Tension and change. Tose issues are from form dispassionate view and we are fortunate to have an experienced group of panelists today. They affect the approach to saudi arabia, its relationship and future. Before i turn to todays program, i want to say a few words about the council. The council was established in 1981 for the purpose of promoting dialogue and education. We have three flagship programs. Our quarterly, capitol hill conference, a quarterly journal, middle east policy which jesses wrong reputation and can be found in 15 dozen libraries worldwide. Our education outreach program. It provides Educational Resources in the middle east, targeted to students and teachers. Visit us on our website. At teacheach program mideast. Org. Todays event. To this program is being live streamed on a website. I welcome all of you who have joined us on mine. Proceedings will be posted on video and transcript form will be posted. An edited transcript will be published in the next issue of our journal for the middle east policy. Panelists. Oduce our we begin the program, a scholar with the middle east institute and a former chief of the washington post. Our next speaker will be famous troll, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for policy and a former staff member for a Senate Foreign relations committee. Finally, my longterm and friends, ambassador feinstein at the middle east institute. Also a former principal, Deputy Assistant secretary and former ambassador. I would like to thank all of you for joining us today. The program will begin with each delivering brief remarks and this will be followed by a discussion session which will be moderated by my colleague. Followed our usual practice of placing index cards of all on all of the seats. Use these to write down any questions you have as the speakers are speaking and hold up the cart. Our staff will collect them during the presentation zen to dr. Mudd tyer so he can consolidate the questions for the discussion period. I would like to turn the podium over to tom. Thank you. Tom thank you very much. Thank you to the middle east policy council for organizing this event and allowing me to participate. It is 43 years since i went to saudi arabia. The yet,when they did not have telephones in the rooms. Before it was a sleep developed country in the material sense. Even then, it was difficult to understand the nature of this between the United States and saudi arabia. They had come together when they were at opposite poles of civilization. What i thought he would do was the relationship was if you are injured enough to be here coming here, to be traced back to the time of the 1940s. 1930s. In the 1940s, the two countries formed their First Security king gaveip when the permission. Level andted the said by that we the peninsula blanket. All through the times since, this relationship has been beset disagreements, anger and policy differences that you might think might have left permanent damage. Some of them are better known than others. When president truman recognized, was the moment it was created. In 1953, the saudis were furious because the United States refused to back them over the oasis, a piece of land where saudi, omar and you of the come together. Dulles did not want to choose between friends so he did not. The saudis did not understand. 1954 was a little known episodes in which the new king gave a contracted to a gentleman named aristotle onassis, that would have ended the oil industry. Thenhower personally gave order to make sure the contract order never went into effect. I know about this episode because it was the subject of my recent book, which is accepted on this issue of middle east policy. Thank you for coming. Great book. Oil embargo, when you read telephone transcripts and cable traffic coming you see he refers to to the referred to the arabs that savages, which will give you the idea of the esteem. Kissinger, when he went to saudi arabia, received a gift from the king, which was a bound copy of the protocol of the elders of zion, which is not what i would give it to every day of the week. 1979, the saudis made carter very under very unhappy by not only not endorsing him, but refusing to accept the egypt israel peace treaty. The last time i was in baghdad 1979 time in spring of when Foreign Ministers got together and flew egypt out. As much effort as jimmy carden , itimmy carter had put in was not enough. In 1988, the United States discovered by accident the saudis had Nuclear Capable chinese missiles. The first thing that happened , that they armitage get better so but themselves right at the top of the target list where they had not been. Episode took some doing to unravel. Then, there was 9 11. Please do not ask me about the 15 for the 19th. I have answered that question every day or 15 years. In 2003, when the United States invaded iraq over saudi objections, you have the famous referred to it as an illegal occupation. Then came the Nuclear Agreement with iran. Which made the saudis very unhappy. Not so much because of the contents of the agreement itself spooked thought we were trying to form equitable relationship with uraniums. Then came the murder of democracy on the. Khdemocracy on the jamal oshoggi. There has never been a time when the Strategic Planning or relationship in a sense was put in jeopardy or threatened by human rights issues of any kind. Or the fate of any individual. Department the state saudi arabia and its annual report on seminars around the world and never makes any difference in terms of policy. Made humancarter rights the foundation of his Foreign Policy. Went to saudi arabia and was deferential to the point of upstate we just because he wanted something from them. They did not deliver, namely endorsements. But that is the way it has always been. One side wants something from the other. Is what ifion donald trump is not reelected . Lets say joe biden or amy klobuchar, who are both pragmatists and centrist, opening their noses and continuing to do business with saudi arabia. It is hard to imagine Elizabeth Warren or pete would judge or cory booker or others doing business as usual, endorsing the arms ales. These dashes saudi prices for the white house. Security operation will continue about us of what happened in the country. Possible, maybe likely, that there will be quite a change especially in the visuals. In theason i see is boats, just a couple years ago. Popular constituency in the United States. There is a reason why there are no congressional saudi caucus. Not saudi arabia. That is because there is no Political Risk for anybody in congress and coming out and taking a vote this hostile to or opposed to saudi arabia. There is nothing to lose. Now you have a situation where we do not need the oil. We do not have military bases and unless you have major defense contractors, you have nothing to lose by coming out against the saudis. For the First Time Since 1945, it is possible to envision every move of the relationship. Saudi arabia will be treated like any other country. Thank you. [applause] good morning. I will build off some of those comments and talk about the u. S. Saudi a relate relationship in the context of congressional debate. To get more broad they broadly, to get to fundamental policy questions for those of you engaged in framing the Foreign Policy debates for your boxes on the hill. You should know i wrapped up the last year on the Foreign Relations committee is the middle east staffer. Having a front row seat to a lot as a a lot of these votes were taking place on the hill. Characterized which characterize the relationship as the most serious since 9 11. There is a debate right now. Arabia cus on saudi it is on members of both sides of the aisle is bipartisan. It is not unique to the administration. There are fierce debates about policy and the administration as well. Minister of defense decided to engage in military operations in yemen, it was very little heads up to washington and that was the previous of ministration, not the current one. Sentenced to give one to describe what the crux of the debate is right now on washington, i think it is is saudi arabia more destabilizing in the region. Is it restlessness. At findings and legislation that is coming out of the house in the senate, words like recklessness, destabilizing, instability are used to describe this relationship. Uss partners we use systems,e military scholarships, cultural engagement, etc. In congress, members of congress have taken more Foreign Policy votes that somehow touch the u. S. Saudi relationship more , iran, andher issues ,. It is about saudi arabia and that is whether it is the vote. Vetoed by president obama and overridden in the senate. Very strong expression about that. Here it was viewed as a domestic issue but outside is a statement about the u. S. Saudi relationship in the senate overrode that the to which takes a strong bipartisan majority. There have been multiple resolutions of disapproval on arms sales both on offense and defense of weapons. It has been going on for years. In the house and senate, there on been multiple votes resolution, multiple votes. There have been votes on amendments to the National Defense authorization act that are about the u. S. Saudi a writ relationships, specifically about western sales and about. S. Support i will not talk much about that because jerry will do that. And the latest series of showdowns are about congresss attempt to demand credibility and assessments from the Current Administration about what happened related to the murder. F Jamal Khashoggi by the Trump Administration, and the most recent showdown was when an emergency exception exports control for the ministration to move forward. Statuertners without the required on the hill. Some of this is about saudi arabia and a stark difference in opinion between members of congress and the strategic utility of the u. S. saudi relationship. Some of it is about payperview. Where should congress determine Foreign Policy and what is in the executive branch is reviewed of this has all been taking place over years. Members of congress are not just taking votes on the u. S. Side of the relationship. They are earning about weapons sales. What do numbers of congress get to review . What are Defense Systems . They are learning the legislation, the process. They are learning about security cooperations. They are learning about the other u. S. Programs and policies and money and tools that form the foundation of this relationship. Now they can talk about professional military education. They can talk about the different kinds of economic engagement, etc. Deeply familiar now. They are well worth to the desktop first in the tools, which means when people talk to members of congress, the general talking points do not cut it anymore. They are to be educated in the details of what is going on in yemen about the various parties in the conflict. They are deeply educated about how military systems go through a process of approval before they are sold to any partner. Now we are in a situation where it is not just about saudi arabia, but there is a debate about how military sales go restrd through the mess of the middle east. Against all these votes and this education as a result of what is going on, consider what members saw taking place in the region. There was a military , trying to avoid that. Which is the blockade seen as saudi led. There was the detention and for hile there was arrested and alleged torture. Somebody did not like me saying thats. Probably the rich. Ofroad crosssection business elites they are right after the granting of the womens right to drive in saudi arabia. Thee was also the spat with governor of canada. All of these things were taking place in the region and being driven by saudi arabia present Time Congress was actively debating and taking votes both on different kinds of legislation related to different aspects of the u. S. Saudi relationship. The there were was murder of Jamal Khashoggi. There were weeks of messages about what was taking place and the refusal of the trumpet ministration to respond to congressional indication of law like the global magnets. All of this together has reached the crisis point. Where are we now . There is no doubt or question are willingfficials to cross saudi arabia, are very much aware of the dynamics in washington. They are aware of the debate ofut the strategic utility the u. S. Side of the relationship moving forward. To find an eagerness way to move forward. In it justn here is around people. What are we going to do with the desire to move forward . Is the debate about the voicing divorcing the saudis . Is it going to go in a different direction . We should ask ourselves, do we accept the premises the National Defense strategy that the is weird. Feared. Do you subscribe to the climate of terrorism and fragile states and instability. In that case, the game is in the middle east. ,hether it is russia and china there is also asiapacific. We saw the Obama Administration tried to do their pivot and there is a lot of talk on the hill of burden sharing in the east, which basically east, which basically means shift the burden. Have other people putting resources. Shift the burden. Have other people putting resources. Whether you described each worldview, or both, do you need partners and allies to adjust those threats. Would we provided to be in the umbrella with us. Therdless of your views on jcpoa. There is potential for conflict in the middle east. Of u. S. Forces or u. S. Personnel is filled and we are in a situation where we have to can want militarily. Forces. Ed them for israel, there is a debate now on the hill, more in the them aquatic caucus than the republican about the future of u. S. Israel relationship. There was no question that the relationships are expanding. Is it in our interest for these countries to be working together . Assistance to syria. The trumpet ministration cut off hundreds of millions of dollars but said he syria has stepped in now. The first entity to be paying dollars. We want to talk to adam about where they can share the burden. One of the key premises of the healthy tour wrap, is if we do not give the iraqis options other than iran, despite everything i laid out about the troubling developments coming out, there has been an opening from the government of saudi arabia. There are efforts. That might be in the interest to continue to develop. Clear. , just to be sustainable, meaningful change. Not seniorly meetings or senior statements. My eyebrows were raised in an article that cannot during ramadan about a new series led us to youtitle, and i encourage theook at up is consider democracy in saudi arabia. A large majority of the population is under 30. Mobile usage, 100 . Internet saturation, some of the highest in the middle east. A a few other points i won a mention, vision 2030 which was articulate is by mohammad bin salman as a transformational project, even if the goals are too lofty and it is not talking about democracy. It is a vision and policies under that vision for economic and social change and economic , potentiallyon more stabilizing over the medium to longterm. Wrote antarygeneral article in the washington post. Why muslims around the world should remember the holocaust . Here,workingwhile we are havine there are changes taking place in saudi arabia. I think there is a question for us and framing this as how much are we going to punish the saudis for what happened, and can we take a step back and use and open uppressure new opportunities . I think there are many saudi officials eager to have that conversations. There is a new saudi ambassador eager to have that conversation. There is a fundamental question here about whether or not we want to work on this relationship, whether it needs to be updated, transition for 21stcentury challenges the question is do we want to explore in cooperation or not . [applause] can i remind you that, if you have questions, write them down and raise your hands, so our staff can come and collect them . Thank you. I want to first thank gina a nd rich for inviting us to come and participate in this conversation and demonstrate, again, that for those of us who are recovering Foreign Service afterrs, there is life the state department, which is good. And also to think tom and dana for their remarks. I think that we just saw, in she wasresentation, why the best staffer ever for those of us who have found our way up to the hill from time to time. This is art conversation about the u. S. Saudi relationship. I want to begin by stressing that this is not about the u. S. Relationship with mohammad bin salman. One of the things that struck me over the last couple of years is that we have lost sight of the fact that there is a relationship with a whole country out there that, as tom has said, stretches back nearly onyears and has been based shared interests, shared perspectives, shared policies over a number of years. I am not hero to defend not here to defend mama bins on mount, not not here to defend heremad bin salman, not to defend what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, who many of us knew and considered a friend. One of the narratives in washington that i found striking over this last almost year now since chris show the khashoggis murder is the extent to which we have completed different aspects of saudi perspectives on saudi arabia, u. S. Relationships with saudi arabia in ways i think are unhelpful for the interests of both countries. And primarily to make the point that i think this inflation is particularly egregious when it comes to how this city and this congress perceives the saudi intervention in yemen. Relationshipthe that we have had with saudi arabia has had its ups and downs over the years. You could probably make the same point about every country in the world did we have come over the years, found reason to work closely with the saudis. Inumber of us were involved the intervention in afghanistan in the 1980s, where saudi arabia was a critical partner in helping implement the u. S. Policy objective of driving the former soviet union out of afghanistan. They were principal funders, financiers of a great deal of the activities. They helped facilitate, through their intelligence agencies, al faisalince turki to secure it critical u. S. Objective. Today, we have worked together on iran, since 1979, and, again, largely share objectives in terms of iranian behavior in the region, iranian threats to stability. But as tom said correctly, it positivelways been a relationship. We have had our issues over camp david, over other areas where we have not seen eye to eye. Managed toe have manage those differences and provide stability to her relationship that was troubled. Yemen fits into that pattern of up and down relationships of the years, and i think the mnes always has observed, not positively, that the United States has tended to see yemen policy, our interest in yemen, largely through saudi perceptions and saudi eyes. Positionot a wrong that they have taken. Policy int for saudi yemen goes back to the 1960s, when the Kennedy Administration worked with the saudis in support of the monarchy in yemen , primarily because the saudis perceived panarabism as a greater threat to their , to be greaterle for the theocracy that had ruled yemen for many, many years. 1980s, the United States and saudi arabia worked together to support the north yemen government, the yemen arab republic, at that time, and established a trilateral military assistance program, the u. S. Providing military support to the north yemen military, that was paid for by the saudi government. And that was primarily because of the concerns of the threat to the saudi stability opposed by the peoples democrat republic of yemen, south yemen at that time. That continued for a number of years. We provided advice, other kinds of military support, until the saudis and yemeni broke in 1990, 1991, over saddam husseins invasion of kuwait. Then, the two governments, saudi arabia and the United States, broke did we supported the saudi decision to expel yemeni workers in 1990, 1991, to cut off assistance. But when south yemen tried to break off again and form another government in 1994, having merged north and south yemen in 1990, the u. S. And saudi arabia found themselves on different sides of the issue. TheUnited States supported alirnment in the north, abdullah saleh, and the saudis provided assistance to the south, and supported the break off of the country and the resumption of the separate north and south yemen governments. After a period of years, we came 2012,ogether in 2011 and where the United States and saudi arabia worked closely as part of a larger international all ofon that included the permanent five countries of the u. N. Security council as well as the gcc and a number of the european governments, to work on a political transition document that eventually was completed and became the gcc transition agreement. We worked together closely after that on the implementation of that document from the time it to thened in 2007 houthis disrupting it in 2014. And had it not been for the intervention of king abella , withbdullah personally ali abdullah saleh, it is likely the agreement would not have an assigned, and we would have out the conflict we are experiencing now several years before it actually broke out. After the agreement was signed and their transition positive was selected in 2012, saudi interest in yemen declined. They became less involved in the political transition, perhaps in part because it was uncomfortable for them to promote democratic transition in yemen. It was not something they were familiar with. Western. S. And our partners took the lead. The saudis continue to play an important part in providing economic assistance and develop it assistance, working closely with the world bank and the imf and with the west and ways of ensuring that develop assistance toyemen continued to flow the developer and of that country. Up untilthe status 2014. We remained in close touch with the saudis. We continued to work with them,o share views and objectives to engage with them on the. Oncerns that we both felt we saw that some of the issues within yemen, the dysfunctionality of the transition government, the saleh tof ali abdullah undermine the transition, some of the unrest that the houthis were manifesting in the north, as those issues emerged, the u. S. And saudi arabia maintained a close and positive dialogue. That reached a peak in late 2014, early 2015, as the situation in yemen continued to deteriorate. Danas remark that we had little notice of the saudi decision to intervene is correct. But i would make the point that the saudis did inform us. This is a reflation of the larger change in the nature of relationship and more broadly with our golf allies and partners. Partners. F allies and that is as the perception has developed that u. S. Interest the gulf is fading, partially because of the iran nuclear deal, probably because of president obama as well as the policies of this current time of president trump, decline in u. S. Interest and came to the conclusion, not incorrectly, that they needed to take more response ability themselves for protecting our own interests and pursuing their own objectives. Prior to their decisions intervene, the saudis did come to the white house and talk to the state department and others, to inform rather than request permission, to intervene in yemen. Again, to make the point that, at the time they made the , they and we did not anticipate that the foration would drag on years. The intent was to stabilize the situation. That they believed at the time that they were going to secure government,y of the perhaps relocate it because of control of sanaa. Was toir intention stabilize the situation, allow the political transition to reach its conclusion. It obviously has not worked out that way. Where ianother point have some concerns or disagreement with the way the narrative plays out in washington. Two issues. One is there is an inclination in washington to look at the conflict in yemen as a conflict between saudi arabia and yemen and somehow to see the houthis as the element defending from saudi aggression. This is absolutely incorrect. What is happening in yemen is a civil conflict. It is eight conflict that goes back, its roots, a 40 or 50 years. Violenceupted in periodically throughout that 50 or 60 year period. This is only the latest manifestation of a conflict that has never been resolved among the yemenis. The saudi intervention is quite aside from that. The other point is that one needs to distinguish between the issues that drove saudi the saudi decision to intervene versus their implementation of the decision. The, again, while i believe saudi decision to intervene was based on real legitimate concerns that they have, this is not to suggest that the implementation is not a fit subject for criticism. It absolutely is. Efforts haveaudi abominable, and completely incompetent and incoherent. It is not to say that, because we understand why the saudis intervened, therefore we must understand how the intervened that is not the case. Have view, the saudis three legitimate concerns about the nature of the conflict. One is, as we have seen increasingly over these past months, the security of their southern border. , inuld say that the saudis particular, see an existential threat from a houthi presence on their southern border in the same way that they perceive that the israelis face a threat from hezbollah on their northern border. Completelyething unacceptable to saudi arabia. The second is the presence of , supportingyemen the houthis. Again, to carve my point, because sometimes you see arguments that, in fact, the iranian intervention, the irtc presence, are a response to the saudi intervention, i can say, even when i was still in sanaa in 2012, several years before the situation deteriorated, the iranians were already involved in providing weapons and sending personnel to the houthi to provide training to receive iran for notts in only military training but also proselytization in sheer religion shia religion. The second concern is this hezbollahf irtc and trainers and assistance in yemen. The third element of saudi concern is the nature of the government. Saudis one a government in sanaa but they can work with. It does not mean that they are opposed to a houthi presence in the government. They are not opposed to houthi participation in the government but as a political entity and not a paramilitary hezbollahlike entity. This war has dragged on for several years, which we have supported and the saudis and other Coalition Partners have supported. Negotiated a u. N. Solution it is not clear that we have come closer to that solution at this point, in neitherecause ate have we seen a decision the table then on the battlefield. Feels as if momentum has shifted to the other. Therefore, neither side feels compelled to find a political solution. Up, i would make a couple of final points. All of course, what we are seeing now, is the decision on the part of the emirates to withdraw their military forces from the aspect of their presence in yemen related to the houthi campaign, keeping in mind have twoemirates objectivesstrictly different objectives. One is support the studies and their mission, the other is a c. T. Mission. The emirates have been clear that they will continue their efforts on the c. T. Side. It is only in relation with the houthis that they are withdrawing. They make several points in a nation of their decision. One is that they believe that they have trained a sufficient number of yemeni personnel, so that the yemenis themselves can take on the resistance against the houthis, without ever already emerati intervention. There are also several thousand troops in yemen participating in that military campaign. And given the rise in tension with iran, they believed they needed their forces back in the uae, particularly their patriot Defense Systems, in order to guard against a potential conflict with iran. This has implications for the tisdis, because the emira have been leading the Ground Campaign the last several years. The saudis have been primarily involved in the air campaign. Whether the saudis will be able to fill the vacuum left by an emirati withdrawal remains to be seen. In conclusion, on that point, as a saudiwhat i see perception of existential threat from yemen, i believe they will carry on their campaign, regardless of what the emiratis do and what the u. S. Government does. There are many people who think theirudis cannot carry on military campaign without u. S. Support. I think that is absolutely false, that the saudis, if you believe you are facing an existential threat, you will fforts,e their your e regardless of what the larger international circumstance is. The final question, and i think dana left and number of questions on the table, as she , let me her remarks leave another question on the table. The United States and saudi particularlyorked as the last 70 years or so two countries that shared a basic perspective on the region, basic policy goals and objectives, basic National Security views. Countries, over the years, have been primarily status quo forces. We believe in protecting the security and stability of the region and maintain the status quo. What we have seen over these last couple of years, with the rise of mohammad bin salman, and dana and tom laid out many of the key elements we have seen over the last couple of years, is that saudi arabia perhaps is no longer a status quo force in the region, that mohammad bin salman, for whatever reason, has adopted a disruptive position of policy. Lements the other aspect is the United States, under the Trump Administration, has also become disruptive. It is hard to argue trump policy is in support of regional stability and security. So the question now is if both the United States and saudi arabia have become Disruptive Forces in the region, are we being disruptive in a way that allows us to work together, or are we in a path that will take us to divergent paths these coming years . So is the future of the United States and Saudi Partnership sustainable . And i will stop there. [applause] first, thank you to the panel. I will start with one or two questions of mine, first from the audience. We heard about disagreements that we have had with the saudis over the decades, and we have heard about a basic kind of andrity cooperation Economic Cooperation over the decades as well. So i think the question that dana left us with, at the end, forward. S about going does the saudi military cooperation with us, Economic Cooperation with us, generally speaking trying to make sure a regionalis oil at price available to everyone in the market, their counterterrorism cooperation, intelligence cooperation with us, does it outweigh the current disagreements we have with them . And should we be Going Forward current, to deal with strategic challenges we have from russia, china, iran, and others. Could actuallyi read something that you wrote some years ago, and ask if you still feel that way, and if everyone would basically agree. Here it is. The overriding consideration with strategic and economic reasons neither country wants a break with the other. You can have arguments and criticism, but the overarching need weight mean that those disagreements will be managed, even if they continue to exist. Is that where we are . How do you three how do the three of you feel about that general position, that we need to go forward with them to tackle the challenges that we face in the region . Tom if i may respond to that, every year, in late february or early march, the commander of u. S. Central command, the general responsible for all u. S. Military activities throughout the middle east and south asia, submits an extensive report to congress on should teach issues and arrangements and alliances throughout the region. And, if you read that report, there is a general statement and a country by country assessment. And it becomes clear that saudi arabia is not the most important country for the security interests and policies that the United States is pursuing in that region. That is to say the saudis are much more dependent on us. Capabilitiesy remain questionable. The United States has troops everywhere. Arabia. Ly not in saudi the naval headquarters in bahrain. We have a big airbase in qatar. We have troops in kuwait. We have troops in djibouti. Fact that wee the could conduct our Strategic Policies in the region, other seems to me,m, it without saudi arabia, and the fact that the general that Energy Picture has changed completely within the past 10 years, you could make a case that you can now deal with saudi arabia on an issue by issue basis without having to pursue some kind of Overall Holding framework of the time we have handholding framework of the time we have had in the past. Epri on nuclear erased the quese end, where do you stand on it . Heard. Things i just one is, can we move from the overall framework of holding the saudis hands and the pursuit of our security interest . Howr than israel, that is our relationship with countries in the middle east work. If you go to these governments and asked them to articulate how you get to a political settlement for syria, what is a powersharing agreement in sanaa look like, how should we address the threat from iran . It is hard to get them to articulate a strategy and the tools to get there. Looking governments are for others to articulate. They can either listen to us, we can suggest. Or they can listen to others. Moscow, for example. My view is it would be better for us to be leading and articulating that vision and working with countries when interests align to achieve whatever that strategy is. Relationships because they are good for others. We have them because they are good for us, it is in line with our interest. We viewrest is russian presence and activity in the region as inherently destabilizing. We should be shoring up allies that can limit that presence in the region. That doesnt mean you have to agree on every issue. You can disagree. You can agree on issues in our interest and work within areas of cooperation. Is,of the comments you made neither country seems to want to break. Right now, u. S. Doesnt have one policy. There is a policy articulated by Trump Administration which in a bipartisan way on the hill and in washington seems to be the perception that there is no questioning, no airing of grievances, expressions of concerns over specific policies we dont question and we dont challenge. Here, there is not one unified american voice on the future of the relationship. There are different constituencies and an active debate in public. Partners and allies are looking at this debate. There questioning whether the u. S. Will be there over medium to longterm in a relevant way. I think we can do both with the saudis. I think we can elevate human rights concerns, reforms. We can continue to engage with the issues of concern to us, demand accountability for Jamal Khashoggi, for example. If you read the transcripts of secretary pompeos interviews this week on the International Religious freedom form, over and over he talks about freedoms, religious freedoms, political, et cetera. Iran got mentioned a lot. Not once, did saudi arabia get mentioned. This is an opportunity to raise issues but we can still work with you to address concerns with your security interest and hours. I do not think we benefit by ezbollah on the saudis border. Even if we are a net exporter of oil, that does not mean we dont have dependency on what the political price of oil is and what insurance rates, ships or tankers cannot go through the strait of hormuz, that is a problem for us. Loud and clear to me, there is enough pressure and leverage that an opportunity has presented itself and we can either walk away or engage to try to make clear certain behaviors will no longer be accepted. I will give a precise, it depends, answer. It depends on a number of factors, i think both tom and dana touched on. One is, there is again, a theory here in washington, in the u. S. , that we no longer need Energy Supplies from the region, that somehow or other u. S. Is Energy Independent and what happens in the gulf or venezuela or whatever has no impact on u. S. Energy supply. This is wrong on a number of aspects. U. S. , evense is the though it may be a net exporter of energy, in fact, still imports 5 Million Barrels of oil every day. Therefore, we are still in the energy markets. Even though gasoline that comes out of the pump and into your car all looks the same, the fact of the matter is, that oil is not all the same. Oil that the kind of comes out of the wells in saudi arabia is in fact critical for the Worlds Energy requirements. Danas correct point, regardless of what u. S. Requirements are, as long as we have interest in and obligation to maintaining Global Economic stability, the fact of the matter is, what happens in saudi arabia will be critically important for u. S. For many years to come. Underpinnings of why we have this relationship with a country which is in many ways as diverted from u. S. History as humanly possible, nevertheless that is a relationship that has been critical for us for many years and will continue to be critical. Otheraving said that, the aspect of this is tom talked about the fact that there is no constituency in u. S. For saudi arabia. This has always been true. It was true and i was working on these issues in the 1990s. There has never been a wellspring of support for saudi arabia here on capitol hill or broadly in american society. We have worked together because we have seen it in our interest and not because we felt any emotional commitment. What we have seen over these last couple years is in fact the political aspect of relations between u. S. And saudi have become more intense than ever, in part because of the very open alignment of the saudi leadership with the Trump Administration in ways that democrats have found to be problematic. So, the saudiu. S. Relationship hereecome a debating point on capitol hill and more broadly in society in a way that even in the bad days, even after 9 11, even after some of the other iverged,ere we d it is more intense and emotional, therefore where you can see that that perhaps in response, in reaction to what people have perceived as the current relationship the Trump Administrations unwillingness to challenge saudi arabia, to raise some of these issues, this has become something that potentially down the road, particularly if there is a change in administration 2020, could be extremely problematic for the relationship. Tom also made the point that a number of the candidates on the democratic side in this election will take a very contrary position on the u. S. Saudi relationship as compared to the Trump Administration. The last point i would make is, it depends on mohammad bin salman and how we go forward. To go back to the point i tried to make in the beginning even though we have this broadbased relationship with saudi arabia, founded and shared economic, security political interests and has been for many years, the tendency now is to look at it through the optic of mohammad bin salman and do we agree with mohammad bin salman . Do we think mohammad bin salman is a monster who murdered Jamal Khashoggi and locked up innocent people . People, without trial, in prisons, Civil Society activists, libertarians and others . Or is he someone who is modernizing, that we can work with . Yes, he has made mistakes. The other side of the argument. He has made missteps. He is someone we can deal with. Or you look at it more broadly, that this is a relationship that goes beyond the leadership . Do we say, yes mohammad bin salman is a problem but the nature of the relationship is more important than just the nature of the leader and we can work around that in some way . Those are questions that are going to be answered. My guess is they will be part of the president ial campaign over the next year. I think that the answer is going to come out at the end of the campaign. Tom had something. As briefly as i can, both colleagues on the panel that made the point that saudi arabia remains a critical part of the Global Energy supply, even if we dont import much oil from saudi arabia anymore. The biggest single domestic management problem within saudi arabia in fact is a shortage of energy. Consuming anre ever escalating amount of their oil they produce, domestically, to satisfy the insatiable demand for electricity in a growing country that desalinate all water for human consumption and household use. I have seen projections by economists consultants that show that the trajectory between saudi export capacity and domestic demand will cross as soon as 2035. When that happens, you ask yourself, and that is, like the day after tomorrow in strategic terms, then what happens to this picture . This is what is propelling saudis in their quest for nuclear energy. We will have tough decisions to make about whether to meet that demand because it could change the rest of this picture. Right now, the saudis consume 3 Million Barrels a day of their own oil and export 7 Million Barrels a day. They prefer to export because it is revenue. Of course. They would like an alternative. I am sure they will Bring Technology to resolve the issue. Nuclear will be one of them. One more question and then i will go to the audience. About the way we way we relationship, the might need their cooperation and the way we have objections to certain behaviors of theirs but to flip it over just for a minute she went through a list of disagreements. Egyptisrael agreement, they hoped there would be something more comprehensive that would resolve the palestinian issue. Nd it led to more settlement 2003, the king asked us not to invade iraq. We did. Iran into iraq. It changed the strategic landscape. It brought an adversary into the northern border. They wanted us to intervene more because in in syria the case of yemen, iran was already in syria early in the civil war before saudi arabia ever entered the arena. They wanted our assistance and Obama Administration was too reticent to get involved. You have much more iranian influence than you did before. Jerry pointed out that iran was supporting the houthis years before the saudis intervened in this 2015 campaign, which has gone badly for them. Someone asked, are they still a status quo power or a disruptor . Not know if they do they can rely on us anymore. To make good judgments about policies in the region and to help them contain and even go back [indiscernible] factor that into our decisionmaking about Going Forward with them, is it possible a debacle in yemen is in part because we have called them free riders . We have told them to take matters into their own hands . We have set them on the pivot to asia . They decided they need to take matters into their own hands . If we were to reduce our engagement and support for them in yemen, who would benefit from that . How would that affect the outcome of what is going on in yemen . Lets get there. That leaves two questions about gets toe that questions about how we deal with them Going Forward . What have we done that has led to the situation . Anybody can go first. Tom, i go first thanks you have let us down the rabbit hole. Those are good questions. Two aspects. No doubt in both riyadh and abu dhabi, you have Leadership Today that has made a decision that they are going to be more pursueve, do more to what their goals and objectives are, that they will coordinate and cooperate with u. S. As possible but that u. S. Will not have a veto over the decisions. Attribute of several factors, not just one. Thate level, it is a fact you have younger leadership in theirapitals who believe fathers, their predecessors were too beholden to u. S. , too willing to accept u. S. Leadership without necessarily achieving some of their own objectives. It is not only about u. S. It is also an aspect of the way they operate within the arab world, and the arab league, for example, where they are less likely to accept ejection leadersh egyptian leadership in setting Foreign Policy for the arab world and are more inclined to assert their own leadership. You cannot question the fact that they can read the same magazine articles we can read and when the president of the United States is giving an interview in the atlantic in which he is talking about, when he is talking about these countries as free riders, when he is saying explicitly that they need to learn how to share the region with iran, when he is saying other things quite contrary to what their own analysis of their interest is, make decisionsto based on that understanding. Things have added up. Talk about the desire to pivot to asia. All of these aspects have contributed to a decision on their part that they are going to pursue their agendas themselves. Again, if you look at the position of the Trump Administration, as several of us have made the point, the administration has not changed thesesition that in fact governments need to take on more responsibility themselves. That means, for us, we wont always like what the decisions are that they make. We may disagree with that. If you tell people to grow up well,u know be adults, adults make decisions that are based on their own perspective. Therefore, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect these governments will follow our leadership without question and at the same time tell them they need to take responsibility themselves. That is the situation we are in. I do not see it changing. Since all three panelists to my left, please, rich, ambassadors, whenever you have a moment, please let me know. I am sort of looking this way. Do you want to Say Something . Dana. Comments to make a few in reaction to what was laid out. First of all, in terms of how riyadh may be looking at u. S. And our liability, think about how they might view us and the serious wings and the pendulum of Foreign Policy over the last several administrations, from the invasion of iraq to the debates about Foreign Policy and the u. S. Role in the middle east under obama and not just comments in the atlantic but the negotiation of the Nuclear Agreement, the decision surrounding syria, how washington reacted to arab spring developments in multiple countries, to this administration. Foreign by tweet. Right . In terms of reliability and how we may be viewed in the region, if i were staffing any of the governments of the region i would say, do not rely on americans. They are not consistent. They change their policy with every administration. It is in our interest to cooperate with them when we can but we need to hedge our bets. We see that behavior now. Both military, security, economic, trade and Energy Agreements being concluded with a lot of other governments, which we would describe as adversaries. Secondly, how to understand saudi actions, particularly in yemen. See how they have executed operations in yemen contextualizing in decades of security cooperation, professional military education, military training exercises that we have been conducting with them, both in huge regional context, gulf cooperation all counsel training, we have tried for decades, consistently republican and democratic administrations. In the clinton administration, they were called the strategic cooperation forum. Info, et cetera, et cetera. In the bush administration, we had the gall security dialogue. It was the camp david summits in the Obama Administration. Now we have the middle east security alliance. All versions of the same notion we can work with these militaries and beyond the military realm to coordinate and address shared interest. This is part of burden sharing. While everyone references the obama interview in the atlantic, think about the crude way in which this is discussed in the Current Administration. These guys are made of money. They will pay for everything. Why should we pay for anything . When we are feeling nice, we call it burden sharing, and then there are more crude ways of talking what it really is. We have paid enough. Americans are done. Someone else should pay. The region is aware of the debate we are having here in the u. S. About what the u. S. Role in the world should be and in that debate the far right and the far left actually sound similar, right . Authorization of the use of force. Why should u. S. Forces be doing this . Why should the american taxpayer be paying for this . I dont understand what it gets us. It is a public debate. They can read it on twitter, and our magazines, Foreign Affairs articles, what will be published of this discussion. They are listening and watching us. In terms of syria and cooperation, and what might have been, we need to understand how Obama Administration was thinking about the various conflicts that arose in the middle east during their administration as very much in the experience of the iraq war. Did we pick the right partners . Can we shape a political outcome based on military investment . The conclusion of Obama Administration was, no, we have to be humble in our approach to these conflicts and what we can realistically achieve. Now the saudis are having a similar experience in yemen. All the military force in the world will not buy you a political settlement. It is hard to get groups to the table to negotiate anything stabilizing or sustainable longterm. Everyone to talk about burden sharing and continue training and shaping militaries to behave in a way more consistent with our values and norms about how military operations should be prosecuted, burden sharing does not mean we train you, go. It means continual engagement. That is the choice the u. S. Has to make. We may not disagree on everything. Militaries make mistakes. Inre are serious challenges the prosecution of the Saudi Military Campaign in yemen but are interests better served by walking away or engaging Going Forward . Chas freeman has said when he arrived in saudi arabia as u. S. Ambassador in 1989, he found the relationship had stagnated or atrophied to a great extent because americans took it for granted. Saudi arabia had been the most stable country in the middle east for 80 years, was always there in spite of the differences we had. We could count on certain aspects of saudi community, of saudi arabia as an entity, who responded in certain ways. We know thatident about saudi arabia today. Is accounts, i mean, here where i differ a little from jerry saying this is not about the relationship with mohammad bin salman. He is all there is. It used to be there were centers of power in saudi arabia where you could get to the king through this prince or that prince and there was always prince bandar. Now by all accounts, mohammad bin salman has neutralized every other center of power in saudi arabia. Knowdition to wanting to who will be the next president of the u. S. , i want to know what happens next year or the year after or the day after tomorrow when king salman dies and mohammad bin salman becomes the king of saudi arabia, which will happen. Who is his crown prince . Assuagewhat he does to the grievances of every other branch of the family that he has inflicted on them over the past 3, 4 years . Then lets see what kind of country it is we are working with now and how it is different from the country we worked with for decades. If i could add to that quickly, i think you just put your finger on a critical issue. At, when people are looking and trying to analyze the direction the saudis are headed effort on thehis part of mohammad bin salman to eliminate any discordant voices, basically, put all the strings of policy and power into his hands, his brother is a Deputy Defense minister, he has eliminated many potential adversaries and the senior ranks of the family. The question is, and i think this will be perhaps determinative in terms of u. S. Saudi relationship Going Forward, is that sustainable over time or is the family going control, some greater greater leverage . My guess is you will not know the answer to that question until the day comes where he is trying to become the king. That is when this will sort out. Some of the questions from maybe i could combine one or two. A few of them have to do with how important it is the military to military relationship with the saudis in terms of deterring, containing or rolling region . N in the encouraging the saudiis really relationship israels relationship in terms of how to deal with iran . , how can weto that and economicary and political relationship with and political relationship with them. What is the way out . And we can hope them with then finally to come to a different question, how do we use our relationship with them to encourage age inside the kingdom . How many days do we have . Can we use it to resolve some of , androblems that we have can we use our relationship to bring about change that we would like to see in the kingdom . Is that important, is that something we can encourage . I would like to address that one particularly. Locked in awere worldwide struggle with a rival power for supremacy in islam which is how the saudis see themselves with the infidels who are running iran. I dont believe you when that struggle and ingratiate yourself with the muslim masses by getting into bed with israel. It may well be that there are ects of some kind of stun semi clandestine based on threats but the idea that we would encourage the saudis to enter into any kind of overt partnership with israel would be out of the question. I think the king is with you on that. I dont think anybody is encouraging and overt relationship but there is no question that under the table there is all kinds of factors. Some of this started out as shared perception but it ran is the main striver driver of this. Foreconomic conference for the weston bank and maybe gaza regardless of how effective that compass was to lease in bahrain took place in bahrain. Is all sorts of public toolsing about various for monitoring social media, context between saudi and israeli officials which should not be in the u. S. Interest and we should be looking at that. , if you talk to certain israelis the most Exciting Development taking place in the middle east are the goals, the young people are dynamic and we need to be paying attention to it. How to encourage inclusion in the kingdom. The lesson of the u. S. As if we at the government and say you should take this kind of change doesnt work. Acknowledging the changes that are already under way to take place and figure out how we can be more effective on that. Do you know the size of the Scholarship Program . More than 10,000 . 50,000 students a year are coming to the u. S. University getting exposed to american style education. Thats a way of encouraging change. It doesnt have to be oniculating its programs what you should do. My point why i mentioned the soap opera that was shown and saudi arabia during ramadan there is already changes underway. If there are some views about specific rings taking place that are antithetical to us we should as civil rights activists, we should raise it and be direct. We think some should be immediately let out of prison. How isl relationship it for what we want to accomplish. To getl the coalition rid of isis. We have a Regional Coalition who is united with us in addressing a share threat. There are other examples like that, piracy, Maritime Coalition in International Waterways where navies,with partner this is in our interest to be regionalized and globalized. Care about this military edge, russia and canada doesnt care. Do we have an interest in finding out way to continue making sure that the saudi military is bind to that u. S. . Those are a couple of examples of why the relationship remains important. We have checked the box on this thing. Nobody has mentioned but one of over theesting things last few days is the announcement by the administration that they sent 500 u. S. Military personnel to saudi arabia. That thist mistaken the first time we have had Ground Forces in saudi arabia since the first gulf war. After we withdrew everybody. I think that is significant. The reality is, if the u. S. Remains committed to providing gulfity and defense in the region, if we continue to seek a iran as a potential adversary in the region then you cannot achieve your military objectives without support from saudi arabia. In terms of access to their facilities, several points early on about airspace, and other things. The reality is that without saudi arabia the other states will be reluctant to go forward. As theok at saudi arabia security in the region and will take their cues from the position that the saudis take. It will continue to be important. In terms of the question about the way forward on yemen, it is hard. I agree, i think i agree on this point and that is there is no utility in are using our military support for Saudia Arabia to beat the saudis and somehow think this is going to compel them to make decisions about the things in yemen they are not willing to make. It will undermine our relationship with them. It will introduce a new component of the conflict affliction between our societies without accomplishing anything in particular. I would point out that when you that the saudis and other old states are hedging rightbets and the region now. A lack of certainty in terms of what u. S. Policy is. If you want to talk about the turks system that the have just employed, saudi arabia has just negotiated with russia about the possible purchase of that. Signalontinue to unreliability in terms of our military relationship with them then the saudis have the resources to look elsewhere and plenty of other governments that are willing to provide that support. Does that mean does that translate into ability on our part to help influence the direction of a resolution in yemen. I go back to the point i made earlier on and that is the dontple reason that we have a political resolution to the conflict in yemen which i believe the saudis at all the other Coalition Partners would welcome is not because the saudis are on willing to pursue to empower the you and to pursue it. Party, these neither must stick party inside of yemen has come to do the decision that making a deal that they are continuing this conflict. There are reasons for that, both in terms of their vision of the potential for a military ,ictory, you have a war economy an awful lot of people who are making money by allowing this conflict to continue. The conflict is really not binary, it is multipolar. Trying to get everybody on the same page in order to resolve this thing is tough. That the own sense is is notn to the problem between saudi arabia and yemen, it willth in yemen and be to get all the enemies together. If that happens my expectation is that the saudis will welcome and core rate. What about iran . Im going to be a little contrary and on yemen. Country. I think it is very important, the statement that members of congress not only them craddock have been making about our participation, our support for the prosecution of the conflict in yemen and can have an impact in getting people to the table. It was taken into account with the uae decision to change the nature of their engagement. Aboutint made earlier that balance getting to the table, the lack of support from the u. S. , military support, changes that balance. There are many who have argued that we gave them support in that conflict to alans there distress with us of having an agreement with it ran. Iran. Was it in opportunity to reduce that support as well that we are still there. Adults, they make their own decisions about what theyre asked to daschle what their priorities are but that does not mean that they are prior entries for us. We have to think of it in that way. It is the cost of the , theitarian in yemen possible war crimes in yemen that we have a connection to at this point . Or poormpetent prosecution of the conflict from us saudis side worth it to as the u. S. . Our workers need to continue a lively debate on this issue. Us coming out in a different place sooner rather than later is a reasonable thing for the u. S. To do and i do not think if saudis problem with the that will not materially change the nature of our relationship. You mentioned change within saudi arabia coming. I will say, having been there from the early 2000s there were interesting and challenging oil and off the boil they talked about it. 911, a sevenyearold boy driving his mother to the hospital and a discussion about women driving happening. My belief and understanding from my time in saudi arabia with and reachingnge fundamental rights there is not an issue of driving or having access to Public Events where men and women can be together, important of course. I would argue that it is a for women in saudi arabia. For carrying out your public still yet to be sufficiently addressed and those are the things that will make a difference in womens lives and in saudi lives. The. Again, one of the things that is causing so much consternation in the u. S. Is the way the war in yemen is being prosecuted, unsuccessfully and with collateral damage. Is there something we can do to help them improve this toformance and avoid that get a satisfactory outcome there . Anecdote from an 2016p that i did there in with our late president a former ambassador there. We had a meeting with the saudi generals and they said, we need toe precision guided weapons avoid killing civilians. They didnt say we want to kill civilians, they said we need more precision guided weapon. Does it help us to reduce our use ource and can we relationship to improve their performance i get a better outcome in yemen . Let me just say again, part of the problem, and i think that you and she not have touched on it, part of the problem that i debate isthe way this carried about here in washington is that there is a tendency to look at this as a saudi aggression against yemen. It is not a saudi aggression against yemen. Saudi arabia did not begin this war, they did not they are not responsible for this war. Eight is a civil war. Saudi arabia has been engaged because of what they continue to be at i agree with them, what they continue to believe a threat to their National Security. How tonot talk about stop this conflict as long as your only willing to talk about the actions of one side. It is not the side that started this conflict. Unless you are going to talk aret the iran that responsible for the tragedy that witnessed overve these past three years, you are not talking about Real Solutions to the conflict. Singling out the saudis and say if we stop selling them went and sat will force them to the table. There is a presumption on your there isnte reason a political solution is because the saudis are preventing it. That is something i would take issue with. I dont think the saudis are preventing a solution. I think that the issues are domestic issues inside of yemen. The reason there has not been a solution is because neither side deals compelled to achieve a solution. That applies to the who tease as well as the government. The u. S. Was one of the original clearly that the position of the International Community is support for the legitimate government of yemen. Disagreee agree or that is what the you and security sick councils set up. Hich we felt it or we should continue to support a resolution negotiated by the United Nations that would allow for the resumption of the transition document that was fine and agreed in 2011 that back to ag everybody political process back into yemen. Noting on the saudis will get you there. Correct to represent way forward, we need to look at the reality of the situation and shadowsle we to pursue in cave. You dont have too much time. The two and a half years after the saudis began to seniorne in yemen, five officials and the military advisor to mohammad bin salman , five different objectives restore the legitimate gombert , i would submit that if you cannot articulate the strategic reason for waging the war you cannot find victory. That is part of their problem. They dont know what they are fighting her. Those points that you just made is contradictory. All of those elements are there. You and security resolution has all of those elements and it. They might articulate them differently, but they are all the same piece. The second batch of questions from the audience comes back to how do we use our relationship to bring about positive change in saudi arabia. There are a few questions here their relationship to improve our relationship and to encourage positive change inside the kingdom on questions like guardianship and women who are detained and how to get accountability over the cut shoji matter. How do we now use our relationship to get the change we would like to see inside of the kingdom and has anybody seen evidence that inside the kingdom there is a willingness to talk about this and a willingness to listen and work with us on these issues. During the Truman Administration the state department distributed to all arab country and loss statement about our policy in saudi arabia and it said, we are not there to tell them how to run their country. We are therefore economic and strategic reasons that are important to us. We are not there to tell them that they shouldnt we had people or women should be allowed to go on covert, none uncovered. Not our business. They dont have School Shootings and fentanyl overdoses and they dont want to hear about that stuff for us at our policy has served us well. It is not our business the way they organize and run the country and we should not attempt to use our influence on that. As president bush and condi rice found out with their democracy initiative. I think one point that we havent delved into which is important for the topic at hand today is that we do hand and new saudi ambassador in washington. It comes in the context of event very disruptive affect their relationship which was the murder of jamaal kush oki. As someone who spent eight years living in saudi arabia i am optimistic that the new ambassador had the opportunity to host an event last year, very articulate, she was big being about Youth Development and saudi arabia, i think she has come with good advice on how to turn the rhetoric that we saw in following the cut seei murder, what we will from her is an understanding that the u. S. Does the spec other partners like saudi arabia by certain kinds of behaviors that was not understood previously. I think we will see a toning down of the rhetoric that we have seen. And the opportunities for in saudi arabia, they have very good diplomats who have served here. It is important to keep in mind that the relationship does need to be repaired to a certain extent. We are fortunate to have a new ambassador who are think has come well prepared and with the right temperament to help repair that relationship. I wanted to make sure that point was made in addition to all of the policy discussion that we have had. I think the diplomat to government relationship needs to be improved and i am optimistic that with the arrival of the new ambassador we will see improver improvement in that relationship. Im going to take the counter view. U. S. Not about the dictating to other countries, but this event or decisions made inside a country and we do need to raise it. I dont think it is in our interest for saudi arabia to be in a group of countries that assassinate. The other governments that do that are russia and north korea. Our entries. There is a reason to raise it. Is not the business of the u. S. What takes place in other countries, then what rules are we talking about we are having a debate here weather systems is in our interest to reinforce. Prevente not attempt to him from dropping bombs on his own people . Should we not work with other countries with mass imprisonment . This makes their countries more unstable. They are laying the groundwork for perpetual state instability. States tof the united make saudi arabia change thats not what we are talking about. Happening andy there are areas of cooperation and we can find ways to partner. Makeere any way for us to the saudis better and yemen. , the intentionality versus capability, are the saudis intentionally exacerbating the worlds worst. Umanity humanitarian crisis based on where you come out on the debate determines whether or not you think there is an opportunity for us to work to them. Our military is a running we have a system of accountability, we have theressional oversight, American Military is not perfect either. But is their leadership in saudi arabia that wants to improve the conduct of their military operations . Right now there is an open question here in congress as to whether they are a limiting organization and intentionality versus capability. And we have been working or years with them to improve their operations. Years of of these seeking to improve the copy of operations of the saudi military it does not appear here that there has been an improvement. A final comment . Comment . You will find the video of this event on our website by the end of the day if you want to watch it. The transcript in the next issue of the journal. At the end of september and it will be on the cspan archives as well. You can read this discussion. We will. Thank you to the panel and thank you to everyone for coming. [applause] [inaudible dialogue] announcer if you missed any of this forum, you can watch it in an watch at any time. On this weeks newsmakers program, we spoke with derek kilmer, the representative from Washington State as the chair of the new democratic coalition. We discussed his legislative priorities. You can see newsmakers sunday at 10 00 a. M. Here is what is ahead in congress for the coming week. The Senate Resumes work on the nomination of the defense secretary. A confirmation vote is expected tuesday. 9 11some house passed Victim Compensation fund. The house, members will consider a bill for Retirement Savings for workers and retirees. Legislation to address Border Security and accountability at the department of homeland security. You can watch the house live on cspan, see the senate life and you can see both at the been. Org or listen to the congressional debate. This week marks the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. A new poll shows three quarters footagecans watched either live or recorded of the landing. Starting tonight at 8 00 1969 watch the 19 footage, beginning with preparations. We had tracking begins from the instrument unit. Liftoff. F, we have a 32 minutes past the hour. Liftoff on apollo 11. Man, oneall step for giant leap for mankind. Announcer saturday, the landing and moonwalk. At 10 30,morning coverage of the apollo 11 returning to earth and greetings from president nixon. I am the luckiest man in the world. I say this not a live because i have the honor to be president of the United States, but particularly because i have the privilege of welcoming you back to earth. Was the 1969 News Coverage on cspan and cspan. Org. Listen with the free cspan radio app. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is on capitol hill next week, testifying about possible obstruction of justice and rust and interference in the 2016 president ial election. Live allday coverage on wednesday start set 8 30 a. M. Eastern. Listenive at cspan3 or on the free cspan radio app. Supreme courtrom Justice Elena kagan. She says there is no part of her that is going to accept the recent decision in that gerrymandering cases from the 20182019 court term. The court ruled 54 that it is a matter of politics and not one for the federal judiciary came up. Justice kagans comments came