tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 9, 2014 5:00am-7:01am EST
airliner one leading congressmen tator practically named the russian unit that had done it yet the u.s. government seems to be reluctant to name that unit. and i have no information but i would be willing to bet that we know precisely the russian unit that did it. you've mentionedit seems to me n precisely the russian unit who did that. we still do not seem to be any closer to providing the assistance that ukraine needs. -- where areto ask the efforts to respond energetically to the disinformation war that the russian government and media are carrying out? >> it is an important question. past on then in the ways in
which russia has weaponized information as part of the campaign of special warfare, especially in the donbass. it is not a coincidence that the first thing the russian units did when they moved into key eastern ukrainian cities is pull down the ukrainian television and radio broadcasts. i'm told the units have digital pacs plugged into the stations to immediately switch over to russian stations. the russian strategy, it's important to recognize about the strategy of special warfare, the russian objective is not to win the argument, not to demonstrate truth. it is to confuse, create doubt and keep everybody off balance. that's why you had little green men in crimea. so everybody spent a couple of weeks trying to figure out are they russians or from somewhere else? who are these guys in slavyansk with rpg's and air peace radios. it is a strategy which rests on a tactic of misdirection which
has an objective to sow division between the united states and european partners. and which has as an objective on the ground in ukraine to create fear. to create a sense of endangerment for russian speakers. i agree with you. it is a critically important issue. to be frank, we in the u.s. government have only begun the process of thinking through how we need to respond to this but we are doing so. jointly with your european partners. i was at an atlantic council event focused on this a couple of weeks ago. the fco has done tremendous work thinking about the implications of the strategy. the ukrainian government is struggling with the task of strategic communications. i would draw a strong distinction between propaganda and strat-comes.
i think it is important not to go down the rabbit hole, not to fall into the trap of trying to meet russia on their grounds in terms of ms. representation or propaganda. the best answer to that propaganda is truth. a consistent presentation of ukrainian government reality and ukrainian government intentions including, as i alluded to, ukrainian government intentions regarding eastern ukraine and the imperative of national unity. >> we have eight more minutes. i will take three questions. ariel here. there. in the back. >> ariel cohen, center for energy, natural resources and geo politics. i just came back from russia. in many conversations with the elites there is more than an under current. there is a message that ukraine will not survive this crisis. i do not know if our concerns
about expanding the conflict zone all the way to odessa and the maldovan border will be justified. but taking what you were saying about the trying times for ukraine, what are the contingencies to the extent you can disclose them in ukraine and our contingencies to developments that go beyond donbass? do you think this was just an attempt to engage in strat-com operations and convey this message that they think ukraine will not survive that? or do you think something is really in preparation. >> let's take the other questions and then we will.
right there. right there. >> thanks. thank you, ambassadors pyatt and herbst. local elections will be important to the decentralization process and to further renewal of the political class. i wonder what you are hearing about planning for local elections, if that's in the works yet. >> thank you. john behind you. >> john gunderson, national defense university. i was counsel general in ukraine after independence. i would like to sort of push you on the one that i know is very delicate to discuss and that's security issues. two factors i think we should think about. one is russian thinking. i know we don't predicate policy. looking at another way of how we look at russia, the heads of the
russian military were all young lieutenants in afghanistan. mostly. the thing they fear most is an insurgency. a vietnam complex in afghanistan complex. the sense then of having to think about a strong ukrainian military factors into russian thinking. so i would like you to address the concept or answer what the arguments would be against giving lethal defensive equipment, the type of things we give to sovereign states such as egypt or pack pakistan. -- or pakistan. not quite friendly allies. what is the argument against giving defensive lethal aid to ukraine? thank you. >> the last question over there. >> two points. first one from your comments, as well from the comments that have
been heard today here as well as from the whole world discussion, it is clearer we are not talking about the crisis in ukraine. it is war. it is a russian aggression against ukraine. the question is why many u.s. officials, sometimes in cluding you prefer to use the term crisis instead of using the more correct and appropriate term aggression and war. and why not use it from today at least? second, three days ago there was the 20th anniversary of the budapest memorandum. ukraine is a little bit bitter feeling about this. don't you think the mechanisms of the budapest memorandum could be used at this moment? for example, in consultations provided by article vi or in other ways?
all right. last one right there. then you have 30 seconds for each, jeff. >> thank you. eir news. as much assistance as ukraine might need now from the united states and allies abroad the reality is the u.s. policy in the ukraine has nothing to do with ukraine. >> a question, not a statement. >> with destabilizing russia. i'm sure you listened to president putin's remarks at the bicameral address a couple of days ago when he warned -- >> you have 15 seconds. >> he warned the international community that the last people to come after russia to destroy them were crushed and that was hitler. similarly, germany, there is a letter circulating in germany signed by schroederer making reference to rithitler saying -- making reference to hitler, saying the last people to go after russia were crushed.
my question is how is starting a third world war with russia in the interest of ukraine or the united states, how is this improving the security situation in the world? >> ok. i will do lightning round on these. let me start with ariel's hypothetical. i guess what i would focus on is first of all the critical importance of the negotiations which are taking place in minsk, hopefully this week. another round of contact group negotiations. this goes to john's question. this is a crisis which is not going to be resolved on the battle field. it will be resolved through diplomacy. yes, the united states has an interest in helping ukraine to develop the capacity to defend its sovereign territory. we'll continue to do so. we have devoted $118 million to that purpose so far this year. but the end game will be played
in the court of diplomacy and the best vehicle for achieving that is full implementation of the minsk agreement which was signed onto on the fifth of september. regarding laura's point on local elections, we just don't know yet. ukraine has been in a very rapid period of electoral politics. i think at this point -- and i will be interested in what the experts advise, what the ukrainian political leaders decide. but i would argue having watched this unfold that the important thing is to move ahead on constitutional reform the deputy prime minister launched to figure out who is going to drive the process in the new government now that groysman has taken over as speaker. then have that process proceed the conduct of the local elections so people know what are the packages of powers which they are going to be assigning
through the local elections. so that's my view on where we stand today. on the budapest memorandum, it is not a coincidence that rose gotmueller was in kiev on the 20th anniversary of the budapest memorandum. we are proud of the partnership with ukraine. i would point out ukraine is a global leader. ukraine's role in president obama's nuclear security summit was one of the most important of any country. it is a country which has made the right choices on nuclear disarmament and the world is a safer place as a result of the choices ukraine has made. it is important that we do all we can to up uphold and help ukraine to defend its own territorial integrity. that's why president obama has led the international effort in imposing a cost on russia for
its violation of ukraine 's territorial integrity. that's why we have worked as hard as we have on the sanctions regime. which is intended to affect russia's calculation. on the question of russia i would note i have been clear on the record from the days of my confirmation we think over the long term russia should see this as a win-win proposition which is anchored in european institutions with access to european markets should represent an economic community for companies. president poroshenko head a free trade zone in the donbass region. while ukraine moves ahead on the european choice, so that company this is the donbass region would be able to provide a bridging role between the european space, the largest space in the world and the eurasian space.
that kind of win-win calculation has been absent from the kind of language from moscow. we hope we can get to that point. >> terrific discussion. thank you for coming. [ applause ] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> last week, john kerry warned senate intelligence committee chair dianne feinstein that the relays -- that the release of cia interrogation tactics could put americans in danger overseas. he asked adequate time be provided before the report's release. senator feinstein will talk
about the report around 11:00 a.m. eastern. we will have that live on c-span 2. >> here are comments we have received from viewers. in thisvery interested program on the american indians. i did not watch the whole thing. i came in and found it. i watched what i could for about an hour and a half or two hours. the program is absolutely wonderful. again, igoing to be on will get you an even bigger by notifying the journals and asking them to spread the word.
i watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> i am calling from pennsylvania. about american history tv. i love that channel. weekend, i watch it, almost religiously. i love all of the history stuff you have. please give us more history programs. , youry in the sense of know, something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to have the political commentary type things , from the 1970's on, that is later during the week or something, but not during the history weekend. i really love your history lectures. i'd would like to have another chance to hear that or see it again several months later. like today, instead of this
reaganite ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span. i like the nonfiction books. i love it when you have the book fair. i am always elated on the weekend, watching c-span. the best thing i do. it is the most fun. my friend teaches history and a junior college and i never used to be interested in a lot of history, and now i am. thank you very much. whatntinue to let us know you think about the program. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.
>> on the next "washington journal," david price looks at federal government funding, set to expire thursday, december 11. doug collins discusses transparency in the health care law and the possible release of a report on the alleged use of torture by the cia. plus your calls, comments, and tweets. >> jonathan gruber testifies this morning about his work on the federal health care law and the state program implemented in massachusetts. the oversight committee examining his comments on how the law was written. he will be joined by maryland tavener. -- aryland have in her marilyn tavenner.
>> this week on cue and day -- q&a, stories about being on the campaign trail with mitch mcconnell. in 2010, right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul. mcconnell's handpicked guy. he started to make changes. he hired key staff. he knew this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. >> they had watched the obama campaign and 2008 and 2012. they watched the harry reid election. bey knew they needed to
bruce lunsford by about six points. the latestg to have technology. in 2013, he said he was going to build the most dedicated opinion ever. >> sunday night, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> tom latham of iowa is retiring after 10 terms in office. members paid tribute to him on the house floor. after the tributes, he made a farewell speech. and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. simpson: we are here today under a special order because this time of year at the end of a session, we have members that are retiring, members that
deserve recognition and members that other members of the house would like to talk about for a few minutes and today we have one of the best that unfortunately is retiring at the end of this year. a gentleman i have known since i came to congress and become good friends with and have had many entertaining times. i'm sorry to say that the people in washington are going to miss the most is mr. latham and i's orbison duets. we had fun with those at various events. before i say anything, i would like to recognize the gentleman om iowa, for his recognition of mr. latham.
>> it's an honor to speak about tom latham. when i got legitimated in 2006, tom had been here for some time. and i knew about tom. mr. lobiondo: i was one of those folks -- mr. loebsack: i came to congress and i didn't know that many folks in this body before i got elected. and when i got elected, one of the things i did was try to find out what i could and work with him on a number of issues because i knew he had a reputation for working across the aisle. i knew he was very good friends with mr. boehner who subsequently became speaker of the house. it was in my interest to get to know him if i wanted to get things done for iowa even though
speaker pelosi took over when i came. my job has been to work with both sides of the aisle and tom latham is a model for doing exactly that. when i first came, we had a lot of tough issues to deal with here in the u.s. congress. and one of the things that happened very early on when i first got elected was the issue of the national guard came up and i was on armed services. a lot of those guard folks were being deployed multiple times. and it was very, very difficult for their families. and a number of us recognized that what we needed to do is build facilities, upgrade facilities, get rid of those old facilities and replace them with readiness centers to train and equip our troops in the event that we had to send them overseas on a mission, which we id many, many times.
but we needed to construct those facilities also for their families, for their spouses and for their children. on the appropriations committee what tom latham did was make sure we had the funding, to make sure we built those facilities as well. so we were able to work on that issue together. and then when the great flood of 2008 hit across iowa, but mainly across the eastern half of iowa, it included a lot of tom latham's district and a lot of it included my district, about half of the damage was in my district alone, but i worked with tom and steve king and bruce braley and leonard boswell. we did great job working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that what we needed in iowa we got. and so we worked very hard on that.
and then also on veterans issues. when we heard about the scandal in phoenix, the first thing i did was i contacted tom latham and said, hey, we need to go to des moines together if that's ok with you. i know it's your congressional district, it's not mine. but let's go to des moines together and talk to the folks there about the des moines facility. i've been to the v.a. facility in iowa city in my district many, many times. but i want to go to des moines and i want to go with tom and i knew he had worked together with me on that to make sure that everything's right and if it isn't right, that we fix it. so he was very much open to that. he didn't hesitate for a second. that's the kind of person he is. that's been the kind of legislator he is. even at a time, and in this body we've seen a lot of ugliness over the years, it seems as though our politics in america has just gotten uglier by the day sometimes. and even in the middle of all that, when that has happened, tom latham has stood tall, he stood proud as an iowan.
he's got a lot of common sense like most iowans do and he works with the other side because he knows that the job is to get things done. and that's what tom latham does. he's gotten things done. we are going to miss you, tom. there's no question about that. i think you know that probably better than we do. but we're going to miss you and i know you've heard that from a lot of folks. tom latham, he's a humble iowa guy. that's what he is. and he's been able to get a tremendous amount done for his district, for my alma mater, iowa state, before he lost that to congressman king. and for any number of other folks in his congressional district over the years. i honor you, i honor kathy, looking forward to seeing you later tonight and thank you for everything, tom. farewell and good luck with whatever you end up doing. thank you. thank you and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from iowa for his statement. i'd like to yield to another gentleman from iowa, the gentleman, mr. king.
mr. king: i thank the gentleman from idaho for yielding to the gentleman from iowa and there are about four people on the floor right now that do know the difference. i rise today, madam speaker, to give a great message of gratitude and thanks to congressman tom latham. i'll tell a little bit of the narrative of how this unfolds from the per of iowa. that's this -- perspective of iowa. we're all politics all the time. there's no offseason for us. you're always onseason. when the iowa caucuss emerged, there's a -- -- caucuses emerged, there's a big focus on state politics. that's where i first met tom latham and first became aware of his commitment to the political arena and to conservatism. i would want to let the body know, madam speaker, that tom latham didn't come from a place that was a big, magnificent metropolitan, unless you'd want
to describe alexander, iowa, with 160-some people as one. 168 people would be the population of alexander, iowa. rooted in now a three-generation seed company and rooted in the soil. and i don't have to explain this to the people from either idaho or iowa. but all new wealth comes from the land. it regenerates itself every year in the form of corn in our neighborhood and soybean and potatoes in mr. simpson's neighborhood. but when you see where the origin of wealth comes every year and you see the families that came across the prairie, turned thed so for the first time and maybe built their house out of it and put their roots down into that soil and took the family farm that raised the wealth and boiled that out of there and over from the farm to the town to the city and you see a family business with multiple brothers engaged in it and three generations now, you know that they're tied to the heart of the heartland and the good of
what's good about iowa and america. that's what tom latham brought to the political arena from the state central committee, to a primary, into the united states congress in 1994 and then catching that wave, the 1994 wave, and being elected to the united states congress 20 years ago. and i take a look at him now and i think, he's no worse for ware. it's the same tom -- wear. it's the same tom latham that came here 20 years ago that's going off into retirement today or shortly here at the end of this congress and he hasn't lost his enthusiasm. but here's what i see. this is a steve king perspective, madam speaker. that is that everybody that comes to this place has their own style. and their own way of getting things done. but the people that have worked with tom latham for these years know that it isn't always an issue that's run up to the flagpole. it doesn't come necessarily with lights and blairing horns but it gets done. tsh burglarying horns it.
-- blairing horns but it gets done it. gets done with building a network of people that want to help and get things done. when i was elected to come to this congress in 2003, and inherited a lot of the real estate that had form early been represented -- formerly represented and the constituents who had been formerly represented by tom latham, i noticed there were ribbon cutting ceremonies taking place in my district and i wasn't necessarily the lead guy when it came to the ribbon cutting, it was tom latham that laid the ground wisconsin for -- groundwork for that for years and they knew this it and they still know it and the friends and the relationships that were built were doing a good job of representing constituents throughout those years are still there, they still exist and it's been an easy thing for me to step into that neighborhood because they were well taken care of and well represented. and so now after moving from agriculture over to the appropriations committee, just remind the body that tom latham
today is the only iowa member on the house appropriations committee and he's done a good number of things with projects, not only the transportation projects but the iowa national guard, ag, economic development, small business development and he's currently chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on transportation, housing and urban development and some related agencies and he serves on the appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug, and also on homeland security. that's an influential footprint in this congress. and the people that arrive here as freshmen and sophomores recognize that. but i recognize also this man that is rooted in iowa's soil, that is a continuation of the family farm and the family business, that relies upon the very foundation of our economy, that all new wealth comes from the land, and that there's a core of family and faith and neighbors and neighborhood that tom latham has brought to this congress. and wherever he ends up in his
retirement, we all want to congratulate him and say to tom latham, congratulations, you have earned it, you picked your time, you've done it your way and there are only about three ways to leave this congress and one of them is to get beat and one of them is to die in office and the other one is to choose your time to retire. and i'm glad that you are fit and vigorous and prepared for a fit and vigorous retirement. but it wouldn't be appropriate, madam speaker, for me to conclude my portion of this without saying into this congressional record a deep and heartfelt thank you to kathy latham. it's from me personally as well as for a lot of reasons across this hill, the work that she has done. you got oftentimes two pour the -- for the price of one with tom and kathy latham. she has made my life easier and made things work better for iowa, for the house of representatives and for this country and i think that the best interests of all of us
have always been what made the decisions in the latham family. which by the way now ranks up in about the top three of iowa political families. so pay attention, madam speaker, to the latham family going forward. they're not done yet but they do have a patriarch that's going to ride off into retirement. thank you a lot, tom latham, for serving our country. god bless you. i yield back. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman from iowa. let me say, mr. speaker, that mr. king just mentioned the difference between iowa and idaho. i'll tell you a funny story. when i was first elected tom had been here for four years and i got selected, they used to have a function with a lot of the d.c. reporters and political reporters in town at the washington hilton. and they would select a freshman republican and democrat from both the house and the senate to give little speeches and they were supposed to be kind of funny speeches and stuff. so i didn't know what to do. they selected me as one of them. and so i decided that i was going to explain the difference
between iowa and idaho. because there is a difference. so i went through all of the differences in idaho and iowa and of course i recorded it and i got home and turned it on to see how i'd done and underneath, this was on c-span, underneath it said, congressman mike simpson, republican, ohio. so we not only get mixed up with idaho and iowa also, but between ohio and idaho and iowa. so that's always made it a little more challenging. but tom and i have served together on the appropriations committee for i guess the last 12 years that i've been on it and he was on it before that. as was mentioned he was the chairman of the transportation committee. i'm the chairman of the energy and water committee. both committees very important to both idaho and iowa and to the country. and we've been able to work cooperatively to try to address issues that affect the country and our respective states.
i think i've -- the thing i've always noticed most about tom, and both speakers have already mentioned it, is the way he works. the way he gets things done. i've always noticed that tom takes the job that he was elected to do very seriously. but he never takes himself too seriously. which is an important characteristic, i think. others have enjoyed working with him on both sides of the aisle. i've certainly enjoyed working with him. and again we're going to miss him. ality the end of each session -- at the end of each session, some people, as steve king mentioned, decide it's time to retire. tom has decided that. and not only are we in congress as friendses going to miss him, -- friends going to miss him, frankly the country is going to miss him. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes. mr. nunes: i thank the gentleman from idaho, my good friend. i want to echo what you were
saying, mr. simpson. tom latham actually is a guy who came here, doesn't seek the lime light but seeks to get things done. and it's tough for me to say this about him because he is my good friend and he's going to rip me about this later, but he really does try to get things done. you don't see him running out to the tv's, to the news show, you don't see him running out and holding press conferences. what you do see is someone who works and i've had numerous opportunities, i can tell you that when i first aarrived here to washington, tom was one of the first people who came up to he nd talked to me about -- asked if he could help me in any way, he was a farmer from obviously the great state of iowa and he knew that i was from a -- a farmer from the great state of california. we shared about what we had in common. and then he asked how he could be helpful. and from day one tom's been one of my best friends here and i don't think there's ever been a day that we've been in congress
that i haven't spoke to tom and then, you know, we always talk over the time that we're not here also. i've had times where tom's came -- numerous times tom's came out to california to visit my district and to do some good quality work, meeting with some of my constituents. and at the same time talking about tom's work ethic, tom's had me out to his district in iowa several times and typically you think you're going to do a short little meeting with some folks but i can tell that you when i went out there, tom actually puts me to work. we had to spend a full day of working and i remember, tom, that you put on a conference for all of your community leaders, your business leaders and your government leaders, and you had people from all over the state of iowa who came there for a full day's session about how his office, being the last wing to the federal government, could better serve his constituents.
and that's really what this is about, madam speaker, is tom worked very hard for his constituents and he didn't try to get press out of it, didn't try to make a big deal about it, but you could tell when i was on the ground there, the several times i was there, it was about working. and it was about working with people, working with his constituents and trying to represent them here in washington in the best way that he could. his district has moved around so much over the years. but tom's family, obviously great people. his wife kathy deserves a lot of praise of having to deal with him traveling back and forth. takes a special person and kathy is a special, special person to deal with, not only deal with tom, but also to put up --
having to deal with the tough things that people say. mr. latham has been through many tough elections and takes a tough person to deal with things that come out in political campaigns. so i know tom's very proud of his children and grandchildren and that's part of the reason why he's leaving us, because he served his country, did the best that he could do for the time that he was here. and i think as a long tradition of serving the people of iowa, just like his parents who were community leaders in northern iowa there and also his brothers, i think you had at least one or two brothers that served with distinction in vietnam as i remember. and i met all of them i think over the years. but any way, madam speaker, this is -- it's a sad day for me to be down here on the floor of the house, but a happy day for tom
and his family and he can spend time with his children and grandchildren, which when we're here in washington, it's tough do. with that, i yield back. mr. simpson: the gentleman from california mentioned something that's very important that a lot of people don't realize. it takes a special individual and special relationship with your spouse be it husband or wife to be able to serve in this place. how many nights you spend away from your family when you're here and i'm certain that with most spouses, when i look at mine and tom's kathy, this was not something that they had planned on when they got married. and to be able to -- i want to say put up with that and the separation that it causes and the pressure it puts on a family is extremely difficult. but kathy is truly a person that
is special and has put up with him for 20 years and how many years of marriage -- 39 years of marriage, so she has put up with him for a long time and we're honored to have spouses like that that support us and keep us going. the reason i asked for the -- for unanimous consent at the start of this special order to insert for people to insert their comments was because is tonight is the white house christmas reception for members of congress. there is going to be a lot of people getting ready to go down to the white house. one of those individuals who wanted to be here was the speaker of the house, who is one of tom's best friends. they have been together ever since i have come and consequently i have been allowed to associate with them.
i don't know why, but we've got along and done some great things and we are going to miss tom. but this process goes on. people get elected, whether it's any of us that replace us and will step up to the plate and do the job. it's an amazing system we have been given and i would like to yield to my good friend from owa, tom latham. mr. latham: i say thank you, mr. simpson, great friend for doing this this evening, mr. nunes, steve king and dave loebsack. i'm not going to sing.
we'll pass that by. but again thank you very much for the honor you have given and the kind words here tonight. i will just say, the thing i'll miss most are my good friends here. and that part of it really is hard, because it becomes an extended family over time and people who you know, who you work with, who you trust on a day-to-day basis, i will miss that. there is a lot of other stuff i won't miss here. but the personal relationships and the friendships and mr. simpson mentioned the speaker. and i'll just tell you there's no one who could be a better friend and someone that i owe so uch to john and debey.
we love them and will continue to that friendship as i will with all the colleagues that we have come to know and love. anyone who does this job for any period of time understands you are never going to be successful or accomplish anything without the great work of your staff. and i have been blessed both in iowa and here in washington with tremendous people that have worked so hard for me and committed themselves to the people of iowa and to this country. and all of them are very, very special to me. one person, chief of staff, who happens to be in the chamber tonight, has been with me since day one, the year before i got elected. so 21 years he has had to put up with me. thank you very much. thanks to all the members of my
staff. it has been a pressure for me, a great, great honor to have the privilege of serving with them, because we have all done it on a cumulative basis and try to do the best job possible for the people of iowa. i have to say thank you. i have represented a lot of the state, having the different districts, starting with the th rd rict, 4 tl district, 3 district, but it is the honor of my life to serve the people of iowa and have that opportunity to be their representative in washington to try to accomplish things for their good, for the good of the country, and again, just to say thank you.
verybody knows the sacrifice those in congress knows the sacrifice of your family. and my parents who were such great role models taught me so much. i have four brothers and their families. , my daughter and her husband, keaton, mason and carson and jill, my daughter and her husband nick and their son will, love them. and what they have done to support me over the years is tremendous and will always be appreciated. obviously, there's one person you could never be successful if
you didn't have the support of your spouse and kathy has been just exceptional, putting up with all the back and forth, having two residences, having to travel here, keep everything going at home while i'm away. the first 19 years we were married, i was on the road with our family business. the last 20 years, i have been gone being in congress. and so obviously, her love, her support has meant everything in the world to me and thank you, dear. let me just say in closing, it's been an amazing ride for 20 years and a kid -- grew up like mr. simpson said and mr. king said, grew up on a farm outside of a town of 168 people.
to come to washington and represent iowa here is obviously a huge honor from that background. and anyone -- any member listening -- but if you ever get to the point when you walk across the street and look at the dome and get your chill up your spine, you probably should go home. i still get that chill, but it's time for myself and my family to go a different course. i'm extraordinarily proud to have served here. this is a great, great body. it's something is an incredible institution. it is truly a slice of america when you come here and you meet the different folks. all you learn about this great country, having to take into consideration a lot of different iews and constituencies from all across the country is an
amazing experience. i'm very, very proud of that and will always feel that my time was well spent here. but more so today, i'm excited about the future, because we are going to have an opportunity to spend more time with the family, with kathy, the kids and grandchildren and do some things that we haven't been able to do before. i'm proud of the past, excited about the future and i just thank god i have had the opportunities i had to grow up in this state like iowa and community, parents like i had and brothers and the support of the family, but this is the greatest country in the world. will always be because of our system of government as hard as it is to get something done, as difficult as it is, it is the right thing. i never learned -- i never
learned a thing when i'm talking. you learn things when you listen to other folks and maybe step back and listen to each other more and maybe we would be better off. with that, let me say thank you to everyone. it's a great country. god bless america and i'm excited about the future. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. simpson: i thank the gentleman, and again, we're going to miss you. don't be a stranger. you still have another week or two to serve before we sine die and now that you call file for medicare, you wish you and cagget youy the best in this next journey of your life and make sure you get out to idaho and we'll take some famous potatos and iowa corner and put them together with steak
program on the american indians. i did not watch the whole thing. i came in and found it. i watched what i could for about three hours. this program is wonderful. if it is going to be on again, i will get you a bigger audience by notifying the journals and asking them to spread the word. something i have never seen on a before and i do watch a lot of c-span. >> i am calling from pennsylvania, about american history tv. i love that channel. watch it,end, i almost religiously. i love the history stuff you have.
please give us more history programs. likes --nd the cents, something the sense, in the 1940's in the 1950's. if you want to have political things, that is fine, later during the week, or something, but not during the history weekend. i love your history lectures. i like to have a another chance to hear that, or even see it again several months later. today instead of this reaganite you have ranting about how bad the government is. i love c-span. i love the nonfiction books and i love it when you have the book fair. i am always elated on the weekend watching c-span.
it is the best thing i do and the most fun. teaches history in a junior college and i never used to be interested in a lot of history and now i am. thank you. >> let us know what you think about the programs. call us, e-mail us, or you can send us a tweet. the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. isaac herzog spoke last week about relations between the israelis and the u.s. institutionokings center on middle east policy, it is hour.
>> i just asked him what side he wants to be on, and he said the right. [laughter] thank you very much, tammy. thank you, haim. we have agreed to call ourselves jeff and bougie. there is a lot to cover tonight. i want to start with something called word association. [laughter] >> can i say three short sentences? one is that, of course, join with all of my colleagues from israel in expressing heartfelt condolences to mr. liberman. and on a note, to be grateful and thankful to haim and brookings. lastly, i beg your pardon on
behalf of all of the israelis who have flown throughout the if their heading, falls apart, please understand. >> are you suffering from jet lag? >> i know you are a shrewd journalist, and i am ready. >> "shrewd" is a code word for something. >> i read you. >> let's start with the news of the moment. you took a long and possibly eventful flight here with, among others, tzipi livni, and there is a lot of interest in understanding whether you and tzipi livni and possibly others are going to try to merge your parties, merge your lists in order to form a potent center-left bloc. can you talk about this? >> i talked to my wife about
-- i talked to my wife. let's understand israel first. let's understand the israeli scene. i am here to present to each and every one of you and break this notion that netanyahu is unbeatable. i am here to tell you i will form the next government, and i will lead israel in a different direction. it is feasible if we built the proper coalitions in israeli politics. >> so, mr. prime minister, how are you going to build that? [laughter] >> it requires a lot of things. number one, that all ego is set aside. i lead labor. labor is the party that found the state of israel. we believe, and i believe, that from day one since i take office that we should have a running
together of forces. tzipi livni is a very distinguished israeli leader, and i would like to very much to be able to join forces with him and with other parties. there has to be a centrist israeli bloc that is an alternative unequivocally to netanyahu. >> now, can you answer the question? have you formed a list? >> not yet. the elections were decided just in the last few days. they have not even finalized the dissolvement yet. i hope we succeed. i believe clearly that labor is the strongest element.
it should lead it. and i hope to be able to do it. >> let me ask questions about who you might serve with. can you envision going with avigdor liberman? >> let me explain. 's game. is a coalition it is not a presidential race. the polls over the weekend gave me a nice leap ahead in terms of closing the gap. it is a coalition game. you have to see what will be the day after. this is what people don't get. there could be an interesting coalition of parties and leaders who decide to form a coalition, a new coalition, and i hope that my capability of tying knots, of being able to bring people together, things which i have done in winning the labor party
primary, as well as understanding the political vista, for me, all partners are possible. the arabs said they do not want to go in any coalition. they may be supportive from the outside. let me explain to those who do not understand israeli politics. it ain't nothing like being a minority leader here. in my opposition right now we , have 8000. ok? it is a multiparty system. it is not republicans and democrats. in a multiparty system, today i have in my opposition, three arab parties. i have the muslim brotherhood in my opposition.
we have ultra orthodox parties. we have to understand that all communities in israel are represented. i am talking to all of them, and since i respect >> let's talk about your candidacy. you are obviously a man of accomplishment. you come from a very, very famous family in israel, but you are known as a non-charismatic figure. you are welcome. [laughter] there is a certain assumption. >> look at how many charismatic leaders we had in what happened to them. [laughter] >> with israeli politics, and maybe this is just conventional or perceived wisdom, that the voters want something, especially from the center or centerleft that is gruff, and
nobody would mistake you for --gabi ashkenazi walking down the street. so talk about the barriers to your success among the voters. i mean -- and then we will talk about the labor party. >> it is combined, intertwined. the label is staged right now in the centerleft. it should resume its role as a mother party. together with all of the other parties, which i mentioned, because labor has the capability of being so, talking to all of the other members of the political scene in the same eye level.
and as for myself, because i do not see having psychological treatment with you -- there is an innate fear within israeli society of whatever we see and hear around us. it is the reaction of human beings. my role is to acquire enough trust in all of the -- in all of the polls, they trust me. they have to be able to trust me, and that is what i am focusing on. that is my main challenge. correct answer this question, because security is a threshold for a center or centerleft candidate. who are your security gurus? who do you look to?
on the israeli spectrum form advice on matters of national security. >> there are wonderful people within the security and defense community who are willing to lend a hand or are willing to give from their experience. we have some people within our party. we have people from the outside. there are very distinguished people. some of them even here. the issue is, again, to shatter this premonition. you know that we have a party. in the elections either in 2009 or before, only generals, and it did not make a difference. if you ask me, the real issue is social economics. -- the real issue is socioeconomic. undoubtedly, we will talk about it, breaking the umbilical cord and moving forward with the palestinians and creating very strong security interests of israel being fostered and nurtured. we give an answer on issues.
we must remember the social protest of 2011. the summer of 2011 was a major watershed in israeli history. it is something that i'm always inquisitive about in american politics and history. all of the sudden, the nation woke up and demanded not security, they demanded social justice, and they kept on saying social justice, and 5% of the nation's population gathered in a city square one night demanding justice with no violence. 100 years after the revolution in russia. all of a sudden, social justice, but in a democratic sense, they did not get that delivered to them, and the only partner that can deliver it to them in a fair and square manner is labor. this is part of the agenda battle between me and netanyahu. these are not the only issues.
>> i want to come to this in a minute, but i do want an answer to this question of who you listen to in israel. >> i will not tell you. >> why not? >> because some of the people don't want to be exposed. it is legitimate. believe me, we have a very strong security contra -- security cadre. and i hope to be able to present a nice group of people who have devoted their life to the defense of the state of israel who are going to be with me and the party. >> i will probably try one more time later when you are tired. >> i am not going to chicken out. [laughter] >> that is not the exact expression, but you are close. [laughter] people watching on c-span -- >> let's put that aside. the real expression is something that i do not like at all. >> we are going to come to that,
nonetheless. we come to the question of the labor party. why is the labor party in such a diminished state? where did it go wrong? >> i will explain, because right now, the israeli situation is comprised of different parties. the last one that had more than 40 mandates was ariel sharon. the structure has been actually broken to medium or small-sized parties, and remember there is going to be a new threshold introduced in this election with which is quite big, for mandates. namely, only if they get full mandates. that is a lot. that is about 3.25%. therefore, there will have to be mergers, m&a's, and there are a few processes, undercurrents.
the first one was that we lost touch with some of what the public really feels is important to them. for a long time, we were a member of the coalition, and we were kind of erased of our identity, and it took time to recover, and we also lost touch with new groups in society -- who demanded to be part of it. for example, the russian immigration of one million people. we kind of lost them somewhere. they supported both rabin and barak. and they were turned off. add to that other groups in the arab population. 96% support to help barack. couple that with a young generation that is coming in and
voting and they do not remember the legacy of labor. and even within that generation or the public at large, we were viewed as giving up too quickly to the palestinians or the arabs. >> on that subject, it is april of next year, and you are the prime minister. you are a big advocate, obviously, of the two-state solution. i want to know specifically from you why you think that you would achieve what barak tried to achieve and what ehud olmert tried to achieve -- they try to make the first with yasser arafat and the second with abu mazen. >> i am not going to go to it, but i am not going to give up trying again. and moreover, part of it has to do with psychology. we are not dealing with psychology at all. the fact that there is no discussion, no trust is adverse
to their ability to reach an agreement. yesterday, i had a meeting with the leader of the sinn fein, and may i remind you, he was an outcast. he came to palestine and we had breakfast and i said, jerry, tell me what was the moment of truth when you guys moved, and he told me it was when they came to realize they would not achieve it in any other way. both sides. and also, there was a unique configuration of leaders, and one of them is bill clinton, who knew how to work on the psychology of the leaders and the people. this is part of it. and nobody is dealing with it. i spoke to all the mazen. i said, people say that even if i negotiate with you, you will never make peace with us, and he
laughed and said, i am sure we can reach an agreement. it depends on trust. it depends on confidence building measures. it depends on innovating, being bold, and radiating to the people that there is hope. the situation that we see right now is so devastating, because there is a feeling of a lack of hope. there is a despair feeling. most were some of all -- most worrisome of all is the unleashing of feelings of hatred. it is so dangerous to all of us. >> you are prime minister. what is your settlement policy? >> the settlement policy is that -- first and foremost, i believe in the blocks. i definitely believe in it being part of israel. it is essential for security. >> no, no, no, i want to get this in. when the u.s. administration
tells you, no building, and you are prime minister. what do you say? >> hillary clinton said, i don't answer theoretical questions. because i believe israel -- i have always said it. israel should put a plan on the table and move forward and often. within that umbrella of movement, there are things that both sides can do. i believe in settlement -- freezing settlement construction outside as part of confidence measures, that it should be part of a plan that israel presents, in this plan should take into account the basic inherent security needs of the state of israel. >> what if it doesn't work? do you have a plan b? you have spoken of the unsustainability of the status quo. >> that is true. >> what about plan b? >> the problem with plan b is we already negate the possibility of moving on with plan a.
there are some that do not believe in the negotiating process but believe in unilateral steps. i think israel, the nation, suffered a certain trauma from pulling out of gaza. we have to attend to that. i was there. we were blamed for pulling out by our brothers and sisters from the settlement in gaza, and it did not work out. so we have to take it into account. i do believe unequivocally and from the bottom of my heart that it is a must under all circumstances to separate from the palestinians, that if it fails, we will have to take steps that define our border in a clearer way.
>> that is, unilateral with draw -- withdrawal. >> even if you do not negotiate, you can coordinate. you can do steps that say, i give priority to that area. and not another. but i think it is a mistake that we already assume it is over. it is part of the tragedy that unfolded in front of our eyes. it is not true. i am telling you absolutely, it is possible, absolutely possible, to make peace with the palestinians. >> i am just trying to put myself in the shoes of an israeli voter, who hears you say that if all else fails, we are going to have to withdraw -- >> i did not say that. whether legislative or other, -- i said, we will have to work smartly, in making efforts, whether legislative or other,
arranging the fact that most israelis will be in southern areas. but i'm not willing to go into any detail. >> let's turn, and, again, i will try in a minute, let's turn to the relationship between the united states and israel. secretary clinton made it seem like there are occasional ripples in the calm surface of these waters, downplayed personal tension between the president and your prime minister. you have spoken about this, however, as a crisis. can you define why you think
this is more of a crisis than hillary clinton says it is? >> i am not here to start personally criticizing the prime minister. outside israel. my aim is to convince the people of israel. there are rules of the game that we attended to. i think that the policies of the israeli government have led us to a situation -- sorry -- has led us to a situation of a total lack of trust, a total lack of trust. now, it is essential, it is essential to have trust between their leaders, not only the professionals, not only the government level, but the leaders. it is a fact. it is a fact that there is no trust at all between the president and the prime minister, and we have to attend to it, and one of my first things will be to mend those relationships. in israel's history throughout, the ability to have trust between the top leaders was essential in critical moments, to israel's well-being and to peace and safety. >> do you blame the american side or the israeli side?
i am not in a blame game. i am telling the israeli people that there are so many faulty policies that we will have to correct, and there are so many mistakes that netanyahu has done that we will correct. a major part of it is the relationship with the united states. the relationship between israel and the united states -- even if we argue, we should do it in closed rooms. we know how to argue. even if we debate. but there is the issue of trust, telling each side what is the problem and what is my interest, what is your interest, let's try to get together and agree, because the united states is the world, because the united states is not pulling out of the middle east as people were perceiving it to be, and because the united states is our closest ally. and because the united states is our closest ally.
>> i've heard people on the right and israel talking about replacing europe, for instance, with the china-india policy. you don't think that israel can pivot east? >> there is nothing to compare, with all the respect to these important countries, economically they are very important countries. but look at the record of the united nations. we have only one real ally that we share affection and trust with on so many levels, and is nothing to replace that. it also has a huge economic bearing on the israeli economy. >> i have to step back and ask a very basic question at this moment. it's something i really don't understand. why is israel moving toward elections right now? can anyone explain what happened?
>> the situation is like some sort of theater act whereby each side locked the other side to a situation where they could not move on together. and i think it has to do with the decisions of benjamin netanyahu that they can pull this one again. and the israeli public will be faced with the question -- is it willing to have a number -- another term of benjamin netanyahu? it's a key question in this election. in addition to all of the important issues that you have discussed. but it will also reflect the following, will israel skid dangerously to becoming a more extreme state in its behavioral mode, definitely as a
government? or will israel correct itself in the direction of well-positioned policies that go together with the regional envision meant of zionism? understanding our regional situation, trying to move towards peace and social justice, alignment with the united states, economic recovery, and most importantly, strengthening and fostering our democratic values. >> i want to come to that in a second, but one more foreign policy national security question. where do you rank the iran threat in the scheme of -- in the range of threats? obviously, the current prime minister believes that iran poses a unique existential threat, the iranian nuclear program to the future of israel. do you believe in that thread? >> i believe it is a very important threat. definitely, an important threat.
and it's a threat that has to be debt with. and the i say the following, i think the negotiation process is important and i think the u.s. and its allies should get the best deal possible. i think we should enable it to get the best deal possible, but we should not rule any alternative off the table until we sealed -- see that deal. >> do you trust the obama administration to get a good deal? >> i trust the obama administration to get a good deal. we hope for the best deal possible, which means a lot of elements. most important, the fact that we have to agree on a set breakout time that will give ample warning to everybody if the iranians want to break the agreement and move toward the bomb. i think the professionals have to work on it and we have to give it a chance. nonetheless, we shouldn't be i -- shouldn't be naive. we still live in a very dangerous and come located world and region and the policies of
the iranian regime are clear to us. and we have been discussing them for years. we should not be naive until the deal is all well. we should be very strict in monitoring and in deciphering whatever is going on in relation to that program. >> if you had been prime minister this past summer, how would you have handled the hamas threat? i think we need a combination of force and diplomacy. -- >> i think we knew, nation of force and diplomacy. we entered that crisis with -- it led to a situation where the secondly, the international community was already showing nerves and shortsightedness in terms of what is going on in gaza, because of the picture that came out of gaza, of course, had a bearing and influence.
one, we have to see how we deteriorated into that conflict and how to make sure we do not deteriorate again. part of it has to do with ending a very strong regional coalition that brings in the palestinian authority into gaza that gives hope to the people of gaza, and moves on as a basis for the process with the palestinians. >> the palestinian authority is a fairly weak and corrupt body. obviously, palestine itself is divided between two competing and sometimes warring parties. you seem to have more faith in the palestinian authority than the average israeli. >> because they lead a moderate palestinian body. let's be frank, we always love to judge everyone else's lyrical systems. i am not judgmental.
they are working. look at the summer, let's put it in perspective. following the abduction of the three boys, which was a huge tragedy for everybody. the palestinian authority functioned properly. they coordinated with efforts to find their whereabouts. they handled the situation and coming it down, despite the fact that there were many israeli operations on the ground. then came the protective edge over the summer. everyone loves to turn to them as weak -- term them as weak. >> are you worried about the future of israeli democracy? >> i am worried about the direction in which israeli democracy and society is moving into if we don't correct. tomorrow you will have [indiscernible]
here, a distinguished representative from the right. he believes in annexing areas. he believes in a deal that the world will accept, unilateral steps from israel in this direction. he does not answer the question -- what will you do with 100,000 citizens who will become israeli citizens? take jerusalem, the recent tax came from palestinians from east jerusalem who grew up under israeli sovereignty with an israeli id card. does that mean we will go through another 100,000 who have no loyalty to the state of israel in the sense that they will not feel part of israel but rather under occupation? there is no other choice. despite the fears, we will have to get over those fears. we will have to try again. otherwise the direction of the israeli society could be moved, and that is what we are doing in order to correct it. i am worried about undercurrents
that are trying to limit, contain, and curtail the beautiful vista of israeli democracy. the fact that in our parliament there is such a wide range of views, of free speech laid down by our supreme court, to me it is holy and i will do what i can with my colleagues to protect it. and there are endless efforts where the ministry of justice tries to block another week another piece of legislation which, from the outside, from those with a liberal understanding of what democracy is all about, seems incomprehensible and dangerous. >> israel is quite obviously a jewish state. what is so bad about passing a law that says israel is a jewish state? >> i will explain the following. i set it on the floor of parliament when i debated last week. -- i said it on the floor of parliament when i debated last week.
in the final moments i think it is correct to say that both states are nationstates. that palestine will be the nationstate of the palestinian people and israel the nationstate of the jewish people, as it is derived from the november 47 resolution. but this has nothing to do with what is within israel. within israel all citizens must feel they are equal. not only say it, but they must feel it. coming forward with this discourse on jewish state treads on racist undertones, making the feeling that somebody will be preferred over the other, the way that a mage or it he is essential to the well-being of our society.
the arab community in israel is 20 cprised of all denominations of christianity and islam. fascinating community. like all other communities in israel, not homogeneous at all. many of them want to be part of an inclusiveness in israeli public life all throughout and many want to be secessionists. our duty is to be inclusive if we want to protect the well-being of the state. to make anyone feel in a formal manner anything than that, it is not only a huge mistake, it is against the basic inherent declaration of the state. our magna carta. >> i'm hearing from you that it would be impossible for you to enter a coalition with someone who has just proposed that parts of israel proper, the triangle area, be sliced off and a final peace deal and the arabs and their land transfer to palestinian sovereignty.
sounds like that is a very -- >> you are so talmudic tonight. >> i always am. especially on shabbos. [laughter] >> good. it doesn't work this way. again, the coalition in israel is formed under the guidelines of what is agreed and what is the agreed-upon policy. if there will be a policy of having an agreed-upon guideline, that is what we would be, but it has nothing to do with the nationality, per se. the nationality came out of many ideas that were floating around to define the real nature of the state of israel. that nature has been defined in our declaration of independence. the greatness of our founding fathers is that they did not like to talk too much. they simply came forward with the declaration of independence. they did not argue about words
endlessly that could hurt. in an atmosphere whereby there is this interreligious flaring up and all other issues are at stake, it is a horrendous mistake to deal with it, unleashing all of these genies out of the bottle. >> you are saying now that the idea of transferring arab villages in israel, made up of israeli citizens to palestinian -- two israeli control -- of israeli citizens to his -- to palestinian control is off the table? >> that his election spin, let's put it on record, it won't work. in general i invite each and every one of you to tour and understand that what you see from the outside is not exactly what you get.
all groups have different views of life and there are many, many arabs included in the big parties, including my party, who share a dream with us of living together with peace. when i go to an emergency room in a bethesda hospital, to save the soldiers life, when i asked the jewish family who saved your sons life, they show me professor mohammed, one of the best surgeons in the country. we have to put everything in perspective. >> we are going to questions in a minute. i want to ask one other thing, in your opinion does israel have pr problems or does it have problems? >> israel has both. look, i don't rule out the fact that we feel besieged and that the world does not understand us at times, however i don't believe in the biblical proverb saying that the people dwell alone.
we cannot in this era dwell alone. we have to have allegiances. we have to have connections with our friends and allies. we have to cooperate together in an international arena. therefore, we cannot just go on saying to everybody -- for crying out loud, we are the ones who are besieged. we have problems. yes, there is a lot of israeli hate around the world and there are a lot of anti-somatic undertones, but it has nothing to do with the fact that we have problems to deal with. we must present policies correctly, change the policies correctly. i always compare israel to a midsize ship in stormy waters in high seas that has to maneuver through correctly. we are in a situation where we find ourselves cornered without any ability to maneuver. that is our main problem. >> let me get back to one
question, the main question, i want to get you back -- get you on record as much as possible here. it is about the peace process, because we tend to think of it as having started 21 years ago, with oslo. the palestinians and their representatives, before there was a nationality, have had four or five opportunities over the last many years to have a state. each time the offer has gotten worse, obviously, from a pure territorial standpoint. the question that plagues the left in israel, after 80 years of being rejected, of having the division of the land being rejected by the palestinians or their arab representatives, what makes you think that now what most people see as an in a spacious time, what makes you think that now is the time to try to move forward on this two
state solution? >> it has been a long, drawnout process. do not forget oslo. you are ignoring a lot of things. you are ignoring the process of 68 and comparing it to today. there is a totally different ballgame, a different arena. today there is an intense interface. not necessarily towards the middle. but my fear is that within the camps of people are losing faith in the possibility of separating and coming to the two state solution. believe me, it was there. in 94 there was a huge majority for it in both peoples. unfortunately, terror on both sides led to the fact that we got into a stumbling block with no possibility of moving forward. and then we repeated it time and again.
it is the easiest thing, to tread on the psychology of fear. my adversaries in the political system, especially from the right, tread on fear. i am trying to challenge that and say -- we cannot live only on fear. we have to be lucid, we have to be careful, we have to protect our interests. it cannot be that mothers and fathers on the other side do not want peace. why would anyone at the age of 35 with five children go in the morning and commit suicide and butcher the people he is working with all of his life? it is cynical. we have to understand where it comes from. we have to make an effort and not say that therefore all of the muslim world cannot make peace with us. we have to go on and try. >> where does that come from? the impulse to suddenly slaughter?
>> it is against any moral, legal, or human values, and it is shocking. when you look at the whole picture it has to be analyzed and in order to neutralize the elements we must bring hope. we cannot give up on that. >> thank you for this conversation. thank you very much. we are going to open it up. [applause] the gentleman left -- next to city living -- sippy live me -- tsipi livni. >> thank you to you both. a lot of people here would like to see a change in government. i am not going to express my opinion, i am your host, so i will shut up about that part of it, but when i look at the members of knesset, when i count the numbers and put the right on one side and the left on the center, then the other side,
taking out the arabs, it just can't happen. would you be willing to give us some numbers about how you think you can become the next prime >> people think of the ultra-orthodox are part of the right and will reject any piercing -- any. -- any peace agreement. first, the ultra-orthodox community has shifted dramatically in other directions. the four widows of the butchered rabbis were unfortunately fortunate, getting up to stand in front of a thousand people. the first widow sent -- we have to think about the way we treat others. just as an example, ok? nobody picked up on it.
why get interested in those groups out there, striking him out as if we are out of it? absolutely wrong. remember, the coalition had sharpened it. that is just one example of why people in all communities are simmering with inner debate about where to go. it is not a question of right and left, it is a question of where we go from here. can we move and live in peace together? take, for example, the party of [indiscernible] less known to the american public, a major player in the election.
one can assume that they would rule out any coalition, definitely centrist. we mentioned others. i think that there will be a moment of truth whereby the israeli political system asks themselves -- do we move in that direction or skid into the abyss? >> so, no numbers? >> there are no reasons to write numbers right now. we are in the beginning of the election. those analysts know how to start a elections. they don't know how to end elections. >> david mikulski. >> [inaudible] there is an idea that the founder of the labour party talked about a term that i don't know how to translate into english, [speaking foreign language], but for someone who was more --
>> that is not fair -- >> i am not asking you to say that. i am not asking you to say that. i am asking to say -- how do you hit the israeli middle that wants that kind of labour party, that has that kind of approach? >> it is about uniting sources with centrist. weise -- we share the same thing, same values, the same understanding of the risks and danger in front of our eyes and other parties, we all understand the dangers that face israel, so we must share together the ability to ring change.
>> you mentioned the social justice these of this and how 5% of israel came together. this was a unique moment. yet, netanyahu one after that. >> it you want to depress me? [laughter] >> all i am asking you about is why labor has not been able to really capitalize on its natural constituency, the social movement. there is a very sit -- very distinguished here who can delve into what went happen -- what happened. the truth of the matter is that
it was the island that enjoyed the fruit of that process and they did not deliver. >> you did not join during the peace process because of your skepticism would you rule out joining him or would you bring him in under your leadership? >> the problem is that you guys are all asking questions of the last battleground. i am trying to understand to you that i am not hallucinating. it is not easy, it is complicated. but all of us here understand that politics is a game of
undercurrents. all of a sudden there is an enormous frustration within the israeli public in general and the body politic in particular as to what is happening in israel and the policies of netanyahu. this will be reflected in the election results. >> thank you, jeff. this is an uncomfortable subject, but would you agree, as an old hand in israeli politics, that sometimes during election time the united dates government tries to exert some influence one way or another? and you might be the beneficiary if they did. >> perhaps not true. that he'll lay around. >> but what is your view of that
at all? does the u.s. do that? should they? >> it is clear to us that no one should fiddle in another's political system. at least i intend not to do it in america. secondly, i think the u.s. administration is wise enough to know what not to do within an election process. >> over here. >> with michael lawrence wright in the middle, where he always is. [laughter] >> you talk about this and the incentives as being crucial for the future of israel. where does this fit? i would think that the results and reaction to the next election would be crucial for the jewish world, finding it more and more difficult for the younger generation to connect >>
>> a very, valid point. is not reflected well in the israeli outlet discourse. we see it, we see the main jewish leaders expressing support of israel. we don't see the grassroots or streaks of disenchantment, which bother me and my colleagues tremendously. to believe in israel as the true homeland of our people, we have
to work towards that. i think that the whole game of with and touching temple mount was extremely dangerous and adverse to the basic interests of israel. it unleashed a very, very dangerous religious conflict, which is unnecessary. of course, the palestinians flared beautifully. without re-justification on this whitehorse -- on this whitehorse, i think that responsible legislators cannot do these steps without understanding their implication on synagogues and diaspora jews all over the world. it is interesting to note that the ultra-orthodox sages of the time, they ruled against going into temple mount, including my late grandfather. rabbis from religious zionism
have decided to undermine that decision and i think that one needs to debate, argue, and ask you questions about that to the leaders of zionism. -- ask deep questions about that to the leaders of zionism. >> there is a big debate in this country, do you believe that young american jews are becoming disenchanted with israel because of israeli policies are just because they are growing distant from being jewish? >> i am against generalizing. i think there are different kinds. first, birthright has been a huge success. all of the other projects that follow suit, they are incredibly important to forming a new feeling towards israel in the young generation. now, the young generation is like the young generation.
the attached at times from the full picture, on these social networks and on others, with issues of religious pluralism or war and the tax and so forth. -- attacks and so forth. i think that young american jews are challenged in israel and in the organized community, which is trying the best, including the hillels and other organizations of connecting them better to israel and bring a sense of jewish community. >> michael oren, the nancy pelosi. -- then nancy pelosi. >> you have my empathy. i have been interviewed by michael many times, you can see the color of my hair. it's never easy. i'm going to ask you a couple of questions. there is a tendency when i
listen to you to look at the palestinians as some sort of two-dimensional prop for a israeli morality play. they don't have agency, they don't have control over their own destiny, we are in control, but of course that is not true. palestinians have ultimate agency. they have walked away from negotiations after israel released prisoners. they have gone to the u.n. and declared a palestinian state with the express intention of going and sanctioning us. you say that they have survived five israeli prime ministers because they don't have to stand for election. in the face of iraq in syria unraveling, what chances do you think the palestinian state has with a corrupt, unelected leadership, why would you put your trust in this?
i understand the idea of holding a two state solution is a vision, but it is a pretty vision that is not a policy. if you have palestinian agency, if you look that agency in the eye, what is your policy? what is your initiative? where do you go? he will not come back to the table if you do not freeze settlements everywhere, including not releasing prisoners from israeli prisons. >> i would say that the underlying assumption in what you said, which is based on facts, except that i don't accept the idea that it is over. i don't think it is true. i definitely don't think it is true.
i don't think that the fact that there is a palestinian leadership calls for me to ignore it. all of these comments about the arrangements without the palestinian leadership or the people, to me it seems futile. however there is a golden opportunity right now acceptable by all of you. there is a unique convergence of interest that has been there for a long time that emerged throughout the summer with our adjacent neighbors, egypt and jordan, both extremely distinguished. they are allies, and away. i think that one needs to understand that president sec -- president assisi is an important player. they need to work with him as well, not only king abdulla. now we need to add to the equation the palestinian authority.
and then you have a table with a lego four. egypt, jordan, palestinians, israel. they cannot work together? it needs innovation. it needs initiation. >> the last question for the minority leader will come from the minority leader. >> it will not be a question, it will be a comment, again thanking the brookings institute and all of you, joining in and welcoming our guest from israel -- guests from israel. to you, mr. chairman, i could not let this one comment stand. while it is true that different parties in israel have different friends in the united states that they want to help them,
with the presence of other members of congress in the room, i cannot uphold any notion that the united states government would be involved in an election in another country. we have fought that over and over again in the past and we would fight it if they had tried to be involved. it just doesn't happen. i don't know if it was a casual reference or a reference referring to private individuals, but the united states government does not get involved in elections in other countries. that is our policy. thank you. >> we believe this program at this point. you can see it in its entirety on c-span.org. the u.s. house is
we are a huge women's issues gender. it [applause] following:as the there is a growing strength from those movements in israel. they have been advocating and telling their leaders that if you want to succeed in israel, compete in the market. stop complaining and attacking all day long up. build communities. they have done it. i was the first minister in israel's history to grant construction of synagogues to the reform and conservative movements. none of you are aware of it. this is been going on for many years. i can tell you more than that. they have taken a distinguished lace in israel.
there are many changes way beyond what you understand. it's not that the conservatives and the reformers are shut out. the issue of marriage and divorce are under the rabbinic laws. that is an issue to debate. that does not mean that there won't be change. i won't go into many details, but i will explain the following. take the issue of the gay community in israel. we are seen ass, more conservative. in this respect, we are one of the more advanced countries. it started with a lot of
animosity from the orthodox community. all i am trying to say is without giving awards to anybody or saying i am telling you that there are many processes you are unaware of. relationship with the conservative movement is essential. i believe in pluralism. part of it is the dialogue that we all hold with these movements in israel and abroad. thank you very much. >> thank you everyone. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. we will see the delegates tomorrow morning. we begin at 9:00. thank you.
>> jonathan gruber testifies this morning about his work on the federal health care law implemented in massachusetts. the house oversight committee is examining his comments about how the law was written in order to pass. live coverage starts at 9:30 can on c-span3 worried you join the conversation on facebook and twitter. secretary of state john kerry testifies today about combating isis and new authorization for the use of military force. livean see his testimony at 2:00 eastern on c-span three. they share stories
about being on the campaign trail with mitch mcconnell. years,ad plans for four this started in 2010 it right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul. he bought mcconnell's handpicked guy in that primary. mcconnell realized that he has to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state. he started to make changes. he hired key staff. he built a sophisticated infrastructure knowing this was going to be the most difficult race. >> they were going to spend a lot of money on it technology. they had watched the obama campaign's and they had watched harry reid's reelection. -- henew they need to go was going to have the latest technology.
he said he was going to build the most thorough campaign ever. there.ably got "q&a."ay night on 10 years of q&a, we're airing repeat episodes. "washington journal" is next. the u.s. house returns for general speeches. work on thentinue california drought bill. >> david price looks at some federal government funding set to expire this thursday. doug collins discusses transparency in the health care
law and the release of report examining the use of torture by the cia. " [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> good morning. it's tuesday, december 9, 2014. the federal government is less tan three days away from a possible shutdown as control leaders continue to negotiate over a spending plan that would fund the government after the current plan runs out on thursday. health care law jonathan gruber takes questions from the house oversight in government reform committee. we will get to both of the stories but first, the day is set to be the day that the senate will release a report detailing the c.i.a.'s use of enhanced interrogation techniques against suspected al