tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 9, 2013 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
>> first lady rosalynn carter tonight at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span three. there will be a 24% cut to medicare payments. on the other side of the capital, sensors are continuing a ban on plastic guns. you can see it. now lie to the floor of the u.s. house. house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear lord, we give you thanks for giving us another day. at the beginning of a new workweek, we use this moment to be reminded of your presence
and to tap the resources needed by the members of this people's house to do their work as well as it can be done. may they be led by your spirit in the decisions they make. may they possess your power as they steady themselves amid of pressures of persistent problems. may their faith in you deliver them from tensions that tear the house apart and from worries that might wear them out. all this day and through the week, may they do their best to find solutions to pressing issues facing our nation. please hasten the day when justice and love should dwell in the hearts of all peoples and rule the affairs of the nations of earth. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and
glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, father. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from california, ms. roybal-allard. ms. roybal-allard: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one-minute requests.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, one of the big questions that stands before the nation is, are we going to give up all of our liberties in the name of security? and i think not. technology's great. it's supposed to make our lives better and simpler, more efficient, more effective. it's fun, it's innovative and it's leading the world. but at the same time, we got to make sure that these technologies are not overused, not only by our federal government officials and law enforcement, but also by others who would do us harm, who have sarpetishesly maybe converted that technology to do something a libble more pervasive and a little -- little bit more pervasive and a little bit more perverse. it is for that reason that senator wyden, my colleague in the united states senate, and i have introduced what's called geolocational,
or g.p.s. act, to curtail those that want to follow us without our own knowledge. we believe that you should have to have a probable cause warrant in order to track somebody's geolocation. i want that for my own kids, i want that for me. i want to make sure that technology is safe and secure, so i encourage my colleagues, mr. speaker, to look at h.r. 1312, the g.p.s. act, let's deal with these new inventions and technologies in a reasonable way and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess
with a reporter who covers the house. talk aboutus to summit he is ian sorensen, and news editor at the hotel. thanks for joining us. >> are expecting a deal to come as early as this week. be the grandt lastin that dominated the three or four or five years. they're looking at any tax hikes that have been demanded by democrats.
we are looking at tax hikes. they are also not looking at significant cuts to medicare, medicaid, or social security, which are areas republicans say needs to be done. instead we are looking at pretty small things and haggling over whether to have federal employees attribute more to their retirement -- employees contribute more to their retirement plans. they are also looking at things a spectrum that is going to be sold to telephone companies. they are looking at a small budget deal that would replace some of the sequester, the automatic spending cuts that were launched in 2011 as part of a but -- part of a different budget process. host: like can't there right now? caller: --host: why can't there be a grand bargain right now? caller: because republicans and democrats can't agree. all ryan, the chairman of the
budget committee, and patty murray decided they were not going to go after the towels of the other party and just try to get something that was possible after all these failed budget agreements in the past, look we are not even going to go there this time. we are going to go for something much smaller. host: talking with ian swanson of "the hill." even if there is a agreement made this week, there will be a budget battle for 2014. caller: one thing this he'll will not do is raise the debt ceiling. at some point next year they are
going to have to do that. it is a little difficult to forecast exactly one that is going to be. in part because the economy is it is a little bit more strong. as a result that extends the time in which the treasury department can do things -- at some point congress is going to have to do that. i suppose the earliest it could possibly be is february. it is much more likely that it is sometime in spring or the beginning of the summer. then you are going to get the debate over -- we should look at tax hikes, changes in entitlement. it is hard to see how they are going to get any agreement on those areas. particularly in election year. host: the house is expected to adjourn for the year on friday and the senate shortly after. a lot of high-profile legislation still hanging in the balance. it is the list of what is likely to make it through the 113th congress. caller: i think the only thing that is likely to get through is the defense authorization act. we will see what gets included. one thing we will be watching is to see whether any legislation
sanctioning iran is added to that bill. the administration is doing everything it can to prevent congress from doing that but a lot of members are still interested in adding sanctions to iran. another thing to watch for is the farm bill. if they cannot get a deal they are going to have to extend existing -- finally the senate are here for and asked her week. they will look at a lot of nominations, particularly after the filibuster changes republicans ran through a couple of weeks ago. among the big nominees are the new chairwoman of the federal reserve, jackie ellen. host: another -- a number of articles suggest this is the most unproductive congress ever. why is it so hard to get anything done on capitol hill?
caller: it is divided government. you have the senate run by democrats, the house run right the house run by republicans. leadership for a longtime hasn't really been able to completely control their members. there is a lot of opposition to president obama, which does not make compromise easy. we are at a unique time in history where no one is able to get along or agree on any of the big things. one last point i would make is a lot of republicans say they don't think that the measure
should be bills passed in terms of whether congress is productive. i think they are trying to fight the battle on the health-care live coverage begins at 4:00 a.m. eastern. upset with the press, oo, because they cover my mental health work the first me meetings i had. then he never showed up anymore. mental health is not a sexy
issue. we toured the country, found out what was needed, develop legislation. past the mental health system act of 1980. it passed through congress one month before jenny was involuntarily retired from the white house. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span and c-span3. >> the line is really the central circulatory system of our economy. connects what is that the economy in the united states. we are seeing data traffic
increase at the rate of 40% per year. they connect all forms of communication, whether they originate in a wire environment or a wireless. >> the future of the communications industry with walter mccormick. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> they held their fall forum in washington last week. talked john huntsman about bipartisanship and partisanship. aware of them as a congress from both political problem -- parties to solve problems.
republicans and democrats have been unable to find common ground on a number of issues. just to name a few -- the fiscal year 2014 budget. the farm bill. and immigration reform. reaching across the aisle has become more and more difficult and principled compromise seems like a mountain too tall to climb. this morning, i have the honor of introducing two national leaders who can hopefully help shed some light on how our legislative colleagues in washington, d.c. and the white
house might be able to come together and find solutions to our nation's critical problems. let me begin with governor huntsman. he began his public service as a staff assistant to ronald reagan. he has since served four u.s. presidents in critical roles, including u.s. ambassador to singapore, deputy assistant secretary of commerce for asia, u.s. trade ambassador and most recently, u.s. ambassador to china. twice elected as utah's governor, he brought about strong economic reforms, tripled the state's rainy day fund, and helped bring unemployment rates to historic lows. in his tenure, utah was named the best state in america and the best state in which to do business. he serves as co-chair of no labels with u.s. senator joe masden. it's working to bring about solutions to attract wide
support in congress and begin rebuilding the america's people's trust in the federal government. also with us today, is senator evan bayh. senator evan bayh is a former two-term governor, served also as the secretary of state of indiana and served in the u.s. senate from 1999 to 2011. as governor of indiana, he enacted welfare reform, cut taxes, and brought about fiscal disciplines to state's budgets. in the u.s. senate, he was a leading voice, advocating for fiscal restraint, on government spending. he also worked in a bipartisan manner, something missing right now, to seek consensus on several key issues, including financial services reform and health care. our plenary session will begin
with remarks from senator huntsman and senator bayh to be followed by what i'm sure will be a great conversation facilitated by ntsl vice president senator curt scramble from utah, the senator pro tem. however, before we go to the comments, we'd like to share comments on you, the co-chairman that has no labels and governor huntsman. >> this is senator joe manchen, it's my pleasure to send greetings to all of you. i regret i cannot join you in person. i send my best wishes for an enjoyable and productive meeting. the strength of legislators rest in your bipartisan efforts and your commitment to serve democrats, republicans, and dependents. it's something that we recognize that we need to work together and put the american people and
common sense solutions ahead of politics. as former legislator of the great state of virginia, i was shocked to arrive only to realize there was guilt by association in washington and guilt by conversation. as a democrat, i was frowned upon for even talking to colleagues with an r ahead of their name. that's why from the earliest days in congress, i became a member of the no labels which is truly one of the only organizations in washington where members of congress can have an open and honest conversation about how we can solve the many challenges our great nation faces today. with west virginiians and the
american people deserve a government that works for them. they expect us to work together and move this country forward. they don't want democrat or republican solutions, they want american solutions. we should be thinking about the next generation and how we can help our children and our children's children succeed in an america that is stronger than ever. we should be working together on the ways we can make america an even better country. as you gather here today, i thank you for coming together with an agenda that centers around bipartisanship. i would like to thank your president, senator bruce starr, all of our west virginia leaders who made the trip to attend this conference. and my dear friends, john huntsman and evan bayh, truly leaders in bipartisanship with a focus of moving this great country forward. please enjoy this meeting and congratulations on the hard work you do every day. thank you and god bless you. [ applause ] >> governor -- governor huntsman, senator bayh and senator bramble. >> thank you very much.
it's a -- it's a great honor and privilege to be with all of you here. i'm particularly honored to be with senator bramble who i had the great privilege of working with as governor of the state of utah. and i found early in my term that if you could somehow channel curt's intelligence and energy in a productive direction, there wasn't anything you couldn't get done. you could say we got a whole lot done. and to be with evan bayh, somebody who i've admired enormously over the years and i often said he probably thinks this is in jest, one of the reasons i got involved in public service was because of the model of pure public service that he provided while he was a very young governor of the state of
indiana. well, listen, i'm going to take a moment to give you a couple of reflections on no labels and why i'm involved. and it was great to hear from joe manchen. joe and i were elected governors together, he a democrat, i, a republican. we used to call each other and share ideas on tax reform, on education reform. on getting things done. we love the environment on you can actually achieve results. that's the great thing of being a governor. i look at so many of the members of the utah state legislature who are here. and with each one of them, i can tell you stories about how we were able to get things done and the can-do attitude. it was remarkable. joe then went on to the senate and became terribly frustrated with the culture that existed on capitol hill, something that evan knows a lot about. i went on to china to become our senior diplomat running the embassy there. and we kind of regrouped a little bit later when joe and nancy jacobson, who was the power behind no labels initially came and said would you like to become part of the no labels movement. what on earth is no labels? is it a third party effort to kind of ship wreck the republicans and the democrats. is it a bunch of mushy moderates to get together to take over the world? none of the above. come to find that it is a group that respects the fact that we have a two-party system. they are endeavoring to change
the center of gravity away from acrimony from the problem solving. it's a lofty objective, can it be done? for those of you who have been around politics for a while, many of you have, of course you can change the operating culture of politics. that in a nutshell is what no labels is endeavoring to do. our goal is to change the operating environment of politics here in washington and certainly among the state capitols because we know many of you have some of the same problems of grid lock. and sort of the blame game and extreme partisanship that we have here in washington. our objective is to change the operating environment of politics -- lofty and aspirational, no question about it. critical for this country. absolutely. so why is it that i'm involved beyond thinking that's a pretty
good objective, and doable, i might add. and second, i would also lived abroad four times. i lived in those countries that would be considered our -- our greatest competition in the 21st century. i lived in taiwan, i lived in singapore, i live in china. my kids have gone to their schools. i used to serve on the economic development board of singapore, perhaps the most competitive nation in the world today. i've seen what they're doing to prepare for the 21st century. and i say we sit here in the greatest nation on earth. we have all of the assets in our disposal. we have so many things going for uh us. for the dysfunction of politics, with ear ready to grow, we're ready to get on in the next chapter in this country. but for whatever reason, politics is holding us back. our inability to problem solve, our inability to plan solutions and get the work of the american people done. i don't care if you're a republican or democrat, there are some issue that are so
transcendent and important to the people of this nation, we have to identify what they are and get on with it. it isn't about ideology. everyone in this room shares a different approach to the issues. we all have our own ideology. it's about extreme partisanship which is made for problem solving to be practically impossible for this country today. so we're setting out on a fairly ambitious and bold agenda to try to change that operating culture. we know we're going to have to have a few things present in order for it to be considered a success. one, we have to prove the
concept which when he ear doing by the group of problem solvers that we put together on capitol hill. you can imagine, you know, we started beginning of the year with nobody as part of the problem solvers's caucus on capitol hill. now we have 90. some from the senate, sfrom that. that have ear meeting every week. and they're putting forward some sifrping pieces of legislation to prove the point that the republicans and democrats can build for us and get some work done. you can imagine what they're going to be able to do by this time next year. so if you think of no labels, i want you to think of problem solving. i want you to think of a group that's also proving the concept. it isn't just catchy phrases and nice sound bites, but we're moving the needle and we're just getting it going. and i'm excited about where this is leading to, because we have
no choice in this nation. we have no choice. the elections ahead will have to be about problem solving. it will be about getting taxes right, debt right, education right, getting the foundational building blocks of this nation in a place where we can actually get our house in order. that's what it so desperately needed right now. so we're delighted to be here. we thank you for listening here. and, curt, thank you for what you're doing to chair this segment. floez be with you. >> thank you, governor. senator bayh. >> thank you, senator bramble. i would like to thank our introduction for the eulogy he provided governor huntsman and myself. not often am i introduced just the way i wrote it. i'm grateful for all of the things he was kind enough to
repeat. a pleasure to be with my friend and colleague, governor huntsman. i admire john huntsman. a mutual admiration thing going here. successful governor. could have done any number of things with his life, coming from the family that he came from. he decided to devote himself to public service. and in particular, it's sometimes hard to answer the call when the other political party reaches out. there's a price to be paid to your own group. when the current president is served as ambassador to our country, the most important bilateral relationship we have in the world today, john huntsman didn't make a political calculation of some kind, he said i'll serve my country and figure out the politics later on. i'm proud to be with you and particularly work with john and no labels to try and solve what may be the biggest challenge that we face. people sometimes say what are we
going to do about the budget? what are we going to do about health care, education, all of the other things? my response is we're not going to get to any of that until we can first deal with the political dysfunction. so that's what we're attempting to do. it may seem like a little bit like a fish pushing a bolder up the hill. but we've got to try. is this mic okay? it's usually the mics that you don't see that get you in trouble in washington. [ applause ] >> so to our friends at the nsa, we say hello, we think you're doing a great job. in any event, the senators are famous for speaking at great lengths. i won't do that to you today. but let me just say that i have a great deal of admiration for state legislators. i developed that in my own right when i became governor. is senator long still here? senator -- i see pat. pat, raise your hand. senator miller and senator wong was here. i guess he had to step out. but in any event, i was elected governor at the ripe old age of 32. my birthday was in september i matured. i took office when i was 33. i did not serve in the state legislature. i had served as secretary of
state. i'd been involved politically. but i had a chance to get to know the members of the senate and the house the way i would like to and i did over the next eight years. and i realized pretty quickly, john, probably the same way in utah, we have a saying in indiana that governor proposes, state legislature, disposes. so i realized we needed to try to find common ground. and i had to challenge right away in my eight years, my last two years, the republican party had a majority in the house, the republican party had a majority all eight years of the state senate. the last two years, the republicans had a majority. the middle four years, the democratic party had a majority. my first two years, and here's why i mentioned this as pat would recall, our state house of representatives was split 50-50. well, there's no constitutional mechanism for breaking the tie.
and i was then sitting secretary of state, i hasn't resigned to become governor yet. the secretary of state, one of the responsibilities is to preside over the organization of the house until they elect the speaker. which they were incapable of doing. and and so this went on and on. one point, the gentleman, we don't know who he was. an individual came to see me. he said, governor, i want you to know this, i want you to gavel me in as speaker. i said, okay. i said, well, i don't think so. i knew that would forever poison my relationship with the republicans in the state legislature. so long story short, the reason i tell the tale is that the end, the compromise was reached. and we had two speakers. they alternated days. we called them stereospeakers. and the committee had two chairman. they alternated days. well, in the beginning of this thing, everybody thought it was going to be disaster. how is this going to work? nothing is getting done. constant fighting and acrimony and so forth. today if you visit the house of
representatives' chamber, there's a plaque on the wall commemorating the historic -- the word it uses -- the historic evenly divided session of the state general assembly. because neither side was able to impose its will, it dawned on them both that they had to pour some kind of consensus if anything was going to get done. eventually, that's what ended up happening. and we need more of that in washington dc today. final thing i would say. by the way, one other thing -- john, you'll appreciate this. one other thing if you see in the indiana house, you see the speaker there and they had every picture of every legislative team. so respect for state legislators runs in the family. my father had the privilege of being elected speaker of our house at the ripe old age of 30. the reason for that is in 1956 in the eisenhower landslide, the house in indiana was like 75 republicans and 25 democrats, nobody cared to be minority leader. it didn't matter.
he said i'll do it. he was elected minority leader for a variety of reasons. two years later, the young man was elected speaker of the house of representatives. the reason i tell that tale, a sa picture from that year, pat will know what i'm talking about. they're sitting through in their blue shirts. my dad was a farmer. i was born in the farm. he has on the black wing tipped shoes, white sox. take the boy off of the farm, can't take the farm out of the boy. in any event, i think -- and i'm going to conclude by saying this, what this town needs this, is what no labels is working to promote. if you're interested, i think next june, next year we'll have a gathering of state legislators, both parties, house and senate, to try to build on the progress we've made here in
washington. try to find a way to work together. we're not going to agree on everything. there are differences of opinion. we can't afford to do nothing in the face of a rapidly changing world as our problems continue to compound. so the two things i end up by saying, i'm reminded of something the civil rights leader when he said we may have arrived on these shores in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now. what's going on in this town is that too often, the two political parties, you think they're from different countries. they view the other side as the enemy, not the fell blow citizens with whom they occasionally disagree. but in the long run, they have the sate fate, interests in common. we have to reconcile our differences, not accentuate them. but we forget we come from a common country and common heritage and for sure a common destiny. final thing i say, this is something that no labels is
working to overcome. in this city today, what all of you have to do every section is forge principle compromise, the word compromise, back in the dale, my father's time, that was an act of statesmanship. today it's a act of betrayal. if you don't work with your party 100% of the time, you're ostracized, there's something wrong with you. you can see this on cable tv and a variety of other things. i'll finish by recounting words that lyndon johnson, a master legislator, said once. he grew up poor in the hill country in texas. and his family couldn't always take for granted that they were going to have enough to keep the roof over their head or keep food on the table. so this is the thought i'll leave you with. jobson once said any man not willing to compromise, well, that man never went to bed hungry. he said, you know, he said any man who is not willing to settle for half a loaf, well, that man never went to bed hungry. that's exactly right.
the american people expect us to be problem solvers and practical solution providers, not happen right now. we're too intent on taking an all or nothing approach which leads to nothing. having said all of that, i'm pleased to be with you here. and senator, i'll turn it over to you. >> to all of you, if you have a question, stand up -- i don't know where the mics are. we have the mics. so let's begin. if you have a question, stand up, we'll go to you. no, ma'am elected officials might feel giving up their labels might help respond to the party identity. how do you feel about that criticism.
>> curt, i've been waiting a long time to have you call me distinguished. have someone catch that on tape. >> the enemies are distinguished. so that was the affections -- >> listen, governor huntsman, during his tenure, we had a challenge with transportation and with his leadership, the largest construction project in the state's history was agreed upon and moved forward on. and it was republicans, democrats, there had to be additional revenue, revenue enhancements. they were not a tax increase, it was a fee increase. but we've been in the trenches together. it's a privilege to be up
here -- >> we did oh can in immigration and tax reform too. >> i would have to say that the marketplace politically inevitably has to go toward problem solving. and no labels is going to do everything it can to create that culture of problem solving. no one else was doing it. folks look at no labels, they have to read a little bit of the background and see what we stand for, in a real sense, all of you have an opportunity to be part history. we're just getting going. there's nothing like this no labels movement. something has to change the operating environment politically in this country, period. and i -- i think that now that we have blown up the system, we have a pretty good job sending people back here to blow up the system. i suspect that most americans are saying now we have to put it back together again. we just have to get the basics done. we have to have a bucket as opposed to just continuing resolutions to keep the most
important economy in the world going. you got to have immigration reform. you have to have a competitive tax code. you have to do something about debt and education. this is all about problem solving. so no labels being at the sweet spot of where i think where the american people are and where they will be in the next couple of election cycles will therefore be in a place where most elected officials are going to want to be, not because it's the right thing politically, but because it's the right thing for this country. >> thank you. >> senator, you served in the senate for over a decade. how did things change when you were serving and how useful would a group like no labels have been early in the career or if they changed towards the end of the career in the senate? >> that's a good question. the senate has changed dramatically? the last 13 or 14 years. it's changed. it's just a completely different universe since my father's time. i'll tell you a story. it was 1968, my father was running for the first
re-election. democrat in indiana. the republican leader at that time was illinois, came up to my father on the senate and said, look, i know you're running for re-election. i hope you'll tell me what i can do to help. that would never happen today. but back then, that generation, they've been through the great depression. and many of them had served in the military in the second world war, you know you're in a fox hole, you don't care so much for the person next to you, the republican or democrat, you know, watch your back. then the struggle with global communism followed that. so people of that generation knew there was greater challenge to the welfare of the country than members of the political party or someone who had a ideological thing. it's changed -- it's -- it's the different places since my time. there used to be things -- the leaders of the two caucuses used to not campaign against each other, raised money against each other.
that's common place. you can imagine how you feel when you find the person that's supposed to be working with us out to do you in. and they're just did the personal connections. a group like real labels could play a real role. this might come as a surprise. the united states senate, every tuesday, every tuesday there's a caucus lunch. republicans caucus in one room and have lunch. democrats caucus in another room and have lunch. every thursday, the policy committee ohsf the two caucuses meet. same thing, democrats there, republicans there. never, not once, literally not once, the republicans and democrats meet together to discuss substantive issues. doesn't happen. it's that way on purpose. because the leaders of the two conferences think if there's supposed to be this dialogue going, they'll lose control. and they can't direct the course of legislation the way they would like. so with no labels in play is to provide that neutral meeting ground. where john is saying, you don't have to stop being a republican
or a democrat, but you have to start being americans. we don't have to agree on everything. but it doesn't mean we can't agree on something, which is where the system is right now. and so it kind of -- those muscles are working together and have atrophied. and the rule no labels have played is as i said provide that forum where people can start talking to one another and i think you can be surprised if you can make that happen. there's more that we have in common than we do that divides us, the process right now is accentuating divisions and that's why no labels is working to overcome that. >> thank you. governor huntsman, on that same note, if congressional leaders, if their agenda is to foster the polarization, would they be threatened by no labels? and how does the organization get past that status quo? >> i think you're right, curt. they will be threatened to some extent by no labels. but guess what? that threat will transform into a desire to work collaborateively once you reach critical mass, which is exactly what we're doing on capitol hill. we have 10, 20, 30 members of the problem solver's caucus in a few short months.
no one was paying attention. they were writing paperings, should we take the effort seriously, what is it about? we're at 90. we have a list of the people who want to be part of the problem solvers. this is something i've never seen before, folks, in my political life. it's moving and as it moves, as it continues to meet and put forward pieces of legislation that increasingly are meaningful to the american people, that's when leadership will continue to take note. there's a viable group here. they're focused on solutions. they're checking their anger at the door. they're thinking in terms of the next generation, no it the next election cycle, willing to put their country before the political party. something interesting is happening here.
so we've gone from a clinical trial to almost a finished product. and i think going to the next year, we will likely get real resonance with leadership on capitol hill. why? because we will have reached critical mass. that's where we're going. you have to prove the point. you have to have critical mass in order to move the market. that's where we're going to be next year. >> this is for both of you gentlemen. with cable news, if it's on the left or the right, there's a dialogue that seems to perpetuate this polarization. what do you say to an elected official when they ask you to compromise when that elected official has to go back and face the constituency in senator luger in utah, senator bennett. what do you say to the elected official. how do you convince that elected official that forging the compromises is not going to cost
them the next election because of the polarization and the perpetration of that by the both the left and the right. >> well, that's an excellent question. for those of you who aren't familiar with my state's politics the senator mentioned, richard luger served for 36 years in the united states senate from indiana, i think luger was so popular that after his last election seven years ago, the answer is -- my party, we don't run anybody against them. >> a waste of time, money, threat's focus on something else. he was unopposed. he went from being unopposed to six weeks later losing his own party's primary by 20%. so you know, wasn't as if dick luger decided to leave the team and become a democrat, all of a sudden become a liberal. some of this happens to my party too. but it's more manifest right now. indiana is the example he didn't vote for the affordable care act
or obama care or dodd frank regular latering the banks and so forth and so on, it was other stuff. but the point was -- this is the data point. and this is what has many people -- the gerrymander has split the house. you have people on the far right, the far left. the president -- the districts are drawn. all republican, all democrat. in the senate, it's two things. the fact that no one votes the primaries, which is the point i'm about to make, and the role of big money. you asked me what changed? there was a case decided by the supreme court that now allows unlimited amounts of money to be donated to flow into the campaign. so what happened to dick luger. first -- this was not a secret election. there's millions of dollars on advertising. i knew there was a big election. everybody knew the election was coming up. the voter turnout on the primary, 18%. one in five eligible republican
voters. the same thing for democratic primaries. who are the 8%? the most partisan, the most ideological, people are mad about something. if we can get the voter turnout up to 40% primaries, you could have a little bit different result. but right now, the voter turnout is very low. the second thing is $5 million, $6 million flooded in from some of the out of the state organizations which now enforced party orthodoxies. if you benefit, you have millions of dollars of negative ads running against you. my message would be the following -- it said, look, you may run the risk if you do what you think is right and you vote for something that you think is practical, you do run a risk of losing your party's primary. that's true. if you don't, with job approval
at 9%. both parties and approval ratings way low, you're going to run a real risk of losing a general election. as long as you're going to be there, you may as well run the risk of getting something done and then deal with the politics. that's ultimately where we're going to end up, people care more about results than they do longevity in office. i think we may be in for a series of anti-incumbent elections that will refocus incumbents' minds on the fact if you're risk averse to avoid primaries, you're going make it the end of the day anyway. so do the right thing. you're going to have to run a political risk regardless. at the end oh it was day, isn't that why you're there. >> in 1980. and he's gone on. he's okay. one of them is not outstanding for him. >> speaking the truth on the campaign trail, evan?
it may struggle from time to time, but you can live with yourself later on. it's a real world example beyond that which evan as eloquently shared with you. a real world example of what we're talking about. that would be curt bramble. i'm not here to pander. i don't have to ask for your favors here, curt. but if you look at what you did on immigration reform and on energy, just to mention a couple, and your election returns, you would have to say in a you're probably a textbook example of what happens when you get out the do the right thing. you're able to get things done in the end. you have a legacy to look to. so, you know, it's more than just rhetoric and textbook theory. some of you have put it in practice. and you should be very proud of what you've done and i know curt's put it in practice too. i didn't mean to embarrass you. i wanted to point that out as a real world example of what we're talking about. >> i haven't seen anybody stand. we have a couple of minutes left.
any members of the audience would like to pose a question. we have senator ward from hawaii. gene, you're up. >> can we we come visit? >> hawaii is unique, obviously. not only because of the terrain but because of the political history. we have a super majority. i'm in the house of 51. my caucus is 7. in the senate, there's one republican and 24 democrats. what are some insights that i can bring back. i really like the concept, not because i'm in the minority, but because this is what we are americans first, then we're republicans, then we're democrats, but we tend to forget that. you guys are reminding us of that. how do you get back into the inner psychology to motivate
people with the supermajority who had it for 50 years to do something like to which you guys are talking about. >> i will take a quick comment and then flow up. >> only one doesn't have a strategy. we don't have a strategy. we meander along. we hope the economics will work out. we hope the innovative spirit will keep us moving in a way that speaks to competitiveness, which is what the 21st century will be about. no labels is doing an interesting thing. we don't know what it will look like. but we're putting together a strategy document for the united states. so it should be out maybe february and march of next year in the form of an ebook. so if you were to say republican or democrat, doesn't matter,
we're all americans. what does the united states need to get right for us to achieve the true greatness for the 21st century. well, we think there are four or five things we're going to have to get right as a nation, whether you're republican or democrat, they are ran sen dentally true. you're going to have to work with the majority. what are the issues you're working on. what is the strategy of the state? we had a strategy that spoke to jobs and vitality. we had a few things on the list that had to get done. the tax code had to work, education had to work. had to have regulatory system that worked. you had to be -- you had to be fast on the dime in working with the private sector, because they could take the investment and go elsewhere real fast. so we had our own little strad jichlt i would guess that you sitting down, what is the strategy for hawaii. what is it that you must get right to survive in the 21st century. that, then, defines what you're able to do with your legislative body, even if you find yourself in a minority position.
is that -- sir, you're the only republican in the state senate? >> i'm in the house. >> minority leader. one senator out of 25 in the senate. we are 8 out of 76. those are the numbers. >> we're trying to change your dynamic. >> in the united states capitol, there's a saying, the other political party is the opposition, the enemy? the enemy is the senate. well, it sounds like your side emphasizes quantity, not quality in the state legislature. i would take the approach that my state is a more republican state altogether. i have to tell my friends, you have to vote for one democrat to prove you're open minded. it may as well be me. nothing about that was okay.
i just associate myself with what john had to say. you know in this day and inlg, we face a number of crises. the economy is not performing the way we would like. real wages have been stagnant in our country for more than a decade. think about that. at the time when the cost of college and a whole host of other things, health care is going up substantially. real wages have been frozen. you're all familiar with the budget problems that we face. there's a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots in our society. and that should concern all of us over time. allf these things are in some ways interrelated with the question of economic growth. if i had to pick one thing, i would agree with what john had to say. what's the comparative
advantage. how do we grow this economy in a competitive world. in particular, how do we empower, again, not just give, but empower our citizens through hardwork and thrift and all those things to enjoy the fruits of the growth, particularly the third that aren't getting the education. the kids, let's say, that aren't getting the quality of education we need to be economically relative in an innovative global economy. that's what i would focus on. i suspect you're a little more concerned about the rising oceans than we are in indiana, kind of put that on the -- on the list. but that would be my take on it. >> i joined no labels two years ago. i'm a paying member of no labels. democrat representing a republican area. redistricting got worse. 60% republs. and my first election was 2005. my slogan was uniting the
middle. that's still my slogan. my margins keep getting better. i think i appeal to the people in my community. one of my comments use talk about your vision is i've been thinking, now there is abeffort to get more state legislators, i'm thrilled with that. now is the time. we can really make a sweeping difference. but one of the things i've been grappling with is transportation infrastructure. because i think reform is a federal issue as well as a state issue. immigration reform has to be tackled. but one of the things that we grapple with is what we're going to do with regards to infrastructure. remember being so excited when
president obama talked about his commitment. that died and there's comprehensive support for that as well as other state-to-state initiatives. i wonder if you have the comment on the power of states uniting around infrastructure and if you see that as one of the economic drivers? i think we all know about innovation, creativity, and most things are economic drivers, if you can't move from place to place and be mobile, that's really an obstacle for our business community. >> going to tuck that away. we have state and local leaders. we did a phone call in the last few days. we had lieutenant governor, secretary of the state, senators, representatives, mayors on the line, probably numbers 300 plus. we're getting going. we're doing this every month, having a known call and sharing ideas in the runup to next july 23rd where as evan said, we're going to have the first ever of its kind state and local gathering. be sure to read that. we have some no labels people here in the audience. raise your hands. feel free to talk to any of them about the questions you have.
on the infrastructure side, it seemed disingenuous when on the republican side, it became a bad word. i don't know how a nation competes without adequate infrastructure. now, i lived in china most recently, and there's an example of overbuilding. you have a lot of roads to nowhere. a stimulus package in 2009 that was 4 billion yen. the largest stimulus package in the history of the world based upon stimulus to gdp ratio. they've kind of overdone it. but sometimes, take a flight from shanghai to beijing into newark or kennedy. you get a sense that we've got some work to do in this country. it isn't republican and democrat. this is about survival and competitiveness. you've got to get people around, we have to get the products around. we're still the largest
marketplace in the world. we still own 20 plus percent of the world's gdp. this is a huge market. we're viable. we're taking off when you look at the engines of growth in the future. this is important. it's got to be presented, i think, as an economic opportunity for expansion and for -- and for jobs as opposed to the red and blue, republican, democrat, msnbc, fox news. it gets trap in the silos. because of that, you can't even have a rationale discussion about that. keep doing what you're doing. >> we have time for one more question. >> thank you for being here. ask the panelists, the representative from k a act were republicans. i appreciate you using the bully pulpit, your position to either encourage it to more nonpartisanship. but the grid locks don't exist. the no labels movement consider taking on one issue like transportation and immigration reform or taxation and fixing that problem and branding that as a no labels initiative and changing the paradigm that way.
>> let's have this be the final comment from both of our presenters. >> come from a great state and one of my favorite, twin 18-year-old boys. our summer vacation we had two years ago was we spent nine days in alaska fishing and hunting and all of that kind of thing. hope to take good care of it. yes, we have. the first initiative, nancy, correct me if i'm wrong, no budget, no pay. it's amazing. they come as a surprise to state legislators and former governors that the federal government had gone years without stuff -- without passing a budget anymore. so finally an attempt to -- you know, we tried shaming people and so on, we said you cannot pass budget ifs you want to, but you're not going to get paid. surprisingly -- or not surprisingly, both houses passed the budget shortly there after.
that was something to try to begin the process of making the budgetary apparatus of washington more functional and responsible again. we have a list of eight or nine other things. there's been consensus on. but it's going to start small and it's going to be gradual. because these problems didn't arise overnight. things did not arisebe cured.te overnight. they are not going to get solved overnight. it's notegin to show just a process. it's a process that leads to interval results. earlier that you could be part of history, i really do mean that. you could be part of history. no labels to date has been about building trust without advocating any issues in particular. you raise a very, very good
point and it is what we within the organization are talking about. the next year, i think we will look more at advocating some of the big issues around what that strategy should be. but your voice in this organization could be absolutely instrumental in shaping an moving that agenda forward. because you have great clout with capitol hill and with every governor in this country. us, making history, going from advocacy or non-advocacy to some for him -- form of advocacy. that is certainly on our minds and we want your help with it. thank governor by.sman and senator b evan both of these men are putting you are an american
first. when i was asked if i would moderate this, i thought how privileged i would be. so, let's give them a round of applause. [applause] this concludes our lunch program. immediately following we have our business meeting. as soon as possible business meeting officers are up here on the dais, we will begin the business meeting. we will absolutely conclude the business of the full form. thank you. [applause] >> folks, don't go away. please stay in your seats. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2013] present obama and ban ki-moon are among the speakers at a memorial in a soccer stadium honoring number south african president nelson mandela. minister david cameron gave a tribute to nelson mandela today. here is what he had to say. nelson mandela was the embodiment of that struggle. he did not see himself as a helpless the dem of history. he wrote it. t the evilver forge of apartheid. separate buses, separate andols, even separate pews church. interracial relationships criminalized. a whole language of segregation to express man's in eumenides demand. nelson mandela's struggle was made even more vital by acts of extreme brutality on the part of
the south african authorities. his was a journey that spanned six decades from activism to nearly three decades of incarceration through to negotiations that led to the end of apartheid and his election to the highest office in south africa. it was, as he said, a long walk to freedom. as a prisoner in a cell measuring six feet by eight feet, there must have been times he felt that his fists were beating against the wall that would not be moved, but he never wavered. as he famously said, he wanted to live for and achieve the ideal of a democratic and free society. but it was also an ideal for which he was prepared to die, as he said very clearly. even after long imprisonment, he rejected offers for his freedom until they removed all conditions that would have prevented his struggle for justice.
wasbelief was that no one naturally superior to anyone else, that each person has worth. as you said so clearly, in the end the cries of the infant who dies because of hunger or a machete in his stomach will penetrate the noises of the say "am i not human, too?" let me page or view to the members of this house who considered it a part of their life's work not to rest until the evil of apartheid was ended. mandela knew there were many across our country who said no to apartheid in ways large and small, from mass concerts to quite shows of solidarity and there can be no doubt he had a real warmth of feeling for this country. he visited just months after his release from prison and a number of times in the following years, including the time he spoke so memorably at trafalgar square at
that great event to make poverty history. mr. speaker, the character of mandela was shown not only with the determination with which he fought, but the grace with which he won. decades in prison could easily have left him bitter. on release, he could have meted out vengeance against those who had done him so much wrong. but perhaps the most remarkable part of his story is how he took the opposite path. indeed, he chose magnanimity. he employed as his private secretary a young afrikaner indelibly an image implanted on our minds, he roused his country behind the springboks in the most powerful gesture of reconciliation. national party officials were brought into his government of national unity.
the reconciliation commission was created to break the spiral of examination and violence. these were astonishingly brave leaders. obama (south africa this morning with his wife michelle. bushng him was george w. and his wife. former president bill clinton is traveling separately from rio de jimmyo. former president carter also plans to attend. president h w bush is the only former president not attending. he is no longer able to travel. upset with the president. they covered my mental health for the first few meetings i had.
walking in the and a woman was among the press people. "no one ever covers my meetings." she said "it is just not a sexy issue." tour the country. we passed the mental health systems act of 1980. then as jimmy says, he was on build -- involuntarily retired from the white house. carter, lady rosalynn tonight at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span3. also c-span radio and www.c- span.org.
>> remarks now from israeli foreign minister avigdor lieberman. he comments on the current is really palestinian peace talks, the u.s. role in the process. the foreign minister was interviewed friday by washington post reporter david ignatius at a forum hosted by the brookings institution. this is about an hour. [applause] >> so, foreign minister is really your welcome back to washington event. you have been away from us for a year and this cannot have been the easiest year you have spent. ,he audience knows in november foreign minister lieberman was acquitted on charges after an investigation that lasted -- >> [indiscernible]
for many years. so, congratulations on having that behind you and good to have you here in washington. while you were away, a few things have happened. i want to ask you to talk with us tonight about the things that have happened. because this has been a very momentous year. i want to start with something that one could not have predicted a year ago, which is that secretary of state john aggressiveed a very effort to restart a palestinian israeli dialogue -- palestinian- israeli dialogue. you is an issue on which have strong feelings. secretary kerry said today in israel that he thought the possibility of these was very close. you have been quoted in the past as saying you think it is "decades away," so let me start
asking if secretary kerry has convinced you it is possible? >> thank you, david. i understand -- i sweet. bynot to be so the way, i am not immigrated. i am repatriated. the familiar with palestinian issues. you must understand why after 20 years since we signed the oslo accords we are still in deadlock . i completely agree with many of politicians. very bad guy. we have very good guys to
achieve a comprehensive solution. annapolis.end in barack as theehud prime minister, and even --anyahu but despite all of these efforts, and of course all the efforts of the american side, it .s still in deadlock without understanding why we are in deadlock, it is impossible to move ahead. seemistake i think that i security, the form of
that i calledhing no trust. ,rust, confidence, credibility because today the trust between the two sides is about zero. it is impossible now to create peace if you don't have credibility. the other mistake from all our experience in the past -- you know, up until today we have signed agreements and treaties with the rulers. not with the states. not with the people. it was our agreement. i think we must achieve real comprehensive solution with the
palestinians. -- with >> let me ask you about one part of what secretary kerry has been trying to do with what little has been reported. at he has been very good at keeping secrets. it has been said he is trying to work on security and american security guarantees that will reassure israel as part of the process of thinking about borders for a palestinian state. i want to ask you whether there is anything the united states could do in terms of guarantees, offers, commitments that would give you more confidence as foreign minister that israeli security is protected and that this process should go forward. all, i think it is to keep this dialogue.
even if you are unable to resolve the conflict, it is very important to manage this to maintain these very, very fragile relations. and i really appreciate the efforts of secretary kerry to keep this process alive. i really, to speak frankly, i don't believe it is possible to achieve comprehensive solutions, to achieve some breakthrough, but i think that it is crucial to keep our dialogue. we live inu know, the same region. we are neighbors. important, you know, to think about coexistence areas -- to think about coexistence.
we appreciate all the efforts. , we know not to create a lot of expectations, because if you create expectations and you didn't succeed after expectations, you have disappointment, frustration, and afterward violence. is a long-term process, not short-term. securitynot hear any guarantee the u.s. could offer as movingould take the ball forward. so, i will move on -- , on the security issues -- to clarify my position -- i think all security issues, , and is our responsibility
in the end we must be able to protect ourselves and not to rely even on our best friends. i think, if i may -- the united , you have enough problems, enough headaches without israel. today, united states, you are facing too many challenges from china, japan, pakistan, iran, iraq, libya, syria, domestic problem's, budget, health care, etc. i think it is really important that we must understand your problems. not to bring all of our problems to our shared -- again tonk also
clarify -- our real strategic main part of the united states, but not instead of the united states, but in an ocean to the united states -- in addition to be united states, we must diversify our policy. impossible on a monday -- we have this request with iran. wehave the palestinians. have the security council. -- it is impossible. we must understand where we can states,d by the united what are our contributions to the partnership? >> i want to ask you in a moment what other partners israel might
look for, but before we leave i wantestinian question, to ask you, foreign minister, let's say that you are right and this process, there is just not enough trust. it's going to break down. it's not as close as secretary kerry wishes. you have spoken often about your feeling that these populations must separate. so, i want to ask you, if there is a breakdown of negotiations, would you think it appropriate or israel to pursue unilateral measures to gain security and to achieve greater separation of population, and what comes from that? >> i do not speak about separation of population, and of course i don't believe in military steps. i've a very good example with disengagement.
you know, we see today disengagement, and we sacrificed a lot, you know, for example -- we speak about settlements. settlements as an obstacle to peace. as was spoken in previous meetings, that is really a misunderstanding, maybe a misrepresentation. peacee we signed to agreements with egypt and jordan too peace agreements -- peace agreements with egypt and jordan. we agreed to 21 flourishing settlements. the result was missiles and shells on israel. what i spoke in the past and i believe this may be really the right approach, not
separation, but the exchanging of land and population. not separation, not transfer, but exchanging. that, you need a two state solution, don't you? doesn't that make you in theory the strongest advocates of that solution? >> you know, i declared publicly iser the speech that if it acceptable for me, i accepted that speech in the region, and even before the elections in 2009, before the elections and after the elections, again, i explained. it is possible to achieve comprehensive solutions.
ownrected to evacuate my settlement. it is not a secret. it was published in all mass media. the problems, to speak frankly a challengenot see to achieve this comprehensive solution. very let's turn to this interesting, provocative comment that you made about israel meeting other partners to work with, not just the united states. so, i went to ask you -- one of the things that happened while you were away from the foreign ministry was that the united states and russia began to work together on a plan to dismantle serial's chemical weapons. some people have worried that that means we are inviting russia into be middle east, that russia will have new influence. i want to ask you first, do you
think that is happening? isondly, do you think that dangerous? of thes is the heart question -- could russia be one of those other partners that israel could work with in a way to enhance israel he security? -- israeli security? >> i'm sorry, i must repeat -- >> i do not mean any diminution of your -- this -- it is for us to understand what we can do to help the united states, not just to use the united states. bringk, yes, we can something. some added value. to our state only to cry and to come to the united states with request. .- requests
in my point of view, there are directions created with promising. it is computing different directions. it is first of all, africa, southeast asia. we have to bring to these regions, you know, if we speak about food security, water management. and still really we experience and i am happy to see the minister of to africa. it's very important for us. >> those are huge issues, but i do think this audience would be very interested in your assessment about whether russia is going to be playing a larger role in the region, and what effect that will have on israel?
>> russia, it is completely different issue. it is impossible to disregard russia. they are a very important, maybe player,r -- maybe key in many regions including the middle east. we see that russia is more and more active in the on theeast, not only serious issues, but on other issues also including egypt, and of course, we have conversations with russia. i think that, you know, at least, we will keep these sincerity to have enough disagreements, but we will keep the sincerity and very open dialogue with the russians. it is very important. then russia and the united
states -- they have common view, common approach. it is the implementation of this approach. it is really much, much easier than all others. >> what is your sense as a --eful observer of russia what does it tell you about what is possible, was likely when the geneva these conference on syria january?he end of do you think russia is repaired to work with the united states for political transition in syria or not? no. think that's maybe that the biggest disagreement between americans and russians on the syrian case is the future destiny of assad. the russians, of course, tried to keep them in the game -- keep
him in the game. i think in any case, syria is a very complicated conflict. , first of all, a real civil war in syria. it is a very mixed conflict. first of all, you have the shia and sunni. tou have the differen religious and different people, the kurds, the christians, the the ethnic clashes. .t is something very, very deep there are a lot of atrocities. , there are the
different regional powers like saudi arabia or qatar or it ron. -- iran. as of course, it is the same the world powers, russia and the and there are imperatives in organizations all around the world. hezbollah. qaeda and and today it became something very, very complicated. it is not enough only to be meeting in geneva. in my assessment, it will take a lot of time. it is not enough only to achieve some agreement in geneva. saudi arabia, there are people who say the need the public's surface that borders forecurity
israel he effective going forward may be king abdulla of saudi arabia. what you think about that? i think saudi arabia is in a very delicate situation. it is not even to israel. ir allies are the the gulf countries. we will see what happens in bahrain. arabia, itse saudi is first of all gulf countries, and the saudi arabian kingdom. and they are also worrying about israel. it is clear the biggest threat it is not jews, it is not israel, but the radical movements in me arab world.
sunni attack movements and of course the iranian ambitions. it is theire, decision, but from our point of view, we are open for any all countries. >> well, you know, folks, i anught i almost heard endorsement of de facto israeli- saudi arabian security. did not quite hear that, but to ask you about something that happened in the time you're away from the foreign ministry, and that is obviously the negotiation that led to the interim agreement iran leading- toward the negotiation of a final in said agreement -- nsaid agreement.
repeatthan ask you to the positions of your prime minister, i wanted to ask you as foreign minister, what your own feeling -- secretary clinton made a various civic appeal. i'm not going to go into it. the audience heard it. are you comfortable with the idea of negotiating be doable deal, not the maximal deal you might dream of having, but the deal that is doable -- are you as foreign minister going to be comfortable living with that? >> first of all, it is very isortant to say, it underestimate the disagreements between us and the americans on this issue, but it is important to discuss these disagreements openly.
and of course, the second appeared- i can only -- compare this deal with the syrian deal. ,he syrian case, first of all it's also a decision to destroy all the infrastructure, all the capacity, all the use of production of chemical weapons and to take out of syria all the chemical materials. case, -- i rainy iranian case,the it is the agreement they continue to spend today, even today. 9500 centrifuges. the second point, they keep all of the enriched uranium above why percent inside the country
and they keep control of a reallyuranium. it is crucial and big difference course,to deal, and of it is really unacceptable for me and for israel he is -- israelis. before the agreement in geneva, the supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei, spoke about jewish , ande as pigs and dogs israel will disappear. and i did not see any protest of any political leader in europe. made very strong -- very strong expression about this on able nazi- -- unaccept
style accusations against israel and the jews. i think this is something he should pay attention, and we iraniannian -- intentions. lebanon, in a rack iraq. and of course their nuclear ambitions. know, we have you all of this philosophy, something that brings all of to a very, very bad today, and what we have we can say today really openly we in the beginning caused a , today what wece
have with egypt and turkey and saudi arabia. part of this nuclear arms race. consequences -- it is even more serious than movies in hollywood. >> before i turned to the audience for your questions, i want to ask you one last question of my own. a moment ago you think it is important to turn down the -- if i understood you i- in the u.s.-israel negotiations. that made me think of a theme in the israeli press a lot -- >> you cannot blame me for the israeli press --
>> no, no. i get that. these wanted to ask you, reports that i keep reading about a new lieberman, whether they are true? askep reading -- let me you. you just said you want to turn down the rhetoric, turn down the heat. that willd we expect be different in the way you conduct yourself as foreign minister going forward from what we know from when you were foreign minister before? about -- to speak [laughter] really not try also to be politically correct, but to say every single time what i mean and what i understand. the dealst, you know,
and the biased approach, to me, in the israeli press -- and this is something about my political life. this is nothing new. but maybe today is the first time that i feel more people try to understand what happens. what today it is i think much easier to explain for me and my position, my vision, and it is may be more acceptable. i do not think today there is some difference between lieberman today and lieberman in the past. >> but why is it easier today for you to explain your positions? >> i think first of all, there .re no doubts what happens
it was very important, it was crucial. maybe for some other reasons. but no doubts. that is the main reason. everybody in israel was following and monitoring the final court decision. before they read it completely, it really was a huge interest. and i think that was some turning point. turn to thee audience now and ask for your questions for foreign minister lieberman. i may call on people if i don't see hands, so watch out. [laughter] >> [indiscernible] >> hi. spent a few we
minutes outside. you made a statement here i'm looking for clarification on. you said that they are still spending the centrifuges. that is correct. but at the same time, they have also admitted at the end of six months, they will have more enriched uranium than they have today. that is the pause button. is that a bad thing? the second question, why do you get so excited about khamenei calling us pigs and dogs? he has been calling us pigs and days.ince the old he is crazy. i do not think this means anything as to their intent. it simply does not mean anything to their intent. valueis no substantive here and we should not pay attention to this crazy guy when he calls us whatever he calls us area -- whatever he calls us.
>> this crazy guy, and he may be, but whenreally he has dialogues with europe -- they are teaching about democratic values and how it is important to keep those values. they speak a lot about democracy and to protect the israelis. it is important reaction not from uranian leaders, but from european leaders. he continues to lag between london and paris, because they did not come out against salman rushdie. i do not see someone who really against salman rushdie. the executed in the last year
about 600 people, and also we did not see any protest. but when it comes to israel, of course, everybody tries to teach us what to do and what is the democratic value. with regards to your first question, it is really unnecessary to discuss the iranian issue in the mass media and publicly. day, we will the take all of these decisions in a very responsible way. and you know me, also, my philosophy. if you won't shoot, don't talk. it is our responsibility for the future of the destiny of our citizens. >> i just wanted to ask if you don't think, foreign minister
lieberman, the eu and israel should speak to the uranian people. people whoiranian elected ramani did so for a reason. a is that the answer you want to give to the iranian people? >> no. we enjoyed really friendly relations with the iranian people form may be hundreds, thousands of years. only after the khamenei revolution do we have what we but relations between the iranian and jewish people, it is an old history. we enjoy good relations. and of course, we have some dialogue with the iranian people through mass media, but it has loan up -- blown up.
the israeli of citizens is our responsibility. because of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear capabilities. is first and foremost a question of responsibility. there are many countries that , butnuclear capabilities it is a political decision. for example, germany and japan. they have all the knowledge, all of the infrastructure. --er a political decision seven, maybe six weeks. we are not worried about japan and we are not worried about germany. but we are really
worried about itron --iran. it's not the new political leaders. revolution and the supreme leader. >> so, let me -- yes, please. then dennis. sir? yes, the microphone. , iforeign minister lieberman am one of those journalists who wrote harshly about you. you were acquitted. i will first of all give you the compliment that you are a rational player. as a rational player in a position of great responsibility, we have learned about the great threat of iran and the challenge of the iranian
issue. don't you think the rational move would be to adopt something like the omer land or something resembling it so, number 1 -- inause you do not believe the partner, they will be the one rejecting it rather than israel, and number two, israel will gain legitimacy or the real struggle against iran? -- it doeso, it is not matter if i believe or do not believe in the palestinian partner. forget about me. since we signed the oslo accords, more than 20 years. it in september it was 20 years. the question is why didn't we succeed? term as the minister of foreign affairs, i clarified
my position from the beginning. not involved in this issue. i do not want to be an obstacle. i am ready to give it a chance. years, and i was and ited in 2009 -- really made all of my best to keep far from the palestinian issue. even today i do not see any progress. you must ask yourself, why? abbas -- whyoud was there the disagreements and those policies? and i think today, also, -- it is so >>. if this is the case, let israel have the moral high ground by calling the bluff, winning the debate with the palestinians, changing completely its
positioning and being in a much better position regarding iran where people do not listen to us right now because of ongoing occupation? is a dialogue, but again, i think our direction on the palestinian issue, it is the wrong direction, and we must at least to take a time out for some policy review. why? to explain for ourselves why we are in this deadlock. up until at least today. on the second uranian issue -- do not like the public discussion on the iranian issue. syria'sit is really
decision and it is impossible to discuss on the tv screen or in a mass interview. it is a long discussion. all the peopleat here have all the information to are able to know understand all of the pictures. it is a complicated issue. it's not a >> decision. decision.e at least, to know, to be serious, it you must take these decisions not from public opinion, but really from discussion with those people as they have all the information and all the possibilities to make the right assessments. ,> let me turn to dennis ross
who has to stand up. >> thanks. a brief comment and a question for you. on this issue, david, as you maximal dealthe versus the doable one, i suspected the distinction is not between a maximal position and a doable one, but it is what is the acceptable outcome? what is the unacceptable outcome was to mark leaving iran as a nuclear threshold state is not an acceptable outcome. then you have to define what is a nuclear threshold state. saudi'sstion about the leads me to a question -- would you be repaired -- prepared to peacet the saudi initiative adopted by the arab league? would you be prepared to take a look at it? me it isow better than
completely unacceptable for several reasons. on theitiative included exceptf contingencies to all the palestinian refugees into israel. it would destroy israel. it is a key issue. , togees and the settlements recognize israel as a jewish ,tate -- i think understanding really to movee forward. also have to we look at jewish refugees from all arab lands and absorb them in israel. the biggestay,
, 1600e camp near damascus palestinians. i did not see any discussion in the security council. i did not see protests from abbas. problem is biggest again with this initiative, it is the refugees. >> just to follow-up -- cannot return. >> are you worried as foreign minister, charged with israel's relations with foreign countries, about israel being isolated? thet that a danger given series of comments you have made about negotiations breaking down
, not seeing alternatives? isn't isolation a concern for you? >> of course, isolation. it is not the biggest problem, but you know, also, we changes in the international community. we are one small jewish state, and around this are 57 islamic states. of they control about 70% the natural resources in the world. i've a friend in a position -- he holds a right wing position. a few years ago he became a prime minister of a foreign european state, and he adopted all of the populist union and
visions and i was very surprised . knowe explained to me, you , he is the head of state. he had huge economic problems. he looks for investments. from the gulfnts countries. what do you expect? i can understand, but despite those problems and challenges, i must adoptally differently, you know, greater ended there is a place for israel in this modern world -- greater diplomacy and there is a place for israel in this modern world. must look at different directions and different countries, that we can bring for technology,ng --
knowledge, culture, water resources, etc. yes., in other words, yes, ma'am? to address you in english, but since there is no other opportunity -- in russian as well. prime minister netanyahu shared with you the details of the what do youf so, think about the statement that secretary stated today before he left israel about the negotiations? know.eally don't maybe it was something dramatic, something new. i came from new york. we have a lot of
sure that we'm not are really so, you know -- it is these gaps andge we are so close to some kind of even interim agreement. i think it is something very, very deep. overcome not only be borders and the security, but the trust and credibility. without the trust and credibility, mission impossible. first did not answer the art of the question. prime minister netanyahu shared with you the details of the talks? >> not today -- not today.
but regularly other than today? yeah, yeah. three or four times every day. course, i am aware of all details, and my assessment, different assessment, we are sharing the same information. you are in agreement with the prime minister? >> it is not an agreement, you know. >> is there anything you would like to share with this audience about the negotiations? we were all very curious where this stands. you are unhappy with where it stands. so, anymore you want to tell us about it? not a question of unhappy. of course, all of israel, you us, we are looking for peace and for solutions and for stability.
areof course, you know, we one really viable democracy and all of this region. look around us. what happens in syria, what happens in libya, what happens in lebanon, and egypt. i think also you must appreciate and understand that it is not so easy to keep democracy, to keep inss parity -- prosperity these very difficult conditions. and again to make a breakthrough, to achieve as theensive solution palestinians today, it is like -- to lay the foundations of new powers. mahmoud abbas really --
he has very divided, he has no into tea. -- no into tea. .- no entity i'm not sure that he has majority even intraday and somalia. he postponed the elections for more than three years. know, you canyou imagine in any democratic country that someone postpones his presidential elections for three years. this,ael, despite all of i know problems in our region -- the palestinians still tried to achieve peace and stability with all our neighbors. it is misunderstandings with israel. you have to camps.
peace who are looking for , and the others who are looking for war. all of us, we want peace and stability. agreement --e some disagreement about what is the best way to achieve peace and stability. >> let me take a final question. yes, please. >> i have a question about -- i don't know if you saw "the gatekeepers," but five former nbad talked about how the occupation was corrupting the soul of the israeli population. my question is, do you agree there has been an erosion -- i am afraid to talk about five heads of -- know, there is a serious issue.
you have said that you do not really want to talk about the palestinian issue, although you have to a degree. >> i keep myself far from the palestinian issue. >> but do you think that the occupation is indeed really eroding the moral fiber of the israeli community? there've been several journalists who have talked about it. since the instability of the middle east has brought al qaeda to the doorstep of israel, with them getting footholds and syria, iraq and other places, are you concerned abbas and the palestinian authority may seem like lambs compared to what you may have to deal with if they got into the west bank? >> thank you.