tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. in a few moments, is gingrich's news conference. it 50 minutes, president obama encourages support to extend the payroll tax cut. leon panetta on u.s.-israel relations. later, a forum on the future of >> pay a dollar now for labor, have no health care, have no environmental control, no pollution-control, and no retirement. if you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out during the 1992 presidential debate. he made two it is for the presidency, the first time getting over 90 million votes,

more popular votes than any third-party candidate in american history. although we lost, he had a lasting influence on american politics. he is the final candidate in our series the contenders. to produce other video on ross perot and see all the programs from our series, go to c- span.org/thecontenders. >> republican presidential candidate newt gingrich spoke with reporters for a few minutes in new york city today, following a meeting with donald trump. this is about 15 minutes. >> let me just say some of you look familiar. as i said earlier today, we were partially coming to new york to make the case that if i do become the nominee, we were only

50-state strategy, because i believe the choice can be so wide in the gap between the most effective food stamp president in american history and a candidate who wants to create jobs and pay checks. we will have an opportunity to have a dialogue and every single state in the country. in addition, i was delighted to meet with donald trump this morning. but we set the stage. i have been talking about the importance of work as it relates to people who are in areas where there is public housing, etc., and there are relatively few people able to work. this has been distorted by some who suggest that the working poor, by definition, know how to work. that is true, that is why they are called the working poor. i am curious, how many of you earned some money doing something by the time you were

10 years old? just raise your hand. whether it was babysitting or cutting grass or doing something. the reason i ask that question is, it is fascinating to me when i go out and talk to very successful people, that it might have been their parents or grandparents, they be in the neighborhood. they began to learn something about the relationship between work and income, and they pretty rapidly accelerated their understanding of it. we are looking for methods to help the poorest children in america have a bridge to learning to work, learning to have jobs. i was delighted this morning when i suggested to donald trump that he adopt a program of apprentices and take one of the poorest schools the new york city and create 10 of british ships that would be paid for part-time work -- 10 apprentice ships. he liked the idea, it fit his

own past and experiences. he said this morning he would be glad to do that. i hope to convince a number of other major businesses, and there are small businesses that may only be able to hire one person, but to create a pathway to work for people -- when you have 43% black teenage unemployment, there is a serious challenge in making sure people get work habits and learn the skills undercurrents of being successful. i thought that was a positive step forward, and i am delighted to be here. i am delighted to take your questions. >> [inaudible] >> first of all, [unintelligible] i paid for children $2 a book for every book they read in the summer. we did alter the 1980's.

one of our first experiments, we had a lady in georgia who was eight or nine years old, and she read 83 books that summer and got $166. if you look at the large and irk -- largest urban housing projects, you will find areas with remarkably few people who have work experience. >> [inaudible] >> the way i am approaching social security, which is to create a number of americans right to choose a personal social security savings account, which includes the july and experience and the galveston, texas experience.

dramatically boulder and more oriented towards individual empowerment and individual choice, if i read correctly his program. second, i would say the paper we have issued on rebalancing the judicial branch, and the fact that i am prepared to call for abolishing the office of judge barry in san antonio because he is such a bigoted, antireligious judge, and it violates the american tradition and the american system. i think that is the boulder position than romney would take. if you compare my platform and his, i think you'll find a number of differences. >> i am for abolishing the capital gains tax. he casts his cut at $200,000, which would be a lower cap and obama has, which i thought was unusual. >> you said there were many

differences between you and mitt romney. [inaudible] you ought know that to count running for the senate in 1994, running for governor, then running for president for six years, i don't know if that makes him a career politician or not. i will let you decide. it it is fair to say i have been a successful candidate a number of times. as a citizen, i am proud of the fact that i started working as a citizen at 15 years of age. i think that citizenship is very important. >> there is a debate in new york about taxes. [inaudible] the tax on the wealthy that expires this month, talking about raising the tax on the wealthy, maybe not as high as

the rate is now, but if we see at increase on high-income earners -- >> if i were in that -- i would run ads. >> [inaudible] do you feel like your campaign has the wherewithal to do a long campaign [inaudible] >> we have all these articles about how businesses are getting leaner, flattening their hierarchies, doing all sorts of things that people are now working from home. you have virtual organizations. all these cutting edge ideas.

the new have those who believe you have to be slow, cumbersome, and expensive. if you were the consultant, you would feel that way, too. the top people in our finance -- finance organization had not seen each other in several months and actually got together in new york. it did not affect them at all. they know what each other looks like and they are able to call each other whenever they want. the system works. i run offices and the operations i ran in recent years, before i decided to run for president, we had extended offices in atlanta, miami, charlotte, st. louis, and washington. and one time also in california. it did not bother us at all. we just kept moving forward. i am used to running very extended operations. we fly by the seat of our pants

in the sense that when we saw the american ambassador to belgium was giving an anti- semitic speech attacking israel, which immediately shifted and talk about that top. i wanted to ask mr. trump to be generous and help us make the point about corporate we shifted and moved to that topic. in other areas, there is much confusion about missouri, which is not a mistake. in the missouri primary, this was a conscious decision, not an oversight. >> [inaudible] what we do say to americans who don't want to go back to that time? >> first of all, i want to thank speaker pelosi for what i regard as an early christmas gift.

if she is suggesting she is going to use material should develop on the ethics committee, that was a fundamental violation of rules of the house, and i would hope members would immediately file charges against her. it tells you help capriciously political that committee was when she was on it. it tells you how tainted the outcome was when she was on it. but she said today should explain a great deal about what happened in the ethics process when nancy pelosi was at the heart of it, and is now prepared to totally abused the house process. it is an education for the american people to see what attain it, political ethics process nancy pelosi mou was engaged in, and i would hope the house would immediately condemn her if she uses any material that was gathered of she was on the ethics committee. it would be a total violation of the committee. we turn over a million pages of material. we had a huge report.

83 charges were repudiated as false. the one mistake we made it was a letter written by a lawyer that i did not read carefully. that was the only mistake made the entire process. the work we did with the foundation was totally legal. >> [inaudible] >> i think that being a student of [unintelligible] the president has been three years proving that he killed jobs and energy, manufacturing, virtually every part of american life. the only reason the unemployment rate has gone down is because twice as many people dropped out

of the employment pool as the number of jobs that were created. at this rate, the ideal obama economy will have 11% of people looking for work. just look at the record. more people have got on food stamps under barack obama than any other president in american history. >> [inaudible] there is a truly high dropout rate from school. >> i am suggesting that maybe if they had a job -- r.c. hammond is used to go in early in the morning as a volunteer when he was very young. it is used by the school to reprogram computers. he learned from being a student volunteer.

take some of those kids who are in danger of dropping out. what if they worked in the front office? would they help in the kitchen? i do not suggest that children up to 14 or 15 years of age to have become a dangerous, janitorial work. as all of you have probably noticed in life, there are a number of things done to clean buildings that are not heavy or dangerous. what if you took kids who are in danger of dropping out and say if you stay in school, we will give you a job and allow you to work after school? you will have cash and be able to go and do things. this is called america. it is help people rise in america. they learn how to work. i have a similar parallel for adults. i believe the only way they should extend unemployment compensation is to attach a training requirements and say if you cannot find a job and you

need unemployment compensation, you have to sign up and learned a trade all you are being paid, because we should not give people money for doing nothing. thank you very much. mr. gingrich won support from 25% of likely caucus goers, followed by ron paul with 18%. mitt romney had 16%. >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail with the newly designed campaign website for 2012. >> in my view, this is a time for america to get serious about our challenges. i will not go through all of them, but the big one i started with is our budget and are

spending. >> if investment is not landing in your marketplace, then it is landing somewhere else. if it is cannot landing in your marketplace, it is going somewhere else. >> i think that is a very interesting concept, the idea of having a consumption based tax as opposed to income based. it makes a lot of sense. to goad her that debate right now and have a two-year debate on a fair tax, we need to do something now. >> link to see spans media partners at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> paid for by a temporary tax

on those making a million dollars a year. this is about 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. mineable one priority is to do everything that i can to create jobs and provide more security for middle-class families and those trying to get in the middle class. and to make certain that 160 hard-working americans don't see increase in taxes. as soon as this year and, so do the tax cuts. if congress fails to remove this before then, they will see a tax if congress fails to renew that tax cut before then, they

will see a tax hike of about $1,000 per year. there are few can afford to give up the thousand dollars right now. >> the situation in europe has added to the uncertainty. that is why the majority of economists believe it is important to extend the payroll tax cut. those same economists would lower their growth estimates if this does not happen. not only is this important as a whole, it is important for the individual families. it will help the families pay

their bills, and it will spur spending, it will spur hiring, and this is the right thing to do. in my jobs bill i recommend extending the tax cuts and expanding them this was paid for by asking a little bit more from millionaires and billionaires. this could have extended the existing payroll tax cut but expanded them. last week, virtually every single republican voted against this. republicans have sworn the oath to never raise taxes, but why is it that the only time that there is a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class families. how can you have the middle- class tax breaks for the most wealthy americans, but you cannot prevent taxes from going up from the americans who need the help. this does not make sense. the good news, the voices of the american people are starting to

get through. john boehner said that this tax cut helps the economy because it allows working americans to keep more of their money. the republican leaders said that we should not raise taxes on american people going into next year. i hope the rest of their republican colleagues will work to put money back in the pockets of working americans. they have said that we have to pay for these tax cuts. i have said that they have not always felt that way. they did not feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts from the most wealthy americans, which is one reason we face such large deficits. when republicans took over the house, they changed the rules to say that tax cuts don't have

to be paid for. forgive me a little bit of confusion when i hear about the tax cuts being paid for. we all recognize we have to make progress on the deficit and i am willing to work with republicans in a responsible way. i am not willing to do this in a way -- i signed into law nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts, and more cuts in the pipeline. and making additional deep cuts in areas like education and innovation, that are critical to the economy in order to pay for the payroll tax cuts. we will not do that or the budget agreement that we signed a few months ago.

with millions of americans still looking for work, it would be a terrible mistake for congress to go home for the holidays without extending employment insurance. they'll be leaving 1.3 million american jobs and for a lot of families, this emergency insurance is the last line of defense between hardship and catastrophe. to take money out of the economy now would do extraordinary harm to the problem. and if you believe that, that we should not take money out of people's pockets, i hope that members of congress know that this is even worse to take money from the people who are unemployed, and that we are going to -- this is an extraordinary time in this country and this economy. i get letters every single day from people that say that this unemployment insurance is what

allows them to keep their house -- before they were able to find another job. this is what allows them to put gas in the tank to take their kids to school. we cannot play games with unemployment insurance when we still have the unemployment rate that is too high. i put forth a range of ideas for the unemployment system and i am happy to work with republicans on this issue. and i will make sure that this is extended again. this is not just a political fight. independent economists who have worked for republicans agree that if we don't extend the payroll tax cut, and we don't extend unemployment insurance, we will hurt the economy. the economy will not grow as fast and we won't see hiring improved as quickly.

this will harm business just at the time when the economy is trying to get some traction, and it will be a self-inflected wounds. keep your word to the american people and don't raise their taxes right now. now is not the time to slam on the brakes, this is the time to slam on the gas and grow the economy. now was the time to make a real difference in the lives of the people who sent us here. thank you very much. >> while president obama spoke with reporters at the white house, democratic leaders in the senate renouncing their latest proposal.

this is 10 minutes. >> last week, my friend the republican leader tried to convince us it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the middle class. here on the senate floor, he quoted half a dozen news reports as evidence of senate reject barrel tax cuts for 160 million workers. i said at that time i was skeptical republicans really support this tax cut. it turns out i was right. down democrats' proposal to cut taxes for middle-class americans, supposedly on the grounds it raises taxes on the richest of the rich. mr. president, a few minutes later, republicans all shot down their own proposal, one that they had placed on the senate floor. it was to extend the payroll tax cuts. it was paid for with our own hand-picked reductions in government spending. well, they shot that down. they only got 19 votes plus the vote of a cosponsor.

whatever my friend, senator mcconnell, may say, it's obvious our friends just aren't interested in prevent ago $1,000 x increase in this nation from taking effect on january 1. democrats will not relent on keeping taxes low for the middle class. today, senator casey will unveil a modified version of the proposed tax cut proposal that he introduced last week. like our previous proposal, this scaled back version would cut taxes for 160 million american workers, including 1.2 million nevadans. this proposal will allow the average family to keep an extra 1,500 $ to spend on necessities next year. it will be fully paid for with a mixture of spending cuts republicans have already agreed to and a tiny, tiny surtax on the top .2% of american taxpayers. every spending reduction in the

proposal was agreed to by a bye cameral group of -- bicameral group of republicans on the super committee, so we know they support these cuts -- or should support these cuts. in an effort to make our proposal more palatable to republicans, we have conceded significantly to cut the tax on income above a million dollars and make it temporary. democrats know how important extending and expanding the payroll cut is to working -- tax cut is to working families. it's also important to our economy. economists of every political persuasion agree. if republicans block this proposal, raising taxes on american families by a thousand dollars next month will have an immediate negative impact on our economy, will halt our -- it will halt very singularly our still-agile recovery in its tracks and drag us back into a recession. we all know congress can't afford to play chicken with the economy. that's why democrats are committed to passing this tax cut.

republicans need to be prepared to meet us partway. we're offering a serious proposal with meaningful concessions, including spending cuts to which republicans have already agreed. the scaled back temporary tax on the richest americans, a group with an average income of $3 million a year, is also a sincere attempto get republicans on board to pass what they say they want to do. we know a few of them said publicly that they are open to asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to our enomic recovery. i was happy to see those press reports, and we hope we have the courage to vote accordingly, as one republican did last thursday. one republican voted the right way. i repeat, mr. president, is is a serious proposal and republicans should take it seriously. here's why. americans regardless of political affiliation say they wholeheartedly support democrats' plan to cut taxes for middle-class families. 58% of republicans agree across

this country, we should extend, they agreee should extend and expand payroll tax cuts for 160 million american workers. further, americans overwhelmingly support our proposal to ask millionaires and billionaes to pay their fair share to help this country thrive. americans fro every corner of the country, in every walk of life, agree democrats, republicans, and independent asked if they support a plan that require people making more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more to ensure this country's economic success, the results were decisive. 75%, 3/4 of americans said yes. wealthy americans agree, two-thirds of people making more than a million a year said they would gladly contribute more. a supermajority of republicans agree, with two-thirds supporti the idea, and even a majority, 52%, ofembers of the tea party agree. it seems the only place in the country you can't find a majority of republicans willing to speak up for shared sacrifice

are republicans in the united states senate. republicans across the country support our plan and the way it's paid for. republicans in congress dismiss it at their peril. i repeat, republicans dismiss this at tir peril. the american people are busines. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i'm here to speak about legislation that i'm introducing today that will prevent a huge tax hike from hitting working families across america and in pennsylvania. as the clock continues to tick down, it is imperative that we come together, democrats and republicans, members of both parties and both chambers, and pass legislation to provide more take-home pay by cutting the payroll tax as we did in 2010. the legislation that i'm introducing is a compromise offer designed to bridge the gap and to get at least 60 votes

here in the united states senate. the legislation is fully paid for and includes measures that have received bipartisan support in the past. we can no longer afford to jeopardize middle-income americans in order to protect the wealthiest few across our country. this legislation will help working families by extending the current payroll tax cut and expanding that cut to a 3.1% level, a 3.1% reduction in the payroll tax. in essence, what we're talking about here is cutting the payroll tax in half as it relates to employees. small businesses will benefit from this legislation by benefiting directly from the additional money in the pockets of americans across the country. those with incomes above a million dollars should help in carrying this burden -- a

portion of this burden. that's why the surtax is still in this legislation. but the surtax will now be only 1.9% compared to the 3.25% in an earlier version of my legislation. in addition, i've offered a few more offsets that have received bipartisan support. so the bottom line is, just as the first bill was that i offered, this legislation is, indeed, paid for. the tax cut is a key, an essential ingredient to job creation and economic growth in 2012. economists and forecasters from moody's analytics to r.b.c. capital markets, to barclay's capital, to macroeconomic advisors, all have emphasized that the tax cut will accelerate growth in 2012. without it, economic growth will

slow and job creation will take a hit. mark zandi of moody's analytics has said without the payroll tax cut for 2012 -- quote -- "we'll likely go into recession." congress should act quickly to expand tax relief and to remove the uncertainty for working families in this holiday season about whether their taxes will go up in the new year. more take-home pay to keep the economy growing, that's what we need right now and especially in the year ahead. so i'd encourage all of our colleagues here in the senate, as well as in the house, to pass this legislation to continue and to expand in a few moments, leon panetta on u.s.-israel relations. later, a forum on the future of pakistan.

then gop president newt gingrich's news conference in new york city. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the senate judiciary subcommittee on the court will look at allowing television cameras in the supreme court. witnesses will include arlen specter and the chief judge of the third circuit court of appeals in philadelphia. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, the security -- witnesses will include the ceo scripps and medco. >> television can be a teacher and if we are going to have a debate on television in a court room, and you drew the affirmative side of the debate,

you could make probably more positive points. >> tuesday, a subcommittee meets to discuss televising the supreme court. we will be covering that hearing. you can learn more online access c-span.org. see articles and editorials from across the country, public opinion polls, and what the justices have said. you'll find a link to our youtube playlist. >> now, defense secretary leon panetta on u.s.-israel relations. his recent comments at the brookings institution included his opinion on the middle east peace process and the possibility of iran developing nuclear weapons. this is about an hour. >> good evening. welcome. we are happy to have you here.

this forum's theme is labeled " strategic challenges in the middle east." revolution is sweeping arab autocrats once thought unmovable. assad is going, and still in, but soon out. the old arab order is crumbling in the face of the courageous demand of the citizens for freedom. candy sheiks and kings avoid a similar fate? how long can it iran remain

immune? for how long can israel sustain the occupation? so many questions that don't have any answers yet. so we therefore look forward to two days of intensive conversations about the state of affairs in the middle east. and what israel and the united states can and should do about it. i want to express my gratitude to brookings and the hard- working it staff for continuing to make this form possible. please give them a round of applause. [applause] tonight, we will hear from two

people who have a wealth of personal knowledge and experience, fluent in the history, dynamics, and intricacies of the middle east. we have the privilege of hearing from our keynote speaker, secretary of defense leon panetta, and after dinner we will have a conversation with president clinton. mr. secretary, it is a real privilege to welcome you to the forum. leon panetta has devoted his whole life to public service. for representing my state of california in congress to running in the white house for president clinton. he was sworn in as secretary of defense this past july after serving as director of the cia for the first two years of the obama administration. as director of the cia, he helped oversee the operations that led to osama bin laden as death, something for which

everyone in this country owes him and president obama a deep debt of gratitude. secretary panetta, thank you very much for your service to our country. these and gentleman, secretary and that's it. [applause] -- ladies and gentleman, secretary leon panetta. [applause] >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. thank my fellow californian. haim is someone who has served his country in the cause of brain the united states and israel together. he has served that cause with tremendous distinction.

he has provided vision and support for this very import conference. more broadly, i would like to thank you, haim, for your commitment to strengthening the bond between the united states and israel, a cause that is a key priority for me as secretary of defense. for that reason, it is truly an honor to be here tonight and join all of you, so many distinguished guests, in helping to open this year's sabanne forum. my personal connection to israel dates back to my days as a member of congress. for more than 10 years, i shared a house with a group of

fellow congressmen right here in the district of columbia. if you have seen the movie "animal house" will have some idea of what this is like. one of the members of that exclusive fraternity was chuck schumer, someone that many of you know that many of you understand as interim -- who has a tremendous passion for israel that is deep and infectious. we slept on the bottom of this house, the living room area, and every night, before we went to sleep, he made me say they shimad. [laughter] i made him say they'll marry. -- the hail mary.

[laughter] he learned from my passion as an italian and i learned from his passion on israel. particularly, i think it was the little over 20 years ago, if he and i and some of our dearest friends had a chance to travel to israel together. i believe that visit was in august of 1991 and that left a very deep and lasting impression on me. it was at a time when hundreds of thousands of jews from the soviet union or making alia and fulfilling a dream to live a free and more prosperous life in their historic homeland. that dread gave me an even stronger appreciation -- that trip gave me an even stronger appreciation for the promise of israel as a jewish and a democratic state. coming just months after saddam hussein's's scud missiles had

attacked tel aviv and haifa, the visit underscored a complex an array of security threats facing israel by virtue of geography, by virtue of politics, and by virtue of history. as chairman of the house budget committee, amd omb director, i had the opportunity to work on budget issues regarding military assistance to israel. as a member of president clinton + cabinet, as chief of staff, i had the opportunity to be present at that historic moment when the south lawn, when yasser arafat and yitzhak rabin shook hands in the effort to advance the peace process. tragically, after rabin's

death, i had the opportunity as president clinton's pete chief of staff to fly with them so he could pay tribute to the memory and to the dedication to peace of rabin. in the years since, as director of the cia and now as secretary of defense, i have worked closely with a number of israeli leaders, the prime minister and many intelligence and military leaders. one of whom i understand is here this morning, mayor degant, who often work with that mossad and i understand is participating in this forum. yehud barak is a friend i have known for years and we have had the opportunity to meet in number of times in our capacities and discuss our

shared efforts to strengthen israeli security. i was pleased to make my first trip to israel as secretary of defense a few weeks ago to meet with israeli leaders including my friend prime minister netanyahu. over the course of my career, i have witnessed periods of great progress in these efforts and periods of great challenge and uncertainty for israel and are shared security interest in the region. yet nothing i have seen compares to the dramatic events of the past year, one of change, one of promise, one of uncertainty, one of turmoil - 8 year that is an era of awakening and a year of setback for al-

qaeda and a year we believe of frustration for iran. entrenched leaders were overthrown by peaceful protest in tunisia and egypt and by force in libya. in yemen, for the president has agreed to step down which we believe it's a very positive development. and yet the terrorist threats from yemen still persist and extremists are seeking to gain a foothold across the region. in egypt, the country has held its first elections on the road to democratic transition, another positive step. as we all know, a chip will require brave leadership -- egypt will require great

leadership if it is to successfully transitioned to a fully civilian-controlled government that respect democratic principles and maintains all of its international commitments including the treaty of peace with israel. on terrorism, repeated operations have decimated the al-qaeda leadership. osama bin laden, anwar al- awlaki and monday others have been successfully targeted -- and many others have been successfully targeted by military operations. al qaeda remains dangerous,. make no, -- make no mistake but the world is safer as of these successes. these largely positive trends

are also accompanied by some dark ones. a discredited regime is still violently clinging to power in syria. though the pressure against it is increasing dramatically each day. i want to condemn in the strongest possible termsthe assad regime's murder and torture of children that the un reported this week in geneva. deservedlyduct has brought scorn and pressure and punishing sanctions, not just by the united states and europe, but now by the arab league and turkey as well. continuedn,iran's

drive to develop nuclear capabilities including troubling enrichment activities and past work on what the position that has now been documented by the iaea and its continued support to groups like hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations make clear that the regime in tehran remains a very grave threat for all of us. all this of people, all of this of people -- of people -- upheavel is causing new challenges for israel in the region very in this time of understandable anxiety, i would like to underscore one thing -- that has stayed constant over the past three years of this administration -- the

determination of the united states to safeguard israel's security and that commitment will not change. i want to be clear -- that israel can count on three enduring pillars in u.s. policy in the region all of which contribute directly to the safety and prosperity of the israeli people. first, our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. second, our broader commitment to regional stability. and third, our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause]

these are not merely rhetorical assurances. these are firm principles, principles that are backed up by tangible action, the commitment of resources, and demonstrable results. -- resolve. let me explain -- first, this administration has pursued and achieved unprecedented levels of defense cooperation with israel to back up our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. next year, the u.s. armed forces and the idf will conduct the largest joint exercises in the history of that partnership. it will enhance the ability of

our military is to operate together and also testing our new ballistic missile and rocket defense capabilities. those new capabilities are themselves a product of this unprecedented defense cooperation. we are especially proud that above and beyond the annual foreign military financing that we provide to israel, the obama administration has provided more than $200 million to the iron dome rocket system, support that recently enabled the field of a third battery. this system has already saved lives of israelis civilians facing rocket barrages from gaza.

our work together on these defense capabilities represents only one part of our core commitment to maintaining israel's qualitative military edge, an advantage that we are willing to expand even further as we continue to enhance our defense cooperation. as just -- that is just one example. the united states will in sure that israel continues to enjoy on questioned air superiority by delivering to israel the advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft, the f-35 joint strike fighter. yet we recognize that israel's security cannot be achieved by its military arsenal alone. it also depends on the security and stability of the region

which is the second key pillar of u.s. policy. the success of our efforts in iraq permits us to redouble long-term commitment of the united states to the security and stability of the middle east. the middle east is of vital interest to the united states. we will not let our commitments to its security and stability waiver. that is why we maintain a significant military presence throughout the region, to defend our partners, to counter aggression, and to maintain the free flow of resources and commerce that are so vital to the fragile global economy. the united states will continue to have some 40,000 troops in

the region to support these goals. we're also implementing our long-term strategic partnership with iraq. this includes security ties between our two militaries, facilitated by robust office of security cooperation that will start on january 1, 2012. we are building a wider regional security architecture in the gulf, forging bilateral and multilateral cooperation to confront the common challenges of terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, maritime security, and threats to critical infrastructure. no greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the middle east than a nuclear-arms

iran. that is why the third pillar of our approach to this region, this critical region, is our determination to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and more broadly, to deter its destabilizing activities particularly those who could threaten the free flow of commerce throughout this of vital region. that is a red line for the united states. our approach to countering the threat posed by iran is focused on diplomacy including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening our security partnerships with key partners in the gulf and the broader middle east. last september, i met in new

york with members of the gulf cooperation council to underscore the importance of those partnerships. iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make less, not more secure. these efforts are increasing the isolation of tehran. i continue to believe that pressure, economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, and strengthening collective defenses are the right approach. still, it is my department's responsibility to plan for all contingencies. and to provide the president with a wide range of military options should they become necessary. that is a responsibility i take

very seriousl = because when it comes to the threats posed by iran, the president has made it very clear that we have not yet taken any options off the table. our delivered and focused approach to iran, our efforts to enhance regional security and stability and error and are unshakeable commitment to israel's security make clear that even at this time of great change, our determination to safeguard israel's security is safe and sure. indeed, it is stronger than ever. in every strong relationship built on trust and build on friendship, built on mutual security, it demands that both sides work towards the same common goals.

israel has a responsibility to pursue our shared goals, to build regional support for israel and the united states security objectives. i believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. unfortunately, over the past year, we have seen israel's isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive middle east peace that has effectively been put on hold. i want to be clear -- this isolation is due to a number of factors. indeed, there is an international campaign under way to isolate israel.

president obama has stood steadfastly in the way of that effort especially within the united nations. i have never known an israeli government or an israeli, for that matter, to be passive about anything let alone this troubling trend. so i have been working. to find ways to help israel take steps that are profoundly in its interest. for example, israel can reach out and mend fences and with those who share an interest in regional stability, countries

like jordan and egypt. this is an important time to develop relationships in that key area. if justice is rebuked, the world will see that for what is. that is why israel should pursue .hem superio like all of you, i have been deeply troubled by the direction of the relationship with turkey. turkey is a key nato ally and has proven to be a real partner in our efforts to support democratic change and stand against authoritarian regimes that use violence against their own people.

it is in israel's entrust, turkey's interest, and u.s. interest for israel to reconcile with turkey, and turkey and israel need to do more to put their relationship back on the right track. that is the message i have taken to jerusalem, and it is a message i will take to a korean -- to ankora this month. edith's current leaders, region leaders haveurrent made clear to me they are committed to their peace treaty with israel. we have been clear with all parties which in egypt that sustaining a peace treaty is in

the key interest of the united states, while we share concerns about the sinai peninsula and the attack on the embassy in cairo. the best way to address these concerns is through increasing cooperation. increasing communication and cooperation with egyptian authorities, not by stepping away from them. diplomacy, the real essence of diplomacy is not that you have to love one another. the essence of diplomacy is that you respect each other so you can talk to each other when you must. i also remain firm in the belief it is profoundly in israel's

long term security interest to lean forward on efforts to achieve cease -- peace with palestinians. i was pleased to see done israeli government announced it would never leave tax revenues, earning a situation that would have undermined israel's security and damage the important institution and strengthened the hands of extremist palestinian factions. rather than undermining palestinian authority, it is in israel's intros to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to transfer palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation. for example, the security cooperation between israel,

palestinians, the u.s. security forces led by the lt. mike muller has paid real dividends. israel should look for ways to bolster this cooperation. president of boss must take the difficult steps to do exactly the same thing. -- president of box -- abbas must take the difficult steps to do exactly the same thing. ultimately this can only be achieved by two states living side by side with peace and security with full confidence in the united states is willing and capable of ensuring that israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risks needed to pursue peace.

toward a negotiated a two-state solution. i recognize that there is a few that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the arab awakening further imperil the dream of a safe and secure jewish and democratic israel. i disagree with that view. i believe israel will ultimately be safe when other middle eastern states adopted governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights, promote free and fair elections and double their international commitments and join the community. i believe it is the only real long-term path to security and prosperity.

to realize the vision of the viet zagreb be in for a sustainable peace in middle east, peace requires some difficult steps. and yes, it will involve risk but my italian father used to say that you cannot achieve anything worthwhile that without taking risks. all israelis should know that the united states will always stand behind their country. it will provide a secure safety net as it takes the necessary risks. i would close by noting that last year speaking at this forum, my friend ehud barak recall the famous statement by

winston churchill. the pessimists see is the pessimism and every opportunity but the pessimists does not. there are risks in the changes taking place across this critical region. we will work with israel to reduce and mitigate those risks in the effort to achieve something worthwhile. in that region. even as we have seen the challenges across the region grow in this past year, i would urge my israeli and american friends to remember these words

- to see these changes as an opportunity and to take the steps needed to secure our shared interests for peace in the long term, to secure that piece israel will always have the unshakable backing of the united states and the united states must always have the on charitable trust of israel. that bond is the fundamental key to stability and hope in the middle east. it is a bond that must never be broken. thank you. [applause] >> we have already collected a number of questions.

you won't be totally surprised to your the great many of the questions i have are related to the same topic -- you probably will be supplies that most of those are about the sharp park -- are about the personal life of chuck schumer. i will see a bike and find something else. iran is growing more and more aggressive, encouraging attacks and u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan and threatening israel and farming their nose against sanctions from the un, backing syria, and trying to kill the saudi ambassador to the u.s. in the u.s. love level of iranian aggressiveness should make us pick up the military option off

the table? >> as i said, we have to approach of this with all options on the table. at this point, we believe that a combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been placed on iran have had a serious impact. iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. it is truly becoming, particularly as a result of the attack on the british embassy, a pariah in that region. their own government is off balance in terms of trying to establish any kind of stability even within iran. the combination of that and efforts to make sure they do not develop a nuclear capability -- all of those efforts are

having an impact. we have a common goal here. let us understand that we have a common goal. the common goal is in iran that does not develop a nuclear weapon. working together, working with israel, or in with our allies in the region, or in the international community to is a huge -- to continue to isolate and put pressure on him is an effort we must continue that is the one best way to the ultimately weaken this nation. ultimately, they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or

whether they decide to join the international community. as prime minister netanyahu said, force should be only be a last resort. if that is truly the case, then i believe it is incumbent on us to implement all of our diplomatic and economic pressures possible. to try to make as ever to make clear to the world that we are dealing with an international pariah in iran. >> egypt is undergoing an historic change but there is no guarantee it will be a positive one. how can america use its strong relationship with the egyptian military to ensure a good outcome? >> i think it is important to continue to work closely with the israeli leadership at this time.

in order to insure that they move forward with that democratic reforms that have promised their people, they have, in fact, implemented elections. those elections have taken place. we have rolling elections and they will go on for the next few months. at some point, they will establish a constitutional change and at some point this next year, they will have a presidential election. we want to ensure that they stay on course and that they continue the efforts to move forward to implement these reforms. the egyptians have to decide their future and have to try to implement this in a way that fulfills the promise of the revolution that took place at the time you are brought down. our best course is to continue to put pressure on them, to make sure that they stand by the

promises that they made to the egyptian people, that they will implement these changes. when they do form a government, we have an obligation to stay with them and make sure that they abide by the committee and that they abide by the other redlines we have established. >> the u.s. intervened in libya to stop the regime from killing his people, why not in syria? >> i get asked this question and number of times as to others. you cannot simply take a cookie cutter approach to that reason and to decide that having applied for some one area, it

makes sense in another area. right now, my sense is that by virtue of the economic and diplomatic sanctions of the international community and the fact of the arab league has a process sanctions and turkey is imposing sanctions, all this is isolating the government in syria. i cannot tell you when but clearly as a matter of time before assad is taken from his position of leadership in syria. it is tragic that there are people who are dying but the key now is to continue to put pressure on them and continue the international unity that is continuing to make the average replaces assad. we think that is working so let's give it some time and we will always join the international community if it is felt that further steps are

necessary. because of america's disastrous economic situation, a lot of people and presidential candidates are talking about cutting off all u.s. foreign aid. as secretary of defense, how do you think that would affect american and israeli security? >> you are coming into town right now in which my greatest concern is with regards to the leadership on capitol hill and its ability to deal with the issues that confront this country. i have served in the congress and served in administrations and in my time in the congress, i always felt that while there was always political differences, the wagon and national issues, both parties

would work together to try to compromise and find solutions particularly to the crises date -- that face this country. we're at a time now when for whatever reason, there seems to be an inability to be able to find those as a compromise is in order to govern this country. if i had men and women who are putting their lot of malign and fighting and dying in this country, and they had the courage to do that and our elected leaders on capitol hill should be able to find a little bit of courage to find the solutions that would help solve the problems in this country. [applause] when it comes to -- i have indicated my concerns about this approach on sequestration because of the failure of the committee of 12 to be defined the necessary debt as a production they were required

to do. they have now implemented this automatic trigger that will take effect on now in january of 2013. if it is put into affect, it would decimate our national defense and it would tear a scene in our ability to effectively defend this country. at the same time, i am concerned about what it does on the domestic side of the budget. national security is not so dependent on military power. it is dependent on diplomatic power and dependent on the state department. it is also dependent on the quality of life in this country. to educate our kids and provide

health care -- all of that as part of our national security. for that reason, i think it is essential that the leadership of the country find the solutions to dealing with the deficit without having america having to pay a price that it will regret in the future. [applause] >> for how long do you believe a military attack on iran would postpone them getting the bomb? >> part of the problem here is the concern that at best, talking to my is really friends, the indication is that at best might postpone one or two years. it depends obviously on the ability to truly get at the targets they are after. frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get that. that kind of shot would only

ultimately not destroy their ability to produce atomic weapon but simply delay it. the greater concern is the unintended consequences which would be that ultimately it would have a backlash and a regime that is weak now, a regime as isolated would suddenly be able to reestablish itself and suddenly get support in the region. instead of being isolated, it would give greater support. the united states would obviously be the target of retaliation from iran, striking our ships, strike near military bases. horribly, there are economic consequences to that. that could impact a very fragile economy in europe and a fragile

economy here in the united states. lastly, the consequence could be an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives but i think could consume the middle east and a confrontational conflict we would regret. we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of that plan of attack. >> given american policy toward an iranian nuclear weapon, the u.s. believes there would be consequences from iran in acquiring a nuclear weapon. what do you think the comte's once as would be a why do you believe that one is a lesser priority?

in the first part of the question. what you believe a consequences of iran acquire nuclear weapon? >> this is a common goal. this is something that the united states, israel, the international community does not want iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. it is because iran's entire effort using the irgc, supplying terrorists, undermining governments throughout the world -- clearly, they are supporting terrorists in parts of the world and nuclear weapons would be devastating if they have that capability. once iran gets a nuclear weapon, you will have an arms race in the middle east. was to stop setting her up the -- what's to stop saudi arabia for getting nuclear weapons.

suddenly 11 escalation of these horrible weapons i think could create greater devastation in the middle east. the key for all of us is to work together, to gather, to make sure that does not happen. we had made good progress in these efforts. we continue to make good progress in these efforts. that is where we should continue to put air pressure, our efforts, diplomatic, economic, working together to make sure that that does not happen. you always have as a last resort of military action. but it must be a last resort, not the first. >> is the chief priority of u.s. policy toward iran to

moderate the nuclear ambitions of the iranian regime or change the regime? will this regime will change its behavior? >> i think the effort we are concerned about is to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear weapon. secondly, we would like to have an hour on that becomes part of the international community. and that it decides it is going to engage with the rest of the world. as opposed to isolating itself and supporting terrorists and as opposed to try to influence and support those that would attack our country and attack others in that region.

that is our fundamental goal is to try to insure that we have and ron that becomes and part of the international community and understands obligations. most important, we have to do everything we can to make sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon. >> back to egypt -- egypt has concluded its first round of elections as you discussed. the islamists and in vesicular thesolofist party did well in that election. do believe this unexpected rise of extreme religious right in egypt is a threat to regional security? what would your policy be toward a very strong egypt? >> we could all jump to conclusions. we need to let this play out a little bit.

this is the first part of a role in the election. clearly, we need to see what the results are in the first part of this election. we probably won't get a formal announcement tomorrow. we will have additional elections that will take place in the parliament that will occur and the rest of egypt and we will then have an election or the upper body that will take place. as a consequence of that, we will come together and have a presidential election. all that has to take place. this is a democracy. in democracies, we have to allow the egyptian people to express themselves in that process. ultimately, the pressures within a democracy will have some impact as to its direction. for our purposes, the united states has to engage with whatever government is established in egypt and insure that they abide by their obligations.

they have to ensure that they continue to be a partner and has put in -- in that part of the world. that is what democracy is all about. let's give a chance. there at the beginning of this process, not at the end. >> what steps should it take? withdraw the army from territories? >> just get to the table. just get to the table. [applause] the problem is we cannot get them to the dam table to a

police sit down and begin to discuss their differences. we know what the pieces are to a potential agreement. now we understand the concerns. we understand the concerns of israel and the palestinians. if they sit down at the table and work at those concerns, the united states can be assistance to that process, and that can be the beginning of a process that can lead to a peace agreement, but if they are not at the table, this will never happen, so first, get to the table. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you for your words to night. >> in a few moments, a forum on the future of pakistan. in about two hours, and gop

presidential candidate newt gingrich's n.y. news conference indienne president obama on expanding the payroll tax cut. -- and then president obama on expanding the payroll tax cut. on " the washington journal we will talk about expanding the payroll tax cut. then we will discuss the postal service cost decision to reduce service to cut costs. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> it is so convenient to listen to c-span anytime, anywhere with the video app. you get c-span radio as well as three television networks 24-7. you can also listen to "q&a" and "a communicators.

it is available wherever you are. >> now a forum on the future of pakistan. this is two hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] call[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good afternoon. i would like to welcome you this afternoon for the american launch of the future of pakistan. there will be an indian- pakistani addition. the book had its origins about a

year and a half ago. is this better? it is the outcome of a project that had its origins shortly after i finished a book in 2004. it was clear under president musharraf's leadership that pakistan was not dealing effectively with a number of problems. one of the many paradoxes with pakistan is there are more than enough pakistanis. i did not think his leadership was effective or that he could overcome institutional barriers.

pakistan is important for many reasons. the project that led to this vote was an attempt to look ahead beyond the immediate crisis. i have written that pakistan is mired in crisis. it has been one crisis after another. we wanted to take a medium-range look at pakistan, so there were pakistanis, americans, indians. some were ambassadors. some were academics and young scholars as well. to each i posed two questions. in their judgment, what were the key factors that might shape pakistan's future?

the answers are in the book. we want to thank the key is building foundation and several individuals for their support. i want to thank the contributors to this book. we are fortunate to have several contributors with us and several who have written their own books on pakistan. they have all recently published excellent books on pakistan. there were others we could have invited but did not have resources to do that. we decided to make this a long road than usual book launch with two panels instead of one. i have assets the panel share --

chair and john schmidt to ask the panelists to briefly state why recent events might shape they're just an -- might shave their judgment. before we go to the first panel, let me ask one of the contributors to say a few words in memory of one of the participants who was the source wisdom and insight. >> thank you. hillary was a dear friend of mine from the time we served together in pakistan before 9-11 in those years. we now look back on those as halcyon years of our relationship. they were not great again.

when i think of hillary carmine i think of several words. stoicism, rectitude, pragmatism, insight, tender -- candor. he was a private person and then a very warm person. he was a multi talent. he started writing as a naval engineer and then decided to surface in the diplomatic corps after serving in europe, he became one of the foreign office's leading officials on south asia. he found his home in the diplomatic corps and served in india and pakistan and was head of the office in south asia.

his last position was one that took him way out of his endeavour. he was for six months ahead of the british administration in starting in 2003. he wrote about this in a book asrah,""bad days in bosto and i have no need to tell you it was no great appreciation of our effort for the british effort in iraq, and for years afterwards he remain rather bitter about the experience.

he also wrote and two books about south asia, one about the advent of nuclear is stationed in pakistan and india -- of nuclearization in pakistan and india and also an optimistic note about region -- book about what could be the future of pakistan, but he did not dodge trying to tell the truth about pakistan's deficits. he has written in the forward of the vote, but i thought he are using ansidght term i have never heard before. he said, many people think when viewing pakistan you come from

the glass is half full or half empty. i think it is a glass into large -- too large, and that was to try to propound the idea paxson and -- pakistan may have set out with more ambition than it had resources to fulfill. i saw hillary a lot in the last few years. last june, only a few months ago when i arrived in england and sent him an e-mail saying i was here, and i got an e-mail saying, i am sorry i cannot meet with you, but i hope your visit goes very well. we had two or three more exchanges of e-mail, and he was always very cheerful, very upbeat.

i told him i was writing a paper on pakistan, and he told me he would love to see it, and he was literally on his deathbed when he wrote those things, and i think his last trading was about 05 paragraphs thing on foreign policy, and he said, be angry for pakistan cost treachery but do not be naziuts. this is my memorial to a dear friend, which i would say it reflected not a constant service of the world where people served for duty, and i do not think he was innocence -- in a sense of the fashion of our times.

>> it was sloot -- sir hillary that pointed out that she was a woman and her prediction -- tora call at delphi region in t -- that the oracle at delphi was a woman, and that her predictions often lead to disaster. we have about an hour for the panel discussion, and then we will bring the second panel to conclude it. >> thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this. i know you initially invited me to participate in the book project, which i was not able to do, so i am getting desert

without the main course. thank you for your support. he was a decent and and thoughtful and creative public of the sort one does not see that often. it is my duty to introduce my fellow panelists. before i do so, i want to give you a thought to frame discussions. i have encouraged each of the panelists to focus on some of the things their particular chapters province in which were unique to them or are under- discuss issues. that is what you will get. if i were going to be a panelist, i would have focused on the pakistan-u.s. relations, which are going through an awful time at the moment.

the central thesis of this book, which i wrote with my husband, is that pakistan's prime negotiating tactic with the united states is what one might call the art of the guilt trip. one of my own more eloquent pakistani friends refer to it as playing the victimization card. this does not mean in is an inappropriate, but it is a way to deal with the relationship for both sides. i assume this will form part of the backdrop for the presentations you are talking about, although this is not a book about u.s.-pakistan relationships, so let me introduce the panelists, and i will introduce each as he or she

comes up. to my immediate left is dr. christine fair and georgetown university who school of foreign services, who has a distinguished career in political science, data analysis, and embarrassingly long list of distinguished books, but the one i do not see on this otherwise splendid is the cuisine of the axis of evil, and i think your understanding will be incomplete unless you go into that as well. you can talk about cuisine or something else. the floor is yours for five minutes. >> pakistan is in the book. it was the finest vote ever. i got paid to write the book before it was finished.

pakistan and israel are all included. now the pakistan who chapter is called "to a dinner with the taliban." blend is myk and lan advice to you. when i was asked to come on board, it was difficult to be optimistic about pakistan and its challenges, and in the wake of the recent events, it is even more difficult to be even less pessimistic than i was, so i laid out what i think are a number of foundational challenges. there is a tendency to look at the pakistani problems of the day. there is a democracy problem. there is the army problem. there is the terrorism problem,

but when i look at the pakistani problems, if largely reduces what i think is a fundamental problem of constitutionalism. looking at simple military who relations, another example of constitutionalism, so that was the object i have for the chapter. the specific issues i discussed, i think there are a few i would like to talk about today. the first is terrorism. i do not want to rehash what we all know. anybody watching the news has a fairly a clue the pakistan uses its nuclear umbrella with impunity. we get this. many of us have also understood many of pakistan's's proxy's .ave turned against the state' i like to draw your attention to

something that is less obvious to some of you. you have noticed the suzfi shrines that have been under attack. there are a network of groups that overlap, but i think one of the most disturbing trends is the ability of these groups to remain a minority and then to prosecute the deadly violence. this is absolutely new. pakistan has seen the but theering of xiashia, idea that it has irrigated now the right to say who it is or is not a muslim is quite new.

one thing that has impressed me is that there is no ownership of this problem and how it arose. if there can be no ownership, there can be no solution. there are people we have known for decades to justify the killing for being a blasphemer. there are things said i never want to hear those folks say. for those of us who have been in pakistan, it is shocking but the silent majority would say, but if they were to open their mouths, you would ask him to shut up. similarly, i went to the old city where i had been a student, talk to some folks i have known for decades.

in their assessment in have been the indians who did it. the tendency is not to diagnose the problem, which is the reliance on islamic militants, but rather to externalize the problem anywhere and everywhere it can. even following the recent debacle in relations, you will find people say what is wrong with our jihad. whether we have imperialism is something we can debate, but the fact that it is not an embarrassment to say we have a jihad strategy. this is a counter strategy, and i think we see this in the platform he brings to the table. he is exciting because the way

in which he is doing so i think is not a cause for a civil society activists and to be hopping up and down with glee. he is taking her pakistan to a bizarre notion. we had this notion of him sowing his seeds to the west. he is doing this as a way of recuperating pakistan. he has the blessings of ghq, so we should not be mistaken that the ex cricket player is going to be anything other than business as usual. he is soft on the taliban, and i mean he does not really think they are a problem, so if you kind of look at how pakistan and is dealing with islamist violence on the one hand, and there is no way of getting at

this, then you will also have to look of the debates taking place in pakistan about who the state is for. in this sense, he has written the best boat about who is pakistan for. what role are there for shia in this state? increasingly, israelis as well are coming under the gun. we have fundamental issues pakistan cannot resolve. what is the relationship between the center and the provinces, but as you know, in pakistan,

they are all to one degree or another who vertically integrated personality cults. when you look at fundamental challenges and try to line up what it would take to resolve some of these issues, the element of statesmanship and a like coral politics -- and electoral politics do not seem to be in alignment. where i conclude this, that is containment. in the last few years of trying to persuade pakistan to behave differently the last several

talks i have given i have put forward what i think is a model we can debate. it is the soviet union. during the period of the soviet union, we were adversaries. we wanted different things in the region. we operated against one another more than we operated with each other. we did not cut off relations. we did not cut off diplomatic relations. we understood the goal, the problem set. we invested in civil society, but when the system breaks open, there will be people to work with. the final point -- and this is where i get my myself in trouble -- as we learned, the soviet union could fail. the nuclear problem would be handled. the world was not going to end. going to ambassador schaffer's remarks, pakistan is able to drive the system in a national crisis. we have a lot to learn from the cold war about how we might manage our future relations with pakistan. [applause]

>> thank you very much. our next guest is william milam, once ambassador to bangladesh, and subsequently in pakistan before any of that. we were colleagues in the foreign service, where bill was the shining light among economic officers. i hope he will let some of that light shine through his presentation this afternoon. bill? >> the light may go out halfway through this, but let's see. anyway, i plan to devote most of my remarks or at least the

last part of my remarks to the economy. but because i was one who covered that in the book, in a superficial and not very helpful way, and i think maybe that does bear looking into because in all of the talk we have had, talk we had about pakistan, one rarely hears mentions of the economy. it is in shambles. that me say first that these papers were written first a couple of years ago, revised for the brookings website, and then revised again about six to eight months ago for the book. they are revisions of revisions. you know something? i think it shows how fast things are moving and almost

always that we want to stand up here and tell you what i would have done differently had i been writing it today. i will go very briefly through those. the first is in an early part of my chapter, i write something that i thought was quite illuminating at the time, but there was certainly going to be a political solution in afghanistan. anyone who reads that's now says, where has got in this head? the second thing says, i wrote an article called "lost generation," i thought was not too bad, and it did catch the exclusion elements that chris talked about, but had i been writing it now, i would have translated those in to the enormous volatility and the power of public opinion in pakistan, which drives everything, including probably i am sure the latest downturn

in our relationship. and i would have also written in the part on u.s.-pakistan relations that, were i writing it now, i would have played down to almost zero, if you will, the importance of our economic assistance. it was a great idea, but i think it is not the solution and never was. we need bigger ideas, i think, or different ideas. maybe not bigger. in regard to the economy, one of the reasons one does not hear about it much these days is because for some reason, hard to know what exactly, things

evidently seem pretty good in pakistan. the people are not complaining. they seem to be working hard to fix their energy problem, to fix their monetary problem. but in fact i think most economists who are familiar with pakistan would tell you that pakistan is driving over an economic cliff, and who knows when the edge of that cliff will be reached. things are not likely to be able to stay as they are very much longer. they have, as you well know, because it has been old news now for several months, decided they have no more truck with the international monetary fund, which means that in fact they begin paying back the fund next month, i think, and of that

great amount of what they call reserves, which comes in the foreign exchange reserves, most of it belongs to the fund, and what does not belong to the fund belongs to other lenders, such as china. there will come a time in the near future, unless things change somehow, where they will be down to a very few months' imports, and they will begin to panic, and the exchange route will deteriorate worse than it has. in that sense, and they are heading for shortages on imports, shortages of things like energy imports, or actually pulling in their horns and going back to the imf. what would that mean? the imf would mean they would

have to agree to some very, very difficult conditions, difficult economically and probably more difficult politically. they would have to agree to pay much more in taxation. the tax-gdp ratio is now 8%. that makes ours look good. in fact, they have no intentions, although they claim to, to have plans to raise taxes and to raise the revenue base does not look very feasible. they have also adopted a monetary policy which, in the teeth of inflation, does not make much sense at all, because they seem to be, as far as i can tell, increasing the money supply, which sooner or later you will get to some sort of spiralling inflation, driving food prices up as well as the

prices of -- as well as having an effect on their foreign exchange rates. i do not think i will go into exquisite detail on this, but i think the next big crunch in pakistan, certainly coming soon -- well, i have a whole minute left. how about that? i do not need a whole minute. the next big crunch in pakistan will be on the economy. how it comes out, i am not sanguine. unless they put their tail between their legs, their hands together, but go to the international agencies, the world bank, imf, and plead and promise, really, that they will make structural changes in

return for a little help. we will see if that happens. i would not bet on it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, bill. our next speaker is shuja mawaz, who was born in pakistan, and since january 2009, the first director of the south asia center of the atlantic council. having had at a distinguished career before that with various think tanks, since at the imf, the world health organization, and various publications, and he is best known in this town for his book "crossed swords," a history of the pakistan scene, from the president to

the pakistan army. shuja, the floor is yours for the next five minutes. >> thank you, i want to add my praise for -- someone i worked with when i joined the it and the council, we produced their first publication that my south asia center released in 2009. [unintelligible] all i can do is echo the comments that were made earlier about hillary. that is where the feedback was coming from. >> that's right. >> my chapter was called the original feature of -- was

called cordially "the future of pakistan." the reason i chose the feature was that it was a bit like yogi berra comment about pakistan coming to the fork in the road and taking it. the reason for that is in pakistan there is a great tendency for politicians and leaders to say something purely tactical and call it strategic. there is not an appetite for strategic thinking or planning. as a result, pakistan's economic future is a matter of great concern, and i will not go into the details that bill has just already talked about, but i want to remind people that in spite of all of this, there was a world bank study that looked at 1980 to 2007, the developing

world, and the result that emerge from that was the one country that came out with the highest average -- trade over that period was china, at 9.9%. the country that came in second was surprisingly pakistan, at 5.8%. i cited this purely in support of my contention that growth and development in pakistan occurs in spite of government and in spite of the state, which means there are sinews in the pakistani side, which, if they are allowed to operate, would be able to bring the country back to an even keel. i was asked to focus on the demographics. for those of you who were here last year when we discussed a book on corruption, i apologize, but with a population

of about 185 million, pakistan have a median age of either 18 or 21, depending on who is counting. yet something like 90 million youth that are going to be fed, educated, and given gainful employment. this particular pyramid structure of pakistan's population is going to remain over the next 15 years. another challenge going to occur is something like 80 million youth will be added to the job stream by 2050. pakistan is no longer on the trajectory which would allow it to stay ahead of this population growth curve. the country is increasingly urbanized, meaning that what used to be small rural towns now have all the characteristics of large cities, and the large cities are now a mega cities on

a global scale. the question is, what will happen when the current census, which is already underway, is completed? if it is completed correctly and if, under its rules the country, it then changes its political boundaries, there is likely to be a political shift in the countryside to the city, because most of the population is now gravitating to the city. now, there has been a tendency in pakistan's history for the center to acquire power and to take it away from the provinces so that what started off as a federation recently became a

centralized state, where all the power was centered, normally in the military rulers, or even in the civilian rulers when it took over between long military roles. the good news is somehow after something like 18 years of debate, there was an agreement between the center and the provinces and the national financial commission was agreed to play, under which the three ordered the sharing of revenues between the center and the provinces and try to make up for what had been shortcomings in the previous formula. this was accompanied by the 18th amendment of the constitution, and the evolution of power to the provinces. there was no planning for the implementation of that evolution.

there is a squabble between the center and the provinces with the center is saying to the provinces, you handle all these sectors, and the provinces saying, we do not know how we're provide the resources to manage them. then they understood there was a model which the center had followed, which bill did, too, which was deficit financing. they saw that they had that punjab bank as an atm machine. now i have requests from the other provinces to set up their other banks said they can incurred these deficits and turn to the center and say, please go ahead and play this bill. and just in sidelight to this shift is even in the military the population that has moved

closer to the cities or is in the cities is now in being recruited by the military, particularly in the officer class. when i was doing my analysis that showed in the decade ending 2005, more officers were recruited from karachi. so a shift in the recruitment to districts that were more in central and southern punjab, also districts that are impoverished. remember this is also where the most militant groups are recruiting. that juxtaposition is likely to create a problem. within the power structure of pakistan, we noticed a shift also from what used to be a troika in the 1990's, to a situation where there was a

balancing act, where you have an imbalance now, where you have the military, the civilian president and prime minister, and emerging judiciary, and then you have the media representing civil society and the rise of civil society. where does the future take pakistan? a lot will depend on whether there is a debate within the country, whether that debate, which is inspired by the so- called silent majority -- that may or may not exist -- which they need to have in order to determine what kind of pakistan they want to be. if not, it will continue to be a clash of the old interests, and you will simply have musical chairs from one party to the next. some of the actors may change, but the principals will remain the same. thank you.

>> thank you very much. [applause] [unintelligible] >> the final speaker will be moeed yusuf. it is not fair for him to have such a long and distinguished list of publications at his tender age, but he does. and i would also add that he and i had the pleasure of working together on a group that went to moscow last summer to talk with pakistan and afghanistan specialists from the russian academic establishment. moeed has made something of a name for himself, trying to look beyond the immediate future in pakistan, and that is what i am hoping he will help us this

afternoon. >> thanks for inviting me and having the as a part of the project. my chapter in this book is called "youth and the future," and so some of the things i talk about, people who have come to me and challenge me on the presumptions, essentially to see what i wanted to get away from, which is, did you see what happened last weekend? my answer is i do not care, because if i am looking at this young generation, you have to move away from what preoccupies us. some of the figures were mentioned. 67.1% of pakistan is below the age of 30.

in proportion, it is second only to yemen. what i did in the chapter was in essentially looked whatever leaders are available or whatever has been written about what the youth are seeing their country do, what they wish the country to become and how they are motivated in seeing pakistan's future. compare that with what are likely to be realities they have to deal with. i will talk about four or five future-oriented projections. if you look at what the youth of our thinking of and what the

perceptions are today, some stand out. it is a highly conservative generation that is coming up, not to be confused with extremism, but it is aware of its ethnicity, which may or may not be a change from the older pakistan. in terms of politics, it is increasingly frustrated and discontented with the addition, political leadership, the current government or whether who has been -- there is no philosophical commitment to democracy. if you look at the historic trend, one could argue once that frustration level rises to a point, a backing up of the system is fair game. the most interesting aspect i find over and over, even by

evidence of talking to people up across pakistan, they are frustrated, willing to criticize, but none of them are willing to touch politics, because it is dirty business. the question is, you want change, you what positive change, you're not willing to change anything yourself? who doesn't? then you go back to the same leadership. this is an end result paradox for pakistan. third, with the current mindset, the mindset is anti- extremist, terrorists are not popular, but at the same time avidly anti-u.s. as well. these will continue to coexist as i mentioned briefly later. these three things stand out for what i want to say here. in terms of the realities they

face, some of them are structurally set for pakistan in the next five years to seven years. education -- all indicators are looking up. qualitatively, not so much. the stratified system is producing three societies within a society. the public education system, mainstream conservative bias, the private elite system, which is one end of the spectrum, and in the seminaries, few in number, compared to the others. if you look at the narrative in social media now, it is polarized and divided, pointing to the other for the problems pakistan faces. the right-wing sentiment i am seeing, this is a lead to being part of the problem. they are looking at the right and do not understand what needs to be done.

seeds for polarization are found in the way they are being educated. second, i do not need to talk about the economy anymore. the next five years to seven years, the projections are grim. you can add these youth and the numbers coming out in the market and not finding the requisite kind of outlets required. what that would lead you to something i call in the chapter the expectation-reality disconnect. essentially underemploying them and leaving some out of the force. i do not buy this argument which has been made that while you are socially and economically deprived, you fall to extremists. i do not buy that.

the problem is not the supply side. it is the demand side. the demand for militancy has trumped the supply. the access to militancy is quite open at this point, and it depends on if that continues or not. let me throw out quickly five projections. there is going to be a tussle that will continue, but the traditionalists seem to have the upper hand at this point, given the way the use mindsets are set up and what the realities may be. second, there is a likelihood of an increasingly fractured and polarized society, and the narratives are already pointing in that direction. i will go into some detail as

to why make that case. you can be disillusioned and not do anything. in pakistan's case the extreme sectarian, ethnic, and provincial affiliations, can come together in various ways. what one can say in terms of projection is that none of them look pretty. it depends on how bad it gets 15 years ahead. politically, you can look at about 60 years and project for, and there's not much change there. democracy is a proper option, but if the leadership continues to fail and the military has a role in continuing that failure, and if they continue to fail, i do not rule out a systemic change in terms of either going back to the military or coming up with some kind of creative model which does not reflect a democratic dispensation. the problem is that the

frustration levels are so high and the structural problems are so deep that no government, any projection i do, i do not come up with any scenario wherein the governments can perform well enough for the people. there is always this expectation-reality disconnect that pushes the militancy sentiment among the youth. there is one change that is happening, and we do not know how that will play out, and that is the organization in pakistan. the whole of the feudal belief is shaky. whether the next generation or the urban bourgeoisie to become more prominent have a different take on politics is questionable. you would argue yes, but in pakistan's case, my experience is not the landlord and feudal

holdings that is a problem, it is the feudal mindset which permeates the urban elite and in some ways the urban elite surpasses the earlier ones. whether that will bring positive change or not we will have to wait and see. finally, i think pakistan, given the mindset and realities, pakistan's internal divisions are enough that they will not allow a consensus to be forged on any platform in terms of politics, either a pro- taliban platform or an anti- taliban platform. i really do not see that as the real danger. what will happen is that the

narrative of the street right will continue getting conflicted with anti-americanism and imperialism that is being imposed upon the region. that trajectory is anti- extremist, anti-u.s. at the same time, and you go to crisis to crisis. you go from a fight to the next one. thank you. [applause] >> that you very much, moeed. still have a little bit of time for questions. let me urge those who wish to ask questions put up your hand. i will try to recognize people as i see them. identify yourself and your

affiliation, and above all, i hesitate to say this, try to be brief so your friends and the rest of the audience have a chance ask their questions as well. yes. we have a mike coming. >> the substitution of the state as the state starts failing. look at urbanization, and education, security. in all these areas, the state is failing, but you are

surprised by the private effort across all pakistan in each of these areas. education is diverse. it is aggressive. it is making a substantial substitution for the state. the water supply is given by those who provide supplies. security, in most of the cities it is provided by private forces.

the question that i am asking is, as the state fail, these substitutions are very important. probably should pay some attention to that. >> important observation about the apparent substitution of private state efforts. the gentleman in the blue shirt behind him. >> hi. my name is tony, and i had the opportunity to be with ambassador hillary in baghdad several years ago. he referred to me as cousin, although i do not know that there was a direct lineage. i wish there were. i wanted to ask you two questions. with regard to recruiting in the army, and we knew of the army as strong influence, i am not sure how complete, but you mentioned that recruiting in karachi outstretched those of other areas.

i would like to know what the facts might be from that institutionally, and then especially as it relates to international relations. then can somebody tell us a little bit more about the level and character of education of the upcoming generation, and particularly, what is the philosophy that is prevailing there -- secularism, tolerance, intolerance? i have heard conservatism. could you expand on that as it relates to the education to the education of the youth. >> the fact that there is more recruitment from karachi than from the other districts, which are areas of main recruitments of soldiers, was surprising.

there has been a tremendous internal migration within the country. no way of pinning down the nature of what has occurred. the fact that people are living in cities, they are acquiring all the traits of urbanization, and the points of view that in the cities as opposed to those who live in the countryside and grow up in the countryside. that will have an effect in time. in terms of the effect on the military's politics are increasingly conservative as the rest of the country now. a lot of the traditional recruits are not going into the military, so we will have to wait to see where the urban bourgeoisie will head. i will leave it to chris and

wade to shed some light on this. >> i had the privilege of working with shuja, and i had of a team of economists, that allowed us to look at those district producing officers. a couple of things. i have a paper coming out. the first is that increasing the pakistani army is recruiting from the less educated. there is going to be this minimum threshold. the areas producing these officers, that is because even at higher levels of the era of the officer corps, and the perquisites are appealing, but for junior officers it is not that great. thinking of a family making an investment in education allocation, it makes sense to go to the private sector.

we see a sweet spot in terms of education for the military, even though they are coming from districts that are less well educated. they're coming from areas that are more socially liberal, and you can quibble with how we define that, but we define socially liberal as those districts where the gap between male and female education narrowed. you had a generally liberal district, you have women who are more educated than men. the other thing we used to look at this was the age of first marriage. when we look at those metrics, and you can dispute whether they are -- those are interesting. the interesting thing about that finding, you can find steady from last year, the urbanization and the socially liberal populations were interesting. for those of you who know

pakistan, it is in the urban areas where political islam thrives. it is not the purview of the villages, as a lot of people here are under the belief. that is it for my comments. >> it briefly -- i see the pakistan education system as comparable to other areas of south asia, which is to say it is terrible. there is a conservative bias that that is what you would see across the region for the most part. where i think we miss the point is talking about education in isolation. the context is more important. the context, the young pakistani generation now coming up is not conducive to tolerance. it is becoming more and more intolerant. i do not think it is becoming extremist in the sense that we used the term, but it is

becoming much more intolerant and polarized. >> i am the former director of operations at the world bank, and i would like to direct a comment to shuja. you touched upon the evolution, and the government has doubted this particular thing as a great success. my contention is that it is mired down in capacity shortage, both at the individual level, not so much individual, but certainly at the institution and mostly at the policy level. if this institutional capacity and other forms of capacity are lacking at the center, what chance is there for it to evolve that this would be successful at all? do you agree with my contention, and, number two, what can be done about it?

>> i think i did mention that the idea was a good one, but there was no planning for the implementation. in my brief comments, i did not go into details of that, but this is exactly it, the capacity was not there at the center, and it is not there in the provinces. what you have done basically is moved a whole sense of responsibilities to the provinces, including a whole chunk of -- that you physically shifted to the provinces without a means of being able to put them to produce. -- put them to good use. this will be a difficult transition for the provinces, but still, the very idea that pakistan is not reverting back to its idea of a federation rather than a centralized government, which would be a success of dictatorships, military and civilian both, could take advantage of is a good thing.

maybe there is some hope to go back to the comments were the class is too big and the question is how do we fill it. >> hi, i am a visiting journalist from pakistan. i want to make a comment to what was said. blasphemy is not their issue. that is why the guy who killed -- [unintelligible] -- the governmengovernor [unint] in pakistan, we have two types of military organizations.

[unintelligible] -- the militant groups are more toward india. and the others aretoward the west of the indus. they followed that sector. that was my point. blasphemy is the issue of the -- it is not the issue of the -- thanks. >> briefly, you are absolutely wrong on every single point you made. i do not need to say anything else. what people were shocked at one -- came out in support of -- that was their problem for failing to understand who they were. they're not the only issue. they are not the ones

supporting these militant groups. false. >> we have time for one more question. >> hi. isn't it a question that the pakistan narrative has failed from the beginning? pakistan was created in the name of islam, was really supposed to be based by the founder of pakistan to be a country for everybody. since that narrative has consistently failed and the establishment of the people who feel threatened that pakistan is threatened, they are trying to find a new ideology, and that will keep pakistan together. i want your comment whether the spread of fundamentalism and

extremism is fanned by the fear that without islamic cement pakistan is going to disintegrate. thank you. >> i will exercise the privilege to respond to that. pakistan was founded as a homeland for the muslims of the subcontinent, and the founder spoke eloquently on what he believed that this meant, and i am sure you are familiar with the quotation from his speech before pakistan's independence. i think it is fair to say no issue has been so hotly or consistently contested in pakistan, as the issue of what that means, what it means to be the homeland for muslims, what it means to be a muslim country, and so on, and it would take far longer than we have available this afternoon for me to introduce the two different

sides to this. what did this all mean for pakistan's future? what you are seeing this playing out on a backdrop that is not just religious, it is social, it reflects the elements happening around the world between muslims and non-muslims and within the muslim world, and all these things are coming together in a rather dangerous brew that the people of pakistan have to sort out, and those who wish i said well from other countries are going to have difficulty dealing with. with that, let me thank my panelists and steve. the decision has been made that we're not going to have a break. we're simply going to shift panels.

this panel will do its best to get out of a way as quickly as possible, and to let the next distinguished group take our places. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> welcome. immediately to my left is pamela constable, a staff writer for "the washington post." she has extensive experience in covering pakistani affairs, having served as the south asia bureau chief.

she was also bureau chief in kabul from 2002 until 2004. she has continued to follow events in the region closely, as reflected in her new book, "playing with fire," in which she paints a vivid portrait of the country and heard many problems. bruce on my far right is a senior fellow here at brookings and a leading authority on south asian affairs. he has served in many senior positions in the u.s. government, including senior director of south asia affairs during the clinton administration. he was an advisor to the obama presidential campaign on south asia and shared a review of u.s. policy toward afghanistan

and pakistan during the early months of the obama administration. he is the author of his own recent book on pakistan entitled "deadly embrace." on my far left is joshua white, the youngster of our panel. he is a ph.d. candidate at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies and the jennings randolph peace scholar. he spent time in pakistan doing research and has presented his findings in numerous forums and gave testimony before the congress. he has been an active participant in several high- level u.s.-pakistani dialogues, and his current doctoral work

focuses on decision-making in the islamic parties in pakistan. last but certainly not least, to my right, is marvin weinbaum, a scholar in residence at the middle east institute, and a professor at the diversity of illinois, where he was director at the program in south asian and middle eastern studies. he has also served as analyst for pakistan and afghanistan in the bureau of intelligence at the state department, where i first got to know him. he has written extensively on pakistani topics for a wide variety of journals and books anthologies. he has long been one of this country's leading authorities on pakistan. as with the previous group, i would like to invite our panelists to gaze out at the next five to seven years of the

future of pakistan, predict where it is headed. it has now been a year and a half since the bellagio conference was held, and the biggest change that has happened in the region during that period has been the dramatic downturn in u.s.- pakistani relations, and i would ask the panel to funnel that phenomenon into their five- minute remarks and discuss where things may be headed in that relationship, which suddenly seems to have an enormous impact over pakistan over the short to medium term. pamela. >> can you all hear me? is this on? we are both at an advantage and

a disadvantage in the second panel. a great deal has already been said over the last hour and a half, and i do not want to repeat the points that were being made before. we do not have that much time, if we're on our schedule, less than 45 minutes. i'm going to be very dramatic here, just making bullet points. the previous speaker talked about the solidity of events of -- of fluidity of events of which i am certainly a minor victim. i had to revise my recent book something like six times after it was finished and at the publisher to accommodate such things as floods, covering the country of pakistan, the extension of general -- the killing of -- and then, worst of all, for many reasons, the capture and killing of osama bin laden, of which we were only

be able to get something like one sentence into the final, final, final version of the books. the second part i want to make is in reading through these chapters and listening to all these comments, i am struck by the extraordinary commonality of the diagnosis. speaker after speaker, chapter after chapter, everybody seems to generally agree on a set list of problems that pakistan has face for a very long time and it continues to face. it is also striking how our pretty bleak prognosis seems to be. i have not heard much in the way up optimistic forward- looking places for hope. if you look at the places where people would like to look hopeful, there's always in the downside, media. media has an enormous potential for positive change, but also

has a downside. it is pandering to the lowest common denominator in many cases, which is extreme emotionalism, anti-foreigner, anti-americanism, a lot of bad things happening with this great new medium, to the judiciary and, there been enormous changes -- that has had its disappointing side. not that much has changed as a result of the restoration of -- it has been quite a disappointment, the nadir which was the positive -- talking about the lawyers movement of several years ago. yes, there are some positive

points, but things are not going very well. i want to talk about a couple of things where i think there are some opportunities possibly for help, for ways that things could be improved. i want to talk about, since we're being asked to, the u.s.- pakistan relationship. we all know it is getting worse. i want to focus particularly on this issue, because i worked a lot about on that on the two years i spent researching might recent book. that is public opinion. it is very true that, yes, most pakistanis do not support terrorism, the taliban, or cutting off people's hands. at the same time, the body of evidence shows that anti- westernism has never been higher in pakistan than it is now. it is across the board, and

we're not talking as other students have said about alienating people. we're talking about all kinds of people. we're talking about broad public sentiment. i would posit there are two reasons this is happening. three, i guess. one is, and i said this in recent talks, what i see happening is this growing confluence of not what i call the al qaeda school of thought, but two other phenomenon, one of which is the growing emotional and very emotionalistic sensibleness about islam. -- defensiveness about islam. many people feel this to be the case. that they are under threat from the west.

that needs to be addressed. there needs to be a much better narrative. -- counter narrative from the west. and from moderates in pakistan and their supporters abroad. that needs to be countered. pakistanis feel frustration. people feel alienated from the state. people feel they have nowhere to turn. they're getting very mixed messages from their leaders, from television, politicians, religious leaders. they do not really have anything to grab on to except their religion. there are many ways they can go. if you look at what is happening on the campus of punjab university and the appeasement going on, it is very alarming. the use of pakistan are very much up for grabs right now. -- the youth of pakistan are

very much up for grabs right now. we do not have enough time here to talk about solutions, but i think there are many areas where it if you want to put it simply, shoring up moderation, trying to isolate the extremists fringes. it is the only thing that is going to make a big difference in the long run. we have to win them over. we cannot destroy them with drones. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, pamela. now i would like to move -- turned to bruce widell who recently did a piece in the "new york times" about containment during the first panel. over to you, bruce.

>> thank you very much. i want to underscore the importance of this project. i can say honestly that "deadly embrace" would not be the book that it is without the benefit of all of those traps. i want to particularly thank steve cohen for doing all of the hard work to bring it all together. because of the time and because of a very sore throat, i will try to make only two points very briefly regarding pakistan's immediate future in the next three to five years. the first is, i fear that we are seeing the creeping establishment of pakistan's fifth military dictatorship under way right now. what do i mean by that? it is not going to be a repeat

of the musharraf era or the was your era, but it will be something more nuanced than that. it will definitely be a dictatorship, and a dictatorship means there is a group in power that makes decisions irrelevant to what the popular vote, what the popular majority is and what the elected government is. that is a phenomenon we are increasingly seeing in today's pakistan. it has been in essence for the last three years. we are seeing a qualitative change in the power of those four legs. some will say that this was always inevitable. because of the nature of the president was, the nature of how it came to power, was doomed to fail. that is clearer in retrospect than it was in 2008 and 2009. the witnesses are profound and

they go to the very core of the politician that he is. it is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. the facades of civilian government is likely to go on. there will still be president and prime minister. behind that, they will have very little of the real power. the media will continue to be very active and alive, except when it criticizes the army to seriously. the judiciary will be able to do what it wants to do as long as it does not challenge the military.

behind the scenes, the army will decide the key issues of national security and allocation of resources. one can say, this is not new in pakistan. that was in some dispute over the last three years. there was an attempt by civilians to change that. the civilian government itself and many of its leaders, this includes the president, are increasingly intimidated. and scared to death, frankly, of what the military can do. memo-gate is the ultimate illustration of all of this. it is ironic, since the whole purpose of the memo, was to prevent a military dictatorship, it is facilitating the development of a military dictatorship. i hope that to ever wrote the memo, and to ever wrote about

the memo, can live with their conscience about what they have done in the interest of self- promotion. the model that pakistan is becoming, unfortunately, is the south asian version of algeria. a country where the military roles behind the scenes. it is very hard to know who in the military is rolling behind the scenes. an assembly of generals who make decisions behind curtains, behind a false fronts all the time, not a single powerful person, but a collection of them. in the case of pakistan, it is the corps commanders. the good news is, i do not think the process is a revocable yet. i think it can still be turned around. i think pakistanis can prevent this from happening.

new elections to produce strong mandates for a new government could turn this around. it is no guarantee by any means, but it is a possibility. left on the steady drip that it is, i see pakistan going into its fifth military dictatorship. the second point i would beg is also one that is relatively simple. the united states and nato today are fighting a proxy war in afghanistan. this has been true since 2005 as well. many of the veils behind this proxy war are falling apart. the entire world, the united nations, nato, the international community, is backing the karzei government. the pakistan government is not there. it has been backing the taliban fort some time. the assassination of the president on september 20 it was a defining milestone in the process.

it's clearly put pakistan on the side of the force that does not want to negotiate, not interested in a political process. up until september 20, we could hope there would be a political process in afghanistan. when that bomb went off, that hope came to an end. they find themselves on an increasingly dangerous and as lead toward collision course in afghanistan. there are some breaks built into the system. whether they will prove to be strong enough to prevent disaster from happening, i think it is becoming in question. [applause] >> thank you, bruce. >> thank you, it is great to be back at brookings institute. i see so many familiar faces in the audience. i want to make one point about the u.s.-pakistan relationship. the first, u.s.-pakistan

relationship, bruce has written a lot about containment towards pakistan. i think there is a lot to commend that line of reasoning. it is not the most helpful contract. i want to explain why i think that is the case. a lot of people use containment as a shorthand for limited cooperation on matters of mutual interest in the environment of some discord. i think that can be an element of policy contained. you can also call that in the number of other things. you can call that a modest transactional relationship.

you can be realistic about the areas in which we disagree. another characteristic of containment is that containment means planning for the worst case. on this point, i would contend that we already do that. we do a lot of planning for the worst case. we planned for realistic worst- case scenarios, non- proliferation scenarios. we spend a lot of time planning for, what happens if there is another mumbai attack? what is the fallout of that? we also spent a lot of time planning for highly unrealistic worst case scenarios. what if the taliban will into islamabad and decide to do something there? i think we already occupy ourselves with this kind of

planning. again, we do not need to call that containment. the third, one of the senator characteristics of containment is putting pressure on proxy. we saw this during the cold war. the metaphor does not entirely fits because our primary area of peripheral engagement with pakistan is in afghanistan. it is the proxy engagement that is currently carried on in afghanistan. that is likely to decrease over time. the one area where we're likely to continue to engage pakistan at every -- at the periphery is in relation to those groups that come from pakistan to engage in transnational activity. there is something changing in the u.s.-pakistan relationship. the scope is narrowing. there is more suspicion. there will be more planning for worst-case scenarios.

we can call that something other than containment. in my chapter, i touched on a number of different things. i speculated about looking ahead in pakistan. i want to touch briefly on three of them. the first is what is going to happen with islam in afghanistan. i spent a lot of time thinking and writing about this. i talked with islamist political leaders in pakistan. i would like to highlight what chris mentioned. one of the disturbing, surprising things has been the vitriol and the violence directed against what has traditionally been seen as a more moderate expression, a more moderate branch of islam in pakistan. we have seen bombings against shrines. those of increased in the last several years. we've also seen elements of those supposedly moderate groups that have become violent

as well. this was mentioned by the questionnaire. the attack was brought to the surface, a whole stream of radicalism that many people had not seen before. it is not that everybody is crazy in pakistan. we have to see the dividing line, not so much as between the liberals and the extremists. what is the balance today between the liberals and the extremist? but to look inside of all these groups and to ask some more focused questions, like what did they believe about who can enforce the sharia? a lot of these questions will come down to who can take sharia into their own hands? who can take force into their own hands? as we look to the future, the dividing lines between those groups ever going to be more

stabilizing will fall along questions like this. not belong who is liberal and who is not. who is liberal and who is not. i mentioned in the chapter, i speculated about the prospect of a civil -- a center-right government and marching in -- government emerging in pakistan. we could have a very interesting discussion on what that might look like and how it would impact u.s.-pakistan relations. it would not do anything dramatic to the relationship. it would allow some of the military centers of power and others to deflect even more of their problems with the united states on to the parliament, rendering them moot. i have been studying islamist

politics, i've spoken to the party is about to they would -- the islamist parties about who they would like to align with in the next election. i would expect that some of the parties would like to be part of a center-right government. there is now a whole host of opportunities at the provincial level for policy-making that did not used to exist. there are a host of opportunities for islamist parties and coalitions to play around with education policy, and with health policy, and other things. ways that they could not have done in the past. one final point, i know this has been a discouraging afternoon, i did not know if i would say it is a bright spot, but the one area where i take issue with is when i looked at the nationalist problems of pakistan, of ethnic fragmentation, these terrible

visions of what the state will become. i am more sanguine on this point. pashtunistan has not been a viable concept to begin with. the most troubling kind of question is one in which the taliban get really smart and decide to appropriated for their own purposes. today, they have not done that. we've seen the government to a lot of positive the things. the 18th amendment involves a -- devolves a number of powers. there have been little outbursts of demands for provinces. all of these are possible over time as part of a grand political bargain. the state has been quite adept at dealing with this.

at a meeting some demand in a minimal sense in order to preclude a broader tendencies in society. i would not to be borrowed a lesson from what india did in the 1950's and 1960's with the state reorganization, but there are parallels in how they have quieted these tendencies. the state is more coherent than what people give it credit for. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, joshua. now marvin weinbaum. >> i guess you'll come away from this session thinking pakistan is in crisis. i can understand why. the trouble is, this is hardly a new observation.

in fact, the immediate crisis is lost. -- the meaning of the crisis in pakistan is lost. certainly, what we recognize our many of the ingredients that we would have thought would be a game changer is along the way never came to fruition. whether it was because of the vehicles for change were not there, whatever it was, we tended to focus of the deal on a -- to focus a good deal on a certain resiliency in spite of everything. maybe an inertia. in any case, the spark was not there. it is not surprising that when i wrote my chapter, and i laid out six possible scenarios, which include all of what we have heard this afternoon, i assigned probability to them.

i give the greatest probability to muddling through. i do not entirely back away from that. it just seems given what we know about the country, what we know about the propensity for change when all the same players seem to be on the scene perpetually, and everything changes, but nothing really changes. even with this continuities scenario, there will be changed. we also have word that if it is ok, there is a silent majority. rigid we also have word that is ok because we have a silent majority. we have heard that before. somehow they stand apart. if only they had an opportunity to express themselves. it is a state which is taking it -- is the deep state which is

taking this away from them and they are more reasonable, more likely to be tolerant and so on. if you do not like the silent majority, civil society is there. if you give it time, it will be able to step up and put one of my best scenarios afford. or put it on that track. that is where i was when i wrote the chapter. i am not backing away, but i must say, with the events of this year, it has led me to question whether it is going to be business as usual. we are seeing a series of developments. shocks to the pakistan system, to the relationship with the united states, which will really worrying. for example, which we once

thought of as the jihad emerita -- jihadist narrative of, some of the conspiracy theories, you cannot leave pakistan or the media and not say, these have become a consensus. we come back to a word that was used earlier. are we seeing something qualitatively different emerge? i leave open that possibility. is the army simply manipulating things? you cannot simply say that. it seems as though the politically aware public has gone beyond even were the military wants to be. what we have seen is the ability of the policy elites to act with a certain amount of independence of the public,

which they have done right along. one story for the public, there are degrees -- their degrees of freedom have shrunk. then i see something like what happened with the media and the cable owners apparently matched -- met a day or two ago and they came out in favor of suppressing stories written abroad that the -- that were critical of pakistan. these are the champions of expression. the cable media has opened up all kinds of opportunities. what i am really concerned about, and i think others have reflected on in one way or another, there is a strong

element of continuity, but is it being torn by the kind of rhetoric that we are hearing consistently? the narrative has not just anti-americanism, but islam is a challenge. -- its enemies -- islamist challenged. they do not have to win elections. if they have won the soul of the country. that is the insidious development here. as we try to dialogue with pakistan, we like to think that we can work within the rational boundaries. but if we face at interlocutor

here that is not responding to what we consider, we have to say non-rational arguments and assumptions. it leads us to wonder whether -- we recognize we have to. pakistan is there, we need one another. we have to find at least those common denominators on which we can find agreement. it is in both of our interest. my concern is obviously how much more difficult that has become. no one has suggested the way out of this. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, marvin. before opening the floor to questions, i would like to add my own cautionary note.

on u.s.-pakistan relations. things are bad now, a very bad. basically because our goals in afghanistan are incompatible. the pakistanis want a friendly state and they do not think the karzai government is back. they are afraid of growing indian influence in the country. if we pushed too hard, the danger is, things could get a whole lot worse. if we were to come to blows with the pakistan army, the only force in society strong enough to prevent a jihadist takeover of the state. i believe you with a paraphrase -- i would simply leave you with a paraphrase of colin powell. who said famously of iraq, break it, and you own it. please identify yourself when you are called upon.

>> thank you. you talk of a fifth coup. which would be different from the ones we have seen in the past. is this going to be a function of the structural changes and the makeup of the pakistan army? which is taken place in the last 15 years, in terms of lower- middle class army officers? the fact that they are not going to be interlinked with the last, -- with the west, in the view of what has happened in the 20 years? to what extent will this be due to the personality of the army chief? they tend to have different personalities and tend to play different roles. and 10 act interests of their institutions in different ways. -- tend to act and the interest

of their institutions in different ways. >> i very carefully avoided using the phrase "coup." the process is much more slow- moving than that. much more insidious. it is a process of power all moving into the hands of the army leadership. if you look back to 2008, it was not in that case. even in 2009. are changes in the officer corps leading it? they may affect the tone of what the new dictatorship looks like, and it will be more anti- american than ever before. the intensity of anti- americanism amid young officers is astounding. and very worrisome. the personalities is less important than it was in

previous dictatorships. i can envision a situation in which an army officer leaves after a historic, but the defacto military leadership continues. the collective leadership, which is making the decisions now. in that sense, it is a transformational figure. he does not seek all power in his hands. -- and his hands. at least yet. >> i would like to add two quick points. it is important to remember that most important thing for the army leadership is public opinion. they do not want to be out in front of public opinion. that is why they waited so long to move against the taliban. and did not until they were sure that they added. -- they had it. public opinion is getting more

conservative and more emotionally islamic. that is very important to remember. the same people are very, you know, civilian and military. it is the same society. if you looked at what happened after the assassination of osama bin laden, they were completely caught off guard, they were completely upset by this at the top. we think of the army leadership as the top down institution. i think there are more extreme islamic values bubbling up from the bottom. thank you. >> i would also add there is really not that much of the change. the army is basically -- has always basically called the shots on national-security issues. they have been inclined to let the civilians run domestic affairs and economic affairs. i do not think there is anything at all unusual about what is going on. it is more of a reaction to this current dramatic downturn in

u.s.-pakistani relations. that is precipitated all of that. right down in front here. >> i have listened to all of the panelists in both discussions. it was very enlightening. steve writes beautifully. every time, he says, this is my last book. i tell them, no, it is the second to last book. one of my observations, i tend to disagree with her. the only reason he is becoming popular, every political party in pakistan right now.

people are frustrated with each leader and every party. when they look back, they do not see anybody else. he has no experience. my question to bruce, a few years ago, when we were having lunch, you mentioned the obama administration supported the consolidation of democracy. after making that recommendation, how do you think the political establishment is working in pakistan? do you see a silver lining on the war on terrorism? the extremist islamic militancy

is marginalized, and how can we make this relationship between the u.s. and pakistan more sustainable, which is critical for most countries, for the region, and for the global peace? thank you. >> silver linings are hard to find here today. you asked me how i think the support for civilian government has turned out over the last three years, and i made it clear, it is not doing well. that is not the fault of the american effort to back it up, but we made mistakes. it has more to do with dynamics of internal pakistani politics. in 2009 president obama embarked on a policy toward

pakistan which i called engagement with drones. that strategy made sense at the time, but i think in light of these developments i laid out, the growing weakness of civilian government and the growing intense evocation of the proxy wars, it is time to shift to a policy of engagement and containment. that is to say to continue to engage pakistan to support the development of civilian government, help the economy, help pakistanis, but help contain the worst excesses of the pakistani army. we are not doing enough on the containment part, slipping and sliding on it, but without a framework. i would like to underscore that drones is not a sufficient policy.

the tendency in this administration is to use drones as a solution. drones are an effective tactical instrument, but not a strategic policy, and we need to reset our policy toward one of engagement. >> we have time for one more question. >> you mentioned a possible game changer in new elections, and then you mentioned disaster, if the u.s. and pakistan continue on a collision course. i want to say as a pakistani i believe new elections will not be the game changer we hoped they might be because the verdict of the people will be

more divided. i think it will be more easy for those who have to carry on manipulating the policy. my question is, given the probability that we will continue on this course, what do you think disaster will be? could you please spell out what you mean by "disaster"? >> there are any number of disasters out there. another mumbai attack, a mass terrorist casualty incident in the united states that is postmarked "pakistan." like times square. more complex on the duran

-- more conflicts on the durand line becoming a hot war. it could be limited hot war. i would say before ending on the disasters that are coming, because i know it is easy to fall into the trap of extreme pessimism about pakistan. you are almost always right when you go down that road. i prefer to go down the road of optimism. i remain an optimist about pakistan because of the pakistani people, and what i had seen written in the pakistan media. the media is still made up of scary stories, but is also filled with a lot of thoughtful pieces by people who recognize what is going on in their country. delay of things that should be done for its better. -- who lay out things they should be done for its better. that is a source of optimism. i do not rule out we might have

a silver lining some day for the people of pakistan. >> my fear is the united states does not have the ability to make things better, but has the ability to make things worse, and i hope they act responsibly with our dealings with pakistan in the future. with that i turn it back to steve. >> that may think this panel and the first panel, which are a brilliant series of discussions on pakistan. when i wrote my book on the idea of to pakistan, i said this could be a major foreign policy problem by the end of the decade, and unfortunately i think i am right. i worked for george shultz once, and he said hope is not a policy. somewhere between hope and

despair, and my chapter, which had the benefit of leading these other chapters, i looked at the question of whether it pakistan is irretrievable. one more point. my first book of pakistan was banned in pakistan. given what martin said, i hope this program is not banned in pakistan. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a phone moments -- in a few moments, newt gingrich's press conference in new york city. then president obama encourages congressional support to extend the payroll tax cut. then defense secretary leon

panetta on u.s.-israel relations. later, we will reair the forum on pakistan. a couple of live events to take about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. the senate judiciary subcommittee on the courts will look at allowing television cameras and the supreme court. witnesses are scheduled to include arlen specter and the chief judge of the fourth circuit court of appeals in philadelphia. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, a hearing on the supposed merger between pharmacy benefit managers. the ceo's of both companies testified before the senate judiciary subcommittee on antitrust and consumer rights. >> health care is the most

expensive thing. have no environmental gun controls, and a polishing chrome trolls, and no retirement. and you do not care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out during the 1982 presidential debate. he made tw attempts for the presidency. he got more popular votes than any independent candidate in american history. he has had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final subject on "the contenders." go to c-span.org/thecontenders. >> republican presidential candidate newt gingrich spoke with reporters for a few minutes in new york city today, following a meeting with donald trump. this is about 15 minutes.

>> let me just say some of you look familiar. as i said earlier today, we were partially coming to new york to make the case that if i do become the nominee, we were on a 50-state strategy, because i believe the choice can be to widen the gap between the most effective food stamp president in american history and a candidate who wants to create jobs and paychecks. we will have an opportunity to have a dialogue in every single state in the country. in addition, i was delighted to meet with donald trump this morning. let me set the stage. i have been talking about the importance of work as it relates to people who are in areas where there is public housing, etc., and there are

relatively few people able to work. this has been distorted by some who suggest that the working poor, by definition, know how to work. that is true, that is why they are called the working poor. i was talking about people who come out of areas where they may not have that experience. i am curious, how many of you earned some money doing something by the time you were 10 years old? just raise your hand. whether it was babysitting or cutting grass or doing something. the reason i ask that question is, it is fascinating to me when i go out and talk to very successful people, that it might have been their parents or grandparents, maybe in the neighborhood. at a surprisingly early age, they began to learn something about the relationship between work and income, and they pretty rapidly accelerated their understanding of it. we are looking for methods to help the poorest children in america have a sort of bridge to learning to work, learning

to have jobs. i was delighted this morning when i suggested to donald trump that he adopt a program of apprentices and take one of the poorest schools in new york city and create 10 apprenticeships that would be paid for part-time work. he liked the idea -- it fit his own past and experiences. he said this morning he would be glad to do that. i hope to convince a number of other major businesses, and there are small businesses that may only be able to hire one person, but to create a pathway to work for people -- when you have 43% black teenage unemployment, there is a serious challenge in making sure people get work habits and learn the skills that are undercurrents of -- and the requirements of being successful. i thought that was a positive step forward, and i am delighted to be here.

i am happy to take your questions. >> [inaudible] >> first of all, [unintelligible] i paid children children $2 a book for every book they read in the summer. we did that all through the 1980's. one of our first experiments, we had a young lady in georgia who was eight or nine years old, and she read 83 books that summer and got $166. if you look at the largest urban housing projects, you will find areas with remarkably few people who have work experience. >> [inaudible]

>> the way i am approaching social security, which is to create a number of americans right to choose a personal social security savings account, which includes the chilean experience and the galveston, texas experience. dramatically bolder and more oriented towards individual empowerment and individual choice, if i read correctly his program. second, i would say the paper we have issued on rebalancing the judicial branch, and the fact that i am prepared to call for abolishing the office of judge barry in san antonio because he is such a bigoted, antireligious judge, and it violates the american tradition and the american system. i think that is a bolder position than romney would take. if you compare my platform and

his, i think you'll find a number of differences. >> i am for abolishing the capital gains tax. he has his cut at $200,000, which would be a lower cap than obama has, which i thought was unusual. >> you said there were many differences between you and mitt romney. [inaudible] oughton't know that you to count running for the senate in 1994, running for governor, then running for president for six years, i don't know if that makes him a career politician or not. i will let you decide. it is fair to say i have been a successful candidate a number of times. as a citizen, i am proud of the fact that i started working as a citizen at 15 years of age. i think that citizenship is very important.

>> there is a debate in new york about taxes. [inaudible] the tax on the wealthy that expires this month, talking about raising the tax on the wealthy, maybe not as high as the rate is now, but if we see at increase on high-income earners -- >> if i were in that -- i would run ads. encourage him to do it. >> [inaudible] do you feel like your campaign has the wherewithal to do a long campaign [inaudible]

>> we have all these articles about how businesses are getting leaner, flattening their hierarchies, doing all sorts of things and people are now working from home. you have virtual organizations. all these cutting edge ideas. then you have those who believe you have to be slow, cumbersome, and expensive. if you were the consultant, you would feel that way, too. the top people in our finance organization had not seen each other in several months and actually got together in new york. it did not affect them at all. they know what each other looks like and they are able to call each other whenever they want. the e-mail each other 400 times a day. the system works. i run offices and the operations i ran in recent years, before i decided to run for president, we had extended offices in atlanta, miami, charlotte, st.

louis, and washington. and one time also in california. it did not bother us at all. we just kept moving forward. i am used to running very extended operations. we fly by the seat of our pants in the sense that when we saw the american ambassador to belgium was giving an anti- semitic speech attacking israel, we immediately shifted and moved to that topic. i wanted to ask mr. trump to be generous and help us make the point about corporate -- in other areas, there is much confusion about missouri, which is not a mistake. we of never participated in a beauty contest. the missouri contest does not

have any delegates attached to it. in the missouri primary, this was a conscious decision, not an oversight. >> [inaudible] what we do say to americans who don't want to go back to that time? >> first of all, i want to thank speaker pelosi for what i regard as an early christmas gift. if she is suggesting she is going to use material she developed on the ethics committee, that was a fundamental violation of rules of the house, and i would hope members would immediately file charges against her. it tells you how capriciously political that committee was when she was on it. it tells you how tainted the outcome was when she was on it. what she said today should explain a great deal about what happened in the ethics process when nancy pelosi was at the heart of it, and is now prepared to totally abuse the house process. it is an education for the american people to see what a tainted, political ethics

process nancy pelosi was engaged in, and i would hope the house would immediately condemn her if she uses any material that was gathered while she was on the ethics committee. it would be a total violation of the committee. we turned over a million pages of material. we had a huge report. 83 charges were repudiated as false. the one mistake we made was in a letter written by a lawyer that i did not read carefully. that was the only mistake made the entire process. every other charge against me was found false and a long run. the work we did with the foundation was totally legal. >> [inaudible] >> i think that being a student

of [unintelligible] -- saul alinsky is not good preparation for running a country. the president has spent three years proving that he killed jobs and energy, manufacturing, virtually every part of american life. the only reason the unemployment rate has gone down is because twice as many people dropped out of the employment pool as the number of jobs that were created. at this rate, the ideal obama economy will have 11% of people looking for work. just look at the record. more people have got on food stamps under barack obama than any other president in american history. >> [inaudible] there is a truly high dropout rate from school.

>> i am suggesting that maybe if they had a job -- r.c. hammond who does our press used to go in early in the morning as a volunteer when he was very young. he was used by the school to reprogram computers. he learned from being a student volunteer. take some of those kids who are in danger of dropping out. what if they worked in the front office? would they helped in the kitchen? tickets so grotesquely silly. i do not suggest that children up to 14 or 15 years of age do heavy, dangerous janitorial work. as all of you have probably noticed in life, there are a number of things done to clean buildings that are not heavy or dangerous. what if you took kids who are in danger of dropping out and say, if you stay in school, we will give you a job and allow you to work after school?

you will have cash and be able to go and do things. this is called america. it is how people rise in america. they learn how to work. i am very proud of that. i have a similar parallel for adults. i believe the only way they should extend unemployment compensation is to attach a training requirement and say if you cannot find a job and you need unemployment compensation, you have to sign up and learn a trade while you are being paid, because we should not give people money for doing nothing. thank you very much. >> in a new iowa poll, mr. gingrich run up support from 25% of likely caucus goers.

followed by ron paul with 18%. mitt romney had 16%. >> hear what the candidates are saying that our new website. >> it is time to get serious about our challenges. the big when i started with his our budget and our spending. >> if year on to but yours are not active, if investment is not landing in your marketplace, it is landing someone else. capital is the power and it will flee risk in the marketplace. >> i am not an opponent of the air attacks. it is a very interesting topic. of consumption tax as opposed to an income-based tax. it makes a lot of sense but to go through that debate right now, we need to do something now. >> read the latest comments from

candidates and political reporters and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> president obama encourage congressional support for extending unemployment insurance. the scales back the original amount to $180 billion paid for by a temporary tax on those making $1 million a year. this is about 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. and number one priority right now is doing everything that i can, every single day, to create jobs faster and to provide more security for middle-class families and those trying to get into the middle class. at this moment that means making sure that nearly 160 million

hard-working americans do not see an increase in their taxes on january 1. a year ago at this time, both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the fiscal -- for the typical american family by about $1,000. as soon as this syrians, sodas that tax cut. if congress fails to renew this task that before then, that will be a tax hike of about a thousand dollars a year. they're not many people in the middle class or those trying to get into the middle class who can afford to give up $1,000, not right now. that is why congress must act. although the unemployment rate went down last month, our recovery is still fragile. the situation in europe has added to that uncertainty. that is why the majority of economists believe it is important to extend the payroll tax cut, and those same economists would lower their growth estimate for our economy

if it does not happen. not only is extending the payroll tax cut import for the economy as a whole, it is important for individual families, insurance against the unexpected that will help families pay their bills and spur spending, spur hiring, and is the right thing to do. that is why in my jobs bill, i not only proposed extending it by expanding its to give a tax cut of $1,500 next month. and that was paid for by asking a little more for millionaires and billionaires, not only extending the existing payroll tax cut but expanding it. last week, virtually every senate republicans voted against that tax cut. i know many republicans have sworn an oath never to raise taxes as long as they're here. huckabee that the only time

there is a catch when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class families? how can you fight tooth and nail to protect high-end tax breaks for the wealthiest americans and yet barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million americans who really need the help? it does not make sense. the good news is i think the american people's voices are starting to get through in this town. i know that last week speaker boehner said that this tax cut help the economy because it allows every working american to keep more money. over the weekend, senate republican leaders said that we should not raise taxes on working people going into next year. i could not agree more. i hope that the rest of their republican colleagues come around and join democrats to pass these tax cuts and put his money back into the pockets of working americans. some republicans who have pushed back against the idea of saying

the payroll tax cut extending, we have to pay for them. i just point out that they have not always felt that way. over the last decade, they did not feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, one of the reasons that we face such large deficits. indeed, when the republicans took over the house at the beginning of this year, they explicitly change the rules to say that tax cuts do not have to be paid for. so forgive me a little bit of confusion when i hear folks and testing on task as being paid for. having said that, we all recognize we need progress on the deficit. i am willing to work with republicans to extend the payroll tax cut in a responsible way. what i am not willing to do is to pay for the extension in a way that actually hurts the economy. as americans are well aware, this summer i signed into law nearly one trillion dollars in spending cuts with another

trillion dollars in cuts in the pipeline. it would be irresponsible to make additional cuts in areas like education or innovation or our basic safety net that are critical to the economy in order to pay for an extension of the payroll tax cut. we are not going to do that, nor will we undo the budget agreement that i signed a few short months ago. finally, with millions of americans still looking for work, it would be a terrible mistake for congress to go home for the holidays without extending unemployment insurance. if that happens, in january they will be 1.3 million americans out in the cold. a lot of families that emergency insurance is the last line of defense between hardship in catastrophe. taking that money out of the economy now with two extraordinary harm to the economy. if you believe that government should not take money out of

people's pockets, i hope members of congress realize that it is even worse when you take it out of the pockets of those who are unemployed pounding the pavements looking for work. we're going through what is still an extraordinary time in this country and in this economy. i get letters every single day and i talk to people who say to me this unemployment insurance is what allowed me to keep my house before i was able to find another job. this allowed me to put gas in the tank to take my kids to school. we cannot play games with unemployment insurance when we still have an unemployment rate that is way too high. i put forth all range of ideas for the unemployment insurance system, and i'm happy to work with republicans on those issues, but right now the most important thing is to make sure that that is extended as well.

this is not just something that i won. this is not just a political fight. independent economists, some of whom in the past of work for republicans, agree that if we do not extend the payroll tax cut if we do not extend unemployment insurance, it will hurt our economy. the economy will not grow as fast, and we will not seek hiring improve as quickly. taking money out of the pockets of americans just when they needed will harm businesses just when the economy is trying to get some traction in this recovery. it will be a self-inflicted wound. a message to congress is this -- the american people -- do not raise taxes on them right now. now is not the time to slam on the brakes, but step on the gas. now's the time to keep growing the economy and creating jobs and give working americans the

boost they need. now is the time to make a real difference in the lives of people who sent us here. let's get to work. thank you very much. >> means testing as a way a pay for this? >> while he spoke with reporters at the white house, some senators were announcing their latest proposals. this is 10 minutes. friend, the republican leader, ied to convince us, republicans realized it would be disastrous to raise taxes on the middle class. here on the senate floor, he quoted half a dozen news reports as evidence the senate republicans support an extension of payroll tax cuts for 160 million american workers. i said at that time i was skeptical, skeptical that the republicans really support this tax cut. it turns out i was right. last thursday, republicans shot down democrats' proposal to cut taxes for middle-class americans, supposedly on the

grounds it raises taxes on the richest of the rich. mr. president, a few minutes later, republicans all shot down their own proposal, one that they had placed on the senate floor. it was to extend the payroll tax cuts. it was paid for with our own hand-picked reductions in government spending. well, they shot that down. they only got 19 votes plus the vote of a cosponsor. whatever my friend, senator mcconnell, may say, it's obvious our friends just aren't interested in prevent ago $1,000 tax increase in this nation from taking effect on january 1. democrats will not relent on keeping taxes low for the middle class. today, senator casey will unveil a modified version of the proposed tax cut proposal that hentroduced last week. like our previous proposal, this scaled back version would cut taxes for 160 million american

workers, including 1.2 million nevadans. this proposal will allow the average family to keep an extra 1,500 $ to spend on necessities next year. it will be fully paid for with a mixture of spending cuts republicans have already agreed to and a tiny, tiny surtax on the top .2% of american taxpayers. every spending reduction in the proposal was agreed to by a bye cameral group of --icameral group of republicans on the super committee, so we know they support these cuts -- or should support these cuts. in an effort to make our proposal more palatable to republicans, we have conceded significantly to cut the tax on income above a million dollars and make it tporary. democrats know how important extending and expanding the payroll cut is to working -- tax cuts to working families. it's also important to our economy. economists of every political persuasion agree. if republicans block this

proposal, raising taxes on american families by a thoand dollars next month will have an immediate negativempact on our economy, will halt our -- it will halt very singularly our still-fragile recovery in its tracksnd drag us back into a recession. we all know congress can't afford to play chicken with the economy. that's why democrats are committed to passing this tax cut. republicans need to be prepared to meet us partway. we're offering a serious prosal with meaningful concessions, including spending cuts to which republicans have already agreed. the scaled back temporary tax on the richest americans, a group with an average income of $3 million a year, is also a sincere attempt to get republicans on board to pass what they say they want to do. we know a few of them said publicly tt they are open to asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute to our economic recovery. i was happy to see those press

reports, and we hope we have the courage to vote accordingly, as one republican did last thursday. one republican voted the right way. i repeat, mr. president, this is a serious proposal and republicans should take it seriously. here's why. americans regardless of political affiliation say they wholeheartedly support democrats' plan to cut taxes for middle-class families. 58% of republicans agree across this country, we should extend, they agree we should extend and expand payroll tax cuts for 160 million american workers further, americans overwhelmingly support our proposal to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share to help this country thrive. americans from every corner of the country, in every walk of life, agree democrats, republicans, and independents. asked ifhey support a plan that require people making more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more to ensu this country's economic success, the results were decisive.

75%, 3/4 of americans said yes. wealthy americans agree, two-thirds of people making more than a million a year said they would gladly contribute more. a supermajority of republicans agree, with two-thirds supporting the idea, and even a majority, 52%, of members of the tea party agree. it seems the only place in the country you can't find a majority of republicans willing to speak up for shared sacrifice are republicans in the united states senate. republicans across the country support our plan and the way it's paid for. republicans in congress dismiss it at their peril. i repeat, republicans dismiss this at their peril. the american people are busines. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i'm here to speak about legislation that i'm introducing today that will prevent a huge tax hike from hitting working families across america and in pennsylvania. as the clock continues to tick

down, it is imperative that we come together, democrats and republicans, members of both parties and both chambers, and pass legislation to provide more take-home pay by cutting the payroll tax as we did in 2010. the legislation that i'm introducing is a compromise offer designed to bridge the gap and to get at least 60 votes here in the united states senate. the legislation is fully paid for and includes measures that have received bipartisan support in the past. we can no longer afford to jeopardize middle-income americans in order to protect the wealthiest few across our country. this legislation will help working families by extending the current payroll tax cut and expanding that cut to a 3.1% level, a 3.1% reduction in the

payroll tax. in essence, what we're talking about here is cutting the payroll tax in half as it relates to employees. small businesses will benefit from this legislation by benefiting directly from the additional money in the pockets of americans across the country. those with incomes above a million dollars should help in carrying this burden -- a portion of this burden. that's why the surtax is still in this legislation. but the surtax will now be only 1.9% compared to the 3.25% in an earlier version of my legislation. in addition, i've offered a few more offsets that have received bipartisan support. so the bottom line is, just as the first bill was that i offered, this legislation is, indeed, paid for. the tax cut is a key, an

essential ingredient to job creation and economic growth in 2012. economists and forecasters from moody's analytics to r.b.c. capital markets, to barclay's capital, to macroeconomic advisors, all have emphasized that the tax cut will accelerate growth in 2012. without it, economic growth will slow and job creation will take a hit. mark zandi of moody's analytics has said without the payroll tax cut for 2012 -- quote -- "we'll likely go into recession." congress should act quickly to expand tax relief and to remove the uncertainty for working families in this holiday season about whether their taxes will go up in the new year. more take-home pay to keep the economy growing, that's what we need right now and especially in the year ahead.

so i'd encourage all of our colleagues here in the senate, as well as in the house, to pass this legislation to continue and to expand a >> in a few moments, defense secretary leon panetta. in an hour, a forum on the future of pakistan. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will talk about the debate over extending the payroll tax cut in unemployment benefit with democratic rep paul tonko and johnny isakson. >> pay a dollar now. have no healthcare. no pollution-control and no retirement, and do not care

about anything but making money. there would be a giant sucking sound going south. >> the billionaire businessman made it two times for the presidency, the first time getting over 19 million votes, more popular votes than any third-party candidate in history. he has had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final candidate on our c-span series ""the contenders"." go to c-span.org/the contenders for more information. >> now defense secretary leon panetta on u.s.-israel relations. his recent comments at the brookings institution's included his opinion on the middle east peace process and the possibility of iran developing nuclear weapons. this is about an hour. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this is the seventh year we have convened members of the international policy-making community to discuss the most urgent challenge is facing the united states and israel in the middle east. revolution is sweeping our autocrats one spot immovable. -- once thought immovable. assad going, going, and still in that send out. the old arab order is crumbling and the face of a courageous but demand of their citizens for freedom. can the sheikhs and kings avoid a similar fate? how long will iran remain immune?

how long will the palestinians remain still? for how long can israel sustain the occupation? so many questions that don't have any answers yet. so we therefore look forward to two days of intense and candid conversations about the state of affairs in the middle east. and what israel and the united states can and should do about it. i want to express my gratitude to brookings. for continuing to make this forum possible. please give them a round of applause. [applause]

tonight we'll hear from two people who have a wealth of personal knowledge and experience, fluent in the history, dynamics, and the intricacies of the middle east. we have the privilege of hearing first from our key night speaker, secretary of defense leon panetta and after dinner, we'll have a conversation with president clinton. mr. secretary, it is a real privilege to welcome you to this forum. leon panetta has devoted his whole life to public service. from representing my state of california in congress to running the white house for president clinton, he was sworn in as secretary of defense this past july after serving as director of the cia for the first two years of the obama administration. as director of the cia, he helped form the operation that

led to the death of osama bin laden something for which everyone in this country owes him and president obama a deep debt of gratitude. secretary panetta, thank you very much for your service to our country. ladies and gentleman, secretary leon panetta. [applause] >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. i thank my fellow californians. haim is someone who has served his country in the cause of brain the united states and --

and the cause of bringing the u.s. and israel together. he has served that cause with tremendous distinction. he has provided vision and support for this very import conference. more broadly, i would like to thank you, haim, for your commitment to strengthening the bond between the united states and israel, a cause that is a key priority for me as secretary of defense. for that reason, it is truly an honor to be here tonight and join all of you, so many distinguished guests, in helping to open this year's sabanne forum. my personal connection to israel dates back to my days as a member of congress.

for more than 10 years, i shared a house with a group of fellow congressmen right here in the ri ocolumbia. if you have seen the movie "animal house" will have some idea of what this is like. one of the members of that exclusive fraternity was chuck schumer, someone that many of you know that many of you understand as interim -- who has a tremendous passion for israel that is deep and infectious. we slept on the bottom of this house, the living room area, and every night, before we went to sleep, he made me say they shimad. [laughter]

i made him say the hail mary. [laughter] he learned from my passion as an italian and i learned from his passion on israel. particularly, i think it was the little over 20 years ago, if he and i and some of our dearest friends had a chance to travel to israel together. i believe that visit was in august of 1991 and that left a very deep and lasting impression on me. it was at a time when hundreds of thousands of jews from the soviet union or making alia and fulfilling a dream to live a free and more prosperous life in their historic homeland. that dread gave me an even stronger appreciation -- that trip gave me an even stronger appreciation for the promise of

israel as a jewish and a democratic state. coming just months after saddam hussein's's scud missiles had attacked tel aviv and haifa, the visit underscored a complex an array of security threats facing israel by virtue of geography, by virtue of politics, and by virtue of history. as chairman of the house budget committee, amd omb director, i had the opportunity to work on budget issues regarding military assistance to israel. as a member of president clinton + cabinet, as chief of staff, i had the opportunity to be present at that historic moment when the south lawn, when yasser arafat and yitzhak rabin shook hands in the effort to advance the peace process.

tragically, after rabin's death, i had the opportunity as chief oft clinton's pete chie staff to fly with them so he could pay tribute to the memory and to the dedication to peace of rabin. in the years since, as director of the cia and now as secretary of defense, i have worked closely with a number of israeli leaders, the prime minister and many intelligence and military leaders. one of whom i understand is here this morning, mayor degant, who often work with that mossad and i understand is participating in this forum. yehud barak is a friend i have known for years and we have had

the opportunity to meet in number of times in our capacities and discuss our shared efforts to strengthen israeli security. i was pleased to make my first trip to israel as secretary of defense a few weeks ago to meet with israeli leaders including my friend prime minister netanyahu. over the course of my career, i have witnessed periods of great progress in these efforts and periods of great challenge and uncertainty for israel and a our shared security interest in the region. yet nothing i have seen compares to the dramatic events of the past year, one of change, one of promise, one of uncertainty, one of turmoil - 8 year that is an

-- a year that is an era of awakening and a year of setback for al-qaeda and a year we believe of frustration for iran. entrenched leaders were overthrown by peaceful protest in tunisia and egypt and by force in libya. in yemen, for the president has agreed to step down which we believe it's a very positive development. and yet the terrorist threats from yemen still persist and extremists are seeking to gain a foothold across the region. in egypt, the country has held its first elections on the road to democratic transition,

another positive step. as we all know, a chip will require brave leadership -- egypt will require great leadership if it is to successfully transitioned to a fully civilian-controlled government that respects democratic principles and maintains all of its international commitments including the treaty of peace with israel. on terrorism, repeated operations have decimated the al-qaeda leadership. osama bin laden, anwar al- awlaki and monday others have been successfully targeted -- and many others have been successfully targeted by military operations. al qaeda remains dangerous,. make no, -- make no mistake but the world is safer as of these successes.

these largely positive trends are also accompanied by some dark ones. a discredited regime is still violently clinging to power in syria. though the pressure against it is increasing dramatically each day. i want to condemn in the thengest possible termsth assad regime's murder and torture of children that the un reported this week in geneva. assad's conduct has deservedly brought scorn and pressure and punishing sanctions, not just by the united states and europe, but now by the arab

league and turkey as well. in addition,iran's continued drive to develop nuclear capabilities including troubling enrichment activities and past work on what the position that has now been documented by the iaea and its continued support to groups like hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations make clear that the regime in tehran remains a very grave threat for all of us. all this of people, all of this of people -- of people -- upheavel is causing new challenges for israel in the region very in this time of understandable anxiety, i would like to underscore one thing --

that has stayed constant over the past three years of this administration -- the determination of the united states to safeguard israel's security and that commitment will not change. i want to be clear -- that israel can count on three enduring pillars in u.s. policy in the region all of which contribute directly to the safety and prosperity of the israeli people. first, our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. second, our broader commitment to regional stability. and third, our determination to prevent iran from acquiring

nuclear weapons. [applause] these are not merely rhetorical assurances. these are firm principles, principles that are backed up by tangible action, the commitment of resources, and demonstrable results. -- resolve. let me explain -- first, this administration has pursued and achieved unprecedented levels of defense cooperation with israel to back up our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. next year, the u.s. armed forces and the idf will conduct the largest joint exercises in the history of that partnership.

it will enhance the ability of our military is to operate together and defense cooperation. we are especially proud that above and beyond the annual foreign military financing that we provide to israel, the obama administration has provided more than $200 million to the iron dome rocket system, support that recently enabled the field of a third battery. this system has already saved

lives of israelis civilians facing rocket barrages from gaza. our work together on these defense capabilities represents only one part of our core commitment to maintaining israel's qualitative military edge, an advantage that we are willing to expand even further as we continue to enhance our defense cooperation. as just -- that is just one example. the united states will in sure that israel continues to enjoy on questioned air superiority by delivering to israel the advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft, the f-35 joint strike fighter. yet we recognize that israel's security cannot be achieved by

its military arsenal alone. it also depends on the security and stability of the region which is the second key pillar of u.s. policy. the success of our efforts in iraq permits us to redouble long-term commitment of the united states to the security and stability of the middle east. the middle east is of vital interest to the united states. we will not let our commitments to its security and stability waiver. that is why we maintain a significant military presence throughout the region, to defend our partners, to counter aggression, and to maintain the free flow of resources and commerce that are so vital to

the fragile global economy. the united states will continue to have some 40,000 troops in the region to support these goals. we're also implementing our long-term strategic partnership with iraq. this includes security ties between our two militaries, facilitated by robust office of security cooperation that will start on january 1, 2012. we are building a wider regional security architecture in the gulf, forging bilateral and multilateral cooperation to confront the common challenges of terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, maritime security, and threats to critical infrastructure.

no greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the middle east than a nuclear-arms iran. that is why the third pillar of our approach to this region, this critical region, is our determination to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and more broadly, to deter its destabilizing activities particularly those who could threaten the free flow of commerce throughout this of vital region. that is a red line for the united states. our approach to countering the threat posed by iran is focused on diplomacy including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening our security partnerships with key partners in the gulf and the

broader middle east. last september, i met in new york with members of the gulf cooperation council to underscore the importance of those partnerships. iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make less, not more secure. these efforts are increasing the isolation of tehran. i continue to believe that pressure, economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, and strengthening collective defenses are the right approach. still, it is my department's responsibility to plan for all contingencies. and to provide the president with a wide range of military options should they become

necessary. that is a responsibility i take very seriousl = because when it comes to the threats posed by iran, the president has made it very clear that we have not yet taken any options off the table. our delivered and focused approach to iran, our efforts to enhance regional security and stability and error and are unshakeable commitment to israel's security make clear that even at this time of great change, our determination to safeguard israel's security is safe and sure. indeed, it is stronger than ever. in every strong relationship built on trust and build on friendship, built on mutual

security, it demands that both sides work towards the same common goals. israel has a responsibility to pursue our shared goals, to build regional support for israel and the united states security objectives. i believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. unfortunately, over the past year, we have seen israel's isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive middle east peace that has effectively been put on hold. i want to be clear -- this isolation is due to a number of

factors. indeed, there is an international campaign under way to isolate israel. president obama has stood steadfastly in the way of that effort especially within the united nations. i have never known an israeli government or an israeli, for that matter, to be passive about anything let alone this troubling trend. so i have been working with the leaders there, minister barak and others to help israel find ways to take steps which are profoundly in its interests. for example -- israel can reach out and mend fences with those who shared interest in regional stability.

these are countries like turkey and egypt as well as jordan. this is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area. this is not impossible. if gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. and that is exactly why israel should pursue them. like all of you, i have been deeply troubled by the direction of the turkish-israeli relationship. jury is a key nato ally and has proven to be a real partner in our ever to support democratic change and to stand against the toward -- totalitarian regimes

they use violence against their own people. it is in israel's interest, turkey's interest, and u.s. interests for israel to reconcile with turkey and both turkey and israel need to do more to put their relationship back on our track. as a message i have taken to jerusalem and is a message that will be taking to ankara live later this month. the current leaders of egypt along with jordan have made very clear to me privately and publicly that they are committed to their peace treaties with israel. we have been clear to all parties in egypt that sustaining the peace treaty with israel is in the critical

interest of the united states. while we share israel's a legitimate concerns, about instability in the sinai peninsula and the attack on the israeli embassy in cairo, the best way to address these concerns is through increasing communication and cooperation. an increasing communication and cooperation with the egyptian authorities, not by stepping away from them. diplomacy, the real essence of diplomacy is not that you have to love one another. the essence of diplomacy is that you respect each other so that you can talk to each other when you must.

i also remain firm in the belief that it is profoundly in israel's long-term security interests to lean forward on efforts to achieve peace -- peace with palestinians. i was pleased to see the israeli government announced that it will release the tax revenues to the palestinian authority, averting a situation that would have undermined israel's security and damaged the important institution- building work the prime -- of prime minister fayad and strengthen palestinian factions. rather than undermine the palestinian authority, it is in israel's interest to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to transfer a palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of

cooperation. for example, the security cooperation between israel, palestinians, the u.s. security forces led by the united states security force coordinator, a general mike mullen, has paid real dividends. israel should look for ways to bolster this cooperation and president abbas must take the difficult steps to do exactly the same thing. ultimately the dream of a secure and prosperous jewish and democratic israel can only be

achieved through two states living side-by-side in peace and security with full confidence that the united states is willing and capable of ensuring that israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risk needed to pursue peace. now is the time for israel to take bold action and to move toward a negotiated a two-state solution. i recognize that there is a few that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the arab awakening further imperil the dream of a safe and secure jewish and democratic israel. i disagree with that view. i believe israel will ultimately be safe when other middle eastern states adopted governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights, promote free and fair elections and double their

international commitments and join the community. i believe it is the only real long-term path to security and prosperity. to realize the vision of the viet zagreb be in for a sustainable peace in middle east, peace requires some difficult steps. and yes, it will involve risk but my italian father used to say that you cannot achieve anything worthwhile that without taking risks. all israelis should know that the united states will always stand behind their country. it will provide a secure safety net as it takes the necessary risks. i would close by noting that

last year speaking at this forum, my friend ehud barak recall the famous statement by winston churchill. the pessimists see is the pessimism and every opportunity but the pessimists does not. there are risks in the changes taking place across this critical region. we will work with israel to reduce and mitigate those risks in the effort to achieve something worthwhile. in that region. even as we have seen the

challenges across the region grow in this past year, i would urge my israeli and american friends to remember these words - to see these changes as an opportunity and to take the steps needed to secure our shared interests for peace in the long term, to secure that piece israel will always have the unshakable backing of the united states and the united states must always have the on

charitable trust of israel. that bond is the fundamental key to stability and hope in the middle east. it is a bond that must never be broken. thank you. [applause] >> we have already collected a number of questions. you won't be totally surprised to your the great many of the questions i have are related to the same topic -- you probably will be supplies that most of those are about the sharp park -- are about the personal life of chuck schumer. i will see if i can find something else. iran is growing more and more aggressive, encouraging attacks and u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan and threatening israel and farming their nose against sanctions from the un, backing syria, and trying to kill the saudi ambassador to the u.s. in the u.s. love level of iranian -- what level of iranian aggressiveness should make us pick up the

military option off the table? >> as i said, we have to approach of this with all options on the table. at this point, we believe that a combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been placed on iran have had a serious impact. iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. it is truly becoming, particularly as a result of the attack on the british embassy, a pariah in that region. their own government is off balance in terms of trying to establish any kind of stability even within iran. the combination of that and efforts to make sure they do not develop a nuclear capability --

all of those efforts are having an impact. we have a common goal here. let us understand that we have a common goal. the common goal is in iran that does not develop a nuclear weapon. working together, working with israel, or in with our allies in the region, or in the international community to is a huge -- to continue to isolate and put pressure on him is an effort we must continue that is the one best way to the ultimately weaken this nation. ultimately, they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the

international community. as prime minister netanyahu said, force should be only be a last resort. if that is truly the case, then i believe it is incumbent on us to implement all of our diplomatic and economic pressures possible. to try to make as ever to make clear to the world that we are dealing with an international pariah in iran. >> egypt is undergoing an historic change but there is no guarantee it will be a positive one. how can america use its strong relationship with the egyptian military to ensure a good outcome? >> i think it is important to continue to work closely with the israeli leadership at this time.

in order to insure that they move forward with that democratic reforms that have promised their people, they have, in fact, implemented elections. those elections have taken place. we have rolling elections and they will go on for the next few months. at some point, they will establish a constitutional change and at some point this next year, they will have a presidential election. we want to ensure that they stay on course and that they continue the efforts to move forward to implement these reforms. the egyptians have to decide their future and have to try to implement this in a way that fulfills the promise of the revolution that took place at the time you are brought down.

our best course is to continue to put pressure on them, to make sure that they stand by the promises that they made to the egyptian people, that they will implement these changes. when they do form a government, we have an obligation to stay with them and make sure that they abide by the committee and that they abide by the other redlines we have established. >> the u.s. intervened in libya to stop the regime from killing his people, why not in syria? >> i get asked this question and number of times as to others. you cannot simply take a cookie cutter approach to that reason and to decide that having applied for some one area, it makes sense in another area.

right now, my sense is that by virtue of the economic and diplomatic sanctions of the international community and the fact of the arab league has a process sanctions and turkey is imposing sanctions, all this is isolating the government in syria. i cannot tell you when but clearly as a matter of time before assad is taken from his position of leadership in syria. it is tragic that there are people who are dying but the key now is to continue to put pressure on them and continue the international unity that is continuing to make the average replaces assad. we think that is working so let's give it some time and we

will always join the international community if it is felt that further steps are necessary. because of america's disastrous economic situation, a lot of people and presidential candidates are talking about cutting off all u.s. foreign aid. as secretary of defense, how do you think that would affect american and israeli security? >> you are coming into town right now in which my greatest concern is with regards to the leadership on capitol hill and its ability to deal with the issues that confront this country. i have served in the congress and served in administrations and in my time in the congress, i always felt that while there was always political differences, the wagon anat whee

to national issues, both parties would work together to try to compromise and find solutions particularly to the crises date -- that face this country. fore at a time now when whatever reason, there seems to be an inability to be able to find those as a compromise is in order to govern this country. if i had men and women who are putting their lot of malign and fighting and dying in this country, and they had the courage to do that and our elected leaders on capitol hill should be able to find a little bit of courage to find the solutions that would help solve the problems in this country. [applause] when it comes to -- i have indicated my concerns about this approach on sequestration

because of the failure of the committee of 12 to be defined the necessary debt as a production they were required to do. they have now implemented this automatic trigger that will take effect on now in january of 2013. if it is put into affect, it would decimate our national defense and it would tear a scene in our ability to effectively defend this country. at the same time, i am concerned about what it does on the domestic side of the budget. national security is not so dependent on military power. it is dependent on diplomatic power and dependent on the state department. it is also dependent on the quality of life in this country. to educate our kids and provide health care -- all of that as part of our national security.

for that reason, i think it is essential that the leadership of the country find the solutions to dealing with the deficit without having america having to pay a price that it will regret in the future. [applause] >> for how long do you believe a military attack on iran would postpone them getting the bomb? >> part of the problem here is the concern that at best, talking to my is really friends, the indication is that at best might postpone one or two years. it depends obviously on the ability to truly get at the targets they are after.

frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get that. that kind of shot would only ultimately not destroy their ability to produce atomic weapon but simply delay it. the greater concern is the unintended consequences which would be that ultimately it would have a backlash and a regime that is weak now, a regime as isolated would suddenly be able to reestablish itself and suddenly get support in the region. instead of being isolated, it would give greater support. the united states would obviously be the target of retaliation from iran, striking our ships, strike near military bases. horribly, there are economic

consequences to that. that could impact a very fragile economy in europe and a fragile economy here in the united states. lastly, the consequence could be an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives but i think could consume the middle east and a confrontational conflict we would regret. we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of that plan of attack. >> given american policy toward an iranian nuclear weapon, the u.s. believes there would be consequences from iran in acquiring a nuclear weapon. what do you think the comte's once as would be a why do you believe that one is a lesser priority?

in the first part of the question. what you believe a consequences of iran acquire nuclear weapon? >> this is a common goal. this is something that the united states, israel, the international community does not want iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. it is because iran's entire effort using the irgc, supplying terrorists, undermining governments throughout the world -- clearly, they are supporting terrorists in parts of the world and nuclear weapons would be devastating if they have that capability.

once iran gets a nuclear weapon, you will have an arms race in the middle east. was to stop setting her up the -- what's to stop saudi arabia for getting nuclear weapons. suddenly 11 escalation of these horrible weapons i think could create greater devastation in the middle east. the key for all of us is to work together, to gather, to make sure that does not happen. we had made good progress in these efforts. we continue to make good progress in these efforts. that is where we should continue to put air pressure, our efforts, diplomatic, economic, working together to make sure that that does not happen.

you always have as a last resort of military action. but it must be a last resort, not the first. >> is the chief priority of u.s. policy toward iran to moderate the nuclear ambitions of the iranian regime or change the regime? will this regime will change its behavior? >> i think the effort we are concerned about is to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear weapon. secondly, we would like to have an hour on that becomes part of the international community. and that it decides it is going to engage with the rest of the world. as opposed to isolating itself and supporting terrorists and as opposed to try to influence and support those that would

attack our country and attack others in that region. that is our fundamental goal is to try to insure that we have and ron that becomes and part of the international community and understands obligations. most important, we have to do everything we can to make sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon. >> back to egypt -- egypt has concluded its first round of elections as you discussed. the islamists and in vesicular -- in particular thesolofist party did well in that election. do believe this unexpected rise of extreme religious right in egypt is a threat to regional security? what would your policy be toward a very strong egypt?

>> we could all jump to conclusions. we need to let this play out a little bit. this is the first part of a role in the election. clearly, we need to see what the results are in the first part of this election. we probably won't get a formal announcement tomorrow. we will have additional elections that will take place in the parliament that will occur and the rest of egypt and we will then have an election or the upper body that will take place. as a consequence of that, we will come together and have a presidential election. all that has to take place. this is a democracy. in democracies, we have to allow the egyptian people to express themselves in that process. ultimately, the pressures within a democracy will have some impact as to its direction. for our purposes, the united states has to engage with

whatever government is established in egypt and insure that they abide by their obligations. they have to ensure that they continue to be a partner and has put in -- in that part of the world. that is what democracy is all about. let's give a chance. there at the beginning of this process, not at the end. >> you made a strong statement about this rural's responsibility to make peace. what steps should it take now? withdrawal of israeli army from the territories? >> no. just get to the damn table. just get to the table. [applause]

the problem right now is we cannot get them to the damn table. to sit down and begin to discuss their differences. we all know what the pieces are to a potential agreement. they have been talked about and worked through. we understand the concerns of israel and the concerns for the palestinians. if they sit at a table and work through those concerns, and the u.s. can be of assistance in the process, then i think we have the beginnings of what could be a process that could lead to an agreement. but if they are not at the table, this will never happen. so first and foremost, i get to the damn table. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you for your words tonight. thank you for your passion. >> in a few moments, of form on

the future of pakistan. in two hours, newt gingrich's news conference in new york city. then a look of the federal employee health benefits progress. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span-3. at 10:00 a.m., the senate judiciary subcommittee on the courts will look at allowing television cameras in the supreme court. witnesses are scheduled to include former pennsylvania senator arlen specter and the chief judge of the third circuit in philadelphia. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, it is a hearing on the proposed merger between a pharmacy benefit managers and medco. witnesses will include the ceo's of both companies.

>> pay a dollar an hour for your labor. have no healthcare. have no environmental or pollution-control spend their retirement. and you do not care about anything but making money. there would be a giant sucking sound going south. >> the billionaire businessman made two attempts for the presidency. the first time getting over 19 million votes, more popular votes than any third-party candidate in history. although he lost, he had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final can of it on c- span's series ""the contenders ." to see all the programs, go to c-span.org/the contenders. it's so