-- i would like to play off the last question, we have been dancing around budget issues for so many years -- tax the rich, waste, fraud, and abuse, and we never really dealt with the problem, and it has gotten bigger and more difficult to resolve. that is why whether it is bowles-simpson or others that are out there, we finally have begun to come to some bipartisan agreement that we cannot take account -- cannot kick the can down the road any longer. they are coming down their ideological perch. how we resolve this is yet to be determined, but at least we had people out there pushing us in that direction. i believe that politicians, and

i am certainly one of them, has contributed to this attitude that the public has, which is we can do it all by cutting your pay, welfare, and foreign aid. the things that really matter in the federal budget are the tough ones, not symbolic ones, and get the public is nowhere near adequately informed about that reality. they just do not know that. it has been easier to keep them in the dark because it would have meant everybody having to give up some of that ideology. i think that is the encouraging news. i think it is no longer a partisan agenda. it has got to be a bipartisan one or we will not give any further than we have gotten in the last 30 years. >> might it happened in this

budget? >> i think now is the only time. if it does not happen now, i am deeply pessimistic. i will use my comment not the sum up what i said but to raise a totally new issue. i think as we look forward, what i think is there is an indication that we are on the hat and national-security debate in this country that we have not seen for a long, long time, and the reason i say that is i look at what i have seen from republicans that would be surprising. you had the senators on the commission talking about reductions in the defense budget, which secretary gates, but called catastrophic. to see conservative republicans talk about that is not something we have ever seen before. haley barbour has come out, not only against libya, but questioning seriously what we are doing in afghanistan and

calling for reductions in the defense budget. michele bachmann has come out against doing anything about libya. at some point we are on to have a debate about national security that we have not had before. it will have to do with intervention, it will be influenced by the costs of the military budget, and can be a good thing, but it is something we have not seen for a long time in this country. >> join me in thanking the panelists for great discussion. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> more on the congressional outlook from "washington journal ." open quotes europe: a gambit," that is the headline today. guest: these are as close as any negotiatns i have ever seen in congress. a bad thing for my profession and a good thing for the public.

host: have they been continuing over the weend and headed into this week? who is talking? caller: -- guest: right now the appropriations committee is trying to sort out whether or not the figure of $33 billion was accurate. senate democrats said that it was. the vice-president said that it was. john bowler said he was not convinced. we will have to figure out where the cuts come from underneath that number. that is a very difficult question. senate democrats would like to see the cuts go beyond domestic, non-defense discretionary. republicans say that we have to stick to domestic discretionary. host: let's talk about lines in

the sand. house republicans, there are probably a couple of them there. where do they stand? as part of that, people here $61 billion. can you explain those numbers? guest: it will be eclipsed this week by trillion. the house republicans are releasing their budget for 2012 this week, which claims to save more than $4 trillion. the momentum of that number could sway votes on the other side. to get to your question, $100 billion. when republicans ran to take back the house, $100 billion from what the president wanted to spend.

halfway into the fiscal year, the first question was -- cut half of what we said we would. cutting $100 billion from what president obama wanted. what we arelk about actually spending. it is really $30 billion. at that point, house conservatives are boosted by an 87 member freshman class. you said $100 billion, we said $60 billion, and we want to see the full cut this year. as each month goes by there have been more cuts, even with these temporary measures, to demonstrate even $2 billion in cuts per week. so, here we are. the house passed $61 billion.

the senate passed nothing. the compromise appears to be $33 billion. but we do not know. we will see. host: said democrats are saying what? caller: interestingly, they started out from the position of saying that they had already cut $40 billion from what the president said that he wanted to spend. their position has basically been no new cuts. the fact that they are now talking enthusiastically about $31 billion is huge. host: house republicans are saying what? you have to differ between the conservatives the republican study committee and leadership? what do they say? caller: what a wonderful question right now. speaker boehner was asked directly about that.

he had said it -- no, he is looking for the deepest cut that he can get. might idd to those considering a primary challenge to the tea party members who are not quite the party enough, they are pushing for a full promise of $61 billion up to $100 billion and more. that is what is important. and more -- it is not just a debate. who would think that it is a rounding error, $30 billion, trivial? let's get this out of the way. let's take what we can and move on to the next issue, the budget for 2012. host: is this a strategic move by house republicans to say paul

ryan, we need to be talking about trillions so that we can sway the conservative republicans? guest: i wish that i could tell you. i wish i knew that that was the plan for sure. the timing is about right. host: paul ryan and is expected to announce more of the details of his plan tomorrow, tuesday. sunday he wasn the news shows talking about it, laying out medicare as the heart of his proposal in what he wants too with that. going forward this week, is there likely to be a seventh continuing resolution? of a stopgap measure while they negotiate something long term? guest: that would be difficult. even with the last continuing

resolution, 64 house republicans are saying -- no way. the only reason that it passed then is that you had 185 democrats that supported it. eryone that i spoke to voted for that last continuing resolution, saying -- speaking of the line in the sand, i will not vote for another short-term resolution. which is tough. we are not going to drop a bill on the floor with only three minutes to look at it. they are not going to cook up something and dump it in your lap. they have got to go forward with this by tuesday night. host: because of the 72 hour rule, they have to put something together by tuesday night.

it does not give the senate much time to act. guest: and that is where delaying is hard wired into the coating of t institution. one member that does not like how things are going has the power to slow things down for a couple of days. host: aides have floated the idea of breaking the 72-hour pledge, but sh a move would be sky, given that the rule was offering to the tea party activists, who accused democrats of creating deals behind closed doors. caller: we have got to give more money to the schools and the met -- less money for the wars. now they are saying that teachers cannot have unions. this is really eroding our

entire system. firefighters, police, teachers, they are being looked at as if they are some kind of sucking off of the system. it is gutted. this country is completely down ll. these are the traditional jobs that have served the middle class, the barrier between the lower css and the elite class. when you take away the middle, it was run by the corporate elites. which is fascism. we need to stop the war in the military industrial complex.

guest: every time that i talk to democrats about the bottom line in this budget, almost a first issue raised by the people is always education. that we cannot cut brigitte we cannot cut back on that funding. -- that we cannot cut back on that funding. the other thing that has really interested me, if you look at the votes in the house there are more in the first few months of this house on important issues than in decades. the 87-member freshman class that we've tended to characterize as the tea party classr very conservative class. look at their votes.

there is a surprising things. you mentioned police and fire. 30 of those freshmen voted to increase spending for police. i think 24 voted to increase spending for fire. a number of voted to support the national labor relations board. there is some surprising switch -- is not the modernist. host: maria, a democrat, washington, d.c. caller: they say they want to save medicare and thewant to create social security. we all as taxpayers pay to those funds. i feel that the war's is coletely -- to use the funds to countries.

g.e. does not pay taxes. once they got tons of mey, -- the middle class is becoming a class like other countries. obama when send and he at least -- this country has no money. i think it is ridiculous. people are not working. you go to other countries. manufacturing -- we're privatizing the waters and e utility and the basic needs for the humans, for everyone. host: we got your point. guest: where does were spending fit into a context that is focused on cuts?

especially as we appear to have expanded into a third war, in libya. could drag on for some time -- this could drag on for some time. the main suppo comes from publicans. democrats that opposed the war do not have an interest in embarrassing the president who is about to announce running for a second term. it is not the sharp test eds anti-war movement we have seen in past wars -- is strongly bipartisan at this point. it will be difficult for point that you're making. to drastically cut defense spending, we need that to support the middle class. you're not going to see that argument. in the next two years in the run-up to this election. host: ""the wall street journal

," a front-page story. there is more details about what this will include. on taxes,, some conservatives expect a temporary tax change that will let u.s. multinationals bring home as at aas $1 trillion greatly reduced tax rate. they expect a fundamental overhaul of the tax system. host: we will go to a republan in boston. caller: i think if you look

over this past decade, both republican and democrats have placed a tremendous amount of debt on the backs of old people and yog people in this country. i think funding for any program, social, will be dramatically decreased not because of republicans or democrats but because of the markets. it is low on its way to collapsing. there is nothing that hurts the middle class more than the collapse of the purchasing power. there is no coincidence that a collapse from purchasing power and that wars are breakg out. look for continued collapse of the purchasing pow of the dollar. host: do you have any thoughts? guest: it is a tout -- a subtext everything going on now. what really is coming out this

week is a debate you can cut on every possible line. it is not about age. the cuts in social security and medicare and medicaid, -let me rephrase that. republicans would say it is not cuts. is reducing the rates of growth. changes in medicare and medicaid and social security. there will be a share from older people to a younger people. they have a difficult job prospects and are bearing the brunt of this. it is a very big question. it is hard to imagine the scope of change on capitol hill right now. every previous budget cycle has involved talking about investments and growth and arguing about the point i stumbled over. an increase that is left really a cut?

what we're talking about now is not that issue. there are deep cuts that affect the whole notion of what our government is and does. go back to a new deal debate. we have not had one on this level since the 1960's. but this one is more severe. host: we have a tweet. host: after the end of this week, if there is an agreement over funding for the rest of this fiscal year, what happens next? guest: you would think that when the main event of this event is what happened on friday, when funding for the fiscal year runs out, will the government shut down? will the consequence they predict who will be out of work? this is aeasy discussion, what

to do with fiscal year spending. the hard one is coming up with the budget for 2012, which goes into entitlement spending. traditionally, these third rails of american politics. but that is not even the toughest issue. the toughest issue is what to do when the spending bumps up against the debt limit. is the issue that so many republicans ran on. "i will not raise this debt limit." "this is as high as it will ever be." that is what i ran on. they have every incentive in the world to stick to what they said they would do. that creates a dramatic situation.

this is only one of three. the second one is harder. host: ohio, an independent caller. caller: i have a comment and a question. i'm trying to fall this going on. host: join the club -- -- guest: join the club. caller: the senate is not agreeing in passing anything. i'm wondering, are they going to be able to get their act together and pass this to move on to the next to its big steps they have to take care of? up.ill hang n host: before you do, as an dependent, what does this do for you prove it was rethinking as you look to 2012 and have you

may vote over this issue? caller: we have a severe problem, especially with this debbt. the only ones who seem serious are the republicans. they are haggling over something that the democratic house senate and white house should have taken care of last year. the push this problem on to the republicans of this year. iteems like everyone just keeps pointing at the republicans. i cannot see where the senate is attempting to get anything done whatsoever. they keep pointing fingers. they peer down what republicans want. they are not saying what they are for cutting. they are not saying what they are willing to cut. host: let me get your reaction to this. this is from "the washington

post." this is an editorial. you're dealing with environmental protection agency and planned parenthood. they have to a tangential relationship to a deficit- cutting. at a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. -- not a legitimate basis for holding the government hostage. what do you think? caller: i would like to know what compromises they have made. what are they? host: we will talk to gail about that. guest: they are letting the other side come forward and then

the lead. that is how the majority's switched in the last two campaign cycles. republicans said no to everything that the democrats said in the last campaign cycle. democrats -- and so i think i just repeated myself. host: vice versa. guest: are things now so serious that the president will take a hit for not taking more leadership on the cut side. senate democrats will take a hit for not engaging republicans on foot -- on friday, they passed an unusual bill still have no affect, a symbolic attempt to make the point. the bill said if the senate does not act on our spending bill for fiscal

year 2011 by the sweet, -- by this week, our bill will have deemed to have pass. that is foolish on one level. it would require the senate to agree, which was not going to happen. it was away to say, we're doing something and they are not. both sides are watching closely how the public response to this. does the public still think that cutting deficits and debt is important? is a more important than the possibility of losing programs they value profit that is the dialogue that is going on at this point. but the waiting has to end on friday. you either agree or not. the government shuts down or it does not. i think this one will. host: we have another twitter comment.

chicago, matt, a democrat, your next. -- you are next. caller: it appears we have a race to the bottom. $30 billion cut here and $60 ,illion ko'd here and the house gop do not want to talk about what they want to cut. the only thing i would say as a democrats, i would say that things need to be cut. as your guest said, this is a debate that we're having that we probably have not had in 40, 50 years.

i would say to my conservative friends, when the government's invests money, spending money, it is not a bad thing. how do you think the highway system came here? how many jobs did the highway system creates? how many -- how much money did the government spend on putting the stuff in place to fit i can go on my pc and find out news from around the world. that did not drop ou of the sky. that was a result of investment spending. all spending is not a bad thing. that is the trouble i get when i listen to my friends on the other side. thank you for your show. it has been good. guest: 80 an important point. what is the difference between an investment a waste, fraud,

and reduced profit that is what it comes down to. republics are trying to couch their changes as, let's look were there is waste. the government accountability office came out with a report that said there is $100 billion in programs inovernment that could be halved, most republicans jumped on that and said this is where we could get some cuts. we don't have to cut into critical investments at this point. programs waste, fraud is another's critical investment. take a small example. speaker boehner in a speech last week defended the vouchers for d.c. it is a program that democrats got rid of. it was important to republicans to see education reform as links

to choice for parents, including funds to go into a parochial school. democrats said, what is the evidence that parochial schools do better than d.c. public schools put it to kids see gains in improvements that are significantly that is a factual debate. what is the evidence of it i think you'll see that on a whole range of issues. it is not enough to say it is waste, fruits -- fraud, and abuse. on the house side, you have committees that are now focused a piece by piece going through government spending with lawmakers raising questions d bring in witnesses to answer that question. is it critical or is it not? host: we have a tweet from gary .

host: does go to john, a republican in florida. you're next. caller: i agree wh what the person just tweeted in. republican stock about making cuts. we hear from the left -- republicans talk about making cuts. it is to the point where how they play the race card. we have to put more into education in this country. we rank near the bottom. money is not the issue. ok at all schools they operate most on a shoestring budget. they produce kid that are more than prepared for the upper level education. we need across-the-board cuts, probably 20% and a flat ta host: is that part of the

discussion? guest: absolutely. republicans were trying to figure out what the plan was. of the votes said let's cut $61 billion. but what to cut another $22 billion in across-the-board cuts. some did not support that. they did not like an across-the- board concept. they thought it was mindless. are some things more important than others. you cannot just do it with a meat cleaver. have to do it with a scalpel. host: we have another tweet from maverick. guest: a computer service. th is a very big issue. i remember in the 9/11 commission, one of the discoveries was the fbi did not

have search capacities on their computers. they havbeen working at this for years to improve this. computers -- that is not like high point of the govnment in its current form. i think you should send that letter to your member of congress and urg all of your friends to do the same. there is a greatavings if the government can figure out computer technologies. host: president obama sent out an e-mail announcing he is running for reelection. at do you think any impact that would have on this week's budget -- what do you think impact that would have this wee's budget discussion? guest: and think the president is missing on action, that he did not embrace the need to make budget cuts. his budget does not go far enough and includes trillions.

is focused on the campaign suggest he will not be there at all. for democrats, the idea that their best spokesman will be using the bully pulpit to make a case for government. why we need it, what is a critical investment? that can help the kind of case they are trying to make back here. host: sandra, an independent caller. caller: what happened to $30 million that was set aside for the orpha program that they never used but they still love -- $30 million. -- $13 million. i would like to also know -- michele bachmann has a loophole in the tax were surely pays $100

a month for property -- where she only pays $100 a month for property. what ever happened to the tax break for all the rich when their houses get washed away and everything else. we continually repeat to use that funding, to give it to them, and yet, we're hurting ourselves. i watched john stossel and he was talking about that. we need to find out why. guest: i do not know the specifics of the first case you mentioned. what was the expenditure? host: she is not with us. guest: any detail like that, getting this kind of tax break, it is not fair. let's fast-forward to a campaign ad for 2012. -- i did not cch what you said the first time.

host: we will move onto a democrat in buffalo. we are wh gail russell chaddock with the "christian science monitor." caller: i appreciate everything i get from watching c-span. if we follow the present cost planned for the budget, and his executive plant -- if we follow the president's plan for the budget, and just give it a chance, so the crisis that may be lower-class people or people who are citizens and taxpayers and who would love to have an opportunity to be involved and to help create, but there stifled because of all kinds of other conditions around them that to not allow them to get there.

and limited in my educational background. i am a living citizen and a taxpayer and a voter. guest: that is a nice set of issues. the question you raised about what stifles growth, i think you'll see more specific discussion in congress that in recent memory. what appears to be supporting growth, spending more money, in fact is not. there are certain regulations that are stifling growth. some small-business owners and entrepreneurs are asking the question, you are not hiring and you're not growing, why? what can the government do to change that? there is nothing more reectful than a real congressional debate. one of the criticism that is

made of congress is that it has not been having robust debates. there were not substantive back- and-forth so the american people can have an idea about what he's ideas do and why they're important. i think that would benefit both sides. this would be good for the president -- >> budget. there are alternatives. host: a couple more pne calls. only, md. -- oey, maryland. call: i am an american citizen. everybody calls in and talks about the democratic ews. if they are republican or a middle of the road to independence, they talk about conservative or liberal views.

we need to talk about american views. we have increased the size by over 21 2 million people. what to these people do -- but over 200 million people. host: let's te the point, the size othe federal government. guest: one of the interesting things is how many independent contractors there are. doingf the research we're is what happened to the government -- if the government jets down? for many -- if the government shuts down. it kind of already has. people are uncertain about what spending levels will be. contracts have been held up, in some cases, for six months. so what is the government prove it is the net worth -- remember

when the governmenwent lean and mean in previous administrations to the patent contract out the work, so that the government is not just those people. it is also the contractors who are picking up the -- they are not creating jobs in the uncertain climate. host: you were talking about the 87 republican freshmen and what we might not know about them. you're writing a piecehat is coming up next week in the "christian science monitor." guest: i was trying to give inghts. i campaigned with some of them to see how the world had changed. this is not a monolith, this class. they have very diverse views, even in terms of how they would cut and span.

members voted to increase spending for police and four firemen, who preserved funny in the department of education, department of energy, rather, for green programs. any time you hear something that begins the freshmen are, or even the tea party is, even the tea party is not a monolith. "war and peace."you had the leading freshman at loggerheads as to whether not he should sustain a war in libya. that would be senator rubio. get out and really, that would be senator rand paul. host: you can go to "christian science >> now senate majority leader

harry reid on the budget negotiations. from the senate floor, this is more than five minutes. mr. reid: mr. president, the time we have left to work on a budget agreement is extremely short. , a window which we can avoid a possible shutdown is closing quickly. it is no longer measured in months or weeks. we're now just down to a few days. in the time we have to get a long legislative process started in both houses is measured really in hours. it's clear that those sitting at the negotiating table have different priorities. that's true of aefrpb negotiation. but -- of any negotiation. but we all should share the same goal: to keep the country running and keep the economic recovery moving forward. we all want to cut the deficit. last week we agreed upon a number on which to base our budget. $73 billion below the president's proposal. agreements remain on where we

should make those cuts. we worked through the weekend to bridge that gap. we made some progress. we're not where we should be yet. there is another way in which the sides remain separated. democrats have demonstrated throughout this process that we're willing to meet in the middle. our republicans in the tea party continue to reject reality and insist instead on ideology. let me give a couple of examples. first, they refuse to recognize that h.r. 1, that is the budget the house passed, is going to happen. the tea party pushed it through the house over the objections of some republicans and all democrats. then the senate soundly defeated -- mr. president, even all republicans didn't vote for h.r. 1 in the senate. we all know the president would never sign it into law anyway. the republican party and the tea party need to admit that democrats have proven what the country already knows, that neither party can pass a budget without the other party and

neither chamber can send it to the other -- i'm sorry, neither chamber can send it to the president without the other chamber. democrats stand ready to meet the republicans halfway and the senate stands ready to meet the house halfway. we hope our partners on the other side are willing to be just as reasonable. second, tea party republicans refuse to recognize that their budget is simply an appalling proposal. they stomp their feet and call compromise a dirty word and insist on a budget that will hurt america rather than help it. it slashes programs for the sake of slashing programs. it chops zeros off the budget for nothing more than bragging rights. the authors and advocates either completely ignore the impact of their dangerous cuts or they know the damage it will do and simply don't care. either way it's not right. their budget won't do a thing to lower unemployment. in fact, it will cost the country 700,000 jobs.

that's not my estimate, mr. president. that's the estimate of the head of moody's, independent economists who worked for democrats and republicans. it hurts seniors. it slashes funding for the social security administration, which means seniors and disabled americans who count on the benefits they earn over a lifetime of hard work will have to wait for these benefits. in many cases those social security checks are seniors' only source of income. in some cases they are the only thing keeping them out of poverty. and those checks have nothing at all to do with the deficit. nothing. the republican budget will hurt women and their families. it cuts nutritional programs for women, infants and children. this program has nothing to do, mr. president, with the deficit. this program, the w.i.c. program, women, infants and children, this is a program for the poor, the very poor that our budget makes cuts to planned

parenthood. they are based on ideology, not economics. planned parent hao*t does not contribute -- does not contribute to the deficit. their budget will also hurt our veterans. there is a successful program in this country that helps homeless veterans afford housing. democrats think that our nation's veterans who are down and out, need a roof over their head and we think it's a worthy program. the republican budget nearly eliminates it. their budget will also hurt students. the tea party plan gives hundreds of thousands of impoverished boys and girls out of head start, a program to allow them to learn to read. little preschoolkids. it cuts college students' pell grants and slashes job training programs. that's no way to recover, mr. president. an independent economist analyzed the tea party's plan and found that it will actually

put the brakes on economic growth. the point of this whole exercise, our budget, is to help the economy. democrats will not stand for a budget that weakens our economy. none of the people i've just mentioned led us into the recession. punishing innocent bystanders like seniors, women, veterans and students will not lead us to recovery. this is what we mean when we say their budget is based on ideology and not reality. this is what we mean when we say the republican and tea party budget slashes irresponsibly and when they refuse to relent on dangerous cuts, many of them have nothing to do with the deficit. that's what we mean when we say that either side -- i'm sorry. that's -- i'm sorry, mr. president. and when they refuse to relent on those dangerous cuts, many of which have nothing to do with the deficit. that's what we mean when we say the other side simply isn't being reasonable. mr. president, our national budget reflects our values and

the tough choices that we make. democrats have made many tough choices because we know the sacrifices are the cost of consensus and we believe they're worth it. but we've never forgotten that what we cut is more important, is not more important than how much we cut. in addition, the many choices about what to slash and what to keep, the republican leadership has another very big choice to make. it has to decide whether it will do what the tea party wants it to do or what the country needs it to do. i'm hopeful we'll make the right choice and we can come to a timely agreement. but the bottom line is this: at the end of the day we're all on the same side. time, however, is not on >> in a moment, that anti- defamation league's conference with it dennis ross and the former ambassador to israel. in a little more than an hour

and a hal news conference with attorney general eric holder on plans to prosecute alleged 9/11 plotters. and a forum on the first 100 days of the 112th congress. on "washington journal," we will focus on budget negotiations with tom quintana, a member of the budget committee. and democrats chief deputy whip, peter welch of vermont. then we will be joined by the executive editor of "rolling stone," eric davis. the magazine published a story that alleges u.s. soldiers murdered civilians in afghanistan. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> policies ban on twitter. it is the fast this way to get programming update as well as events we have covered. you can join the conversations

and tweet questions directly to r "washington journal" guests. get started at twitter.com/c- span >> precedence -- dennis ross on the middle east conflict. from the anti-defamation league, this is a little more than half an hour. >> i was here year ago. i was here for your last convention a year ago. it is fair to say that very few in this audience predicted the

kind of upheaval that we are seeing in the region right now. alas for a show of hands. how many people there -- [applause] [laughter] you do not even know what the question was. [laughter] does that work when you're going for pledges, even before you ask? [laughter] [applause] david said that i had worked on these issues for more than a quarter of a century. thank you for reminding me. he [laughter] if you look back over this span of time, i cannot think of period of time with that kind of of people we are seeing today during this period we are seeing them. there is not a comparable period over the long period of time that i have worked on this region. in fact, i was saying jokingly how many people here would have

predicted that we would at popular revolts that would have swept out mubarak, creating what we're seeing in libya, huge demonstrations across the region literally from algeria to yemen to syria to bahrain. he the fact of what we are seeing right now is quite extraordinary, number one. and in that period of upheaval and uncertainty, there are great opportunities but also great risks. think about what we are seeing right now. if the upheavals and their transitions can in fact if all the right way, the potential for having -- evolve the right way, the potential for having a

better piece could in fact be the result of this. but also if it goes the wrong way, you have extremists hijacked these processes, much greater instability, and you have threats to our interest. the stakes are very high in. the need to manage to the extent that we can is very great. and what they want to do today is talk about how the obama administration views of what is going on in the region and what we are trying to do to help ensure and manage the pace of this process to evolve in a way that serves our interests in the interest of producing a middle east that is more peaceful, more stable, more free, and ultimately more prosperous region. i like to start with a question. why is it that so many of the

specialists on the middle east inside and outside the government for a long period of time assume that this type of change we are seeing take place in the middle east simply was not possible? i would suggest to you that there are a number of assumptions that tended to guide many of the specialists on the middle east for a long time and convinced them that time the change -- the types of changes we are seeing simply could not happen. one assumption was that the character of these regimes, not only their determination to hold power, but the instruments they have were so widespread, and their readiness to use intimidation and force to preserve power was just so daunting that it prevented this kind of change. a second assumption, the public or too fearful of challenging the regime, like the possibility for changes and they liked the hope.

where there were more liberal actors, they were he to suppressed or divided to make a challenge. a third assumption was that the arab street was so caught up in identifying with other causes like the causes of the palestinians, that that trumpet it -- trumps their own needs. and a fourth assumption was that this was a region was characterized by such fear of instability and chaos that they preferred order to disorder. there may well be other assumptions but i do not have time to go through all of them. i thought i would encapsulate what i think has been the kind of support assumptions that seemed to guide an analysis of this region for so long.

if there is one thing we can say about those traditional assumptions, they do not seem to wash today. the reality is that we're seeing in the region, something profoundly different is taking shape. we have to ask ourselves, what accounts for the dramatic changes? why are we seeing this? most fundamentally, i suggest that there has been a lot of fear. embodied in a generation of youth driving the facebook generation of the ones responsible for creating the pressure for change that we are now seeing and have led the way. they represent a democratic -- that demographic reality and is part of the world -- there is a youth bulge. they have been profoundly frustrated for good reasons. in far too many places, we have

seen governments that basically provide only for the few. they deny opportunities to the many carried they exclude the possibility of his participating in shaping the future for a generation that is now much more aware of their circumstances than ever before. because they are connected. they're connected through satellite television, through the internet, they are connected to the social media platforms. they know what exists elsewhere. they know what their own circumstances is. they know the gap between what they want and what has been available to them. and lacking in hope for a better future and facing the daily humiliation of a kind of ongoing brutality, but we have seen is a few brave souls became

determined to defy the state. let me cite a few of the examples that stand out. he indonesia -- in tunisia, it was a fruit vendor who was the catalyst for change. you may recall that he set himself on fire in front of a government building after an initial inspector had seized his fruit and slapped him publicly. in egypt, there were thousands of people who signed up for a facebook page honoring him. a 28 year-old businessman who was beaten to death by a security thug because he had the audacity to post on his block examples of corruption within the police. those who joined the "we are all" page, they knew they were

signing up for something that would be watched by security forces, but a sign that anyway. it was one of the creators of that page, a young google executive, who himself became a powerful symbol for the movement, particularly after he was detained for 12 days, came out as the plant as when he went in, and gave an emotionally charged and redding interview that went viral and help to ensure that this was a revolution that would not be stopped. one thing that drove not only these individuals but more dinner late this generation pushing this change -- but more generally this generation pushing this change, it was a very powerful desire for empowerment, for dignity, and foreign into a humiliation. -- and for an end to

humiliation. how is the obama administration responded? we had to recognize that we are not the source of this change. he will not be the ultimate drivers of how it evolves. but we do have a huge stake, as i was indicating. in fact there are a number of principles that have guided us. the first principle is that it is critical to have non- violence. it is critical for the government not to respond violently and for the protesters to maintain a posture of non- violence. the political change has to evolve peacefully. secondly. we have continually insisted that governments have to protect universal ideas and principles such as he the freedom of speech, assembly, association, and access to

information. and thirdly, because the grievances are real and meaningful, the only way to deal with them is the way process of credible, meaningful, and tangible reform. president obama said early on, "the world is changing. you have a young vibrant generation within the middle east looking for greater opportunity, and if you are governing these countries coming you have to get out ahead of change. you cannot behind -- you cannot be behind the curve." we are working with those governments closely who are taking on a meaningful effort for a form. but when governments have chosen the wrong approach, when they have tried to preserve the status quo and for the traditional means of coercion and violence, we have spoken out. on friday, following another day of violence in syria, the white house press secretary jay carney

issued a statement. we condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens demonstrating in surry. we applaud the dignity and courage of the syrian people. violence is not the answer to the grievances of the syrian people. what is needed is a path to greater freedom, democracy, and justice. over the past few months, we have spoken out repeatedly and we will continue to do so. it is not a surprise that when we see acts of violence against demonstrators, we are going to make it clear that that is the wrong way to proceed. because if there is any thing anyone in the region should have learned over the past couple of months, it is that trying to deny and suppress and stifle the call for a responsible -- us -- a response to legitimate grievances, it is not going to work. the government of bahrain should

recognize, if you tried to shut down newspapers or arrest blockers, this is not going to be the path to a political dialogue or a successful political outcome. clearly the obama administration has not only talked about what needed to be done, it has also acted. and nowhere is that more true than in libya and the response to what they got a -- gaddafi has tried to do with his own people. ng the advance toward bewnsh hazi promise no mercy, we worked with a coalition to prevent what surely would of been and humanitarian disaster. [applause] we would have seen a human slaughter. that is a certainty.

that would have been a disaster from every conceivable standpoint. a moral standpoint, the standpoint of its impact in the region -- you can imagine, had we permitted this to take place, you can imagine what would have happened in terms of instability, chaos, and the impact of that he on tunisia and egypt trying not to manage what is not a simple process of transition. having helped produce two security council resolutions, we joined a broad international consensus that included air. thyssen's like the uae and cut our -- air participants like united arab emirates and qatar. from the outset of this conflict, the president made it very clear -- on the front end,

we would use our unique capabilities to create an environment that will allow others to then be able to carry on and carry out the no-fly zone and also the civilian protection mission. the transition in terms of command-and-control took place last week, last thursday, when we handed over to nato full operational command for all the missions in libya. we will continue to support that mission. we will provide jamming, intelligence, and other logistical support including refueling. and moving forward, we know that we have helped to create space and time for the libyan people to determine their own destiny, and we will work with others in the contact group to help ensure or try to promote what will be an inclusive process that keflex though will and respect the

rights of the libyan people. -- representative flax -- that reflects a well and respects the rights of the libyan people. in egypt, we have had a very regular dialogue with the supreme council of the armed forces, with the government, and with a very wide range of civil society and non-governmental groups. he one consistent theme that we have emphasized with them has been that it is critical to support a set of principles, processes, and institutions. we're focused on those principles, processes, and institutions -- not on personalities. it is pretty remarkable. on march 19, more than 18 million people turned out to vote in a referendum on constitutional amendments.

it's a peacefully, they did so in a transparent way, the process was overseen by the judiciary, and it really was a remarkable display. this is not to say it that egypt is not facing enormous challenges. of course they are. this transition represents an enormous task. in the coming year alone, they have to deal with an economy that clearly is struggling at this point. they have to deal with elections that are now scheduled for the parliament and then for a president. they also have to draft a new constitution. in this process already we have made a number of suggestions, and they focus principally on how you can ensure that this process will unfold freely, fairly, and peacefully. and we have committed to do whatever we can throughout this transition to be of help. we understand the stakes, and as

a result we have reassigned millions of dollars of assistance to support the transition. and we're working now and to establish and enterprise fund that can be a stimulus for private sector investment, that can help create competitive markets, and can provide for business access to low-cost capital. as importantly, we're working with our allies to develop what could be up here broader economic stabilization over time. it will be sought in tahrir square -- what we saw in tahrir square, there is a reason to be hopeful and optimistic, that the egyptian people will become increasingly invested in their government, and establish a degree of legitimacy that we have simply not seen before. renewed legitimacy of the governments in the middle east will not only improve the

stability of these countries. it will also provide new opportunities for regional cooperation and ultimately for peace as well. for far too long, this is something all of you in this audience know, for more to long we have had governments that lack legitimacy and sought to shift the attention away from what was going on inside. they sought to defer the anger they knew existed in their own society away from them and on to others, on to us, and on to the israelis. one of the most remarkable features of these peaceful protests that we have seen is that they are cut this and their preoccupation with domestic issues. they focus on the abuses of the security forces, on government corruption, that focus on the absence of economic opportunities, and they focus on the limited ability to protest a paid in decisions that affect

their own future. -- to participate in decisions that affect their own future. when they come into power as we hope and believe that they can, they will have responsibility for shaping the future of their country, and they want their countries to be successful. they are much more likely to see the value and the importance of pursuing peace and cooperation. the more that countries are able to invest their resources in their own future, they're much less likely to invest the resources in conflict. and the more they are able to address their own needs, the more likely they are going to be to address the very causes of what produced what is being called the problems in the first place. as many of you remember shimon peres here, and we will have lunch with him in the white house, in 1993, he spoke about a

new middle east. he talked about a new middle east in which there would be trade, cooperation, and peace. that was a vision that we wish had taken place over the last few decades. but the reality is, it could not be built on an authoritarian foundation for a look at this region. what you see? it has almost no inter-regional trade. it has very little internal investment. it is a region that has few institutions and domestically or transnational it that you see in almost every other area. it will be a different region in time, and so all that must change. we can offer not just the vision but the possibility of creating a very different kind of middle east. that is something we have a very strong interest in pursuing. we can help that process, we can facilitate the process, by

working with civil society and non-governmental groups, with the international financial institutions, and by promoting public/private partnerships that were to help these countries in a transition, acquire the resources they need, and the knowledge they need to build a different kind of future peace is essential in the region not only to enhance the prospect of trade and cooperation. it will insure that has a new generation of leaders emerge, casey that peace is a possibility. -- they see that peace is a possibility. they say that it is not an impossibility. they also need to see that negotiation not only can take place but they can actually produce. israelis and palestinians need to see that in negotiations him at their real needs can be not only understood by the other side, but also addressed by the other side.

israelis particularly during the time of change and uncertainty must see that their security will be addressed any meaningful way and in a way that does not leave them vulnerable to the uncertainties and changes taking place in the region. he palestinians need to see that they can have an independent space that is contiguous and viable. and clearly the more tangible signs that the occupation is receiving, the more they will believe that is a possibility. in this time of uncertainty and change, if there's one thing that is not uncertain, it is the relationship the united states and israel. at the time of such change, and knowing that we had a friend that we can count on is something that is critical to the united states. with israel, we are relationship that is enduring because it is bound together by a set of shared a values and shared

interest. one thing i can say without any qualification at all is that for the obama administration, the commitment to israel's security is something that is unshakeable an ironclad. [applause] those are not just words. we approach this from the standpoint of giving it life and meaning. many of you may of heard with secretary gates in israel week ago said that i want to quote. the secretary gates. someone who has a span of 40 years in government. he said, "i cannot recall a time during my public life and our two countries have had closer defense relationships.

the united states and is cooperating closely in areas such as missile defense technology, the to a strike by air, and training exercises, cooperation and support so that israel can maintain its qualitative military edge." our cooperation is contributing to the security on a daily basis, signifying most recently by is the plumbing of the iron dome short-range rocket defense system, which we helped provide an additional $2 billion this year for. secretary gates has served longer than i, but not by much more time. i am one of those people who was one of the original draft of something known as strategic cooperation with israel. i can tell you how was the cooperation designed to reflect shared values and shared interests. the institutions that grew out of that over time became real,

but the exchanges that they produced were highly stylized. what has changed in this administration has been an in depth, ongoing, frequent, continuous discussion across the whole range of national security issues and concerns. and i can reflect also with secretary gates, in all the time that i have said then in the administration's i have been in, i have never seen that kind of strategic cooperation that exists today between the united states and israel. and that is a fact. [applause] it is also more important than ever, i would say, precisely because of what we're seeing in the region as a whole, precisely because of the changes we are seeing. with change comes not only opportunities, but risks. the fact is iran sees in turmoil

something to exploit, or to try to exploit. it is using its proxy's to try to inflame sectarian tensions in places like the rain, precisely at a moment when what is needed is to overcome sectarian differences and respond to legitimate grievances, and what hezbollah does makes that more difficult. iran has been quick to criticize arab governments who are repressing its people. that is a dramatic pause for irony. [laughter] i want you to think about it. think about the fact that iran criticizes arab governments for repressing their people. at the very moment, when it does that to its own people and more. think about the irony that at the very moment he eat what we have seen is people throughout

the arab world find their voice, iran is determined to squash the voice of its own people who are pressing for their own rights. the iranians are not fooling anybody. they are also not fooling anybody as they continue to pursue their nuclear programs in defiance of iaea and security council resolutions. as a security adviser stress last week, even with the events unfolding in the mill is, we are ensuring that iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. on our own and with others, we will continue to increase the pressure on iranians. on march 24, the un human rights council passed a resolution appointing a special but the tour -- a special member investigate abuses in iraq.

iran continues to contend with the sanctions that to you are far more comprehensive than any they have faced before. the results of those sanctions at this point are already being felt. operand cannot do business with any reputable bank. i ran cannot conduct transactions in dollars or euros. iran cannot get insurance for shipping. they're finding it increasingly difficult to get capital and investments in technology to put into an antiquated infrastructure that it has in oil and natural gas. one measure of that is that something around $60 billion have either been put on hold or simply discontinue. across every sector of the iranian economy coming uc international companies no longer doing business precisely

because they understand the risks of doing that. unless and until iran complies with its responsibilities and all the relevant u.n. security council resolutions, one thing i can tell you without qualification -- we will continue to ratchet up the pressure. it has a choice to make and it will not be able to evade it. as i have enumerated so far, you get the sense that we have a very wide array of challenges that we have to contend with. our agenda is clear -- support the coalition forces in their mission to protect the civilians of libya and support a peaceful, inclusive, and democratic transition there. support and help to consolidate the transitions in places like egypt and tunisia, encourage others in the region that they need to get out in front of

reform, not hang back. work to try to promote peace between israelis and palestinians and israelis and the arabs, and make sure that we continue to build the pressure on a rant -- iran. it is a daunting agenda but we are addressing it. the president is a turned -- is determined to press it with great determination and vigor. thank you very much. [applause] >> the ambassador has agreed to take a pocket -- a couple of questions. i invite you to come to the microphone. there are microphones on each side. and if we need to, we would take a couple at a time.

please say your name and where you are from. >> good morning. george gibson from eastman, texas. last night, a very important question was asked of ambassador warren and this audience would like to hear a response to the same question. how does this administration plan to respond to the moves, particularly within the un, to recognize the palestinian state outside of the peace process in the general assembly? the moves have been made made in south america and other countries, but the united nations is an important organization. if the administration has a plan for that -- thank you. >> steve daniels, palm beach gardens. if you could talk about saudi arabia and any likelihood of what is happening in countries

happening in saudi arabia? >> bill from seattle. just asking about yemen and specifically talking about that country and wondering about -- i know that the administration changed its position, maybe, is what i have heard. i am curious what you would say about that. >> ok. i'll take them in the order they were given or asked. with regard to the first question, which had to do with the recognition of a palestinian state. we have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a palestinian state is through negotiations. not for unilateral declaration, not by going to the un -- we have approached countries and said this is not the way to do it. this does not make the announcement more likely, and

not to produce a palestinian state. our posture has been consistent and we will continue to oppose it. i would note that wouldabbas himself prefers negotiation. the most important thing is to find a way to get back into negotiations. the with a palestinian statehood can be achieved. it will not be achieved through other means. as regards saudi arabia, i think is fair to say you are watching a region that is undergoing tremendous change as i described. it will not be the same in every country, that is at that. the circumstances different different countries. the reality is that change is would be part of this landscape and every country will have to come up with ways to address it. that certainly is a reality the

wimble all states. it is fair to say that saudi arabia is a country that has a society that is more conservative, but i do believe they're responding to the need for changes something -- it is something that they will have to respond to. the fact is, there is a demand for change in yemen. there will have to be a process that produces it. we're working to ensure that the process there is one that can be carried out peacefully, one that can be done in a way that ensures stability, and one that responds to the needs and interests and grievances of the people there. the basic principles that have been guiding us, those principles we continue to apply to the region as a whole.

[applause] >> ambassador ross, in these uncertain times, our country is fortunate that it has someone with your expertise and your commitment and your understanding and sensitivity to the issues. i remember sitting here last year and you did whisper to me that maybe this will be the year when democracy will seize the middle east. i know why you remember -- i do not know why you remember, i remember. [laughter] next year when you grace our podium hopefully, the thing that we hoped for and not really sure to expect with a sense of certainty, true peace between

israeli and the palestinians, is something that you will be able to analyze and welcome with us as something that we hope for and strive for, something that you had given more than 25 years of your life, your experience, and your knowledge to achieve. hopefully we will achieve it and witness it together. thank you. [applause] >> the asset-defamation league conference also heard from the u.s. ambassador to israel who said the best way for israel to survive is to allow palestinian state. he was part of an hour-long panel on political unrest in the middle east. >> good morning. that was a great speech by ambassador ross. we are so lucky to have him

addresses every year. since president obama came to office promising a new approach to diplomacy in the middle east, and vigorous engagement in arab-israeli peace efforts, the middle east has seen seismic changes in the way none of us could have imagined. as debate goes over -- goes on over u.s. involvement in libya, the wars in iraq and afghanistan, observers agree that the israeli-palestinian peace negotiations have not advanced in a way that the administration had hoped. and that efforts to invigorate arab-israeli negotiations have at times tested the u.s.-israeli relationship. we are privileged to have with us this morning three experts, each with a unique first and perspective on america's middle east policy. these veterans will share their views of the challenges facing the administration and their

vision to the best way forward in the quest for an arab-israeli peace and for stability in the region. mark is vice-president and director for foreign-policy at the brookings institution and senior adviser and special envoy for middle east peace, george mitchell -- george mitchell. it as senior director of near east and south asian affairs. his department posts include two tours as u.s. ambassador to israel and service as assistant secretary of state for near east affairs. before entering government service, he served for eight years as founding executive director of the washington institute for near east policy.

he writes, many of the editorials on foreign-policy. his columns have been required reading for those interested in the inner workings of america's strategy in the middle east and u.s.-israel relations. he reported on the middle east from jerusalem and has covered latin-american and eastern european politics from bazaar isouth america and poland. his diplomatic posts include assistant secretary of state for international organizations which covers the un.

he is [unintelligible] democracy promotion to my human rights policy. we have a reporter who has covered these issues day in and out. he will give the floor to each of our panelists to open with a few remarks before he opens it up to questions. i would like to thank all three of you for honoring us by taking time to be with us this morning. >> good morning. thank you. we will start with five minutes

from each of the panelists and will go to responses. we will open up further. but start. >> we were up in the podium less time. it tells you how far we have come. it has been a long journey and the counter productive one. in the end, what is happening in the third world is profound and consequential for the challenges

roe faces in terms of trying to achieve a two-stage solution for the israeli-palestinian conflict. we have to start with what is happening around israel. the change that is sweeping across the arab world which i am confident, no one predicted this would happen. none of my predictions have ever proven true. i am confident there is not one arab country that will not be touched by what is happening. what is interesting if you look at it from the point of view from the impact it has on israel and an impact on peace making,

the demonstrators in the street are not burning [unintelligible] and they are not raising the banner of palestine. the focus is on bringing their governments and achieving freedom and government. that does not mean that will not come around. to the palestinian issue. one should not be complacent. arab governments wanted to deflect opinion from the issues they are demonstrating by focusing on the palestinian issue.

they did not have an impact on public opinion. they have more important issues. the popular government is more responsive to the people could focus on this issue. it may take some time. in the meantime, not only our governments preoccupied with their own survivor -- survival, the obama administration is preoccupied with dealing with the consequences of major people. the foundation [unintelligible]

we are in the midst of a quiet but fairly profound crisis in relations between the u.s. and saudi arabia. it is not about israel. we're also preoccupied with what i consider to be a slide show -- sideshow in libya. what happens in an agent will have profound consequences. and so the administration does not have to -- the bandwidth to do with trying to promote arab- israeli [unintelligible] in this context. the potential that was out there was taking place between

israel and syria is also [unintelligible] >> now that the leader of syria faces the challenge that was too long in coming, to respond to their demands for greater freedom from the tyranny of the syrian party. the consequences of this is that israelis and palestinians probably for the first time in their existence are left to their own devices. it would be a a good thing in my view from israel's point of view if it tried to resolve

conflict with the palestinians now while the rest of the arab world is not watching. while the u.s. is preoccupied. it is clear that time is not on israel's side. the clock is ticking. it did not have to read yesterday's quoted near times article about the building in the -- pressure building to declare palestine the state and put israel in the position of being an occupying power under international law and subject to u.n. sanctions if united states were ever to allow that to happen which i think it will. the pressure is clearly building. i will finish on that point. it would benefit israel to check

the prospect of resolving issues between israel and the palestinians. fax thank you and is an honor to be here. i sort of feel like i am the buffer zone. these are diplomats that are far smarter and experienced and distinguished that i am and also older, i should point out. [laughter] i'm going to try to be quick. and i will be more provocative because i like them i do not have to worry about somebody quoting what i say. what i am going to do is focus on the obama administration's handling of the era -- arab

uprising which has been effective in some way but it is planning to the weaknesses of this administration and president which are to embrace the conventional thinking and to be too cautious in responding to big opportunities that come along. obama began with an outdated and conventional view of the middle east. and defining the arab-israeli conflict. this was the classic american view of the region but i thought it was unfortunate. the bush administration had made the conceptual breakthrough after 9/11 in saying that the arab-israeli conflict was not

central. the of problem was the stasis of autocratic regimes. the bush administration cannot pursue this to the end and it lost its nerve after a while. and understood the region differently. the obama administration started with the mistake of going back to the old philosophy. as a result, they were taken by surprise by this uprising. there are many people who was -- were saying that this was untenable. experts are trying to tell demonstration that change was inevitable. demonstration did not listen. in every country, where this

change has exploded, the initial impulse seems to be to resist the idea that change is inevitable or desirable. obama was quoted as saying you cannot allow yourself to be behind the curve. hillary clinton's first statement that obama was the last public leader to make a statement criticizing khaddafi. the first major statement was to say that bashar assad is a reformer. we should expect him to go ahead with reform. what worries me is the u.s. will not do enough to embrace this change and will not do enough to support the cause of change and it will slip back into the old ways in the region.

the arab-israeli issue is defined as central. i'm worried obama will be too ambitious and the middle east peace process and not ambitious enough on arab reform. the first instance of doing enough quickly is libya. obama did the right thing in deciding to intervene but he is doing at in what amounts to a penny wise and pound foolish way. he is defining -- it is essential that khaddafi not beinallowed to massacre his way. other arab rulers will take this as an example. the administration's approach has the danger of creating a stalematstatement.

by not acting against gaddafi, we are inviting the consequences we're worried about. radicalizing the opposition, giving a place for al qaeda, creating what hillary clinton herself warned could be oa big somalia. it seems to be an unrealistic attitude and it reflects what has been a trend in washington to cling to this idea that somehow, we can talk the syrian regime and to transforming itself into breaking its alliance with a run to be cooperative and has bought to make peace with israel. the last two weeks have shown that those ideas were an illusion. we need to move on for that. there are legitimate reasons to worry about what could happen if

the syrian regime were overturned. it is a messy country. any major changes likely to lead to the rise of of regime that would be left with -- led by sunnis and be less friendly to hazlet. the logical policy would be to embrace those who are bringing about change. i want to come to the arab- israeli issue. which i think there will be a natural impulse as there seems to be at the end of every middle east crisis. for everyone to turn their attention to israel and the palestinians and saying this is the coda. we have to settle this once and for all and we see that coming

in september when i think the palestinians will go to the general assembly and seek recognition. the obama administration, you could say, is engaged in a defense of diplomacy. it is under pressure from european states which are considering embracing this palestinian initiative and if they did, it would put the u.s. and israel in a difficult position. the question is, how you manage it. do you manage it by the insisting there be quick progress toward the settlement between israelis and the palestinians which is some of what we're hearing. it is we heard from secretary gates when he was in tel aviv and that is a return to an unrealistic way of thinking about the situation. it will be less likely we can move forward. where have all the same elements that impede progress

before including leaders of both sides who are very reluctant to make the necessary compromises and who lack the political basis internally to make -- pushed through the big changes. now we have the additional element of enormous uncertainty of who are going to be israel's neighbors, what will be their attitude toward the peace process? it will be the -- who will be the leaders in jordan year from now? during the course of that year while no one is looking, israelis and palestinians will and this conflict is wildly unrealistic. what concerns me is the administration will focus its ambition on doing that and not enough of its ambition on taking advantage of this enormous opportunity they have. >> thank you. let me begin by saying to

jackson what ronald reagan once said to walter mondale. we will not use your inexperience against you. [laughter] i have two problems in following the speakers. i should be in bed drinking tea with lemon. i was ordered to come here so i am here. i agree with both of them. in almost everything they have said. i would like to put a twist on the israeli-palestinian part. i was in israel 10 days ago and the government is frozen. trying to figure out what to do given the various pressures that are emerging. some of them, the arab revolt. jordan looks different. part of it is really politics

which is as usual, difficult. as the prime minister tried to figure out what initiatives he might take diplomatically he had the same problem that aerial shot brown had which was a fractious coalition and a difficult party. more difficult because he created a new party and more of the central elements are of right wing party that it was. he had another great advantage as he thought about taking risks. that was the certainty the u.s. had his back. you heard dennis say that u.s.- israel military cooperation is good as or better than it has been. the administration should get credit for that. it is excellent. the diplomatic cooperation is

poor. we have seen events in the un we have not seen for some time including the last video. which should have been easy as pie can which was followed by a disgusting speech on the part of susan rice which adopted the view taken by those who were in favor of the resolution we beat out. it blames israel for everything. and blames the settlements for everything. what i do think is the israelis want to do something and that sounds easy. what i do not like is to see israel sitting there fretting about the changes in the arab world, fretting about washington, fretting about new york, worried about what the palestinians will do and in a bunker doing nothing diplomatically. it is a broad consensus that

they need to separate from the palestinians. very broad. it is 90% or higher today. the question i asked is if you -- would go to separate from the palestinians? i'm talking about the west bank. the beginnings of moves that would lead toward the result that the israelis want. or are resigned to. they are going to be out of most of the west bank at some point. the vast majority of the sellers are going to have to move at some point. i think israel would get an enormous amount of credit if it took any steps to move toward the goal that it seeks. just one example.

there is a law that says any subtler beyond the fence who wishes to move back behind the fence in green line israel or major block. the government will purchase your home as they did in gaza. there are a fair number of people in those settlements who would move back for financial reasons. we need to get past the notion that separating from the palestinians as a favor that israel does for the palestinians. it is not. it is the conclusion that most israelis have reached, to put it in one line. there will not live in peace but they can live in peace apart from the palestinians. the question is, if that is the end results, three prime ministers in a row have said it

is the result they are seeking, why is it not possible to take of smallest step in that direction? not just for the diplomatic benefit that may accrue in washington or new york or london or berlin. although not actions that israel can take, winning for the international things to do right or wrong.

are there not steps israel could take in its own interest? thank you. >> is an unrealistic to arrive at some sort of agreement? >> probably. i'm not sure. did everyone here the question? isn't unrealistic to expect the israelis and palestinians to make a deal quietly? the best way for them to do it is quietly. they have ways of doing that. the prime minister's resident is a short ride from jerusalem. u.s.ot suggesting the

focus on this. i think is right. the obama administration needs to focus on what is happening in the arab world. it would be a mistake to imagine we could stabilize the situation and give voice to [unintelligible] in terms of demands for change. somehow, trying to resolve the israeli-palestinian conflict. at these moments when others are diverted and it becomes easier, not more difficult for israelis and palestinians to engage without the external pressure, without having to game washington, try to get the u.s. on your side which israeli government's are normally

preoccupied with. and basically we're in agreement. this would be a good time for the israeli government to take the initiative. what i fear is that the problem with the palestinian leadership is not good -- that they do not want to [unintelligible] they do not believe netanyahu is serious. i have at all -- they have an alternative route. i am afraid that will lead to deterioration of the situation as israel looks to retaliate against the palestinians for the isolation that israel is suffering. it is a question of sitting down quietly and figuring out how to do this. and if they do not soon, they

will resign or he will unite with hamas, as difficult as that might be. that is the trend they are heading toward. for all these reasons, it makes sense for israel to sit down with people who want to make a deal and do it. >> i will grab the microphone back. i think he makes an excellent point. it would be a wonderful moment to go off quietly and talk to each other. the problem we have is the enormous level of distrust you have between this group of palestinians and israeli leaders and having talked to both, the palestinian leadership and abbas have been convinced that netanyahu is someone hit they cannot work with. the best strategy is to allow the u.s. and israel to get into

a fight and for him to be forced out that why which is their view of what happened in the 1990's, so there will let it happen again. they have not varied from that view and strategy. easier to go toinds it the un and other than to contemplate the idea of sitting down and having a serious discussion about the right of return. i have never seen any evidence he is prepared to do. netanyahu for his part thinks that abbas is not serious and does not want to make a deal and even if you wanted to come he could not deliver anything and it is a waste of time to talk to him. that level of distrust is so poisonous and it makes it difficult for something like that to happen. something like what happened in the early 1990's when they went off and talk to each other productive way. elliott was suggesting something different. a reprise of what was the

which was toan change that situation for the better. i feel like the israelis took the lesson and netanyahu took the lesson that doing that in gaza was a mistake. because of what happened in gaza and the cannot do the same thing. the reason they dropped the idea is that did not want to see a repeat of what happened in gaza were you have a takeover by hamas and another iranian many stayed on their border. why would they contemplate such a thing given what happened in gaza? >> that is the right question. the idea that they will be able to negotiate a deal is not realistic. for all the obvious reasons, i do not think these are compromises. on the israeli side, the prime minister would need to get kadima in a coalition.

i may be wrong with my read on kadima. the nuts years in into and of government and she is the he about being his successor, not his foreign minister and i wonder whether she would join a coalition no matter what position it took. the answer i think your question is to not move out the ids. the difference between what sharon dead in gaza and the thought that the sellers in outlying settlements who are not going to survive would move back. you would not constrain the eye -- the ability of the idf to act, so you would not have another gaza. >> that came out in the book about condoleezza rice. sharon had that idea but cause

of -- share of world sharon which is an interesting wrinkle. you talked to jackson about this administration's approach to syria and the idea that really would be replaced by a sunni elite and distance themselves from serzh -- from iran. the israelis outlined the possibilities of a post-regime syria. none of them were good. there were not happy with -- there were less happy with the prospect of what would replace it in terms of the security they have had on the heights and the relative -- the degree to which the have been able to negotiate with the regimes. what has changed since then?

what would change be more salutary that was in 2005? >> none of us understand what might happen in syria which makes me qualified to speak about it. as qualified as anyone else. first, i would say that one characteristic of the israeli government is they do not like change anywhere around them for whatever reason. they are too cautious in that respect, too conservative. i think it is shortsighted of israel and overly -- they're the ultimate high for realists. it is shortsighted to prefer a dictatorship to any change whatsoever. things can go wrong. will it be worse than a dictator with iran? i do not see it.

what is different is the arrival of this young arab generation that dennis ross was talking about. relatively educated, restless youth, middle-class, who won their countries to join the 21st century and become democratic, global, with free-market economies. the class exists in syria. you can find them in damascus. they are there. i -- what we do not know what happened, it is possible there would be the ones that would end up on top of any change that would happen. >> my mind started going forward and i was imagining the first step of a outlying settlements and there is an argument over whether there would get

compensation. it would be bogged down in politics. the prime minister gave a speech a few weeks ago in which he talked about the events talking -- in the middle east. how do you persuade the promised he does have agency and can advance events, no one has control over events outside their country, but he can influence events. >> it is difficult. you have to political factors. washington and jerusalem. there is a great deal of distrust between netanyahu and obama. there is no trust. it is unfortunate for them and us. as the prime minister thinks about what to do -- this makes

it more difficult. the u.s. could say to him, if you're thinking of any corrective position, talk to us about it and let us try to get behind it and let's see what we can negotiate to support you, to help you, to stand by you, to have her back. including if the u.s. is in favor of the proposal, put pressure on someone like the leadership of kadima. to get behind it. if i were betting, i would bet after looking the point -- at the political situation, the prime minister -- no one talks

about it anymore. the idea of a major speech which was to announce the major idea seems to have been withdrawn. there is a major step to be taking. if i am betting, i will bet against it. this is a moment where bogus on the part of the israelis would be significant. i will give you another example. they can all move to aeririel ad there would be good strength in ariel. here is an example that many of you may not like. peru and chile and argentina have recognized the palestinian state. maybe israel should recognize

the palestinian state and everyone will say what does that mean? i will say what does it mean when chile recognizes the palestinian state? do they recognize syria? i do not know. israel recognized syria was there. i was reading the the most recent and extremely persuasive foreign ministry arguments. what happens, we're in agreement. there is no return to the '67 borders. that is not going to happen.

it is a state whose borders are indeterminate and with which we have grave border disputes which should now be negotiated. i do not know how that disadvantages israel when you compare the position they may be in hansard to burn anyway. that is what i mean by thinking through. >> we have nothing urgent to do. >> good morning. how wonderful it is

that the young people are spurring the revolutions across the middle east. my concern is to look at a to try now -- after egypt right now. the young people are in the forefront of who will control agent going forward. they seem to have been marginalized. is it still realistic to look at egypt and the optimistic that egypt down the road will be a democratic, youth oriented to use the driven state -- youth driven state? >> there is plenty of reason to be concerned.

you have to look back to the iranian revolution and what happened there. you follow what is happening in egypt. there is reason for optimism. the youth and broad support they have were concerned about the way the military and the muslim brotherhood seem to be making a common cause of their expense. they're calling for elections which would have given them little time to organize the muslim brotherhood and the old national democratic party. they came out of the streets in

force. before that, the military have listened to them and postponed the election until september. they have seen what the secular and youthful forces can do in terms of mobilizing people. they have gone back into the streets. there is an alliance being forged. we should not assume the worst case is going to happen.

european allies can help them organize politically and they want to help insure when the government is informed. the brotherhood would not want to take them. they would rather a new career and be formed and a failed. we have to lay the groundwork to make sure does not fail. and tourism has stopped. a lot of the entrepreneurs are in jail who were associated with the regime. capitalists [unintelligible] it will be a huge challenge.

it is a scary situation but exhilarating and there is a lot of opportunity. to have the courage these young people are showing is important. >> telling people they should reject when there are good constitutional reforms, they had no organization and two weeks to prepare. >> what they do not want to -- what are your thoughts about

what they do what? >> there is a lot to reject. what people are saying -- it is the end of the myth of arab exceptional loss of. people are saying we do not want censorship or secret police, or political prisoners. we do not want stolen elections were corrupt governments. arabs are rejecting that and saying, we want to get rid of all that and we will have a decent government. i think you're right in saying there more clear what their or rejecting them what they're for. i think it is much too soon to be pessimistic about where this

will lead. it will lead to a sundowns. some countries will do better than some places it looks more than other places it will be difficult and violent. i am struck by the fact that what has gone were the state republics. the so-called republics of fear. tunisia, egypt, yemen. hopefully syria. the monarchies have a better shot and a greater degree of legitimacy. you have seen the ruling family is trying to stay ahead of the curve. whether they will make it or not remains to be seen. >> another question. >> i would like to talk about libya -- i would like you to talk about libya.

in particular, i have read articles raising questions and concerns about the composition with those participating, we do not have a good sense of which groups are involved, who they are, who they are beholden to. if you have anything you could share, i would appreciated. >> al qaeda does have operatives in libya. there is potential for that force to grow considerably in the chaos that exists in libya today. a lot of libyans were trained by al qaeda in afghanistan.

the relationship between the u.s. and gaddafi was built in part on cooperation against those elements. we have a common enemy, ironic to think about in those ways. there is a potential there. it is one of the reasons why the obama administration is hesitant to get into the game of army. the rebels. we have been there before when we armed the taliban. against the soviet union and ended up having to worry about those steers coming back to be used against america. the concern is there. it has to be monitored carefully and a prolonged situation of chaos. it will advantage of qaeda.

the real question is whether it becomes possible bidder to get gaddafi out quickly in which case you have a stalemate of the opposition forces with the support of the coalition who are able to build their capabilities, train forces, and in the process, be able to control the territory and prevent a somalia-like situation. >> let me ask a question about bahrain. how do get above the curve in which -- in a country where the u.s. has invested against

creeping iranian influence and yet it is an unpopular government? >> i do worry about the situation. we could settle this in five minutes. they must move toward a constitutional monarchy. it is clear. the system cannot be one in which all power is in the hands of the ruling party and zero in the hands of the population. they have a real parliament that is elected.

the ruling family cannot survive. moderates in the shia leadership will have a harder time with a radical elements of the community. i hope the u.s. is vigorously engaged with trying to bring all the influence we can bear on both sides for the shia groups, the government of iraq and the ayatollah and the arab side, people like [unintelligible] it is late in the game and we could end up with a tragitraged. >> you're right. the reason for that is because

saudi arabia has taken over bahrain. taken over control of what happens there on the government side. and made it clear it will not brook the kind of process leading to a constitutional monarchy that elliott has talked about. from their point of view, that will lead to share a government- bahrain. that will be for the persians. the next up is for the saudi arabia -- up to saudi arabia. they look at what is happening and they see it as sectarian and

iranian versus saudis. they are not prepared to talk to about it. they have come to identify the u.s. as a threat to their internal security. there rely on us for the -- wenal security and c. have a problem. they are telling the king of jordan, don't you dare. i would not be surprised if they are telling him to not given either. syrian to thean north and egypt to the west. it is inconceivable that will

not be affected. they are determined to erect a wall against the tsunami. i do not think it will work here. we should not imagine that in the part of the malaise that is most sensitive to our interests. this is going to go well. these kingdoms have to get on a path towards constitutional monarchies. the king of morocco gave a far reaching speech two weeks ago. he is promising that process to his own people and reestablished trust.

find a way to move them forward. i'm afrai>> i would like to como the idea of bold initiatives, whether it is bilateral or unilateral and put it in the context we were talking about and try and set a time line. we have been watching policies developed on the fly. earthquakes, it seems that is time when we should be looking at the reset and evaluating and bucking up against what are the real time lines and the artificial time lines. whether it is the demographic of

a clock is ticking and put in context what you see as a realistic time line for assessing making major policy decisions which could have existential ramifications for israel. >> the changes will play out over a decade or two. i agree with the description of the situation. you can see that it is extremely complex. the israelis have decided and have agreed the direction in which they wish to go. separation from the palestinians. they do not want to have a state -- if we know the goals,

what can we take some steps to move toward it. that is my suggestion. >> we all know what the endgame is. we have been through this summer a times. we know what it looks like. we all know that if there is going to be an israeli- palestinian situation, there has to be a palestinian state. that state will not be on the move, it will be on the west bank. we all know that the palestinian state will be based on the lines of june 4, 1967. is that something that will cause the demise of the jewish state? it will secure the jewish state. what is holding us up?

us, not just israel. this is something we will support. we want to see it happen. it is in the best interest of the survival and there is a sense of urgency. israel is strong economically, militarily, and you can see the way the alliances have grown so formidably. now beginning to fret. angela merkel is having a shouting match with netanyahu. let alone the relationship between barack obama and netanyahu.

the writing is on the wall. i just wish that in the circumstances where we have an opportunity to do something, that we would get behind an israeli government. that decided to resolve it now. >> my headlines would be, nobody in the middle east trusts obama. flames are lapping at saudi arabia and the economy is about to collapse. for liviu to euronext section which is about the collapse of civil rights in america. -- i leave you to the next section which is about the collapse of civil rights in america. [laughter] [applause]

>> in a few moments, a press conference with eric holder about prosecuting 9/11 terrorists. and then a forum on the first 100 days of congress and the outlook on congress this week. and then and that-defamation league leadership conference at here is from dennis ross on unrest in the middle east and the arab-israeli conflict. several live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network,3,. house republicans led by paul ryan release their proposed budget for fiscal year 2012. that is at 10:30 a.m. eastern.

at 12:15 p.m., a memorial service for david broder. speakers include joe biden, and glenn eyeful of pbs. >> this weekend on c-span2, the co-authors of "y obamacare is wrong for america," present their criticism. three alternative histories -- the jfk administration than ever was, robert kennedy's presidency, and the re-election of gerald ford and subsequent to feet of ronald reagan. predicted feet of ronald reagan. live coverage from the annapolis boat festival. but for the complete schedule at both t v. board, and get our

schedule to you. >> attorney general eric holder says of let it 9/11 plotters will be charged by the military instead of civilian courts. in a 15 minute news conference this afternoon, he said congress was undermining connor as some predict counter-terrorism efforts that pass laws that kept these cases from the federal courts. >> as i set then, the decision

in federal court and military commissions was not an easy one to make. i began my review of this case with an open mind and with just one goal -- but the facts, look at the law, look at where we could achieve swift and sure justice most effectively for the victims of those horrendous attacks and those family members. after consulting with prosecutors with the department of justice and the department of dense, -- defense, and after a thorough study in the case, it became clear to me that the best venue for prosecution was in federal court. let me be clear -- i stand by that decision today. as the indictments unsealed today revealed, we were prepared to bring a powerful case against these five co- conspirators. one of the most well researched and documented cases i have ever seen in my decades of experience as a prosecutor.

we had carefully a value-added the evidence and concluded that we could prove the defendant's guilt are adhering to the pet rock tradition and values of our laws. we have consulted extensively with the intelligence community and develop detailed plans for handling classified evidence. as this case proceeded in manhattan or in an alternative venue in the united states, as i seriously explored in the last year, i am confident that our justice system could have performed with the same distinctions that has been its hallmarks for over 200 years. unfortunately since i made that decision, members of congress have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any of the guantanamo detainees to trial in the united states, regardless of the venue. as the president has said, it was unwise and unwarranted

restrictions that undermine our counter-terrorism efforts and could harm our national security. decisions about who, where, and how to prosecute have always been and must remain the responsibility of the executive branch. members of congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments. if they have taken one of the nation's most tested counter- terrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications. we will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions. but we also must face a simple truth -- those restrictions are unlikely to be repealed in the immediate future, and we simply cannot allow a trial to be delayed any longer for the victims of the 9/11 attack or for their family members who

have waited for nearly a decade for justice. i have talked to these family members on many occasions over these last two years. like many americans, they differ on where the nine last -- 9/11 conspirators should be prosecuted, but there is one thing on which they all agree, we must bring them to justice. today i am referring to cases of colleagues take mahometan region -- these plotters to the department of defense to proceed in military commissions. furthermore, i have directed prosecutors to move to dismiss the indictments handed down under seal in the districts of new york in december 2009, and a judge has granted that motion. prosecutors from both the department of defense and justice have been working together since the beginning of this matter and i have full

faith and confidence in the military commission system to appropriately handled this case. the department of justice will continue to offer all the support necessary on this critically important matter. the administration worked with congress to substantially reform the military commissions in 2009, and i believe that they can do it. trial and a just verdict. for victims of these heinous attacks and for their families, that justice is long overdue and it must not be delayed any longer. to make the decision to prosecute the alleged 9/11 conspirators, the effectiveness of our federal courts and the thousands of prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement officers and defense attorneys who work in them have been subjected to a number of unfair and often unfounded criticisms. too many people, many of whom should know better, certainly do

no better, have expressed doubts about our time honored in time to test a system of justice. that is not only misguided, it is simply wrong. the fact is that federal courts have proven to be an unparalleled instrument for bringing terrorists to justice. our courts have convicted hundreds of terrorists since september 11, and our prisons today safely and securely hold hundreds, many of them serving long sentences. there is no other tool that has demonstrated the ability to both incapacitate terrorists and collect intelligence from them over such a diverse range of circumstances as our traditional justice system. let me be clear -- and let me be very clear -- our national security demands that continue to prosecute terrorists in federal court, and we will do so. our heritage, our values, and our legacy to future generations

also demands that we have full faith and confidence in a court system that has distinguished this nation throughout its history. finally i want to think the prosecution in the southern district of new york and eastern district of virginia who spent countless hours working to bring this case to trial. they are some of the most dedicated and patriotic americans i have ever encountered. and our nation is safer because of the work that they do every day. they have honored their country to their efforts on this case, and i think them for. i am proud of each and every one of them. sadly this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning. but despite all the arguments and debate that it has engendered, the prosecution of these men should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points. at the end of our indictment,

the people killed on the deadly september day nearly 10 years ago, americans and citizens of foreign countries alike murdered by ruthless terrorists intent on crippling our nation and attacking the values that we hold dear. this case has always been about delivering justice for those victims and for their surviving loved ones. it is about nothing else. it is my sincere helped that we will finally be able to deliver the justice that has so long deserved. >> a couple of questions. what you describe of the blocks on congress, passed on the air -- that capacity in the last year, but for a year, why not

move faster? and in february, you ran into some 9/11 families on capitol hill and told them in your opinion that going to military commissions was rolling the dice. today you have said you have complete faith in the process. has there been a change? >> i make clear back in november and today that in terms of what i think the best thing to be taken, i think the federal courts of the best way to bring them. with regards to the time, in 2009 we're in the process of reforming the military commission. there were local concerns expressed about the bringing of the cases in manhattan. we had to deal with that. then cover started deal with these restrictions put in place. we try to fight them. we made this decision as quickly as we could, taking into account all these factors. i consider the possibility of bringing this case and a place other than manhattan, but within the southern district of new york.

>> is it your understanding that bringing these cases in the military commission fallout for seeking the death penalty? that is one of the concerns raised previously. to and i think the death penalty can certainly be sought. no question about whether someone can plead guilty and still receive the debt question death penalty. -- and still receive the death penalty. >> will the facility have to stay open for many months, if not years? >> will fight to get those restrictions lifted. the man necessarily have an impact on our ability to close guantanamo. it is still our intention to close guantanamo and lift those restrictions. i would refer those to the department of defense which had think will issue a statement sometime later this afternoon. >> mr. holder, yet been clear on

how you feel about the congressional actions here. presumably most of those lawmakers represent constituents who have their own views. is it your thinking that you know best, and there's just no onm for the public's view where the trial should be held? >> i do not want to hold myself out as a mission or anything like that. the reality is that i know this case in ways that members of congress do not. i have looked at the file and spoken to the prosecutors. i know the tactical concerns that have to go into this decision. do i know better than them? yes. i respect their ability to disagree. but i think they should respect the fact that this was an executive branch function, a unique executive branch function. i have to deal with the situation as i find it and i of reluctantly made the

determination that the cases should be brought in the military commission. >> and the public such as the groups in new york city that seem to oppose the trial there, should they have any voice at all in this decision? >> we take into account all whole variety of things to make a determination on where these cases should be brought. it is one of the reasons i considered otis the present, within the southern district, without any of the concerns about bringing a case in manhattan, which would have lowered the case dramatically. even that option was taken off the table by congress. i grew up in new york city, you know? i went to school in manhattan, for college, law school, and it is a place i consider home. i had full confidence in the ability of the people in new york to try this case safely and securely in new york city. if i had not thought that, i would not make that initial

determined nation -- determination. >> on the death penalty, you said it is an open question. there's a very real chance that they could serve life in prison as opposed to getting the death penalty, or a better chance in the eastern district of virginia? >> i will defer that to the folks at the department of defense who will be responsible for the cases. it is an open question, but it could be resolved and we will have to see how it plays out. >> that sounds like 10 more years of litigation all the way back to the supreme court, maybe 20 years after the anniversary this should still be litigated. >> i have confidence in the ability of the people on the military side to bring this cases for the appropriate authorities within a short period of time. i hope that i hasten the day by which victims and families of victims will have some certainty. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] mr. mcconnell: amidst all the other business we'll be facing this week, i'd like to note a well come development in the war on -- a welcome development in the war on terror. for the last two years, the obama administration has actively sought to bring the 9/11 plotters into our communities for civilian trials, a completely horrible idea. that rightly drew overwhelmingly bipartisan opposition from the american people and from their elected representatives here in congress. today the administration is announcing that it has changed course. the administration, incredibly enough, today is announcing it has changed course. and that khalid sheikh mohammed and the others who plotted these terrible attacks, today the

administration is announce tag it changed course and that khalid sheikh mohammed and the others who plotted these attacks will be tried in military commissions at guantanamo bay, rather than at a civilian court in new york or some other u.s. stivment i remember autumn of our discussions on this issue over the last two years. the president issued an executive order on day one to close guantanamo down, indicated they were glg to mainstream that's terrorists under the u.s. court system. so this change today is truly a welcome development. the administration is announcing that k.s.m. and the others who plotted these crimes will be tried in a proper jurisdiction -- these military commissions -- at the proper place for these commission trials -- guantanamo bay. this is the right outcome to the long and spirited debate that

preceded this decision. military commissions at guantanamo, far from the u.s. mainland, were always the right idea for a variety of compelling reasons, which and others have enumerated repeatedly over the last two years. for the sake of the safety and the security of the american people, i'm glad the president reconsidered his position on how and where to try these detainees. going forward, this model should be the rule rather than the exception. i'm sure this decision will draw widespread approval and it is very welcome news. >> this morning we will focus on budget negotiations with california republican tom quintana, a member of the budget committee.

and democrats chief deputy whip, peter welch of vermont. then will will be joined by the executive editor of "rolling stone. the magazine recently published a story that alleges u.s. soldiers murdered civilians in afghanistan. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. to interrupt a month of april, we will feature the top winners of this year's studentcam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentary's on the same "washington through my lands. you watch the wedding videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern, just before of the " washington journal." meet the students who created them. stream although winning videos any time on line at studentcam.org. >> nohl form on the first 100 days of the 112th congress. panelists include former house

members. hosted by the american enterprise institute, this is a little less than an hour and half. an early look at the new congress. >> he research center released the results of one of their periodic quizzes and a reported that 30% of the americans know that the republicans control the house, but not the senate.

current politics in washington are a mystery to many and i am hoping better panel this morning will solve some of the mystery about the state of washington politics. john has been at 8 shai 4 12.5 years and then that time, he has added greatly to the work of our political -- aei 412 1/2 years. he recently updated the indispensable volume after the people vote. he has worked tirelessly to get people in washington to focus on continuity of government issues. john is going to be leaving us in a few weeks for a new

assignment. he will become the director of the democracy project at the bipartisan policy center. the democracy project is a bipartisan initiative that analyzes and advocates for improvements in democratic institutions. its main current projects are strengthening civil discourse and congressional redistricting. we wish john well in this challenging assignment and we will miss him greatly. i will turn it over to you. >> thank you. thank you for the many kindnesses over the years from you and from the institution. i will not be a stranger, just a few blocks away. we've got a great panel today. i will do some introductions. first, it bit of news about donald trump. he has declared president. he is declared for president of latvia.

his personal but it was not correct and it -- his birth certificate was not correct and it turns out that he was born in a different place. but it is a bowlfuls. -- it is april polls. our panelists are are among the country's leading experts on congress and can talk about what is going on today. but can also talk about comparisons to 1995 and to some other times where the majority has changed from one party to another. i will start to my right. he is the managing partner -- he served in the house of representatives from 1981 to 1983. he served on the science and technology, a small business, public works, that budget and

appropriations committees. and was conference secretary in the leadership for the republicans. his former partner and senior adviser also served in congress from 1979 to 1999 representing california's third district. he was on the appropriations committee, at 6 committees, as well as the democratic caucus. janet hook, a political reporter, has been covering congress since the 1980's when she was an elementary school. for the los angeles times, the wall street journal. she is the winner of several important awards in journalism.

we're very lucky to have alex with the. all the cuts he tells us today it will be is done, except for the jokes. no pressure, alex. >> that is not a good deal. >> alex is a research fellow here at the american enterprise institute. he formerly was senior adviser and chief economist on the house ways and means committee as well as the staff of the president's council of economic advisers. we will start with a round of questions. what i would like to do is not spend all of our time in the past, but to think about one obvious comparison to 1995 when

republicans had taken the majority and a state democratic president and had an actual budget showdown. i thought i might start with janet. let her set the stage of 1995. paint a big picture of what had been happening and how we got to the end of 1995, when the big budget showdown came through. this a big picture of where you were in 1995. >> in 1995, you have to remember that the 1994 elections were not in the old handover of power from one party to another. that was the first time in 40 years that the house had gone -- it was a really big deal. not only was it the entire

congress, but it was the house for the very first time. it was not just a political change that change the agenda. it was a huge institutional wrenching experience. when republicans took control of the house, they did not just change the agenda. they tried to change the way congress works. they abolished committees, they streamline things. newt gingrich change the nature of the speakership. he turned it into a much more centralized form of leadership. he was the center of all things because he was a larger-than- life figure. he had a lot of power, and he used it. to be honest, when i think about -- in addition to that, he brought power, his 100 days' agenda.

the contract with america. the first 100 days were quite exhausting for members of congress, and those of recovering it. from there proceeded some of the longer-term confrontations with the clinton white house. if i could say, i do not want to talk at great length about this point, but i am struck by the differences between 1995 and today. john boehner it is many things, but it is not a larger-than-life figure. these republicans came to power not with a big 10. agenda -- 10-point agenda. they have not accomplished a lot legislatively. they transformed the terms of debate. it really does feel very different. of course, there is this problem of senate -- the sense not been under republican control -- the

senate not been under republican control. >> let me turn to vin. if you could tell us about the republican mood that year. take this into the end of the year where we reach the final budget showdown. what republicans were thinking, and if i am not wrong, republicans are confident enough that public opinion might turn in their direction. talk a little bit about the gear in general. tell us a little bit about what was in the minds of leaders going into that in the 1995. >> gets laid the framework for eckerd the most important similarities -- janet laid the framework for it. the republicans came to washington with the shock of their own victory. their own victory.