newspapers. this is the majority. the other school of thought is the opposite.

the fact that when the revolution started in tahrir square, israel was not the issue. it was a domestic egyptian problem. however, if things will continue, it won't take much that the israeli-palestinian issue will become the focus of the issue in the middle east. therefore the interest of israel is to diffuse that. the only way to do it is to take a very brave step already three weeks ago to take a very brave stepped.

if you read the minutes of the 36 meetings that the prime minister had with the president, they work very close. it should be at the top level of the palestinian authority and negotiate this few issues that are still open. it is through that we see some change in the palestinian position. it seems that the palestinian position has become more entrenched lately because of the feeling that time works for them. that the public opinion moves towards their position. i think both the palestinians and israelis will lose from

this. they cannot continue. it will have an horrific impact. therefore israel should negotiate with palestinians. two other points should be mentioned. israel and syria and the arab league initiative. they were very close to an agreement. 10 years ago the chief of staff of israel told me -- i forgot his first name because israeli generals are always called by their nicknames. he told me we need three days to conclude an agreement. the israeli military since then continue to advocate an agreement between israel and syria.

you need only the political will by the prime minister to do that. if you have a military that supports an agreement and security issues were resolved it can be done. this is something else that should be done. the israelis are not happy with the u.s. administration on this issue because of the arab initiative. once they realize the entire arab world will be willing to support an agreement, it will change many of the positions of the israelis. either of the three should stop as soon as possible because the alternatives is not very positive. you see very few who advocate that. the president does not have a

strong political position. you hear some slight pronouncements from the chief military -- the head of the military intelligence units and even the chief of staff when he left last week. he said israel should work hard to take out one of the state's from the anti israeli exit. i guess he meant syria. but if you ask me whether this will happen, i will give it one against 10. because of many reasons. i believe netanyahu basically will accept the analysis ice -- i explained to you earlier.

he has a serious pressure from the more extremist parties. third, we are getting closer to the election year. after the second year they will start with the elections. we still had five months this year to pursue negotiations. we still have a very short period of time. even within his coalition the moderate forces like the defense minister became weaker, so i don't see a future move by the political class in egypt -- in israel to the second school of thought. thank you. [applause]

>> 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 it actually represents more of a wisdom of fantasy rather than of reality. what is it i am referring to? whether here in washington or jerusalem, the conventional wisdom as we speak today is essentially -- the winds of change have overcome the middle east. arab nations have enormous domestic problems. the turmoil has created the necessity and urgency for arab

leaders to focus on their own domestic issues. the notion of an appetite for an israeli-palestinian negotiation being what they are going to wake up in the morning and think about first is just utterly nonsense. in israel, as the doctor has correctly pointed out, israel has seen its bedrock relationship with egypt being twisted upside-down. what is happening in sinai in terms of lack of rule of law is terribly it unsettling to the israelis. the israelis are cautiously

hopeful, but rightfully so wonder what will be in jordan three months from now and 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 as doubled down and although he would not put it in these terms he is going to build a fortress israel. who could blame him and the israeli people for not having that desire? having more recently lived through the -- now witnessing turmoil that is definitely unsettling to israelis, who would engage in some bold initiatives that causes the

israeli public to have to pay a significant price. -these circumstances i could not imagine the political commercial he would run to support such a position. in ramallah, president abbas still reeling from disastrous political consequences having seceded to president obama's request not to pursue the cold stone report with the vigor he might have otherwise done and a whole host of different political affairs such as the exposure in terms of the leaking of information. go to the un and engaged in an international campaign to

delegitimize israel. go to the u. n with creative resolutions that attempt to litter american language and put the u.s. in a different -- difficult position. those are much more comfortable positions. i will talk about ourselves. unemployment is still not resolved. americans are most concerned about our own fiscal conditions. we still have to create millions of jobs in america. the president's wants to talk about an economic message in ohio and wisconsin. he is not necessarily interested in putting a step one in terms of the american public not because he does not understand

the seriousness about it and the calamity that could result, but he is tied for two years. he has gone to battle on both sides of the issue. he has not seen a great deal of success. who could blame the american administration after the november elections for reaching the conclusion we need to take care of america? that is the conventional wisdom. in most normal times i might accept it. but if there is one message, 1 message to be extracted from the events in egypt, it is this. if anyone rationally believes that the israeli-palestinian conflict, events-the west bank

and gaza will sit idly by while other leaders in a comnfined way deal with their set of priorities, we are sadly mistaken. unlike the events in libya or iran where america has limited leverage, it is fair to conclude one of the few places in this neighborhood in which america still thankfully contains a significant amount of leverage, along with our israeli allies, and the moderate arabs, this is the arena in which america, israel and moderate arabs still have a great deal of leverage.

although the conventional wisdom has its obvious merits, we have two choices. neither one is a preferred joyce, but these are our choices. we follow the path of conventional wisdom. it may be one week from now or six months from now or 12 months from now, but we will wake up and the headline will not be egypt, it will not be iran, it will be the west bank or gaza. and some catastrophic event has occurred and the israelis will exercise their right of self- defense. 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 or that i am just totally wrong.

or we can take a different path that requires -- if any of us are waiting for prime minister netanyahu or president abbas to make a bold move, i wish that were the case. i wish both gentlemen concluded it was in their self interest to do so but i am afraid neither gentleman will do so. the decision rests here in washington. it rests with the obama administration. i would suggest the administration in its reconfiguration of american choices conclude that now is the best time -- i would not have argued this three months ago that the american president should put out parameters upon which the israeli-palestinian conflict should be negotiated,

but i would argue in the near term that is what the american administration should do. let me go back to last week. there were a number of esteemed diplomats in this town and very well-meaning groups that urged the obama administration to veto the legislation before the un security council condemning israeli settlement activity. i think that urging was misdirected. it was not strategic. the obama administration did exactly the correct thing in issuing its veto. everyone understands it causes america short-term damage in the arab world. the president is trying to get out in front of arab public opinion and hear it is. we stand alone against the world in condemning the

resolution that attempted to mirror american politics. why is it it was correct for the obama administration to veto them? i would argue this, regardless of what one's position is, settlements are but one issue in terms of the conflict. just as it would not be appropriate to bring the settlement issue to the security council, nor would it be appropriate to bring the right of return to the security council. nor would it be appropriate to have the security council say israel is a jewish state and say nothing more. nor would it be appropriate to just handle the issue of jerusalem. there are many interlocking parts of the israeli-palestinian

conflict. i would suggest to highlight one is not a proper course of action. if we were too allow that resolution to pass, what does it say to palestinians? why bother negotiate? just continue with the un security council. for those of us who believe the palestinian people deserve a state of their own to live in dignity and have their own economy, it is almost the rational to believe this strategy and planning the security council will get them to their goals. what needs to follow that the tell is an american initiative -- i would suggest the president take this opportunity to visit

jerusalem and ramallah and outline a set of principles that state the following -- two states for two people. israel will be the homeland of jewish people. palestine will be the homeland of the palestinian people. the borders will reflect the 1967 borders with subsequent developments. there have been a variety of different negotiations. president abbas has gone high in terms of the exchanges. prime minister olmert went as low as 6%. we can do the basic math. if olmert was at 6, it is fair to sassume t -- assume the conclusion would be 4% in terms

of the land swap. what it means is something important. it is quite apparent from the israeli negotiations strategy in the past that the issue of settlements and territory is less about security and more about how many jewish israelis will have to be moved. it is an entirely rational policy of the israeli government to want to have to move as few jewish israelis as possible. the magic of 4% is 80% of the jewish israelis who find themselves on the eastern or outside of the 1967 line will find themselves with and recognized borders of israel.

there needs to be the most explicit security arrangements between the u.s. and israel to make them comfortable with what would be in about to occur. there are anti-missile defenses being tested as we speak. there needs to be an international force, whether it be in nato or what ever the compilation will be with a significant american role. that needs to be coupled with prime minister netanyahu's demand that there be an israeli command. that needs to be married together by able diplomats so the israelis had enough presence but not so much that president? abbas feels his -- not so much

--t president abbas else's going a bit further, the jewish neighborhood of jerusalem will need to be under israeli sovereignty. and a special arrangement made for the holy sites in the holy part of this city. we can go further in terms of the right of return. it will be to the state of palestine. this is tedious states for two people. 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 nauseam, but no american president in a public way has said we will resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict based on the 1967 lines with modifications that reflect subsequent developments. american presidents have talked about the goal and the palestinian position. i would argue it is time to state and american position. it is unfortunate but only through mine humble opinion that we will avoid a catastrophic situation in the west bank in insured amount of time. the prime minister of the palestinian authority has done an extraordinary job in building its institutions. he has done an extraordinary job in creating the elements of a state. we need to give that effort a

boost. a presidential statement should do just that. i would respectfully are the president should not do it alone. we should invite chancellor merkle and prime minister cameron. he should invite dmitry medvedev or vladimir putin to travel to jerusalem so the israeli people understand this is a worldwide effort and invite the un secretary general to join with us. i would argue this one point. as we see the beginning of democracy break out in the middle east and who knows where it will land, but one not as americans argue that we actually

will place our confidence in the democratic process that is a vibrant and exists in israel and to a certain degree in the west bank and to a lesser degree in gaza. let the president make that presentation with his colleagues. hopefully prime minister netanyahu and abbas will take that opportunity to negotiate. but if they don't, we should not fred or conclude that our effort was unsuccessful. what we then should do is challenge the israeli public to have a debate. i am confident the israeli democracy -- the democratic process will lead them to the great choice. i think the same applies to the palestinian people. i may be right or wrong but it

seems to me that process has at least two advantages. for the first time in a long time i will be comfortable with success or failure knowing we have done the right thing. we have outlined what is a just solution to a very complex problem we provided an opportunity and provided it to two states that will have a democratic opportunity to debate it. and simultaneously from a purely american perspective it will reassert american leadership at a time when many questioned our leadership capability. i believe we will reinvigorate america if we do this in a strategic way. that will be mine respectful

suggestion. one. in terms of what dr. yoram peri said. he talked about the fact that turkey is no longer a strategic ally of israel. we can argue whether that is the case or not. i will concede that. but what i will not concede is that that should always be the case. just the opposite. the events in egypt -- unfolding events in the arab world make a reconciliation between israel and turkey more urgent. the issues that divide israel and turkey are far less complex than the issues that divide any of these parties in the region. it is a matter of apology and compensation. it is a matter of acknowledging what happened in the flotilla

and reconciling both sides point of view. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that interesting analysis. he has written an op-e publicd yesterday. we should have a copy and you can find it on line. a lot of interesting issues raised. we have a lot of questions about the viability. we only have one microphone so we will bundle two questions at a time. if people could please state their name and affiliation. can we handle teo questions at a time? >> [inaudible]

a point with regard to teh veto at the un. i was very concerned about. i think [inaudible] not in the context of whether that was the right decision for the region. any resolution is going to involve israel getting some territory. perhaps the un declared this illegal would make it infinitely harder for the palestinian leaders to get the public to except that swap. even in that context one could argue that is a big decision. it seemed a little bit like listening to you -- you did not mention what the u.s. position should be on hamas and the

problems for abbas. what would your comment be about that? >> >> one more question. we will take this gentleman in the front. >> we strongly support a two- state solution. we are an interfaith group in the washington area. i want to congratulate you for your bold admission concerning the obama peace plan. this is what we have been pushing, but there is a flip side to this. it is called congress. this is why your experience with congress is so important. if a majority of congress don't support obama in a peace plan, whenever that might be, then he is going to be undermined significantly. on the other hand, if they do it

would have to be a strong majority. it would send a strong signal to the israelis and palestinians. what do think about the prospects of that happening? >> let me answer the second question first. as to the politics of an american initiative, this is not an arena in which congress will lead. as a person who has 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 our politics there for the president if he wishes to make this step, i would argue yes, but it is depended on a certain set of factors. members of congress need to understand the president is not

80% committed but 110% committed. the president is going to the mat on this. he has put the prestige of his office on the line. that is also why i outlined not for show but the significant desirability of bringing world leaders with them. that this not just be an american initiative but it be an initiative that is blessed by our european allies and russia so that this be one of those extraordinary moments where reason and silverne -- soberness prevails. i have every confidence that people in congress will always play politics, but reason and rationality will prevail because members of congress care deeply

about the american-israeli is rich -- relationship. they will conclude this type of strategy is advantageous both for america and israel and for the region as a whole. the american public also will play a role. i have absolute confidence based on a variety of different polling that at least two- thirds of the american public will be highly energized by such an effort. there will be skepticism and there will be questions coming but that public opinion not only in america but also israel will be supportive of the efforts. but what about hamas? that is an important question. i would argue this from two different perspectives.

israeli concessions in the context of security positions need to be contingent upon performance. the israelis are not going to evacuate 70,000 people in 15 days. the evacuation from the sinai when the peace treaty took place took a considerable amount of time. the palestinians will have an enormous burden. before any peace treaty would to become affective their need to be a referendum on both sides. it should not become effective until both sides pass it. palestinians need to have a debate. president abbas is highly confident if they were to put such an initiative to the people that the likelihood of it passing -- the importance of seeing world leaders in ramallah

is significant. that is how you beat hamas. part of this security understanding is how you disarm or in some other fashion coopt hamas from causing the problem it will be likely to cause. some would point to statements that hamas has made that said they would abide by a democratically conceived decision by the palestinian people. i don't rely on that but that would not be correct not to point that out. >> i would like to hear dr. yoram peri's response. how do think the israeli government would respond to what obama should do? what are your thoughts about hamas? the majority of the people would not support it but i can give

you an argument why you should follow this idea. i think it is very positive. if you look back at the history of israel and its relations with arab states and do this from students of the middle east -- you will see whenever the israelis and arabs negotiate directly they could not solve the problem because of this perception that the cost is a zero sum game. if you win, i lose. you need a third partner to change the structure of the game. look at the israeli-egypt agreement. the issue of peace for territory. it was something they had to give to the israelis to gain territory. israelis got peace but through

-- but gained peace. it was beyond that because a u.s. was a partner. both parties could gain more. both egypt and israel got a huge amount of military and economic support. $3 billion for 30 years. a third partner can only be the u.s. can change the structure of the conflict to a non-zero sum game. therefore, 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 -- the

results are the same. two-thirds of the israeli people will support a peace initiative based on the principles that i outlined, bayh it is important to point out more than the two-thirds of the israelis have confidence it will happen. if you got past that reservation. if the israeli people saw an american president flanked by world leaders and got an impression this was different then all the other efforts that have failed before, you would not all lacey the support would materialize, it would be greater. as confidence grew this was not just a silly photography exercise, you have a consensus developing among society. i believe the same would be the case in the palestinian areas. >> i will take questions from this side. anyone over here? >> i am a graduate student at

american university and the originally from israel. my question is for yoram peri. you presented these two scenarios. one in which israel closes off and the other is beautiful piece in the middle east. considering it will not actualize, my question is what can we do to prevent the deterioration of the situation between israel and arab neighbors? >> any other questions on this side? >> stephen stern. in terms of notions of zero sum game and the formulation that robert wexler gave, i think you have brilliantly set up a path forward that speaks to american

political situation and the israeli political situation, but there are other aspects of regional and israeli american politics that are waiting. the one is the question of settlements. i would be easier with the veto if somebody else stood up and wanted to go in that direction. there is a level throughout all negotiations in terms of american and israeli politics which has been allowed to fester within the israeli political dynamic and within the u.s. political dynamic. we have become enablers of occupation through settlements. this will be a hard nut to crack if what you say in terms of the airline could be great, but getting there is a big political level. then there is the dimension of the political turmoil and notion

of palestinian politics between hamas and others. these will politically come into play. >> how to prevent deterioration. the problem -- it is not in your situation now. the weakness of the position of the right is those have more resonance with the security concerns. they did not have a good solution for the future. that was a major problem since 1967. the peace camp had positive solutions but were seen too soft on security issues. the only solution we could say about how to solve the problem is the perception of the iron wall. we have to be strong and one day

the arabs will realize we are here and they will not be able to push us and they will accept us. how many more years do we have to wait for that? i am afraid we don't have a good answer from the right wing camp how can we prevent deterioration. the fact that this broke is a total surprise. because that perception which is strong enough and the palestinians will not result it failed overnight. i am afraid this will happen again in the near future if no serious political steps are taken by the leadership. point, i think's you rightfully point out the danger of issuing the veto and

following it up with nothing meaningful. if the veto is the last or most important message america makes and let's stand in isolation, i would say we are in a very difficult situation. that is why i would save the tell and now follow with a bold initiative. i think we would be remiss and not so popular possibly in this group to apply now with respect to the issue. in fairness, some of the points that prime minister netanyahu makes are actually valid in this case.

prime minister rabin and others, president paris has actually indoctrinated the town of nouriel. he may have a signed orders -- the town of eriel. he may have signed orders. left wing governments have been a part of it. it has been a part of the israeli strategy. but also, in fairness, those settlements never prevented the palestinians from negotiating before. that is true. what is also a valid point to bring up is that, in fact israel did provide a fairly significant settlement freeze for 10 months. secretary of state clinton correctly went and pointed out how it was unprecedented. the settlement freeze was mocked

in the arab world for the better part of eight months. when it expired, all of a sudden, that was the key to continuing. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot block it as having up busy having an insignificant sum and freeze and said it cannot continue without -- you cannot block it as having an insignificant settlement freeze and then say you cannot continue. >> it can only be taken by an american president and not by anyone else. it has been over a decade since any american president has taken a bold american initiative. i'm talking about bill clinton. through two bush administrations and the better half of the first

obama administration. how'd you explain that? how is it that americans president -- american presidents have done relatively little beyond rhetoric and aadmonishment? >> this question would be for the congressman, but i would like a gentleman to respond. the online of the presidential plan to put forward, most of the elements of that have been common to the behind-the-scenes discussion and think tank recommendations for many years. this is what it takes to have an end of conflict settlement. the sooner the palestinian -- the palestine papers were revealed that the palestinians

were talking about making such concessions, they immediately backed down and said they found it necessary to resign or drop out of it. what are you saying that is different that the palestinians have not already publicly rejected while privately conceding that it might be necessary? correct me if i am wrong. the second is just a statement. you talk about the fact that netanyahu has faced an election. so has barack obama. i think that the issue that most americans should be concerned about in the middle east is the rising price of oil very soon. and that will be their concern. item know if there is political capital to use on this. -- i do not know if there is political capital views on this. correct toyou're

point out the impact that the palestinian papers had. you ask the question what has changed? in terms of what i am suggesting, the change is that it would be an american position. it has never been an american position advanced by the american president. you're correct. the think tanks have talked about it. one part of palestinian society has talked about. one part of israeli society has talked about it. there have been needed issues. there have been all kinds of things, but no american president has ever stood before the world and said here is america's position and i expect both the palestinians and israelis to negotiate, to begin negotiations based on these principles. that would be what is different. and if he did it, as i said before, flanked by world leaders, that would be a remarkable change of events.

with respect to the pollen sticks and the price of oil, it is a very valid observation. the policies of barack obama, i would argue, are far more tied to the american economy and whether the unemployment is 8.8% or 7.8% or 6.8% or whether it is perceived as doing is of the meaningful in the budget. there are a whole host of the factors that we could get together and outline that would dramatically impact barack obama's is electability in two years far more than the israeli conflict. i agree. but that to me does not change the equation as to why the american president should take the initiative now. and the price of oil, i grant you, as far more important in terms of the political impact. as to mr. block's point, the way you phrase the question, i am happy to defend both president

bush and president obama, which is not a position i am usually in. in fairness to president bush, all times are not critical. president bush came to office the second president bush, came to office having watched president clinton make the perot effort, devoted himself to a degree that no american president had devoted himself to reserving -- to resolving the palestinian-israeli conflict and it was eventually a failure. president bush, i think, russell concluded, you know what? i will not continue that fiasco. -- i think, rightfully concluded, you know what? i will not continue that fiasco. i have other things to do. an intern-fata is not a time that you can pursue a resolution

or a treaty. it is not apples to apples. bush was presented with an entirely different equation. ultimately, from american's perspective, 9/11 took away our focus and took away our perspective. it is not fair to issue a great deal of criticism relative to president hussein that he had all this opportunity to make wonderful initiatives and chose not to do it. no, it was a different world, different circumstances. as for president obama, i would also differ with you. there has been little or no success, that i would granted. but unlike president bush, from the get go, he said he would focus on this. i would respectfully argue that we did not pursue a particularly successful strategy in terms of putting forth the settlement freeze and step no. 1. i would have argued and i did argue at the time when i was a member of congress that asking a

and israeli prime minister whether he or she is look to or labor or anywhere in between, just right of center of the coalition to make concessions on jerusalem as an opening act. what mr. netanyahu was asked to do is unrealistic. why would he do that. that is what you would do at the very end. that is that you understood all the different issues. for an american president or an american administration to pursue a strategy after the arab allies did not give normalization -- remember, the king of saudi arabia said, no, sorry, mr. president, i am not giving it to you. even the saudi arabia is not stepping up to the plate, you need to step up to the plate and have a policy for east jerusalem that would be very different than past policies of israeli government. i do not think that was particularly wise to do as an

opening act. >> being a veteran of the peace negotiations, i have the look a different take on the issue of the peace plan. i have advocated for that for almost 10 years. we know the solution would be. most israelis and most palestinians know what the map would be. it started with the clinton agreement ended went to the other agreement and to the geneva accord and then to the negotiations. we know how it is going to happen. there are slight differences here and there that are marginal. what we lack is the will on both sides. only will will make it possible to negotiate half a meter here and half a meter there. that is not the issue. the issue is the will. until now, there was no strong will on both sides. now, we are in a new situation.

the young lady left already. the question is the prize. what will be the price for not issuing an agreement. the price is more important than the lack of will yesterday. perhaps by showing both sides that the price today is much higher than it used to be, that might change their perspective. >> i will privilege one of our own scholars with a question. >> mr. wexler, with all you have accomplished, you do not strike me as a personal failure. what you're saying is that basically challenging the united states to really move out. in a sense, you are providing the will or hoping to spark the will that he just talked about. but i cannot imagine, given your

political experience, that you would throw up something like this without having taken some soundings and put some balloons and so forth. either that or uc desperate times require desperate acts. [laughter] >> maybe you are the balloon. [laughter] >> i do not want to give any incorrect impression. my statement is mine. it is not the administration's. it is not a trial balloon for the administration. however, i think there are a number of far more talented people that die in this town who are coming to at least a similar perspective. they're very concerned that the lack of initiative, as was rightfully pointed out, will create price that was untenable. while conventional wisdom would suggest otherwise, a

significant bold stroke by the president may, in fact, be what is required. i believe that there are very capable people in the administration of that are considering these elements. for my role, i will take this show wherever i can take it and tried to persuade people respect greatly in the administration. i am confident that secretary clinton and her team are extremely capable of analyzing both of the cost and the benefits of each one of these strategies. i think they are, as we speak, reevaluating as they should do. >> i think we have a journalist over here. [laughter] hold on, sir. in the microphone. >> i have trouble being heard.

the do intensely explode some of the political arguments? -- did you intentionally exclude some of the political arguments. how many people would be held sitting there are giving it fuller acceptance? i just want to challenge my friend over there. >> could you speak in the microphone, please? he gave up more than an inch to get peace. but israel is already damaged. it -- it will give up an enormous amount for peace. >> i did include great britain and russia in the piece that i wrote. i think it would be wise to invite them and hope that they

would participate. sure. question think those misunderstood. whether israel would have to compromise on 1.5 or two 0.7 -- >> i think i was misunderstood. whether israel would have to compromise on 1.5 or two 0.7, the issue is the principal. whether the armenian court will be part of israel or it will be part of palestine, that is less important than whether they will have an agreement between the two sides. so the principles -- when you talk to people who are involved in the negotiations for the last 20 years, they have always agreed. take the right of return. every palestinian will continue to -- we know in track to that knows really would accept it. they're not willing to give it up. this is the reason he had to resign. he showed there that he understood the point.

we know what he says to the public. unfortunate, the truth is not sent to the public by both sides. but the people involved in and of it -- in the negotiations know exactly what the resolution would be. >> i agree in part. however, in fairness, the security requirements for the state of israel have been dramatically changed in the last several weeks. and the events that are unfolding in the arab world has created an entirely different dynamic that has not yet been negotiated before. although the principals may be similar, i do think that there are parts of this resolution that had yet to be determined. >> that is true. i thought, until a month ago, that israel could except not having sovereignty or israeli

forces in the valley. >> during this historic year of change, i would do more panels like this as well as panels on egypt and libya. please consider becoming a member. we have membership forms outside. thank you for joining. give a hand to it -- to are very fine panelists. -- to our very fine panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> and a few moments, jim cooper talks about congress and redistricting. in a little less than an hour and a half, a town hall meeting with republican rep paul glossegosar. after that, continuing middle east unrest. >> the u.s. conference of mayors is meeting in washington this week. we will talk with two of the mayors tomorrow morning on "washington journal." our guests are anthony fox of north carolina and make cornet, mayor of oklahoma city. we will talk about foreclosures

and the housing market. and we will focus on how states are dealing with prison costs with mike thompson from the council of state government. "washington" journal is live on c-span each day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span spoke "abraham lincoln" is a unique in contemporary perspective of mr. lincoln. from his early years as a springfield lawyer to his presidency during one of our nation's most troubled times and his relevance today. while supplies last, publishers are offering c-span viewers the hard copy for $5 plus shipping and handling. go to c-span.org/books and click on the abraham lincoln book. be sure to use the promo code " lincoln" on checkout. >> this weekend, programs on the

civil war, including the use of espionage between the north and south and its effect on the war's outcome and the role of women providing care for soldiers and maintaining the home front. and we will get a behind-the- scenes look at president ford's 1975 china trip. american history tv on c-span 3. for a complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org/history. >> up next, tennessee representative jim cooper talks about congress and redistricting. as a member of the house oversight and government reform committee he also talks about lobbying, fundraising, and congressional pay. he was at harvard law school.

>> welcome. i am the director of the center. in two weeks, we will be welcoming barbara herman from ucla. it is my great pleasure to welcome back to the law school, congressman jim cooper. congressman cooper is from tennessee's fifth congressional district. he graduated from this law school in 1980. he received a degree from oxford in politics and economics. in 1982 at the age of 28, he was elected to a version of the district in tennessee that al gore had represented did -- had represented.

in 1984 after al gore became vice president, cooper ran for the u.s. senate. 1994 was not a fantastic year for republicans. in tennessee the republicans had if both seats of the senate and the governorship. that was for the second time since reconstruction. he ran a private business in nashville. in 2002 he returned to the fifth congressional district as a democrat and has been reelected comparably each time cents. -- each time since. he is listed as the 65th most senior member of congress. that is actually a bit

misleading. if you base it on when he first went to congress, all but 22 members of congress has seen congress from the perspective he has seen. he is the youngest of those 23 by far. that experience gives him the perspective on congress the that i think is essential to understand the institution, its weaknesses, and how to restore it to its potential. elena kagan first introduced me to jim cooper while talking about how to make congress work again. he spent many hours with me and educated me about the institution and its potential. i am very happy he has since it -- he has accepted my invitation to share his thoughts

on how to make the institution work better. i am also happy that he has announced another side to this question. buddy roehmer will deliver his views on the same question. please join with me in welcoming congressman jim cooper. [applause] >> thank you so much. i am honor to be back on campus. yvette page me when the greatest problem as i have ever received. -- you have paid me the greatest compliment i have ever received.

former senator howard baker once said that there are three things you could not possibly understand -- the holy ghost, the middle east, and a palace rep. most people do not understand the house fully, but most people do think it is badly broken. i am had been in congress off and on for almost 30 years. i have seen the decline. it is not the decline that worries me. what worries me is that we as the world was the only superpower cannot afford a breakdown donaldo. -- break down the nile.

it worries me -- break down now. our great strength has always been our ability to bounce back. our great strength is resilience. as winston churchill once said, "america can always be counted on to do the right thing after she has exhausted all the alternatives." [laughter] you are about to hear a very fundamental critique on congress. i will focus on the house more so than the senate. forgive me for speaking in a short set this -- short sentences, but there is a lot to cover. do not get too depressed. there is still time for a cure. not much time, but enough. first, i see a congress that is

willfully blind to most of our nation bawdry problems. the true national debt is very -- is a much larger than the published numbers. congress has exempted itself from the accounting rules. i am a rare leader in pointing out this problem. not even the wall street journal uses the right numbers on a frequent basis. these are the approval numbers. no group in america supports this real actual accounting for america. not even the press that's fiscal commission. second, the core business of the federal government today is insurance. huge programs like social security, medicare, medicaid,

and government subsidies for private health insurance. people systematically refuse to understand these programs. it is common to hear the phrase, "i want the government to keep their hands off my medicare." these programs are so large they dwarf the country's problems. research spending, agriculture -- there is no congressional committee on it and churns -- on insurance. no focused expertise on insurance. tax incentives or another area. they dwarf appropriations. congress even holds hearings on its annual $1.30 trillion drain on our nation bawdry revenues. never has -- on our nation's revenues. never has our country been in need of tax reform.

these are not sacred commitments or even government promises. what they are are scheduled benefits that we note we do not know how to find. until we fix this disconnect, these vital programs are in jeopardy. this could make the tea party movement look like a [unintelligible] the sooner we stabilize these programs, the more likely we can save them. it will be painful, but we should be thankful that we still have time.

wall street, moody's, standard and poor's and give us one or two more years. congress refuses to use the right tools. we do not know what is in our toolbox. the craft of legislating, a screwdriver problem needs a screwdriver solution, but all the time needs a wrench. we use wrenches because they are popular that year. health care tax credits waste to out of every $3. i sometimes wish we had competency testing for congress. finally, congress has grown spoiled while presidents have refused to veto much legislation. george w. bush the to fewer bills than any president since thomas jefferson. every president since richard

nixon has said budget decision power and used it hundreds of times except for our last two presidents. president obama in his first base to congress call for an end to earmarking and the next day his democratic congress gave him 8500 year marks and he did nothing about it. i was thankful in the state of the union message he said he would be to future year marks. how did congress do it this way? why did you not know more about it? when tip o'neill was speaker of the house just over 20 years ago, congress was very different. it was in perfect to be sure, but functional. tip o'neill believed he was

speaker of the whole house. he did not want democrats to win every vote. he wanted the house of representatives to work. he criticized president reagan during the day and drank beer with them at night. he was proud of committee chairmen. members were expected to vote their convert -- their conscience. it was the job of the majority leader to corral enough democratic votes and at the job for the minority leader to defeat that majority. people could disagree about being disagreeable. you're considered a loyal list if you supported your party's position 70% of the time. members knew what they were voting on because an elite group of staffers wrote memos before every vote.

republicans and trusted the democratic study group so much that they subscribe to its services. members or four or five days a week in washington, d.c., where their families easily lived. members knew each other's names and often those of their spouses and children. casework is part of the legislative portfolio. on the house floor, the so- called "king of the hill rule" allow members to choose between competing solutions for national problems. the solution was the most big one at even if a previous approval -- proposal had received a majority of votes. this rule allowed limited legislative freedom, but made it much harder to predict how members would vote.

you never contributed to your colleague's campaigns except in an emergency. in fact it was considered an insult. campaigns could cost as much as several hundred thousand dollars but only if the race was hotly contested. political parties did not charge you dues. it was their job to help you. the chair of the democratic campaign committee work in a modest room near a page dormitory blocks from the capital. congress has deteriorated badly since this era. when newt gingrich became speaker in 1995, the centralized power and politicize it.

committee chairmen were emasculated. gingrich wanted republicans to win every boat. -- every vote. he waged total war on the clinton white house, even temporarily shutting down the government in an effort to get his way. the next speaker continued gingrich's approach when he invaded he listened to republicans -- the majority of the majority. congress polarized rapidly with scores climbing to 95% + levels. information services -- sources like the democratic study group were banned. talking points were used so everybody could stay on message. members were told exactly how to vote.

gingrich reportedly said at the time that the first step in a revolution was to silence the television stations. king of the hill betting was ended. -- king of the hill voting was ended. we now had steam roller votes where you had a yes or no vote at the end of a debate. alternatives were allowed to be considered only with the approval of party doctrine. members could choose between being a team player or trader. gingrich ordered freshmen republicans not to move their homes to washington so that they could campaign full-time back home. everyone belonged to the tuesday-thursday club that tip o'neill had criticized as lazy. members became strangers to each other, making it easier for them to fight. the cost of campaigns escalated to the millions. dialing for dollars at party

call centers just off campus, parties started requiring their members pay dues. the minimal level was $100,000, but it could escalate to $2 million. this allows you to remain in good standing. colleagues began demanding contributions from each other, sometimes just to pay the party dues. the new job of congress became telemarketing. the heads of the party campaign committees sitting at their picks up offices in the capital itself because they're being groomed for party leadership. the democrats took back control of congress in 2007. democratic leaders, sadly, it tragically, did not even try to

return to the policies of tip o'neill. we blew our chance to go back to the future. instead democrats adopted most of the bad habits of being rich and of the notorious tom delay. the democrats here remain who can remember the o'neill era. wheat settled for "lord of the plots appear "some people said it was impossible to give back -- "lord of the flies." some people said it was impossible to go back. the truth is that the gingrich model worked if you are only interested in controlling congress. most speakers will listen to opinionated rank-and-file members. it is better to keep them both in the dark. it is also easier if they can

just follow the party line without thinking. this system is certainly efficient. what is lost is the hallmarks of congress -- open debate, independent decision making, putting the interests of the nation first. it will be interesting to see which model speaker john boehner follows or if he appreciates the difference. today members of the newly elected 112th congress of the united states of america where just one ander. two members missed the swearing in while attending a fund-

raiser. the first floor -- the first floor action was reading the constitution allowed. -- aloud. not long after, a beloved colleague was almost assassinated. committee assignments have been distributed, they have voted or peeling health reform -- repealing help reform. everyone is rigged -- regretting the upcoming vote for raising the debt ceiling. no one knows if democrats will join them. aside from our own personal safety, members are preoccupied with two issues -- redistricting and fund-raising. the important issues of the day -- the deficit, health care, military spending -- are largely secondary. members are feeling pinched because of the height washington rents and the cause other colleagues prepaying their party dues.

by coincidence, some of them got excellent committee assignments. congress today is really three campaigns for money -- normal campaign fund raising, raising money to pay their party leaders, and now with the citizens united decision, appealing to donors. the media does a much better job on reporting on how you get into congress. citizens united will be the determining factor. many members are in nearly panic's about their districts disappearing in just a few months. they love their district. an old tennessee legislator says there are two things you once -- you do not mention -- my wife and my district, and not necessarily in that order. every member of congress

represents the same number of people -- about 700,000. some districts are losing seats, some are gaining, some are remaining the same. democrats and republicans love it gerrymandering. there are 91 politically balanced districts in america. some think that is too many. each party is working hard to make fewer competitive sees for itself and for the other party as well. how convenient. computer technology helps them etch tiny lines on large maps that help them divide neighborhoods, houses, and even [unintelligible] in order to find a bipartisan

majorities. politicians know a whole lot about their voting habits. the secret ballot is almost gone. because of that, you need a gps device to find out who your >> rep is. -- who your representative is. it is not only a secret election, but eight reverse election. regular voters do not get a chance to vote, only politicians. you do not use them, they choose you. some are excluded from their state legislators on redistricting. they will basically control the outcome for at least a decade if not for generations.

gerrymandering foster's extremism both on the left and on the right. it is a lot easier to get elected again highly democratic or highly republican districts. once selected, extremists only have to worry about future primaries, not general elections. newly elected extremists are vulnerable only to someone more extreme. states with party registration lawless have successfully out what participation in primary elections by independence and party members. it is about alienating those in another party. often, the loudest voices in congress are the extremists. this week i filed a bill with 19 co-sponsors in an effort to put some sunlight in the redistricting process to allow the public to speak. this is our last chance to solve this problem. regarding citizens united, mixing money and politics has

always been awkward. everyone knows that professional athletes are not allowed to accept money, but it is perfectly legal in progress. barney frank said the current election laws the sense that every congressman is perfect in gratitude. the current law floods the system with money. good luck with that theory. last year the average member of congress raised about $1.60 million for a job whose salary of the pace one-tenth as much. the top 10 raised $8.50 million each. the top 10 senate races were $36 million each. new members -- it is probably the most expensive piece of jewelry in the world.

some raise the money by themselves. others were flooded by last- minute, allegedly independent money. television ads suddenly appeared, sort of like a calvary arriving in the nick of time. the citizens united decision allowed corporations to campaign for the first time in our history. these new troops have boosted election spending by $300 million. this is only the beginning. the sky is the one that wants these political mercenaries or allow it.

my objection to citizens united is the following -- allowing corporations and to -- to act as of persons under the law, to have free speech rights that puts american citizens at a disadvantage. a better name for citizens united is corporations united. these are business robots. the court is even considering giving corporations privacy and due process rights. what is next? voting rights for corporations and unions? the court kept the century old

all and made a felony that any corporate conservation -- corporate contribution suddenly turned in direct expenditures and turned everything around the felony into a celebration of free speech. this is like allowing college students to sleep in the same bed ever attending they will not have sex. everyone except five justices in the court finds the distinction ridiculous. you do not need to contact a campaign to find out what it needs, especially in the final days of the campaign. hardly anyone reads the fine print on these commercials. people do notice the quality of the advertisements. citizens united donors can afford the best. almost all advertisements today put independent expenditure into them. the candidates benefiting from this camper and they have nothing to do with the attacks. they wash their hands of the matter. citizens united has the potential of multiplied the money involved in american politics. no matter how expensive you

think they are today, they will be more with corporate america. oftentimes there is less return on their investments. corporations spend millions of dollars on politics and sometimes get billions of dollars in tax breaks. that seems to be going ratio of these days. citizens united allows attacks by a largely unknown groups. you may never knew that that citizens united calvary or whether it was a native americans, a guerrilla warriors, the aliens. citizens united does not fit in the script you are familiar with or could imagine. do not out of the federal

election commission forcing timely disclosure. it is notoriously flatfooted, attended, and we need. half of citizens united spending is anonymous. the percentage is likely to grow. citizens united could reduce the role for washington lobbyists by using -- fort washington lobbyist. why use a middleman when you can buy direct? this may seem like a good idea. things could be worse. today's lobbyists are relatively identifiable. they spent a relatively small amount of money -- millions, not billions. they are less selfish that their bosses realize. i am not saying lobbyist advocate new government. citizens united -- stateless ad agencies are aimed at down by a satellite or cable -- messages without ever talking to a voter or elected official. ironically, the chore for

citizens united may well be the corporations themselves. this would be a welcome reprieve. otherwise, there would have to be an amendment to the constitution or we would have to change it justices. itel corp's wanted the new freedom the court gave them. will they be able to resist the temptation of using them? for a few years, most companies will be unfamiliar and uncomfortable with electioneering. meanwhile, a few corporate fanatics can damage the image of citizens united, causing a backlash in the core's decision. which will come first, corporations are learning how to campaign or business retaliation? we can only hope it is the latter.

in conclusion, the trouble with congress today is that we get the government we paid for, and we are paying for the wrong government. taxpayers today hire mediocre talent. candace think they have to duck fundamental issues to get elected. it perpetuates this status quo. it is almost unthinkable to think up paying congress for results. real leadership, however, means expanding the scope of discussion and making it happen. members are accustomed to blaming others for failure. they are so good at the blame game, they excel at it. the first objections for merit pay will likely come from congressmen themselves. they are afraid of making less money than other colleagues. it is this fear that motivates people to be a better.

why not pay members of congress for performance? surely there is a way to measure and reward quality legislation. universities and think tanks could help us devise a system. many other professions, after all, have been facing such pressures for years. why not congress? what if congress were paid on commission to cut spending or to repeal obsolete wallace? you would never have to worry about deficits again. congress should already be doing these things. you cannot make donkeys and elephants move faster. here is another thought experiment -- what a congressman could only raise money for real people to live in their district, not outside interest? that would put a premium on

residency, but it would also give a local taxpayers more influence. it is very simple -- we need talent -- we need carrots, and they need to be put in the right place. we need better people to run for office. we need them to focus on the most important issues. we need fewer, better wallace, not the polls. what is ironic is the lessons of micro economics. they are well known outside of congress, but i known within it. notice that china, for example, practices state capitalism, but our congress refuses to use market principles to govern

itself. you probably should not be surprised and congress is not even true to itself by supporting parliamentary behavior. it is only the start of a real fix for congress. congress has long been developing more generous funding sources than taxpayers. contribution limits or double for political action committees. campaigns had been financed. citizens united has put the special interest on steroids. special interests have also been finding second careers and supplemental retirement for congressman says many of them want to become a washington lobbyist was the league office. the average tenure of a house -- special interests have also been funding second careers and

supplemental retirement for congressman since many of them want to become washington lobbyists after they leave office. the average tenure of a house member is cannot years, just long enough to collect a government pension and start looking for better work. this revolving door has met for a long time that congress has been little more than a former team for k street. it could become a wholly owned subsidiary. do not expect too much of congress. i would hate to see you disappointed or disillusioned. congress will never be more than a sausage factory. but it can be a better sausage factory if we get the incentives right and if more good people volunteer to serve or at least help those who do. volunteers have been channeled into campaigns for government service. what if all schools like this one started "lawyers for america" to help reform progress? i never understood why students what to spend a lifetime studying law written by c

students. it should be the other way around. we should never lose faith in america's ability to bounce back from adversity. the fact we know congress is broken should give us a hope. the body politic is starting to heal itself. the worst shape we are in, the more likely we are to be proud of our recovery. someone said recently, "we saw a white male judge murdered on his way to meet a democratic female member of congress." the usa by a 22-year-old mexican, day college student. -- her life was saved by a 22-

year-old mexican-american a college student. all this was eulogized by our african-american president. only in america. only in america. thank you. [applause] >> that was extraordinary. your work is not finished, jim. i will identify a question. the microphone will be in the right place so the question can start right away. >> thank you very much.

my question is whether you think of citizens united was an intended or unintended effect of something else? the reason for the question is corporate america was doing very well for a long time. why take the rest that this kind of political change in control and power might evolve rather than leave things as they work? -- as they were. >> i believe all of the justices are good people. i also know from experience that if you are confronted with a situation you can explain, it can be either a conspiracy or a screw up -- 99% of the time it is a screw up.

it takes too much time i know that's conspiracy theories are popular and they are impossible to -- but this is a mistake that america should go about correcting. >> thank you for a fantastic speech. you talked about how congress has become a parliamentary system. the reason why non parliamentary systems are so rare are because they are so unstable. it is interesting to vote your conscience but as an average citizen, it seems much more problematic. the one vote the people care about it, the vote for president, they care about the most. then the president is not able to get through his initiatives.

why is a non parliamentary system so valuable? >> i know that political scientists are often fallen in love with parliament. we have the worst of both worlds because we have parliamentary aspects but we don't have the credibility and have a prime minister that has to run the government. -- the accountability of a prime minister that has to run for government. it is sad to think that a great and true democracy like ours would go backwards to something like a parliament. we are better than this and time for americans to listen to the better angels of their nature.

>> this is terrific. i am intrigued with your idea of pay for performance. i have spent a lot of time studying the legal profession, there has been a move to pay pay forance -- pape performance. that move has been responsible for swamping some of the other values that we might want to lawyers to have. in the context of congress it seems particularly complex because of two things. who would decide what to the standards of performance are? who would be evaluating? it is a collective product.

it is always complex to measure the individual product. if you can say some words about that. >> we are friends, classmates, and i would say in response to your excellent question, let the debate began. there will be thousands of reasons not to do something. we know congress is broken. show me a way to fix it. most people react that if we pay people for commission on spending, we will get spending cuts. perhaps i am too much of an economic determinist but it -- that rang true with me. many people are wonderful people who work in bad systems because the carrots are in the wrong place. sometimes the sticks are in the wrong place. with great universities and

think tanks, surely we are smart enough to put them in the right place. that is a worthy endeavor. >> thank you, congressman. i was wondering if you can talk about how you navigate the pressure to raise money and the people who are trying to give you money to achieve their own end? >> i made terrible fund-raiser. i try to spend most of my time on what i was elected to do. and i am a dying species. when i first came to congress, there was a very disciplined and wonderful congressman from kentucky. he had perfect posture. he did the right thing every day. he had a journal every day. he never raised more than $500 for a campaign. it would post a sign in camp --

in kentucky. those days are gone. money has always been the mother's milk of politics. when speaker pelosi was asked why she should be the democratic leader after their it's a terrible defeat of 2010, she said, -- after the terrible the peak of 2010, she said because she raised money. we have to focus on other quality measures as well. other measures are suffering. >> this is a fascinating talked. we are much indebted to you. i have a comment as much as the question. the comment has to do with your reliance on markets and market metaphors as the solution to the problem. how would you respond to this

alternative vision. the problem is that markets have spread where they should not have. there are some things that should not be subject to the forces of the market. rather than looking for market solutions, we should be looking for some sort of moralize approach that drives markets out of the house of congress. the reason i offered this comment is because we are in the economic determinist mode that you described, then don't we have here what economists would have a collective action problem such that although it might be in everyone's interest if things change, those are people who are likely to be unable to get together coalitions large enough to affect the change.

isn't this the path of despair rather than hope and don't we need to look for some other avenue? we need a hard-fought game on

court and we need referees. the better the referees, the better the game. this is a combination of market senses and fierce competitive behavior, animal spirits. this is a debate much more like a the government problem. if you have a better idea, i am open to it but let's at least give this a look. >> this is building on your last comment.

how many of these and would be part of the outline? >> i've never tried to climb the ladder. if you are a terrible fund- raiser, you don't have a chance. most people who run for congress are good people. there are from our lands. they endure a lot of bad stuff but most are good people.

this want keeps filling up. some said that we need more mediocre justices on the supreme court said the mediocre people of america can be represented. i am hoping that this is not a career-limiting move. this is pushing the end of the envelope. we thought that there should be changing that should not be happening. he gets elected as president and

he is not omnipotent. he has to work with two or three people. both of them are fine people. the question is that do you pick a fight and your honeymoon? they chose not to do that. >> thank you for a stimulating conversation. i am struck that you're giving this in 2011. if you had given it a hundred years ago, it would have had some similar tones. you would have been railing against an overly powerful

speaker. there was a revolt in that very year. in the other hand, if you had given 50 years ago, you would have been on the side of sam rayburn. that seems the bracket, the extremes. >> this is a saving grace of democracy. our government is a hole -- -- whole lot like an antique clock.

democracy is a spectator sport. congress is almost becoming a channel on reality tv. congressmen are cheaper to hire, easier to make fun of, and you get to vote as of the island every two years, all but taxpayer expense. there is a messiness and democracy. there are two things you never want to see made, laws, sausages. that messiness is hard for a plane rational academic to appreciate. >> there is the health care

debate and discourse. you don't have to give everything, it will not cost you a penny. every player will have to give up something. because this is an immediate debate, is in any way that we can make that better? >> thank you for asking about health care reform. someone is sitting in this audience who is truly a national treasure. i am lucky because he worked for me for a while but he has transcended me. -- read the essay and last week's "new yorker." his piece on the cost conundrum literally transformed the health debate.

he can put complex things and simple forms. this is the subject not only of this on its own. i teach a course on this. the medical students need to learn about the system. we have a terrific regional expert at dartmouth. his current book "tracking medicine," is amazing. read it and taken to heart. there are really exciting things going on. >> i want to talk about how realistically you can think about the campaign to accomplish

what you are trying to accomplish. you were speaking about what it used to be like. when you talk about how universities and the think tanks can provide answers and talk about how you are working. how are you working to try to create coalitions within congress. it must be that there are a lot of people who feel the frustration but. there are some who are frustrated about not being able to do the kind of work that you went to congress to do. >> professor -- is a friend. i have learned a lot from her.

the key in american politics is that you have to be optimistic. things are never as bad as they seem. reagan's sunny optimism was that something that americans appreciate because you cannot build morale without being positive. there are daunting obstacles, i would be the first to admit. there are ways to help people understand. there should be company test, rewards for good or bad behavior. right now, the people are not given the tools to understand who are good legislators or not. i am a blue dog democrats. it is difficult for us to show which votes are good or bad for america. voters are clueless and you can spend a to a their way. we have got into a spin that we are so far away from facts

completely. you are wondering if reports are on two different nations. somehow we have to get beyond this. the recent reform commission was unable to agree on the facts of the fiscal crisis. that is stunning. somehow, the center cannot hold. we have got to really be careful. they were overly pessimistic in the 20's. the works are full of passionate intensity. that is a scary situation. there are opportunities here to build and i think that the key is to be able to persuade the average rotarian back home. i think that robert pittman would back me up on that. there is a balance somewhere in

this magnificent grandfather clock that has always worked and it will work again if we let it. there are powerful outside forces that are going in different directions but i think it will work. people should not be discouraged. >> thank you very much, congressman. i thought that your comments were very poignant. what you did not address or you addressed that congress is broken. no one puts forth drastic solutions. the old kitchen table, what obama said that the average family is sitting around in it discussing. the issue is in revenues and expenditures. the government is like running a business. where are the specifics that someone will stand up and say i will throw my career to the wind.

you have got to raise revenue. where does a congressman or senator stand up and say a, b, c, d. literally, you get the money, there are some corporations who will find that. they will go on television and say, here are the solutions. it is painful, you are in the i see you.

there is -- >> there is the fear of the 30- second attack ad. some people do not want to hear the entire speech. there are excellent examples of things that we should do. we cannot allow the reports to gather dust. got 11 votes, they needed 14. both the house and the democrats and republicans torpedo the the report to be.

we have a terrible problem, no one is accounting for the problem. it is necessary. and if you cannot --, you cannot -- if you cannot measure it, do cannot manage it. that is the position that congress is in. we don't have the urgency. when the wall street journal or no interest group will help us, congress is handicapped because they are used to relying on outside support. we need stronger backbones and it looks like you can help us with that. >> let me take the advantage of being a chair to ask you a question. i would like to put together the

incentives described. there are two dimensions. you can talk about one incenses' members. he repeated my favorite line. why did they have the term for k street? you have people who are making less than this graduates making their first year when they go to work on wall street, assuming they can get jobs. that is not an assumption you can make. many of them because of their talents and families, it makes the problem much worse. you're talking about tinkering with incentives.

congress is eager to minimize the number of seats. if you really want to raise money, but this is talking loudly and sharply to the base. that means the whole rhetoric of the active official becomes more polarized. this is as a way of raising money and facilitate the raising of money. the raising of money and cited the campaign drives the discourse towards these extremes which makes it harder to have members like yourself who are trying to figure out the moderate middle. for that solution, what is the

real solution? that is not congress pay, that might be some version of public funding. they're completely off the table. >> i appreciate your devoting some of your professional career in trying to reform our democratic institutions. this is a curious subjects because people have problems grappling with it. physics is easy, politics is hard. there's something odd about this whole thing. right now, you are right. there was a huge republican tide and so it is difficult to talk about public financing. i am suggesting that we change congressional pay. you have to have a direct incentive. i don't think that we need a pay increase at all. today, the only differentiation

is that the speaker gets paid a little bit more. everyone else is paid the same. the center represents california makes the same money that i to rep 700,000 people in tennessee. -- the senator that represents california makes the same money that i do to represent a 700,000 people. the few times this has been suggested in the past, they pay you if they show up, if you miss yours, they dock ou pay. who is fiscally responsible in the country? discreet voting on important byproduct of this discussion. you know which party -- and that

would terrify members. it is easy to hide in congress. we are largely anonymous. there is a point that is worth noting. the senate is supposed to be the secure statesman. the senators are guaranteed a multimillion-dollar bonus every -- they cannot take a year off to legislate. they have to be raising money like crazy. house members, the multimillion- dollar is an america domestic our jobs. we're relatively protected. i think these are fundamental and understanding the system. henry adams said the purpose of a political party is the systematic organization of

hatred. fear and anger motivate people sadly more than higher motives. how do we overcome that? another key insight is from -- who said that the purpose of the liberal party is to keep on making mistakes. the purpose of the conservative party is to refuse to correct those mistakes. that captures the - des moines in american politics than anything else i have seen. -- that captures the negativism in american politics. i am optimistic because everyone, no matter how deeply cynical and angry they are, acknowledges this one fact that we live in the greatest nation on earth. we lived in the greatest nation in the history of the world. our job is to keep it that way.

we can do that. >> one more question. >> president truman appointed me chief counsel of the committee to investigate lobbying activities. we prepared 10 volumes of our investigations which are available in the library. since then, there has been 40,000 registered lobbyists in washington. many of them prepared legislation that is being drafted and they presented this to the congressman.

do you have any comments as to what improvements should be made o the series of lobbying taacts that were made following further investigations? >> i appreciate your pioneering work on this issue. it is remarkable but it was a recognized problem back then. we recognize that as an innocent age. we have a system of dual representation. there are 33 lobbyists in washington for every elected official. some estimates go as high as 60. one group is paid for by taxpayers, the other group is paid for by voluntary contributions from corporations, your church, your charity. people so distrust us that there are willing to pay twice to get the same job done. i tell people, and i work for

you. you don't even have to come to washington because i come back home every weekend to see you. they want to come to washington because they get a break, nice meal, stay in a hotel room. this is a curious system and there must be a felt need for this perhaps economic or cultural. the voluntary factor is a curious thing. i have fought against them all the time. if anyone who likes an uninformed member, it is a lobbyist. then you are a blank slate. i think that if we had more informed members, this might curb the lobbyist. this jury that there are equal billing interests it is wrong. on a few issues, this is equal and balanced but usually the

money side is not in the public interest. we have to rely on the goodwill of people to overcome the money by doing the right thing for the country. >> -- was on a panel that was reviewing lobbying practices. lobbyists to give up the practice of raising money for members of congress, raising money where they are lobbying. would this be a significant change? >> that is an interesting idea. there are some money subterranean -- this is policing that. this is like citizens united. how do you know when you are occurring favor with citizens united? it could be anyone. if you give a speech to the board of directors or to their

convention and employees, you're likely to be on their favorites list. you kind of wonder who is doing the -- for the corporations. republicans are good and out democrats are bad. we're between the two political parties. that makes it awkward for us. this is a very dangerous place to be in politics. there are only two things you see in the middle of the road. yellow lines and dead armadillos. if you are an extremist, he only have one flight to protect.

everything has been done to down in this generation. it is hard for you to see. even the national journal, it costs thousands of dollars a year to subscribe to, they have been dumped down. in the information age, we are facing an information shortage because we're discovering that people don't want information because that is painful. we want to reinforce our own prejudices because that is comfortable and that makes today's environment particularly tricky. >> i have a question about political rhetoric and language. part of the backdrop is that i was struck listing to the state of the union speech by town nationalist it was it. -- by how nationalist it was.

i noted in your comments, the insistence on american exception was them. your final comments, only in america, which is very moving. i'm not sure how true it is. the president of france is the son of time caring immigrants. the head of the labor party in britain is the son of a well- known belgian marxist immigrant. that would not happen here. it is necessary in american political life to keep insisting that we are the greatest nation on earth? to keep insisting on our exceptional as them. there are real hazards in doing so and there might be some advantages on pointing out our commonalities of people in other countries and the commonalities of the problems we face. >> on this issue, we will have

to disagree. the average american is not want to travel abroad for vacation, does not want to learn a foreign language, and is not care about the rest of the world. perhaps they should be faulted for that but that is the way they feel. i am fairly international and i try to focus on these issues. i know a few languages. i've tried to do better but that is a challenge. remember when the house of representatives renamed french fries freedom fries? i like to point out to them that there are only two portraits in the house chamber, one of them as george washington, who is the other? it is the marquis the lafayette because he helped to finance the revolution. i know some people who cannot remember 10 years ago much less 200. in general, we are the only superpower.

that is a good thing. i think america has done more to promote good in the world than any other nations. we have made many many mistakes. there was terrible injustices in the philippines. we need to keep looking at the dark corners as well as the city's on the hill. every country will be proud of themselves. we don't want an empire, we have a vast cultural and economic interests. this is far more good than bad. >> i was wondering what advice he would give to a law student

who is considering a career as a congressional staffer. >> apply for a job in my office and if we don't have something, we will help find you something. we need to attract good talent to the hill. young people run at our government. this is one of the most upwardly mobile things you could do. i knew george stephanopoulos when he was just wet behind the ears. rahm emanuel, there are amazing folks that have excelled. this is a non hierarchical profession. it is not the coolest thing to apply for a job on the hill and tell -- a job on the hill.

>> there's a big difference when the u.s. and other countries. i understand why it is and not palatable to talk about what we have learned from other countries. are you have conversations with legislators, colleagues and other nations about doing things that might be helpful in this system? >> we can learn from them. this is something that our economic friends will help us with.

-- academic friends will help us with. the only comparable book i have seen is called "the healing of america." he had a shoulder and took it to 10 different countries. who'd did the best job? it makes a difference. it helps people understand. if you hate the british system, we are ready have it in the va. if you think that you hate the canadian system, we already made it. -- if you hate the german system, we already have in our employer-sponsored health care system. if you like to the indian system, we have that as well only we don't want to talk about that part.

it is amazing that there are underlying similarities. many people want to vacation in florida, i want to go to france. this is america. as we go to the french, we have to understand to the bosses are. the american people are the boss. event.the boss of this [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it is critically important that the house moves this to

avoid a government shutdown. >> we all have a responsibility to make sure that there is no shutdown. >> you can watch and the original discussions are shut down. >> in a little bit less than an hour and a half, the discussion of israel and the middle east peace process in the wake of development in egypt and continuing unrest. then, the labor secretary speaks to the conference of mayors. >> we have several lives of sense to talk about tomorrow.

former arkansas gov. mark hike -- mike huckabee will be at the national press club to talk about his new book. that is at noon eastern. at 1:00 p.m., the palestine center looks at how political unrest in the middle east is affecting relations among the arab states and relations between those states and the u.s.. at 4:30, we will join nasa television for the launch of space shuttle discovery, the last scheduled mission for the shuttle fleet. it will take six astronauts and supplies to the international space station. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, "washington journal," about the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house.

weeknights, the hearings band forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch for programming anytime at c- span.org. c-span, washington your way. a public service treated by america's cable companies. >> now, the republican representative's town hall meeting from earlier this month. his series of meetings for the first in arizona following the shooting of congresswoman gabrielle giffords. we are unable to show you the last few minutes of this due to technical difficulties.

>> by pledge allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. m

>> in the name and a the father quarks give you thanks for the tk you for this country called america. we just ask that you give insight and wisdom to those we have elected to represent us. we ask that they open their hearts and minds to your leading into your spirit. be with those first responders to protect us here at home and the military around the world as a stand for freedom. be with us now as we go into these proceedings. all these things, we ask in your name, amen. it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you america's favorite sheriff. [applause] >> thank you. i do not know about favorite, but you're welcome to take a sseat.

thank you for being here. we are seeing freedom at work. we have a town hall here by our new congressman. i wanted to welcome our gossar.smen paul goes ar paul gossar. been back and forth throughout the county and his congressional district, district 1, this entire past year. this is where coming back here literally within his first month in office is what our democracy is all about, literally holding more town halls in the first 30 days than the fire congressmen

-- the prior congressman held in his last two years in congress. whether we agree with the congressmen are not, he is our representative. he needs to hear from us. one of his priorities is to come out here and listen to what we haveo say. we cannot ask for more than that. i want to be -- i was able to give him a sheriff's hat and welcome you to pinellas county. >> i always wanted to be share. [laughter] -- to be sheriff. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, folks. thank you very much. and thank you for upholding the constitution, your first liberty, your first right, your first amendment, coming here and being able to talk.

three weeks ago, congresswoman difference was assembling you to partaken talking about --, -- wasresswoman gifford tess assembly to partake in talking. if we could take just a quick moment and pause just to think and reflect on what that means to all of us please. >> thank you. folks, i believe in trust.

and trust is a series of promises to be kept. and that is what we're all about. facing congress is at the lowest it has ever been. what we had in the election is to instill in that figure in including us in making the decisions of everyday life, things that are very personal to us. so i told you i was coming home and i am. mission accomplished here. d we will call this your first house call. and the week -- the reason i want to put that out is that there is something special about having a health care provider being are rep. just like a patient of mine, when you come into my office, the first thing i have to do is listen. if we are not listening, we cannot raise our voice the concerns of our constituents. so the first thing i will do is listen. i gather all of my washington, d.c. staff and i brought them here.

we have had a series of town halls throughout this district. five in five nights. it is overwhelming what we have been able to get, the passion, the ideas, the dialogue and listening to you. that is what it is all about. because the solutions come from here. they are your solutions. we see over and over where the solutions by the federal government of one-size-fits-all this not work. we will all have to continue to make the difference right here. so let me tell you some of the other promises but will join was going to keep. number one, i told you that i was going to go back and repeal obamacare. and i did. [alause] i also said, do we need health care reform? absolutely. and we voted to remanded back to

discussions on how we do that and how we benefit people and how we dowland you into that creative process so the governme does not stand between you and your health care? we also voted that there are three things that the bill has to apply to in order for them to be passed now. numb one, we are -- where in the constitution doesn't give you the privilege to do that bill? giving -- getting back to our founding principles. second, does it crte jobs? we can cut all we want. but if you do not create jobs, we will not get out of the financial mess we are in. last but not least, where do we make a more nimble government that encourage you, that works with you instead of dictates to you. -- to you? once again, here ago. we have also voted to try to minimize the cutting process so we can show you the rewards. we cut our budget. we did that across congress.

we also made sure that we would cut the paper trail of laws, so that we did not have to post them -- to my paper, but custom on the internet. that has saved us $35 million. we also voted to stick with the public fding of presidential campaigns. again, we have another 1600 -- $16 million in cuts. we will have to go even further. we have a continuing resolution have to start the cutting process, making sure that we live within our means. congress is no dferent than you and i when we do our budget. what we bring in, we spend. and we cannot incumbered our future generations with the drn that we have allowed to go further.

we also have to make sure that we're starting to get our country back on line and that is getting jobs ced. one of the first things we're starting to do is see where we can get the government red tape out of the way. so some of the things that we are looking at this hour commtee assignments. i think the two committees that i was placed on are very important to this district. the first one is natural resources. we are filled with natural from top to bottom, in this district. we see where we have been restricted. there are three sub committees on which i was placed in natural resources. the first one is native american affairs. the second one is energy and mineral resources. and last but not least, there's water and power. all of those played in small in district 1

our daily one -- all those play a small role in what we do in district 1 in our daily lives. government oversight exposes what part of loss or regulatory burdens are wrong where we can make some changes. hopefully, we can use it to experiment on the solutions that we can come up with for the future. the table right now. one of the subcommittees' those placed on, the first one is how agcy's work and how they're built within and how the communities and the state's. that is right up my alley. the send one is homeland security and foreign office. once again, right up our alley.

last but not least, there is the subcommittee on health, d.c., archives, and the senses. i will be the vice chai i will be holding the gavel much of the time when we talk about health. i told you i do not like what the government did on our health care reform. we need health care reform. it is my job to make sure we're going in a direction that health care is affordable, personal, and patient-paid. i think we're in the chip for have to do. there's only one ingredient missing and that is you. besought in the election process. now we have to carry that momentum. all hands on deck. that is where we have to go. i said we would do some listening. so i wanted your team, my team, our washington office to come here and be introduced to you. what i want to do is let them introduce themselves to you so you can put a face to a name. the are your team.

these are the people you will call and i want to start with my chief of staff, and work our way down. >> rob robinson. i am chief of staff, but i am also the district director. this is one of the ways that all promise to cut the budget. so i am doing two jobs. i will be in the district and awful lot. arizona. my son graduate from school here in arizona. and i will be here for your questions. >> hi, everybody. i am the legislative director. we review policy and the laws and advise the congressman. i went to law school down the road in tucson and i am very happy to be here. >> hi, everyone can. i am stephanie ferguson.

iill be working on issues ranging from from health care -- from house care to tribal issues and so on. this is the last event on a five-day tour of the first district. i have learned an awful lot from yoand other members of our community. a think this tour has been really instrumental in helping us do what the congressman has asked, which is helping build solutions from the bottom up. that requires input from all of you. i met a great many wonderful people here. i am looking for to meeting some of you overnight. thank you for your hospitality. >> my name is germy herald. i am one of the congressman's political systems. i will be handling natural resources and immigration policy. i work for another member of

congress for three years. i have a little bit of experience dealing with some of the issues that you are facing a year. it has been a great 10 days going through arizona. it seems that time has flown by. i look forward to working on some of the issues that are phasing your community. please do not hesitate to give as a walk -- a call in waington, d.c. we will be in touch with you soon. thank you. >> hello, everybody. i am anthony smith. i will be on the congressman's arizona team. i live here in arizona. zero rolesdointwo for the congressman. i will be the legislative assistant. i will look at the local issues that affect arizona's first district. i willlso be working as his business liaison, reaching out to the business community at the chambers, find out what is working for you, what is not working for you, ho w