captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. president obama today backed india's bid for a permanent seat on the u.n. security council. >> suarez: and i'm ray suarez. on the newshour tonight, we get analysis of the announcement, as well as the president's push for new business deals for u.s. and indian companies, and for better relations between india and pakistan. >> woodruff: then we update the investigation into the b.p. oil spill with excerpts from today's hearings and an interview with joel achenbach of the "washington post." >> we see no instance where a decision-making person or group of people sat there and opted to give up safety for cost.

>> suarez: margaret warner looks at the state of middle east peace talks after israel announced it would move ahead with new settlements. >> woodruff: and we talk to tea party favorite senator-elect mike lee of utah about the campaign and governing in washington. that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> suarez: president obama's endorsement of india's demand for a permanent seat on the u.n. security council reflects the country's growing global weight. the announcement came on the president's first stop on a ten- day asian trip. >> i look forward to a reformed united nations security council that includes india as a permanent member. >> suarez: president obama, speaking to the indian parliament. in a surprising gesture to his host who wanted that permanent seat for some time. but the president offered a note of caution along with his endorsement. >> let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. >> suarez: it is a long task from today's speech to full membership. many procedural and political roadblocks remain. high among them opposition from china.

mr. obama's three-day visit showed points of contention and cooperation in the expanding u.s.-india relationship. from indian involvement in afghanistan and its explosive relationship with neighboring pakistan to the promotion of democracy to nuclear non-proliferation and trade and business relations. at a news conference earlier in the day, mr. obama and indian prime minister highlighted further economic opportunity for both countries. >> we've expanded trade and investment to create prosperity for our people. >> india needs an investment of a trillion dollars in the next five years in its infrastructure. it would welcome american contribution in fulfilling that condition. >> suarez: since last week's election in the u.s., the president has sought to rebrand his stop in india as a jobs and trade mission. mr. obama pointed to deals

between american and indian firms he said would support the creation of more than 53,000 jobs in the u.s. even as both leaders looked forward, relations between india and its arch rival pakistan were never far from the surface. the two nuclear powers have fought three wars over the last 60 years. and the flash points between them are many. from the fate of the disputed region of cash mere to cross- border terrorism. on saturday in mumbai mr. obama spoke in memorial of the terror attacks in the city launched by pakistani extremists. yesterday at a town hall meeting, mr. obama took a particularly direct question about pakistan, which is a lynch pin of the u.s. campaign in afghanistan. >> why is pakistan so important an ally to america so far as america has never called it a terrorist state? >> that's a good question. i must admit i was expecting it.

>> suarez: the president sought to differentiate between extremist elements within pakistan and the actions of its government. he urged engagement. >> that dialogue begins perhaps on less controversial issues building up to more controversial issues and that over time there's a recognition that india and pakistan can live side by side in peace and that both countries can prosper. >> suarez: the issue was raised again today in a question posed to the prime minister. >> we are commited to engage pakistan. we are committed to resolve all outstanding issues between our two countries. >> suarez: but amid the serious talk, there were moments of reflection and remembrance. mr. obama and the first lady visited the site of mahatma gandhi's cremation today, removing their shoes and tossing flower pet als as is customary.

and this evening an elaborate state dinner hosted by the prime minister and his wife. however it was not all a delicate diplomatic dance. yesterday the president and first lady found time to cut a rug with some children at a new dehli school. tomorrow the president departs for indonesia where he spent four years as a child. for more on president obama's trip to india we get two views. deepa ollapally teaches international relations, and is associate director of the center for asian studies at george washington university. she travels frequently to india. charles kupchan is a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and author of "how enemies become friends: the sources of stable peace." he served on national security council staff during the clinton administration. professor ollapally, during this trip, president obama has called the tie with india one of the

defining relationships of the 21st century. is it right? and how does this trip contribute to that? >> i think the... his view of india as one of the defining partnerships is easy enough to understand. if you think about overall u.s. interests in this century in the 21st century india offers, if you look at it strategically, economically and ideal logically india is a pretty sure bet in the long term to be working together with the u.s. in solving a variety of problems both globaly as well as regionally. so i think obama... i think this is something he's been saying quite frequently. i think he sort of walked the walk when he was in india. this time. >> saurez: high berb low or is he on to something? >> i think the trip succeeded in the since that obama needed to send a message to the indians that india hasn't fallen the american radar

screen. that was the real concern because during the bush years india felt it was in the limelight. there was a nuclear deal. then there was a sense that there was a drift in the relationship. i would agree with deepa that the general alignments between the u.s. and india over the long run looks pretty good. i fear that this three-day visit, however good, warm and fuzzy, may put the cart before the horse. in the sense that i think probably by 2020 or 2025 it will be a very important relationship. but right now the u.s. and india are pretty far apart on afghanistan and pakistan. they don't really agree on iran. india isn't ready to cut commercial ties. on china, india is really focused on the north eastern border, the territory dispute. the u.s. more on naval issues. on climate change, don't see eye to eye. on trade there's a lot of tough talk. in fact, the u.s.-india confrontation really stalled

the trade negotiations. my bottom line is it looks good over the horizon but don't say things that you can't actually back up in the near term. >> suarez: that's pretty daunting litany from charles kupchan. >> i have to say i don't fully agree with charles on this one. i think one of the things is that india's rhetoric has been somewhat... it's been disconcerting from the u.s. point of view. i agree that on the trade agreement there were clear problems. on the other hand, india sees in trade at least and that's the key part here with the president who is facing the domestic economic downturn that we have here, jobs are very important. the trade is very important. what india has i think... what you're going to see is a shift over time and not 20, 30 years but in the next five years where they have recognized that india is a net winner with globalization participating in a new round of doha perhaps but

participating in changing and talking within the w.t.o.framework. i think india actually is on board on that because if you look at what they've done chasing the free trade agreement that would be unthinkable just three or four years ago, also this move as i think that obama has announced there has really empowered what i might call the great power realist within india because there are different schools of thought. i think this really builds the case for those people who are... who have been dragging their feet to actually act more and be serious about acting in different ways that help u.s.-indo relations. >> suarez: charles kupchan, let me follow up with you on the trade question. for years people talked about china as a great potential future market for american goods and said you have to be in china. yes, it's going to cost you a lot up front but eventually it's going to pay off

handsomely. now the chinese are making a lot of those things that we were supposed to sell to them for themselves. might india follow suit? >> right now india has an economy that is only about a quarter the size of china. trade with the united states is one-seventh the trade with... excuse me the united states and china. so we're still talking about a country that is emerging, not yet on the global stage. and moreover a lot of industrialization has yet to take place in india. a lot of the development has been in services industry and software. so we're not really talking about a situation where there's a huge diversion of industrial and manufacturing capability from the united states to india. but i do think there has been a lot of progress on the economic front. i sort of see this trip as laying the foundations for a relationship that may well burgeon over the coming decades. but this is really the beginning.

and again i think it's important for both sides to keep those expectations in check because otherwise we may, when we take off the rose- colored glasses, say, well, where's the beef? what is the stuff of this new partnership? that would be my concern. >> suarez: professor, before we close, we do have to talk about the american president's public pronouncement that he backs india for future membership on the permanent members of the security council of the u.n. is it a big deal for india to get that kind of public endorsement? >> absolutely. i mean, this is very high up on the indian wish list. but it was seen as something that was probably not going to come any time soon. partly because of the chinese resistance and also the delicate relationship of the u.s. and pakistan. the only other country that the u.s. has endorsed so far is japan. and their allies, right? so india i think... this far

exceeded the indian expectations but it has gone a huge way in shoring up indian trust with the u.s. because one thing we have to understand is that for 50 years the u.s. and india were on really different sides of the equation during the independence period. it's a huge progress that they've made over the last five years. to the point where india and the u.s.... the u.s. has the largest number of military maneuvers with india today, more than any other country which is itself, you know, so you have to look behind the sort of general sort of, you know, dragging of the feet and not much happening. but there are impacts, in fact, important steps that are being taken military and economic. so i think it was... this is something that will go a long way to cementing relations between the two. >> suarez: can the united states be expected to put its real diplomatic muscle behind that endorsement? >> it's an enormously complicated process. i think the president is right to say it's time to start this

discussion. that the u.n. security council represents the post world war ii distribution of power not the world that we live in today. but to get a consensus among the perm 5 the key players to get china to agree, to figure out how to deal with brazil, with south africa, with other players is going to be a very long-term investment. so can india.... >> suarez: are we talking about five years, ten years? how long is long? >> i would say three to five years is not on. i think we're talking about an expansion of the security council maybe by the end of the decade. again that's why... let's not put the cart before the horse les we end up creating expectations that go unmet. >> suarez: thank you both. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour, the investigation into the b.p. spill; the state of the middle east peace process; and the tea party comes

to washington with utah senator- elect mike lee. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: nato forces in afghanistan sustained more casualties today. a bomb blast killed a soldier in the east and two other nato soldiers died sunday in insurgent attacks in the same region. meanwhile, the commander of nato's training mission in afghanistan warned he needs at least 900 more trainers in order for afghan security forces to take the lead in four years. 1,800 trainers are currently on the job. the first election in 20 years in myanmar forced thousands of refugees to flee the country as political violence escalated. sunday's vote was marred by widespread fraud allegations, and president obama said the government there was stealing an election. more than 15,000 refugees fled fighting between ethnic rebels and government troops along the border with thailand. myanmar has been ruled by the military almost continuously since 1962. a second journalist was attacked in russia today after writing about land development issues. today's attack followed the

brutal saturday beating of journalist oleg kashin, who writes for the popular daily newspaper "kommersant." kashin is now in a drug-induced coma after two men kicked him in the head, shattered his jaw, broke his leg, and mangled his hands. today in moscow, russian president dmitry medvedev ordered the attackers be found and punished. >> this kind of event is not the first one. it surely shows that the level of crime in our country is still very high, and that, second, there are still forces that think they may silence anyone, be it a journalist or a politician, and that, to reach their goals, all means are good. these forces should be abolished, and whoever is involved in this crime, he will be punished. >> sreenivasan: russia has seen a wave of assaults on journalists and activists. in most cases, the perpetrators are never found. since 1992, the committee to protect journalists reports at least 52 journalists have been killed in russia. the australian airline qantas is grounding its fleet of airbus a- 380 superjumbo jets for another

72 hours. engineers have discovered oil leaks in three engines on three different a380's. the engines were were all manufactured by rolls-royce. last week, one of the planes blew an engine while en route from singapore to sydney. it made a safe emergency landing, but left scattered debris across indonesia. the u.s. department of homeland security expanded a ban on air cargo to cover somalia, in the wake of last month's foiled terror plot. the u.s. had already ordered a ban on shipments from yemen, after bombs were found hidden inside printers on aircraft traveling from yemen to the u.s. as part of the new rules, printer toner and ink cartridges weighing more than a pound will also be prohibited on all passenger flights to the u.s. technicians at a nuclear plant in vermont got to work today fixing a pipe that leaked radioactive water. the yankee nuclear plant was shut down yesterday, after a leak was spotted during a routine check. officials with the nuclear regulatory commission said the

public was in no danger because the levels of radioactivity were so low. and agency inspectors were overseeing the shutdown of the plant. sam hemingway is covering the story for the "burlington free press." >> reporter: first off, do we know what was leaking and how significant is it? >> this is radioactive water. it was from steam from the reactor that had heated up. it's collected by a system of pipes and then fed back in to the reactor core. it was discovered during a maintenance check yesterday. they had to shut down the plant today. once it was cooled down enough, they can then go ahead ahead with the job of fixing it. it will take three days to get it fixed. >> sreenivasan: this isn't the first time this particular plant has had problems, right? >> there's been aate lot of problems with this plant. this one is internal to the plant inside the plant. in the last year we've had several leaks outside the plant of underground pipes.

they began last january. for a while the company that owns this plant was telling everyone that these pipes didn't exist. there was a big dispute about it. eventually they admitted they did exist and had plans to show they existed. that was detroit yum. there was later on cobalt and strontium and there was a leak during a very hot gubernatorial campaign this fall outside the plant in a unused drinking well. we've had our share of problems up here. >> sreenivasan: our thanks to sam hemingway from the "burlington free press." the 38-year-old nuclear facility is currently up for sale. another governor's race was decided today, this time in connecticut. republican candidate tom foley conceded to democrat dan malloy. foley had been considering challenging the use of some photocopied ballots, but ultimately decided there had been no fraud. one of the rescued chilean miners is celebrating a new achievement: completing the new york city marathon. edison pena took part in

sunday's 26.2-mile race, less than a month after being freed. the 34-year-old battled knee pain to cross the finish line nearly six hours after the race began. pena jogged several miles each of the 69 days he was trapped underground. stocks had a mixed day on wall street. the dow jones industrial average lost 37 points to close above 11,406. the nasdaq rose just over a point to close at 2580. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: the president's panel on the gulf oil spill presented its preliminary findings at a hearing in washington today. kwame holman begins our coverage. >> reporter: seven months after the explosion of the deep water horizon oil rig, the lead investigator of the bipartisan commission examining the causes of the incident said there is no evidence those involved made shortcuts on safety to save money. >> we see no instance where a decision-making person or group of people sat there aware of safety risks, aware

of costs and opted to give up safety for cost. we studied the hell out of this. we welcome anybody that gives us something we've missed. but we don't see a person or three people sitting there at a table considering safety and cost and giving up safety for cost. we have not seen that. >> reporter: that conclusion supported b.p.'s own internal report on the disaster released in september. b.p. found flaws with contractor halliburton's cement job and the maintenance performed by rig owner transocean ltd on critical pieces of equipment. b.p. questioned how its employees could have misread a critical pressure test before the blow-out. the bipartisan panel laid out a detailed portrayal of the events leading to the accident at the well on april 20 that killed 11 workers and unleashed more than 200 million gallons of crude into the gulf of mexico, the largest off-shore oil spill in u.s. history.

in its preliminary findings today, the commission said b.p. and transocean workers misinterpreted the only test they had to determine if cement had properly sealed the bottom of the well. problems with the cement were a major factor in the gas leak that caused the explosion. >> the question is why these experienced men out on that rig talked themselves into believing that this was a good test that had established well integrity. you see, none of these men out on that rig want to die. the question is why? why did they come to this conclusion? we may never know the answer to that question. >> reporter: the investigators also claimed b.p. created additional unnecessary risk by removing drilling mud and surface plugs that might have acted as barriers against gas flowing out. in responding to the panel's questions mark bly, b.p.'s chief of safety, disputed that claim. >> the reason i've taken an exception to it is it's making

a judgment about a very small change in risk that i think is not, you know, wasn't a causal factor in this. >> reporter: the investigators said they could not yet reach any conclusions about one critical component of the well, the blow-out preventer or b.o.p., which serves as the last line of defense against a well going out of control. for their part, representatives of transocean, the device's owner insisted the enormous set of valves and pipes had functioned properly. >> we do believe the b.o.p.worked within its design limits from the evidence we've seen so far. >> reporter: the commission holds a second day of hearings tomorrow and is expected to deliver its final report in january. >> woodruff: and for more, we turn now to joel achenbach of the "washington post," who was at today's hearing. good to have you with us again. >> great to be here, judy. >> woodruff: remind us again, joel, who is on this commission? how were they appointed? who appointed them? what was their mission? >> this is william riley a republican and bob gram a

democrat appointed by president obama to look into this accident, why it happened and also to come up with plans for off-shore drilling. the commission has been handicapped. they don't have the power. nonetheless they were able to come up with some information and put together this presentation today that was pretty impressive given that they couldn't put people under oath. some of it was a clip job as we say in newspapers. i've done many a clip job in my day, where you take what's out there in the public sector that's already published. you put it altogether. they had amazing graphics to show a kind of a primer, you know, a drilling 101 of how this all played out. i'll just say that you played the clip where fred bartlett said at the very beginning of the day we didn't find this was driven by greed. but otherwise it was kind of a rough day for all the companies involved. b.p., transocean and

halliburton because they made so many clear mistakes in this well. >> woodruff: you use the term festival of errors when you were talking to us a little while ago. >> well, i mean, it was a tragic event. i don't mean to make light of it. they did some things that i think a lay person would even would say, why would you do it that way? for example-- and this is something the commission talked about a lot today-- b.p. decided to put the plug, the top cement plug not the bottom plug but the top plug unusually deep in this well and to take the heavy mud out from above that plug and replace it with sea water. now the mud weighs 14 pounds per gallon. the sea water weighs about eight pounds per gallon. when they did this though, they decided to put the plug in after they pulled the mud out. they kind of changed their mind at the last minute and put the plug in. that was their intention after they displaced the mud.

well they never put that plug in because the well exploded before they had the chance to do it. many people would say that that was the long order of... that was the wrong sequence to do that. >> woodruff: on this point, joel, that b.p.... that the chief investigator is saying they didn't find that b.p. had cut safety corners to save money. were they able to prove that in some way? >> no. i think that that is going to be a contentious assertion. this is a very impressive chief council to the commission, fred bartlett. a long history of representing major corporations in industrial cases. i think that, as some people will say, he went too easy on b.p. if you look at what the records show, this is a company that has a culture that does reward people, gives

them bonuses for saving money. secondly you have a situation which this well is way past deadline, way over budget and arguably they were rushing. time is money in drilling. this rig is is costing a million-and-a-half dollars a day. i mean, the whole operation, drilling the well is a million-and-a-half dollars a day. are they going to take extra time, you know, run a cement bond log test to see how the cement job went? are they going to do these extra things or do they feel pressure to move forward? that's not the same thing as greed but i think people will not necessarily agree with mr. bartlett's assertion. >> woodruff: where does this investigation go from here? and in terms of other investigations. >> well i was really surprised today actually at a couple of things that came out of the blue that made me think that where it's going to go is more disputes and more debate about what actually happened. i thought we were coming toward a consensus about

certain things such as where did the gas come up the well? did it come the center, the central casing which is what b.p. said and what the commission found too. they think the gas came up the middle. but halliburton dropped a bomb today and said no. we don't think so. we think it came up the ring around the pipe. that sounds like the most technical thing but it was a lot of implications for liability and whether or not that the well design was wrong. the other thing that was unusual or that was surprising was when transocean said we think the blow-out preventor actually worked. we think that it did seal that pipe. but the force of the well, as i understand it the explanation, the force of the well eroded the rubber gaskets or seals around this blind sheer ram as they call it, and that... so it worked as it was designed to work but obviously

didn't work well enough. so i think we're at a moment where even some of the basic questions are still in dispute. and the other thing is this is going to go on for years with the litigation. >> woodruff: we're going to keep an eye on it. we appreciate your keeping an eye on it for us today. joel achenbach, thank you. >> thank you. >> suarez: next, the latest blow to faltering peace talks between israelis and palestinians. margaret warner has that story. >> warner: the announcement came from israel's interior ministry. it's going ahead with plans to build nearly 1300 new apartments in disputed east jerusalem. the move came at an awkward moment in obama administration efforts to revive stalled israeli-palestinian peace talks with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu on a visit to the u.s. he met with vice president

biden last night in new orleans where both were speaking to a gathering of north american jewish leaders. biden, in his speech, reaffirmed the u.s. commitment to israel's security. >> ties between our countries are literally unbreakable. >> warner: but today state department spokesman crowley deplored israel's move. >> it is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the parties. >> warner: reactions from the palestinians who claim east jerusalem as their future capital was swift. chief palestinian negotiator. >> this is just one more sign that the israelis do not want the peace process. this israeli government is dedicated to destroying the peace process. >> warner: it's a far cry from the mood just two months ago when the administration relaunched direct negotiation between netanyahu and palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas. they held two other sessions in the region. but talks ground to a halt when a partial israeli freeze

on new settlements expired on september 26. abbas refuses to return to the table until the freeze is reinstated, he's vowing to go to the united nations to seek recognition of an independent palestinian state if talks don't resume. despite entreaties from the obama administration and offers of enhanced security assistance, netanyahu so far has not budged. meanwhile he is pressing the obama administration on iran, reportedly telling biden last night that the tonal way to deter iran from developing nuclear weapons was a credible military threat. secretary of defense gates pushed back today in australia. "i disagree that only a credible military threat can get iran to take the actions that it needs to," he said. "we continue to believe that the political economic approach that we are taking is in fact having an impact in iran." netanyahu is scheduled to meet with secretary of state

clinton thursday in new york. for more, we go to robert danin, a former state department and national security council official, who headed the office of the quartet of nations and international organizations working on the mideast peace process. he is now at the council on foreign relations. and shibley telhami, a university of maryland professor and senior fellow at the brookings institution. he's conducted numerous public opinion surveys in the middle east, and advised the state department on mideast issues. we will... welcome to you both, gentlemen. the israeli press is calling today's announcement coming as it does when prime minister netanyahu is here a major embarrassment. are they ride and if so to whom? >> i think it's an embarrassment to both prime minister netanyahu and to the united states. prime minister netanyahu came on this visit wanting to make it a positive visit. in doing so by having the interior ministry announce this while he's here it

undermines his credibility in the eyes of the administration. for the administration it looks like they're trying to make peace with someone who is not serious. >> warner: are you suggesting that this was made in spite of prime minister netanyahu or that he was behind snit. >> first of all we don't know. i suspect this was done to embarrass him. the announcement was made by the interior minister, by the interior ministry. the prime minister has been trying to keep things quiet in jerusalem until now. now when something like this happens when there's an announcement of housing ewen is in jerusalem he is in a corner. he cannot criticize because this is the mom-and-apple pie issue for israelis and for his coalition so he has to be... take it quietly but he knows it's going to infuriate the administration. >> warner: embarrassment and to whom? >> no question it makes it very difficult for the obama administration. no question if you look at it from the regional perspective that the american elections were seen as a moment, you

know, that everybody had to put up. afterwards there would be movement. the arab league met to support president abbas return and direct norx. they gave him one month. >> warner: this was back in october. >> precisely because of the elections. it makes it very difficult. nonetheless i have to say that it makes... it is embarrassing to the administration, no doubt. but in our public opinion generally in the region, people have assumed settlement was continuing. so the oddity of it is it's not seen as something new but it does make it difficult for for the palestinian authority because he said he's not going back unless there's a stopping of settlements and happening in jerusalem which is the most sensitive issue of all makes it really difficult. >> warner: when the white house and secretary of state clinton rolled this out in early september this new track the pears agreed they were going to have face to face talks. they gave themselves one year to come up with a framework

agreement or outlines of a deal. don't get lost in all the technical details. is this fast track off the rails? >> it's not off the rails... yet. but we've already lost two very important months. more importantly the momentum is not being generated. if anything, ill will is being generated. that is not helpful for making fast progress. >> warner: do you think this is off the track? >> it's not off the track for the following reason. i can tell you that it's interesting because, you know, with all the complaints about the effort-- and there have been many reasons to complain about them because we haven't gotten anywhere-- the public and the region want to see a two-state solution. they don't think it will happen. but most of them believe if in fact it fails, it will be a disaster. no one has an alternative. arab governments don't have an alternative to the peace process. israeli government doesn't have an alternative. you have a president in the u.s. who put a lot on the line. he went to the u.n. and said i want to have a palestinian

state. end of conflict agreement within a year. i think no one is going to be interested in not giving him a chance to try. >> warner: and this threat by prime minister abbas to or president abbas to go straight to the u.n. and just ask for declarations, is that an empty threat? >> here's the problem for the palestinians. one is on the one hand there's no question it's not an empty threat in the sense that i think many want them to do that. they're getting a lot of advice. they have support from europe. on the other hand the biggest asset is that they have an american president who says i want this to be a priority issue for me. it's a national security issue for the united states. i want it to happen within a year. can you go against that? if the president of the united states doesn't want it, would you go against the president of the united states? i don't think it's a real choice unless they persuade the u.s. administration. >> warner: robert, let's go back to how the u.s. has handled this. couldn't this impasse have

been really predicted? in fact, wasn't it in early september? because they rolled this new thing out just less than a month before this settlement freeze was going to expire. what was the thinking this? >> well i think the real problem is that they started the negotiations. we were able to get around the settlement but that the first three rounds of discussions did not go as well as had been hoped for. so as a result you saw both i think prime minister netanyahu but especially president abbas become a bit concerned that this negotiation is not moving forward. >> warner: let me interrupt you. you think that the u.s. thought that a certain momentum, real mow momentum would be generated in the first few weeks so much so that this freeze deadline would blow right by that. >> that was the thinking. i think the hope was that if you're already into the deep negotiations it will make moving through the settlement moratorium a much easier issue. but what they didn't calculate

was one that it would be much more difficult for netanyahu to get through or at least he would calculate it such for domestic political reasons but also that it would undermine rather than instill confidence in president abbas in this negotiating process. by all accounts the first set of negotiations that took place subsequent to the september 2 launching did not go well and helped president abbas conclude that maybe this isn't really going to go very far or i don't have a serious partner. >> warner: briefly before we go, secretary clinton and prime minister netanyahu are meeting in new york on thursday. does the u.s. have the clout or anything it can offer, say or do at this point to revive all this? and while you're answering this briefly, factor in the ruls of the election. does that in any way bolden netanyahu and make him harder to persuade. >> there's no question that people assume that netanyahu believes that a republican- dominated house is going to

help him because he has a lot more support and people would want to criticize the president in any case on this issue, they'll criticize him so more. i happen to this that that was not a major issue in our election. whether or not the democrats will win in 2012 will not depend upon this issue. what it does mean though in terms of having... it's difficult for the administration to deal with incrementalism because every time you have a crisis like this settlement issue you're going to have critics on the congress, whatever the president does. therefore there has to be a reassessment of this strategy. >> warner: do you agree they have to go back to square one here or does secretary clinton have something they can pull out of her bag? >> i think everyone wants negotiations quickly. they're going to have to make a determination very quickly if they can get off the negotiating track or if they're going to need to reassess fundamentally the approach they've taken. >> warner: no magic bullet you can see. >> not for this visit. >> warner:.

all right. thank you both. >> a pleasure. >> woodruff: now, a look at how republican leaders are embracing the enthusiasm and ideas of newly elected lawmakers swept into office on the tea party wave. come january if not before, the rhetoric that emboldened the tea party movement during the midterm campaign.... >> we've come to take our government back! ( cheers and applause ) >> woodruff:... will clyde with the reality of governing. while there's no official tally of results, the number of winners from last tuesday who claim some tea party backing includes at least five senators. anywhere from 28 to 40 house members. based on news reports. those candidates elected on a platform of smaller government, less spending, and lower taxes, will be confronted with

decisions about what exact to cut. abc's christiane amanpour pressed kentucky senator-elect rand paul yesterday. (talking at the same time) >> you can't keep saying.... >> i can because i'm going to look at every program. every program. i would freeze federal hiring. i would maybe reduce federal employees by 10%. i'd probably reduce their wages by 10%. >> woodruff: the republican leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, who supported paul's opponent in kentucky's g.o.p. primary, was asked about some of the senator- elect's ideas during an appearance on cbs. >> he's going to have an opportunity in the senate to offer all of those ideas. we'll get votes on them. he's coming here with a lot of enthusiasm and new ideas. we'll be happy to consider them in the senate. i'm sure they'll be considered in the house as well. >> i mean, considering them and being for them. are you for those things? >> some of those things i may well be for. i may end up being for all of them. we'll have to see.

>> woodruff: taking clearer aim at the salaries of federal employees was south carolina's jim demint. >> which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15% that's non-discretionary, that's non-defense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts? >> i don't think the american people are going to have to sacrifice as much as the government bureaucrats who get paid about twice what the american worker does. >> woodruff: in the primaries demint endorsed several tea party insurgents over establishment-backed candidates including in utah where he sided against three- term incumbent bob bennett. when we spoke to bennett shortly after he lost his re-election bid last may, he warned that the tea party energy would take republicans only so far. >> yes, we benefit from the sense of anger and the sense of helplessness and disenfranchisement that this

movement demonstrates. but (sighing) we must recognize that anger is not a sound strategy for governing and that once you are in office you have to have some solutions. >> woodruff: exit polls last week showed 40% of voters expressed some level of support for the tea party, a sign the movement and its agenda has some wind at its back. republican senator-elect mike lee ran as a tea >> woodruff: republican senator- elect mike lee ran as a tea party candidate in utah, and he joins us now from salt lake city. first of all, congratulations. >> thank you. good to be with you. >> woodruff: and you. my first question is, how will you be able to work with senator mitch mcconnell, the minority leader, since he was working for your opponent in the republican primary? >> well, you know, there are a lot of people who will be coming together notwithstanding the fact that they might have been on different sides of different races. i have no problem with that. i'm sure that leader mcconnell

doesn't either. i look forward to working with him. we agree as republicans on lots and lots of issues including the issues that are most important to the tea party like the fact that the federal government is too big and too expensive. there are few if any republicans who will disagree with that. >> woodruff: your office was telling us today, senator-elect lee, that one of your top priorities is an amendment to the united states constitution to balance the budget. how soon would you like to see that happen? >> well, i think it needs to happen in 2011, in the first year of the soon to be created congress because i think we need a framework from which to start this idea. it says we need to stop mortgaging the future of unborn generations of americans. you know, it's a form of taxation without representation. when we incur debt to the tune of trillions of dollars, you know, we have a national debt that right now sits at a level approaching $14 trillion. within about a year's time at the current rate we'll be at $15 trillion debt.

$50,000 per person just on a per capita basis. that's a lot of money. a lot of money that will have to be paid back by people some of whom aren't even born yet. so we need an amendment to the constitution that says congress, subject to very rare limited circumstances, has to pass a balanced budget every year. >> woodruff: to get to that, you told a town hall meeting i read in utah just a few weeks ago that the federal budget might have to be cut as much as 40%. were you serious about that? >> well, that's not exactly what i said. what i was talking about was the fact that we need to look at a bunch of different formulas to try to figure out how to balance the budget. i suggested in hypothetical terms that that's one approach we could take is go through and come up with a hypothetical budget from each department, each federal program, figure out what it would look like if it were cut by that amount and then figure out what we could tolerate. another approach would be to go back just a few years say examine the budget as recently

as 2004 and figure out how that could be made to work today. just a few years later. if we had a budget in place like that today, we could balance it. >> woodruff: i ask you because as you know very well, 60% of the budget, defense, social security, medicare, and if you walled that off and you suggested you would wall that largely off, all you're left with are veterans benefits, retirement benefits, you're left with safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, education, medical research and a lot of issues or items that people think are essential for the federal government. so i guess my question is, what would you cut? >> well, again that's going to be one of the questions that we're confronting. what we're addressing right now is the need for a balance budget amendment that would require congress to do this. look, you have a lot of senators and a lot of representatives in both political parties who want a balanced budget. we're not always going to agree on where we cut or where we cut first. but if we first agree on the

need to balance it and on the fact that we need to amend the constitution to require us to do so, we'll get somewhere. i think we could get there by doing among other things a retrospective look at past budge hes, say as recently as 2004 and say if that could work a few years ago, why couldn't it work today. >> woodruff: for example some of your new incoming colleagues say they want to look at cutting federal government salaries. they want to look at cutting out the department of education. cutting out a number of other things. are there any specifics you can give us? >> well, yeah, i would like to see a cut with the department of education. look, our education system in the united states of america functions best when decisions affecting the classrooms are made at... as close to the classroom as possible. when they're made by teachers, principals, parents, state and local governments and educational officials not from washington d.c.. that's one area where we could

cut and save a lot of money, save about $50 billion a year doing that. that's a drop in the bucket compared to what we would need to cut if we were to balance the budget. that's why we'll have to look at across-the-board cuts the likes of which we could discern perhaps by looking back to a budget as recent as the 2004 budget. >> woodruff: one of the decisions congress is going to be making early in the new year is raising the debt ceiling. i believe you've said you'd vote against that. my question is, even if it means shutting down the federal government, which is what's happened in the past. when congress hasn't supported that. >> i would vote against raising the national debt ceiling. again this is about mortgaging the future of unborn generations of americans. it's a form of taxation without representation. i don't think we can do that. now i think there are alternatives out there that we could use in order to avoid a government shutdown. i don't want a government shutdown. i don't think anyone does. i'd like to see some form of continuing resolutions that would allow spending to

continue at current levels, but if we had to do that in a way that enabled us to avoid having to raise the national debt ceiling we might have to consider across the board cuts being built into the automatic continuing resolution. >> woodruff: but again.... >> i would, however, vote against raising the national debt ceiling. >> woodruff: but again across the board no specific? >> correct. across the board. >> woodruff: and in terms of the bush era tax cuts, you've indicated you're in favor of extending those permanently. the estimate is that would cost something like, what, $4 trillion over the next ten years? how would you pay for that? >> well, in the first place i think it's important that when we ask that question we not look at it in terms of cost. this isn't money that belongs to the government. this is money that belongs to the people, the people who earn it and who are paying their taxes. we can't look at this from the perspective as we would if we were talking about a government program that we

were trying to create. this is money that belongs to the american people, to the same people who earn it, the same people who are paying taxes. we have been operating our government based on those tax cuts but we've been operating at a rate that is far in excess of what we're bringing in. again, we have to look at at across-the-board cuts, the same kind of cuts that we would look to if all of a sudden we had to pull out the 2004 budget and make it stick right now. >> woodruff: we're going to leave it there. senator-elect mike lee from utah, thank you for joining us. again, congratulations. >> thank you. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. on his ten-day asian trip, president obama backed a permanent seat for india on the u.n. security council. the government of israel announced it's moving forward with plans to build nearly 1,300 new apartments in disputed east jerusalem. and the presidential commission investigating the b.p. gulf oil spill found overall the company did not sacrifice safety to cut costs.

and to hari sreenivasan in our newsroom for what's on the newshour online. hari? >> sreenivasan: on this week's political checklist, david chalian and judy talk about the reaction at the white house and on capitol hill to g.o.p. gains in last week's midterm election. we have more on the attacks on journalists in moscow. we asked experts about the state of press freedoms in russia. plus, paul solman weighs the pros and cons of the fed's recent moves to boost the economy. that's on his making sense page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> woodruff: and again, to our honor roll of american service personnel killed in the iraq and afghanistan conflicts. we add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. here, in silence, are nine more.

>> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on tuesday, we'll look at the new fiscal challenges for state governments after last week's elections. i'm judy woodruff.

>> suarez: and i'm ray suarez. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org