we have discussed before and section 5, which enables congress to pass legislation to implement the provisions of a 14th amendment, that it is not self-executing and it requires a law passed by congress that at one time there was such a law actually, what congress had revealed it, either 1948 or 1938. the house of representatives considered a bill for implementing the disqualification clause but it died in the house. he said the closest thing that there is on the books is the criminal provision, 18 usc 2383 which makes it a crime to engage in an insurrection. and that is the very charge donald trump was acquitted of in the senate. by jack smith. he could have been charged with this. he not only has it been convicted of this, he hasn't

even been charged with this. the other justices did not deal with the issue about whether the section even applies to trump. whether he could be considered president as an officer of the u.s., justice of war, in the footnotes, this is a colorable argument, but because i'm dissenting on these grounds, i don't need to reach that opinion. this will certainly go up to the supreme court. there are at least 13 other pending challenges raising this issue and other states. two other states, arizona and michigan, these issues are on appeal. yesterday the california lieutenant governor urged the secretary of state to throw trump off of the ballot in california, siding with the colorado decision. god help them. i don't know how the supreme court can stay out of this. i'm sure they wish they could. this at the same time they will

consider jack smith's motion to expedite and skip the d.c. circuit on the appeal of trump's immunity claim. >> i agree with you on the merits. it's interesting, multiple grounds on which the colorado supreme court got it wrong. i think the merits of it which you concentrated on did vouch on actually that he committed or was he involved in the insurrection? can an appellate court or trial court make that decision without actually really having a trial? does that mean anyone, any official could decide, based on whatever procedures they chose to use, who is an insurrectionist and who is not an insurrectionist? which feeds into the self execution argument. unless congress passes a law setting out how you make that determination, you do open it up to every county clerk deciding for themselves, who is an insurrectionist or not.

and what is the living principle? you don't have to limit it to donald trump either. how do you allow -- it's not just 50 different states. it's about 3000 counties out there with their own election officials. to me, the main flaw in this case is on the merits of the application of the text of the 14th amendment. as you mentioned, the strongest issue here for trump is the president is just not covered by the text of the 14th amendment. there are two kinds of coverage provisions. the first is what kind of office did you have at time of the insurrection? the second part is, what offices are you for from assuming? -- youforbidden from assuming?

neither of them refers to the president. the closest it comes to his officer of the united states -- is officer of the united states. the constitution, there may be one exception. but the constitution's text uses president and office of the united states separately. they are distinguished. the president is elected, like members of congress, offices of the u.s. are appointed, discussed differently, they even take different oaths upon taking office. it's very hard i think for those who want to bar president trump under the 14th amendment to show that officer of the u.s. includes the president as a term of art in the constitution. the majority opinion i thought here was weak on rebutting this argument. there are a variety of different contexts. this is the first time that this issue has ever gone to the supreme court. but in other contexts, the court has said, do not read

officer of the u.s. to include the president both in statutory and constitutional cases. most recently in the free enterprise case a few years ago. so, john, you mentioned what you think the court is going to do. what do you think? first, are they going to grant this case? second, what do you think the court is going to do in the case? what effect will that have on the election calendar? >> i have a hard time imagining the court could adopt this case at this point. particularly now with this one ruling by the colorado supreme court. my guess is with 13 pending cases and other states, there is to be somebody else who is going to say what they said and disqualify trump. in one of the footnotes, it said

some states don't even have election codes to do any sort of challenge -- -- sorts of challenges like this. so you will have this piecemeal stuff all around the country. there's one other argument i forgot to mention. i thought it was a clever argument. saying the reason why this provision was put into place in the first place, it was immediately in the aftermath of the civil war, as part of the reconstruction amendment. it was designed to prevent states, particularly the southern states, from having the ability to determine who was qualified and nonqualified for office. congress wanted to make that decision by implementing procedures and standards and having an ability to eliminate the disqualification -- a unique provision in the constitution -- which they did with respect to the former rebels in the southern states. i would be very, very surprised

if the supreme court upheld this decision. i don't think they can really duck it. i suppose they could by saying that the process that took place in colorado did not afford donald trump would be -- did not afford donald trump due process. but that is kicking the can down the road on the substantive issues. i don't see how they will be able to avoid it. i don't know whether it's going to be a 9-0 decision. but the court is once more going to be thrust into the election in a has not been since bush v gore in 2001 or december of 20. -- december of 2000. i think it's going to be a complete mess. if they decide the issue and they affirm what colorado has

done, then it's done. because it will apply to every state and donald trump will be off the ballot everywhere. >> that is a remarkable thing i don't think people have focused on. suppose they upheld the colorado supreme court, that means the supreme court's blessing this interpretation of the 14th amendment and they would be the supreme court that would disqualify donald trump -- not just in colorado but throughout the entire country. i don't know, this is now getting into judicial politics, but i have a hard time seeing chief justice john roberts, the one who wants to keep the court out of politics, leading the supreme court into eliminating from the ballot a guy who is leading by 50 points in the primary states or 50-30 points in the early primary states and could well be the nominee of one of the two major political parties. that would be to me going deeper into presidential electoral

politics than bush versus gore. which if you recall was the court saying the state of florida's courts were using and consistent standards in how to count ballots from county to county. one issue. the second issue -- here's where everybody -- i think that the court, too, will grant certain. suppose you don't know how the court will book. suppose you're worried there might be five votes on the court to affirm the colorado supreme court. and you do not want the supreme court to be the one who decides nationwide whether trump is going to be on the ballot or not. maybe you don't grant it angela corrado have its way and wait for another case -- and let colorado have its way and wait for another case where there is conflict. that would be the traditional way the supreme court would exercise its power to see if

there is some kind of conflict between two state supreme court's on this issue. although minnesota has already decided on this argument not on the 14th amendment grounds. that might be the argument. you could see chief justice john roberts worried about that, too. kicking the can down the road, let colorado go this way, but we will see another case, maybe this doesn't get anywhere in any other state, and then we cannot have to intervene. >> look, with two cases still on appeal and actions pending in 13 other states, with the california lieutenant governor asking the california secretary of state to rely on this to bounce trump -- i just can't imagine one or two or more states not taking the bait and disqualifying him. this is terrible. if the goal is to actually,

like these indictments, lead to donald trump's defeat, it may have the exact opposite effect once more. all people are talking about is donald trump. nobody is talking about nikki haley or how ron desantis is going to do in iowa. anybody who was going, i don't buy all the stuff about a two-tiered system of justice, they are just out to get donald trump -- someone is going to say, maybe i should rethink that, maybe there is something to this. i think it is going to take donald trump's base, they were already on steroids and now they are on mega steroids. i just cannot see the supreme court ducking this, as much as they would like to. i'm not even sure i could see -- conceivably we could see this being a 9-0 decision. decision with sotomayor or elena kagan

writing some kind of opinion concurring on the result or concurring but blasting donald trump for the horrible things they think he did. >> one last issue, you will see supporters of the decision-maker is, yes, conservatives, don't you believe in federalism? why should the supreme court intervene early? this is the same argument on the flipside. people could say trump is inconsistent with the jackson smith case where the trump campaign is saying slow down, do not grant expedited appeal. but here, the critics of president trump will say, this is up to colorado and the supreme court. you will notice the majority opinion cites" a lower court opinion written by then judge neil gorsuch saying states have

the right as part of running the elections and managing the ballot, applying the qualifications clause of the constitution and knocking people off the ballot because that's federalism for you. >> that is far-fetched. it is one thing to argue democracy in terms of how they implement policies. when you are determining what the federal constitution says about who is disqualified and who is not, that is like the supreme court -- two or three circuit courts invalidating obamacare and the supreme court saying it is fine to invalidate obamacare there but not here. it is a clear federal constitutional question. it has to do with who is elected for president for all of us. this is not a question of states having the flexibility about implementing a particular policy that has an effect on the economy or what have you.

>> i agree. the odds are high the court will take the case. the other ground for supreme court search review is national importance of the issue. i tend to think -- i'm happy to be proven wrong, but i tend to think if you are the court and thinking about it as a political matter, overruling the colorado supreme court actually gets the court out of politics rather than deeper in. you do not have the judiciary deciding whether donald trump is eligible to run. the voters can decide. i think that is what other republican primary candidates are out there saying right now. i want the voters, not the courts to decide. that is chris christie's line. >> i wonder whether jack smith will reconsider or supersede his

indictment. the criminal law says participation in an insurrection -- one of the justices said look, there is this provision out there, one could interpret that if you will as implementing the trigger of the disqualification cause. that justice said, the dissenter, if he had been charged and convicted of that offense i would not be writing a separate dissent. i would be joining the majority. i do not think that is going to happen. jack smith, if he thought he had a provable case, would have brought it. he would have been seen as being political if he did that in light of this colorado case. but that's another arrow in his quiver if you wants to shoot it. -- if he wants to shoot it. >> the president is entitled to believe donald trump committed insurrection. the special counsel who works for him did not charge president trump for insurrection.

the senate acquitted trump in the second impeachment of incitement to insurrection. one wonders why president biden does not instruct a special counsel to add the charge they are asking for if he believes what he is saying, but that is political, not a legal point. before we move onto the next topic i should remind everybody, we will be reserving significant time for questions and answers. if you would like to ask a question, type it into the q and at the bottom of the soon panel -- q and a box at the bottom of the zoom panel. the court just cannot get out of it. no matter how much they try. this was the grant, we did not get a chance to talk on the last episode of our podcast here. but the supreme court granted sert i'm a chronic case

called fisher which involves the central charge being brought against many of the january 6 rioters but also against president trump. this is a question whether the activities on january 6, whether you think they were right or wrong, justified or not, do they rise to the level of obstruction of a process or proceeding of congress? john, take us away. what do you make of the merits of this case? and then the implications for the presidency of the court taking this case. >> the case they granted, donald trump is not one of the defendants. but as you correctly point out, two of the four charges in the case before them which is stayed , two of the four charges involved this charge.

here you had three january 6 defendants who were in the capitol. joseph fisher, edward lang, and gary miller. they are charged with a variety of offenses including violent offenses, assaulting capitol police officers, things like that. they are not disputing the sufficiency of the charges against them on other grounds. but they moved to dismiss one charge they had in common. that is the charge for violating 18 usc section 12 c2 which has to do with obstructing an official proceeding. that statute, this is a matter of statutory interpretation. i have to read it because it is important. it says whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for the use in an

official proceeding, or, otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined and subject to potential 20 year penalty. these guys argued in the district court agreed that the c1 provision which talks about destroying documents, when it is the scope of c2, the otherwise obstructs provision. they basically said what these guys did, yes, what congress was doing in certifying the vote was an official proceeding. but this was not obstructing official proceeding. that statute only reaches things like evidence fully asian or the ability to ascertain -- destroying evidence, fabricating evidence, witness tampering. either for official proceeding or investigation. he dismissed the charges.

went to the d.c. circuit judge and there was a split. performance -- florence pan writing the majority opinion coined by justice walker saying otherwise is a catchall. any type of obstruction of any kind of an official proceeding qualifies. it did not have to be limited to evidence tampering in some way. a dissent says, no, the statute was passed in the wake of the enron debacle. there was shredding of tons of documents. it all had to do with obtaining and preserving the integrity of evidence. what happened with these guys when they went to the capital did not involve trying to destroy or tamper with evidence.

the charge, you get 300 of the other january defendants. the supreme court has decided to hear this case. if they say no, obstruction of official proceeding has to do with evidence preservation or ascertainment, those charges will fall because that is not what happened in the capitol. they will also fall against donald trump. the fact the supreme court has granted cert dramatically increases the likelihood that that trial before judge chutkan, which is scheduled for march 4, is not going to proceed on that date, even if they decide which i do not think they are going to to grant jackson's motion to expedite and bypass the d.c. circuit.

>> this is interesting as a procedural matter. you could see the trump defense pitching to chutkan she should hold the trial until you find out from the supreme court whether this is a plausible charge or not. judge chutkan does not seem to show much openness to delaying the trial but that would be a very sensible thing to do given as you say two of the four charges in the prosecution could be immediately knocked out by supreme court decision which will come by the end of june. the sensible thing would be for the district judge 2 -- suspend is the wrong word, but delay the trial or have it move on other grounds, or i guess if you were smith you might consider dropping the charges in some way

or suspending them. but i do not think smith has any incentive. as you say, john, if you look beyond the trump cases and beyond the fisher case itself, this is one of the central charges used against most of the january 6 protesters. writers, protesters -- rioters, protesters. whatever you want to call them. and it produces a long sentence. if you are the justice department you are not think people away for a very long time on misdemeanor charges for trespassing on the capitol grounds. if you look at the january 6 prosecution, they have not been charging january 6 defendants are part of a conspiracy with trump to commit insurrection. he was very careful not to bring in president trump. this charge is a central part of

the way the way the justice department has been pursuing these cases. i agree with you, john. it is a matter of statutory interpretation. the secondary catchall clause. you see this all the time in supreme court statutory interpretation cases. congress makes up a list and they throw some kind of thing at the end. include all the things we could not think of. that does not mean it goes beyond the subject matter of the provision as a whole. this is not exactly the application. but i love to use legal latin because it is such bad latin. this is the -- canon. you know something by its friends. if something is in a list, that thing has the character of all the other things in the list. i just took a much longer

fancier way to explain what john just said. >> the supreme court had a case that was slightly different. a few years ago, had to do with the destruction of a whole bunch of documents or other tangible objects. the yates case. it involve the national oceanographic boarding a fishing vessel, finding there were undersized fish on the boat. by the time they got back to the dock, the undersized fish had all been thrown overboard. they charged them with violating the provision because he had destroyed a tangible object, a fish. the supreme court by 5-4 decision, it was close, with a dissent by elena kagan, said no, the statute does not mean that. this would not be the first time the government has charged in a

very aggressive fashion and they might get spanked for it. >> this goes to the larger point. this is another example of the supreme court being unable to stay out of the 2024 elections. you have the colorado case. you have this case. it is not involving trump but it directly involves trump. half of his case will rise or fall based on how the supreme court decides this issue with fisher and the other january 6 defendants. we talked about in the last episode, the accelerated plea for cert by special counsel jack smith at the supreme court to hear president trump's immunity claim which has been rejected by the d.c. circuit and by the trial judge here. >> it has not been rejected by the d.c. circuit yet. >> you are right.

>> they said they are going to consider on expedited basis. i do not think the supreme court is going to grant a motion on that. if the d.c. circuit upholds that order by judge chutkan, it's going to make its way up to the supremes. the reason i misspoke about the d.c. circuit is you do have the d.c. circuit decision about whether president trump has any official immunity for civil lawsuits. which, there is a basic constitutional run through the immunity case, also this issue we could talk about now, the rejection by the 11th circuit of mark meadows effort to remove his case, which is all these cases in the lower courts have pulled this principle from various supreme court precedents which is when the president acts officially as president carrying

out the duties and responsibilities of the presidency, there is some immunity that attaches. it applied civilly. whether it applies to criminal cases are not the supreme court has never decided. although the implication of these immunity cases as the lower courses have read them is you do not have immunity from criminal prosecution. if you are acting as a private citizen, when you are acting as a candidate for president, that's almost by definition a private citizen, you do not have any immunity. you cannot claim you are acting with the dues and responsibilities of the office. you are subject to civil lawsuits. before we get to the hunter biden issue, why don't you address this, this is your home circuit where you mucked about, screwing up the case law in the 11th circuit. why don't you address this decision on mark meadows yakym

-- mark meadows? >> mark meadows white house chief of staff, he was indicted on the current state court by fani willis. he filed a motion to remove to federal court, a particular statute, called the federal officer jurisdiction removal statute. he said look. all the actions i took here as an official were all under official acts, they fit within the scope of my authority and duties as chief of staff. that was rejected unanimously in an opinion written by bill prior . it was joined by ryan rosenbaum. rosenbaum is an obama appointee. meadows lost on two grounds.

one, the statute does not apply to former federal officials, only to current federal officials. the second reason, he said even if it applied to current federal officials, the actions you took contacting the secretary of state, contacting state legislators, urging them to hold special sessions, that was campaign activity for donald trump. arguably you were violating the hatch act. it does not fit within the duties of the white house chief of staff. there was a concurring opinion by judge rosenbaum agreeing with that but urging congress to amend the statute to cover all federal officials. but agreeing meadows's actions were outside the scope of white house chief of staff. the attitude that no, when you talk about campaign activity,

trying to urge one person being chosen over another, either by congress or the electoral college, that was campaign activity. you do not get immunity for that. of course donald trump has said he was participating in those activities, too. he says i get immunity because it falls under my obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and that includes election laws. so far that argument has been on the back of his hand. no come of that is what the civil rights -- no, that is what the justice department is there to do, it is not for you to put a thumb on the scale of who the american people should choose particularly after the election has taken place. >> we only have five minutes left. let's talk about hunter biden quickly. let me take the lead.

and then john, i will ask for your thoughts. wrote a little piece about the hunter biden issue. this is outright defiance on a congressional subpoena. you look at the facts. hunter biden is told to appear on a certain day and time for a closed-door deposition. that is a standard approach when you're preparing for a public hearing. you conduct the investigation. you have a deposition with lawyers present. you take notes. you have a transcript. hunter biden refused, he said i want to have a public hearing. i do not want any kind of in person testimony first because it will all be leaked. you could say that about every time congress actually does some kind of investigation that this could happen.

or when prosecutors do the same thing, or civil litigants. this is not the grounds for defying a subpoena. hunter biden could have said i think this is a violation of my fifth amendment right. but you can comply with a subpoena by showing up and taking the fifth amendment. instead he showed up in front of the capital so he could attack the investigation. and as i think congressman comer said who is leading the investigation, leading the committee, the oversight committee, that is a giant finger in the eye of the house. that you show up physically a few hundred yards away from where you are supposed to go and say you are not going to show up. actually hunter yet again is getting his father in more trouble. this is guaranteed now to force the investigation into hunter to keep going deeper into 2024 where it cannot help but have

some kind of fat affect -- some kind of effect on the elections. he'd helped trigger the house to vote authorizing the impeachment investigation. there were arguments that might not happen because republicans have such a razor thin majority in the house. hunter did this and a few hours later the house said we are going to authorize the impeachment investigation. third, the house is now going to have to vote a contempt of congress motion out which i expect it will. i saw a story today saying housestaff say they have the votes now for this. this puts joe biden in a terrible spot. it is his justice department that has to carry out the contempt of congress prosecution . the u.s. attorney in d.c. traditionally carries this out. is joe biden going to allow his justice department to prosecute his son for refusing to comply

with a valid subpoena from the house? what would be the constitutional basis hunter biden would raise as a private citizen? the only times the only times the justice department has refused to prosecute have been cases where it has been an executive branch official who has been prosecuted for contempt. that official has usually claimed executive privilege because they were defending the constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch. the executive branch said due to the separation of powers you are not going to prosecute our own personnel for defending the constitutional rights of our branch. so what is joe biden going to do? the last little bit was it came out in i think the white house press officer confirmed this, hunter called joe biden before he did this and talked to him about it. did joe biden tell his son to defy a legitimate subpoena from the house? it is going to make things worse.

more grounds for the investigation into joe biden's impeachment. go ahead, john. >> i'm not sure i agree with what you just said. only in disregard. i do not think there is anything hunter biden can do that is not going to damage his father politically. so yes he's going to be held in contempt of congress. i doubt the justice department will proceed against him. even if they do he has two pending charges against him and there may be others. i am not sure this is going to make life much worse for him from a legal standpoint. and think about what his options were. he can defy the subpoena and hold a press conference saying these are all evil republicans trying to bring down his father, he could show up, and by the way, he was going to get what he wanted after he testified behind

closed doors. two, he could show up and have a videotape and taking the fifth and he would be taking the fifth in response to questions about what his father did and what involvement his father had. or he could go in, potentially perjure himself or say incriminating things for the cases pending against him and provide self-serving statements attempting to either exonerate himself or his father, which could subject him to a potential perjury charge. if it were not credible it would really be damaging to his father and put the impeachment inquiry on a fast track. no matter what he was going to do was going to hurt his father politically. given those options, defied a subpoena, take the fifth, or tell a non-credible story, he might have taken the option that is the least damaging to his father.

i will bet you whether joe biden did, the white house let hunter biden know exactly what they wanted him to do. >> the quickest thing he could do to get this over with would be to fully provide all documents and testify immediately. that would actually -- if he believes everything he is saying, he did not do anything wrong, this is a witch hunt, the fastest way to deal with this is to testify and comply immediately. he should go for the closed-door testimony, answer the questions, and record the thing yourself and release your own transcript. >> there is no way. >> but produce the financial records. open the books. let everybody have at it. that is the usual crisis response many people in washington would give you.

do not go through this drip of information. release everything yourself immediately. this is not the biden team's defense. we have 15 minutes left for questions. jack, are you there? why don't you handle the question and answer process and we will try to get to as many as we can? >> certainly. we have our first question ready. our first attendee asks, the colorado opinion, the removal of trump from the ballot, cert would postpone taking effect until after the colorado primary ballot have to be printed anyway. the supreme court could dismiss cert as moot. all of that is virtue signaling by the colorado court. do you have any comments? >> they certainly did grant stay. they said that if trump files an

appeal, and he has said he is going to, he may already have done it, they would then await further word from the court either by granting or denying cert or whatever. you know, i think that is too cute i half. i think the colorado supreme court having unleashed these floodgates, i do not think they are going to be the only state that is going to go down this road. the other 13 pending lawsuits are in very blue states. it would not surprise me if the secretary of state shirley weber in california acts on this urging from the lieutenant governor to disqualify trump from the ballot. you can find a clever way to, somebody might be tempted, but i do not see it.

>> i do not want to imply that colorado's supreme court was being political in any partisan sense. all the justices here were appointed as -- by democratic governors and we still had a 4-3 split. i think that the state shows even the colorado -- the stay shows that even the colorado supreme court expect another court to intervene and possibly even overrule. sometimes the opinion would get into a little bit of histrionics but it did acknowledge this was a first of its kind case. waters that have not been sailed before. it was quite sensible of the court to stay its opinion. the ballots will go forward and get printed. it gives the supreme court time to make its decision without worrying colorado is immediately banning trump.

unlike by the way, the judge in the case involving rudy giuliani and $148 million judgment against him. the judge has issued an order, you need to start paying victims immediately. >> i saw that. right before the podcast started giuliani declared bankruptcy. >> that will take a pinch out of your pocket for sure. >> i thought he had it. he can put it on his discover card and get 2% cash back. his federal society branded credit card no doubt would help carry the interest on the charges he's going to have to carry. >> well thank you both for the time. we have another question here. this attendee asks, do we have a chance to see the established precedents of the self pardoning power of the u.s. president under the u.s. constitution in 2025?

>> sure. let me address that quickly. there's two interesting issues here. in this book i wrote in 2020 about trump and the constitution , i did look into the question of self pardoning. trump raised it himself during his presidency. that is one interesting question. the timing issue is interesting. of course i think jack smith, the reason he is seeking an acceleration of the consideration of immunity is he is terribly worried, i assume, that president trump might win and if president trump were to win the election before his prosecution can be concluded, trump could just order the prosecution dropped. he would be the president and he would be head of the article to branch. he is the ultimate supervisor of the justice department. the interesting thing is i do not think there is any way to

prevent that from happening now. even if there were a verdict against trump in whatever accelerated trial judge chutkan is going to have, trump has the right to appeal. should president trump when he could certainly end the appellate process drop the whole prosecution because there would be no final judgment in the case. but suppose instead that all that were exhausted, could president trump pardon himself? as unbelievable as it sounds, my view is the party clause is so broad it does not exclude the president from pardoning himself. it prohibits pardons for impeachment or state crimes. it does not say the president cannot pardon himself or his family members. one more last point.

this does not address president trump's prosecution in new york city by the manhattan d.a. for a financial, accounting irregularities connected with hush-money payments, nor does it address the georgia prosecution which is being brought by the da where fani willis has charged president trump and the trump reelection campaign as being basically a racketeering enterprise. >> i agree with all of that. first ics equal for your 2020 book. the only thing i would say -- and argument has been made trump could pardon himself. i do not see it. john does not either. although i do not think -- i certainly don't think the fani willis case is going to happen before the election. i do not know it's going to happen with the brag case.

i certainly don't believe even if they did try him and convict him that serving a prison sentence would be incompatible with his ability to perform his duties as president of the united states. i certainly don't think he would be sitting in a prison cell. the secret service would never allow him to do that. if the trial had not taken place the date of inauguration assuming trump wins, it would have to be held in advance until he finishes his four years in office. there's no way the sitting president could be sitting in the dock while the criminal case is going on and at the same time perform the duties he needs to do as president. >> thank you both for your answers. our next question, this attendee asks, wouldn't every government official lose immunity once they are out of office as governor or congressperson?

would all be have left be endless government litigation before collapse? >> the meadows case was not about whether or not he had immunity. it was whether or not the case could be removed. bill pryor makes a big point of saying hey, state officials can make determinations on immunity arguments like we can. it is the question of whether you think that is a fair forum in which to do that. judge rosenbaum in her concurring opinion urging congress to a mende statute -- ammend a statute, saying this will have a chilling effect. any executive they can take in the executive branch is going to be unpopular, so this is going to be a real problem. she adds it could have an effect

on ongoing administration priorities so president trump had a particular policy being implemented and now officials are out of office. the biden -- the trump officials are all being prosecuted. the biden administration is continuing the same course of conduct, then those officials are going to be sitting there going wow, look what happened to those guys who implemented the policy we are continuing. we are going to be out of office. we'd better stop implementing that policy or we are going to get indicted. the immunity argument meadows has, they are still there for consideration by the state court. but he has lost his ability, his effort to remove to federal court. >> i agree it is a larger issue. we are trying to make inferences based on what the supreme court has said in a very few number of cases. a lot of it has to do with just making -- just reading a lot

into the civil immunity the president receives. all of this is because of nixon. nixon gave birth to a lot of these cases. you know my rule. any case that has nixon in it, nixon loses. in the immediate cases that is harlow versus fitzgerald, not nixon. but it is a nixon administration case. when you look at how you want to design the system, you have to think, what are the incentives for future presidents? john and i were both subordinate officials in the executive branch, the justice department. what the supreme court has said is we do not want presidents who have to make the most difficult decisions having to worry about their legal liability. the court made that observation

in civil proceedings. the interesting thing -- the court is not decided or ever said the president has immunity from criminal prosecution. you could always say we should not worry so much about criminal prosecution at the federal level because you would expect the current president to worry a lot about the incentives on the presidency when he or she chooses to bring charges against former executive branch officials. those incentives are actually strongest on them. if i were to infer, make a guess about what the court will do with the jack smith immunity case once it gets to the courts, i expect the court will hold to that line and say presidents have no immunity from federal criminal prosecution because the current president is now charged , the executive branch, he or

she can worry about incentives but also maintain the idea presidents have immunity from civil provocation. sorry, civil cases. the lower courts have gotten pretty much right. presidents and executive branch officials have no immunity at all for their actions as private citizens. while they are in office. it is basically a fact question. for trial, on one side of that line or the other, but the line exists. what john said -- this is something the court has not given us much guidance on. what happens if states are essentially harassing federal officials? by using state law? the pardon power, i agree, does not allow you to pardon a state action. but what if the state is just harassing federal officials for carrying out federal functions?

this is a supremacy clause issue . this is what happened in mcculloch versus maryland. maryland imposed special tax on the bank of the united states because it wanted to put the bank of the united states out of business. what fani willis is doing is unprecedented. i can see this court standing up for the rights of federal officials in blocking onto premise because -- on supremacy clause grounds if they are designed to punish or retaliate or take a political stand against federal officials. that's going to be hard for the court to draw the line. how do we know estate is doing that versus applying general law to federal officials in private capacities? sorry for the long answer, but that is something the supreme court has to address.

it really has not for a long time. maybe since the civil war. >> thank you. we have time for one more question. this is a more recent development. stephen calabrese and others have filed an amicus brief in the supreme court are doing jack smith is not properly appointed by the president or confirmed by the senate and therefore cannot exercise the authority of a special counsel. do either of you have thoughts? >> we were discussing this before coming on the air. this is an argument made by a federalist society member. i have not read this brief. but john has. >> i tend to agree on the merits that the justice department is not following its own rules and regulations but also that special counsel does not really

exist under the constitutional scheme. the thing that is interesting about the amicus brief, the d.c. circuit, i would have to go back and work, i thought the d.c. circuit rejected this argument when it was brought against robert muller. i do not think the supreme court granted cert. the club will -- the clever thing in this brief is we are going to have to see, the court is going to have to decide one way or the other. what this brief does is it says jack smith is not a legitimate representative of the united states government. so he cannot bring this case to the supreme court. if the supreme court grants cert , it has to have rejected this argument. if the court denies cert but they do not say anything, it is

not clear whether they agree. you could say the agree with the argument or not. but you know, you could have people raise this argument by refusing to comply with any kind of subpoena or other action by jackson because this is not ultimately about whether jack smith can represent the united states government in the supreme court rather than the solicitor general. it is about whether jack smith is a legitimate prosecutor and can carry out the investigation at all. this is the first bite of the apple but i would expect trump or any of the other defendants in the jack smith investigation can raise this issue. i am sure we are going to see it come back again. >> it was the next context in the mother investigation, trying to refuse to comply with subpoenas for documents or personal testimony. the court did reach this issue and determine this violated the

appointments clause. the indictment said jack smith. somebody at the justice department would have to take over those prosecutions. the biden justice department will no longer be able to say, it is not really us, it is him. whatever separation one gets from having a special counsel, they would lose that. >> i agree. >> that seems like a good place to wrap up. on behalf of the federal society i want to thank everybody for joining us today. -- the federalist society, i want to thank everybody for joining us today. there will be plenty more updates in 2024 so we encourage you to keep an eye on our website and emails. we welcome listener feedback at info at fed-soc.org.

have a great holiday season area merry christmas and happy new year. we are >> today, watch c-span's 2024 weekly round up campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop of where the candidates are traveling in what they are saying, along with first hound -- first-hand accounts. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail. today at 7:00 on c-span, c-span.org or download the podcast on c-span now. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> weeknights at 9:00 eastern, c-span's encore presentation of

our 10 part series, books that shaped america. c-span partner with the library of congress, to explore key pieces of literature that had profound impact on the country. tonight, we feature the common law. it is a series of lectures on criminal and civil law and other legal issues. our guest is the president and ceo of the national constitution center. watch the encore presentation of books that shaped america weeknights at 9:00 eastern on c-span, or go to c-span.org to view the series and learn more about each book featured. >> all next week, book tv's after words in prime time, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed on their latest books. monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, "the death of public

school." the other is interviewed by the washington post education reporter. watch next week in primetime at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. also go to c-span.org to get a complete schedule. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy work, where citizens are truly informed, or public thrives. get informed straight from the sources on c-span -- unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> the u.n. security council

approved for -- approved resolution for a pause in the gaza war. the meeting includes remarks from representatives from palestinians, israel and egypt.

>> there being no objection, it is so decided. the security council will begin consideration of item two. members of the council have documents before them, the text of a draft resolution submitted by the united arab emirates. the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. i will now give the floor to those members of the council who wish to speak before the vote. i give the floor to the representative of the united arab emirates. >> mr. president, last week a group of security council

members traveled to the rafahh border. we saw firsthand the dire challenges we have been discussing in this chamber for over two months. we met victims who endured and survived the how unleashed on gaza following the october 7 attacks on israel. i will never forget meeting mohammed, a boy almost the same age as my son. like countless other children, he was recovering at hospital from wound caused by an israeli airstrike. he told me he wanted to go home to see his parents and it was heartbreaking to hear from staff that he had no idea that the strike that wounded him had killed every member of his family. the situation council members saw at the rafah border is unbearable. thousands of trucks trying and failing to enter through a chokepoint, a crossing only ever

intended for pedestrians. nearly one million people crammed into an area at the rafah border in gaza, where before the war there were less than 300,000. according to the world food program, the food that entered gaza since the beginning of the conflict is 10% of what is necessary to sustain the population. half of the people of gaza are starving. the u.n. has reported that the proportion of people hungry in gaza is higher than any country in any conflict in the last 20 years. given the desperate situation i have just described that has been detailed by the secretary general to all u.n. agencies, things cannot get any worse. let's be clear -- in the coming period, unless we take drastic action, there will be famine in gaza. this war and the unbearable price paid by palestinian

civilians, 60% or 70% we know our women and children, is having a significant impact on neighboring countries. regional spillover is a real possibility. we are seeing it already, including in the west bank, were almost 300 palestinians, including 75 children, have been killed. egypt's efforts to mitigate the crisis on the border are admiral -- admirable, but there must be an international response, and that's why the security council has but as to urgently step in. the text as a result of extensive consultations and engagement among concerned parties and members of this council, including egypt and palestine, for whose efforts we are especially rate for. the purpose of the text is simple, it responds with action to the dire humanitarian situation on the ground for the

humanitarian -- the palestinian people. it demands the urgent release of hostages and for humanitarian access to address their medical needs. the draft reaffirms we are building on the important resolution 2712 and its provisions. it demands the parties to the conflict allow facilitation of all groups for humanitarian assistance. it means that all possible land, sea in air routes into gaza must be utilized to allow lifesaving aid to enter, including ensuring that crossings remain open in full with counsel backing. even if trucks are going in at scale, if conflict continues, aid cannot reach those who need it.

128 u.n. workers have lost their lives. humanitarian personnel and premises must be protected. this international has been repeatedly violate. it calls for unhindered and expanded humanitarian access and calls on the conditions for sustainable cessation of hostilities. we know this is not a perfect text. we know only a cease-fire will end the suffering and that's why the uae put resolution to a vote to this council on friday, eighth december. it failed to pass. on the 12th december, countries called for this in the general assembly and a cease-fire did not happen as a result of this call, although its significance in moral clarity is clear. the resolution this morning

response to the call for a sustainable cessation of hostilities and a massive scale up of humanitarian aid. often in diplomacy, the challenge is meeting the moment in the world we live in, not the world we want, and we will never tire pushing for a full humanitarian cease-fire. the resolution calls for appointing a coordinator, whose mandate is to verify and facilitate humanitarian relief to gaza and it gives them the necessary resources and equipment to do so. a coordinator will establish a mechanism for delivery of aid and we expect a report in 20 days. we have established similar mechanisms and other humanitarian crises. we have been watching in recent weeks, civilians desperately grambling and gaza over basic necessities to live.

that should be an alarm bell of a breakdown of civil order and gaza. not only is this morally abhorrent, it is not in anyone's interests and could morally spiral. many governments, including those representative at this table have made many requests for the hostages. until we pool the efforts we will not be able to respond effectively. while we are safe at home with loved ones during the festive period, civilians in gaza will be dying from military strikes or the secondary impacts of the war, hunger, disease and widespread infection. this council has a responsibility to ensure they are not victimized twice over. we have extensively negotiated and tried to find language that meets everyone's concerns but also addresses this challenge

with a practical response. i would like to thank each and every councilmember who has contributed to this text and improved it and i would like to think the united states for their complete engagement in trying to find a resolution that meets the moment. let's not reject this resolution when the needs of people are so great. if we do, it will be an additional responsibility this council and the palestinian people will have to bear. thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative of the united arab emirates for her statement and i give the floor to the representative of the russian federation. >> mr. president, in the last few days, the security council together with the entire world has been witness to the shameful, cynical and irresponsible conduct by the united states, which is trying to avoid responsibility with a

veto. the world media and public this entire time have been wondering, why is the vote constantly delayed on the uae proposed draft? the answer is very simple, the united states has been dragging out the negotiation process, deviating from the normal negotiation work. they have resorted to their favorite tactic, pressure, blackmail and twisting arms so that at the last minute they can present to the members of the council with an ultimatum, either adopt a text convenient for washington or the united states will block the adoption of any product. the draft now put to a vote was initially in our view entirely toothless. but respecting the initiative of

our colleagues and their needs, we will support it under pressure from the usa that has essentially the served work -- u surped work. ultimately the wording put to a vote today has been extremely muted including the mechanism that is supposed to facilitate humanitarian assistance to gaza. worse than all of that, through the efforts of the american delegation, a draft resolution has included an extremely dangerous future for gaza. instead of working on an immediate cessation of violence, it is ambiguous, calling for conditions of a cessation. destruction or displacement in a

cynical reading, that's precisely how it will be read in israel, will create space for a cessation of hostilities be at signing off on this, the council will give the israeli armed forces complete freedom of movement for the clearing of the gaza strip. anyone who votes in favor of the text will bear responsibility for that, essentially becoming complicit in the destruction of gaza. moreover, the text of the draft has lost a reference of condemnations for attacks on civilians. what message does this send to the international community, that the security council is giving a green light for war crimes? i would like to put a question to members of the security council, why are we together in this room? to stamp a solution convenient for washington or put together a

mandate for international peace and security? we still believe we are here for the latter, in order to give the council chance to save face and preserve its battered reputation, we propose changing the wording on cessation of violence. calls for urgent steps to allow expended efforts and the conditions for favorable cessation of hostilities. in this regard, calls for cessation of hostilities to allow safe and unhindered humanitarian efforts and urgent steps toward cessation of hostilities. that wording was in the text of the draft resolution in blue by the authors and awaiting a vote. of course it is not ideal.

you all know very well that russia from the beginning has consistently defended the need for an immediate cease-fire. what's more, the parties recently called upon the parties to do that and their resolution but we are providing a wording that at the moment is the lowest common denominator for practically all members of the council. a vote on this amendment could be a moment of truth to show who of the members of the security council wants to end violence in gaza and who is guided by other considerations. the way the text is worded currently is the main thing the usa needs from this resolution under a cunning phrase, creating conditions for cessation of hostilities, it would be a free hand, to allow for indiscriminate bombings of gaza. we call on delegations to vote

in support of what we just proposed and was initially proposed by the uae delegation on ending violence. thank you. >> i think the representative of the russian federation for his statement. the members of the council have before them a draft amendment presented by the russian federation to the text of the draft resolution. article 36 of the provisional bozo council provides the following -- when in amendment leads to an addition or deletion from a draft resolution, that amendment should me submitted first of all. therefore, i have the intention to submit the draft amendment to a vote.

those in favor of the draft amendment, please raise your hand. against. abstentions. the result of the vote is as follows. 10 votes in favor, one vote against, four abstentions. the draft amendment has not been approved, given the veto. i know understand the council is going to vote on the draft resolution.

prior to that we will give the floor to the united states. >> thank you very much. i'm not going to respond to russia's rant, a country that has also created conditions they are complaining about now in their unprovoked war in ukraine. colleagues, the united states, we did not support the amendment put forward by russia, we believe the humanitarian resolution before us calls for urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered humanitarian acts and create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities. this is a strong step forward and we believe the council should speak out in the resolution put forward before us

and move forward with a vote on this resolution. thank you very much. >> i think the representative of the united states for her statement. we will proceed to voting. i understand the council is ready to vote on the draft resolution. i will now submit the draft resolution to a vote. those in support, please raise their hand. against.

abstentions. the result of the vote is as follows, 13 votes in favor, zero against, and two abstentions. the draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 2720. i will now give the floor to the members of the council, who would like to make a statement after the vote. i now give the floor to the representative of the united states. >> thank you, mr. president. and thank you fellow council colleagues. this is tough but we got there. since the start of this conflict, the united states has worked tirelessly to alleviate

this humanitarian crisis. to get lifesaving assistance into gaza and get hostages out of gaza. to push for the protection of innocent civilians and humanitarian workers and to work toward a lasting peace. today's vote bolsters those efforts and lends support to our direct diplomacy. i want to think the uae and others for working with us in good faith to craft a strong humanitarian-focused resolution. it took many days and many long nights of negotiating to get this right but today this counsel provided a glimmer of hope amongst a sea of unimaginable suffering. today this counsel calls for urgent steps to immediately

allow safe, unhindered and expanded humanitarian access, and to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities. i will note this is the first time this counsel has used this language, language we believe is critical to scaling up aid and underscoring the tough steps ahead as we work together to achieve a lasting peace. colleagues, today this counsel made clear that addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza needs to remain at the forefront of our agenda. today this counsel made clear that all hostages must be released immediately and unconditionally and that humanitarian groups must be able to access hostages, including for medical visits. today this counsel made clear

that all parties must respect international humanitarian law. today this counsel made clear that civilians and humanitarian facilities, including hospitals, medical facilities, schools, places of worship and u.n. facilities as well as humanitarian and medical personnel must be protected. this applies to all parties to this conflict. to israel but also to hamas, a terror group that instigated this conflict and wages were from inside homes and hospitals and u.n. sites and uses innocent civilians as human shields, and active cowardice and cruelty. today this counsel made clear the need to ensure humanitarian personnel and assistance, including fuel, food, medical

supplies and emergency shelter assistance can reach people in need. it is hard to overstate how urgent this is. just yesterday humanitarian groups released the report on the food security crisis in gaza and the word famine have started to enter the vocabulary of humanitarian leaders i met with. surgeries are being performed without anesthesia. people are huddled in overcrowded u.n. shelters, others sleeping in the streets. this resolution speaks to the severity of this crisis and calls on us all to do more. for our part, the united states has worked tirelessly to scale up the delivery of humanitarian aid through direct, persistent presidential diplomacy.

at the beginning of this conflict, we helped secure an agreement to open the rafah crossing. last month we helped secure a deal that led to an extended humanitarian pause during which more than 100 hostages were released and additional aid got into gaza. last week, we helped secure the opening of the crossing for direct delivery of assistance to civilians in gaza. this resolution puts the weight of the security council behind these efforts and bolsters them by calling for the appointment of a senior u.n. official who will work to expedite the delivery a few military and aid at scale and in a sustained way. we know humanitarian's are already doing the impossible and we are there to do everything in our power to support their

lifesaving work. it is vital that when implementing this resolution, the u.n. builds on the progress we have seen on the ground and we look forward to this new official working with humanitarian actors and relevant parties, including israel. we know so much more needs to be done to address this crisis and to lay the groundwork for a lasting peace. let's be clear -- hamas has no interest in a lasting peace. hamas is determined to repeat the horrors of october 7 over and over and over again. that's why the united states supports israel's right to protect its people from acts of terror. i will note the resolution does not support any steps that would

lead -- would leave hamas and power, which in turn would undermine the prospect for a two state solution. where gaza and the west bank are reunited under a single government structure, under a revamped and revitalized palestinian authority. we must work toward a future where israelis and palestinians live side-by-side in peace. this is the only way forward. ultimately, while we are encouraged the council spoke out on this humanitarian crisis, we are deeply disappointed, appalled actually, that once again the council was not able to condemn hamas's horrific terrorist attack on october 7, and i can't understand why some councilmembers are standing in the way and why they refused to

condemn these evils unequivocally. why is it so hard to condemn hamas for slaughtering young people at a concert, for burning families alive, and the reports of widespread sexual violence? i will never understand why some councilmembers have remained silent in the face of such evil. we also believe the council must continue to put it support behind the resumption of humanitarian pauses. israel has made clear it is committed to reaching another agreement. this is now entirely up to hamas, who must agree to additional pauses. that's how we can get additional aid in and save lives and additional hostages out immediately. today the council spoke out but we know that only progress on the ground can turn these words into action.

the united states will continue to work with u.n., with humanitarian groups and countries in the region to get more humanitarian aid into gaza, to secure the release of hostages, and to work toward a lasting peace. there is no time to waste. we must find a path forward to end the misery we are seeing. it is unbearable to see a palestinian child shivering in fear after their home was destroyed. it is unbearable to see the families of hostages experience such pain and grief as they frantically await and pray for their loved ones to return. my heart is filled with pain and i know the same is true for so

many people around the world. but we must work together to alleviate this tremendous suffering once and for all. thank you. >> i think the representative of the united states. the representative of the united kingdom. >> the united kingdom welcomes the adoption of this resolution to get more aid into gaza. as my foreign secretary has said, it is heartbreaking to see children in the rubble of their destroyed homes, not knowing where to find food or water, not knowing where their parents are. it's also heartbreaking to hear the stories of families who still do not know the whereabouts of their loved ones

who were brutally taken on the seventh of october. and it is heart wrenching to know that aid is piling up outside gaza but not getting to the people that need it when we hear daily warnings that people are starving, disease is spreading and basic health care is lacking. the u.k. is doing everything we can to get more aid in. we have tripled u.k. aid to the region. we were the first country to call on israel to open more crossings. the u.k. has experts on the ground providing logistical support in egypt. today, we supported this resolution, which will streamline aid checks so we can

massively scale up the humanitarian response. it demands the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and calls for steps toward a sustainable cessation of hostilities. for the avoidance of doubt, we are clear the resolution is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of parties under international humanitarian law. the adoption is an important signal of the security council's commitment. our actions today and in the future must help ensure that the horror of the seventh of october never happens again. we unequivocally condemned hamas's acts of terror and

support israel's right to self defend. my prime minister in foreign secretary have been loud and clear in their calls for a sustainable cease-fire as soon as possible. but a cease-fire will not last if hamas is still able to operate in tunnels and to launch rocket attacks. our commitment to israel's security is firm as israel deals with the threats from hamas. ultimately we support a two state solution that guarantees true security and stability for both israeli and palestinian people. we also think the uae -- thank the uae for their leadership on this resolution. just this week, my foreign secretary in the minister for the middle east traveled to jordan and egypt to make sure we

are supporting every effort to get aid in faster. we will keep working with all partners to deliver a humanitarian response that meets the huge level of need. i thank you. >> i thank the representative of united kingdom for her statement and give the floor to the representative of brazil. >> thank you, mr. president. we thank the united arab emirates for tirelessly conducting and facilitating the negotiations and also organizing a first-hand account of the challenging humanitarian work carried out in the region.

the time for a humanitarian response to the suffering of civilians in gaza is now. not tomorrow, not when the conflict finally ends. after more than 70 days of hostilities, the situation is dire. the remaining hostages must be released immediately. civilian facilities must be protected. this is not just a moral or ethical choice, it is an obligation under international humanitarian law. the amount of aid allowed into gaza must be substantially increased to meet the needs of the people who depend on it throughout gaza and should contain all essential items including fuel. the effort to facilitate the rafah crossing by humanitarian agencies has been crucial. we welcome the announcement from

israel of the opening of another crossing for direct delivery of humanitarian aid to gaza. brazil calls for the full and limitation of the adopted resolutions good today's resolution provides for a monitoring mechanism for the u.n. to inspect the delivery of aid. the u.n. must be provided with the necessary means to carry out this task. the aim is to increase and expedite the delivery of much-needed international assistance could -- assistance. mr. president, since this is probably our last formal session during our current mandate, i would like to thank all members of the council for the trust and cooperation with our delegation during these two years. speak on behalf of my entire delegation and of my capital in expressing how much we have appreciated working with all of you at different levels and in a

vast array of different topics on the u.n. agenda of peace and security. we end our term with a sense of accomplishment of the priorities brazil has as a nonpermanent member of this council. we tried our best to engage constructively to achieve concrete results in this vast and complex agenda of international peace and security in a complex and challenging world. five participations of our minister in october on the palestine question illustrate the importance we attach to the council and the matters under each consideration. we championed our position while respecting the diversity of values and interests in the council in order to quickly fulfill our role as a nonpermanent member for the 11th time in this body's history.

once again, with our presidents leadership and personal involvement, brazil tried hard to make a contribution to the collective effort in brazil. [indiscernible] -- has engaged interest in all important matters discussed in the u.n. that builds bridges, sees consensus, ask faithfully as an honest broker and seeks peace. most of all, if i may borrow lincoln's words, charity for all and firmness to see the right.

if i may add a personal note, i am most thankful for the multilateral affairs classroom. you have all been wonderful teachers for all of us who hope to have learned at least some of the multiple skills and statesmanship you show every session. thank you very much again and happy holidays. >> i thank the representative of brazil for his statements. i give the floor to the representative of malta. >> thank you. multi-thanks the united arab emirates for this resolution. i think the investor and her team valiant efforts and

organizing important trips to rafah. there is adire humanitarian crisis in the gaza strip. this has been aggravated by the lack of humanitarian aid into gaza. the untenable situation requires our urgent attention. this is why we have voted in favor of this text and we demand for the full implementation of this resolution, 2712. however, we remain firm in our belief that an immediate cease-fire is the only tangible and realistic measure that can ease suffering and hardship of the gaza people. we believe that all parties must comply with international law,

including those regarding the protection of civilians and civilian sites, for accountability to those who violated them. humanitarian personnel and assets must be protected to allow the population safety, dignity and in times of acute crisis of anguish. we are already much too late. we welcome the establishment of an aide monitoring mechanism for gaza as outlined in this resolution. however, its implementation must not add additional barrier or slow down delivery of humanitarian assistance. on the contrary, it should rapidly and efficiently facilitate it. we expect the technical expertise and vast experience of the u.n. will direct the implementation of this mechanism in coordination with relevant states.

without this, the desperately needed u.n. humanitarian response, and staff, will be at great risk. in closing, there must also be a foundation for peace. we welcome the resolution's clear and unwavering commitment to the two state solution. two democratic states living side-by-side in peace and security in line with relevant security council resolutions and internationally agreed parameters. i thank you. >> i thank the representative of malta for her statement. i give the floor to the representative of china. >> mr. president, there is

repeatedly a council vote that has received attention by all. in order to maximize consensus, the uae >> mr. president, this repeatedly postponed vote has received extensive attention. over the past few days to maximize consensus the delegation made tireless efforts in we submitted the resolution late last night. we welcome the adoption of this draft resolution. for reasons known to all, this draft resolution as made quite a number of adjustments in some important aspects and these adjustments are not consistent with the efforts made and do not

meet our expectations. at the same time, given the urgency of the situation on the ground and given the humanitarian catastrophe in gaza getting more dire by the day of the council's action offers at least a glimmer of hope for more and faster delivery of humanitarian supplies to gaza. of course whether this glimmer of hope can be truly felt by the people of gaza in the midst of this disaster also depends on whether the resolution can be effectively implemented and whether the relevant elements can be carried out without compromise. we expect urgent actions taken pursuant to this to expand humanitarian assistance to gaza including making full use of the crossing and the opening of additional crossings to ensure safe and unimpeded entry of sufficient humanitarian supplies

into gaza. we hope that the monetary mechanism provided for in the resolution will be put in place as soon as possible. we look forward to time reporting as to the implementation of this resolution. the council should stand ready to take further actions to resolve the problems and difficulties encountered in the implementation of the resolution. the resolution reaffirms that all parties to the conflict should comply with the obligations and international law including international humanitarian law and urge israel to reverse its course and sees at the tax and stop its collective punishment of the people of gaza. israel has an obligation as the occupying power to safeguard the needs of gaza and guarantee their safety of humanitarian workers in gaza. mr. president, it should be observed that the realization that a cease-fire remains the

overriding prerequisite. only as cease-fire can prevent the greater casualties with civilians and hostages and and prevent a regional conflict from spiraling out of control and only a cease-fire can prevent a cease-fire settlement from being completely destroyed and why we voted in favor of the amendment. we also regret this amendment was vetoed. going forward, china would like to work with all councilmembers to promote further responsible and meaningful action by the council in a timely manner, and to continue to make relevant efforts to bring an end to the fighting in gaza to effectively implement the two-state solution and realized peace in the middle east at an early date. i thank you, mr. president. >>, thank the representative of

china for their statement and now give the floor to the representative of japan. >> thank you, mr. president. the catastrophic humanitarian situation in gaza needs urgent attention and meaningful action by this council. we are deeply grateful for the uae and our friends for their constructive engagement with all councilmembers to this end. japan voted in favor of this resolution, given the deepening humanitarian crisis, it is indispensable to immediately scale up emergency assistance to and throughout gaza. there is no safe place for the people and gaza and they cannot wait any longer for the council to act. we also demand the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. therefore we have asked counsel

to adopt another resolution today to address urgent humanitarian needs in gaza and hope this will be a first step for change on the ground. mr. president, diplomacy is underway to further scale up emergency humanitarian assistance the gaza. in this vein, we highly appreciate the effort the u.s. has been conducting to include the situation on the ground. humanitarian convoys entering gaza through the crossing is one of the results of these efforts, but more needs to be done. japan as a responsible member of this council remains committed to addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza. even now gunfire and violence continues, and this must stop immediately in order for a

humanitarian operation to aid those enduring this grave humanitarian catastrophe and suffering. thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative of japan for his statement and now give the floor to the representative of switzerland. >> thank you. switzerland voted in favor of the resolution in welcome its adoption and i would like to thank the delegation of the uae and all colleagues, members of the council but also from the region for their tireless efforts to find a compromise in order to alleviate the disastrous humanitarian situation existing in the gaza strip. it is essential this council speak to protect civilians. the images of the prophet crossing -- rafah crossing showed the political situation is desperate and needs the immediate support of the

international community to survive. if this compromise because of its nature is below expectations , this resolution as well as the opening up of the crossing is her contribution to help. resolution provides for a host of humanitarian and reconstruction coordinators to establish a u.n. mechanism that will provide all the necessary efforts to improve the effectiveness of procedures and ensure humanitarian aid is able to reach people that need it as soon as possible. switzerland welcomes the agreement that should contribute to an effective implementation of humanitarian aid on the ground to save lives. and also in order to provide rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access the resolution calls for the conditions to be creating for a lasting cease-fire. that does not prejudice israel's

right to defend its security and should make it possible to ensure the unconditional immediate release of all hostages that have been held since the terrorist attacks on october 7 that switzerland firmly condemned. the resolution today is complementary to international humanitarian law, according to which all parties to a conflict of as well as non-warring parties have the obligation to authorize and facilitate rescue operations aimed to help the publish in need. thank you. >> i think the representative of switzerland for her statement and now give floor to the representative of albania. >> thank you, mr. president. we commend the uae and others involved for their tremendous efforts to come to the text we just adopted and welcomed the adoption of this important resolution and consider it an important step forward in dealing with the urgency of the

dire situation in gaza. we would have liked a more robust text, including key issues that are missing, but the text has merits which guided our position and welcome the establishment of a clear mechanism to allow unhindered access for humanitarian assistance of scale to the population in gaza and make a real difference on the ground. p o and gaza are going hungry and they need assistance. countless families are in dire need and must be helped. now today, and every day. therefore, it is urgent for the u.n. to step up, and this is what this resolution provides for, urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered, and expanded humanitarian excesses go to create the conditions for the cessation of hostilities. mr. president, we call for and look forward to the speedy implementation of this resolution, but we want to be clear that we support the

cessation of hostilities to save civilians and help innocent palestinians to rebuild their lives, all those trapped in the bloody conflict, children, women , families, everyone who does not serve to suffer or die, therefore it must not be misused directly or indirectly. it would be unacceptable and unjustifiable, it should go to the people of gaza. all palestinians must unite under the palestinian authority, push through the path of peace and negotiations and use all legal means to build their future, have their state, and ensure freedom and dignity together. it is a clear position we have expressed repeatedly during the last two and one of the key

wishes and hopes we will keep with us as we -- i thank you. >> i think the representative of albania for his statement and never give the floor to the representative of france. >> thank you, mr. president. france thanks the united arab emirates for preparing this resolution and would like to thank them for their efforts throughout the negotiation process. france welcomes the adoption of a resolution that allows us to respond to the humanitarian emergency on the ground and improve the delivery of aid to gaza at a time when the humanitarian crisis is worsening day by day. yesterday we saw the reports of a serious risk of famine and gaza and the secretary-general raised the alarm over the humanitarian tragedy currently underway in gaza. it is urgent that more humanitarian assistance be delivered to the civilian population of gaza that needed more than ever.

this resolution calls for urgent steps to be taken to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities and would have preferred the council to speak more ambitiously on the subject. we have been pleading for an immediate, durable humanitarian trees that should lead to a lasting cease-fire. like with resolution 2712, today's resolution calls for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages that must be immediately respected and implemented as international law . this resolution is also along the lines of france's efforts to mobilize the international community and the scale of the crisis as we did during the international humanitarian conference organized on november 9 which allowed us to gather more than one billion euros and donations in france voted in favor of this resolution.

the visit to the region in recent days, and yesterday, the president of the republic support the cremation of a humanitarian platform and the including importance immediately working on a cease-fire. it will allow for the reopening of a necessary political horizon. france recalls that international humanitarian law must be applied in all circumstances and must be possible to guarantee complete, safe access, for humanitarian workers, personnel, and medical and hospital staff. this text must be applied in full. mr. president this council must condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks committed by hamas and others on october 7 including sexual violence used to dehumanize and terrorize victims. it is incomprehensible this council has not been able to do so and should do so and must do so under law because law and

morality requires it. france will work resolutely within the full and complete mobilization of this council on the crisis, security, humanitarian and political and france recalls the urgent need to protect the lives of civilians and contribute to ebb rapid into the crisis based on the two-state solution which is the only thing that can allow for the construction of a just and lasting peace. thank you. >> i think the representative for her statement and give the floor to the representative of mozambique. >> mr. president, i wish to begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to the uae for their tireless work that led to the adoption of this resolution which aims to respond to the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in gaza. mozambique's road in favor of

the resolution reflects our strong commitment to the principle of protection of civilians currently in gaza or during any armed conflict. we are mindful of the fact that this resolution is not a perfect test that it clearly states the basic principles that must guide the parties to be upheld by the world large. as the secretary-general says in international law asserts come even wars have ball's that must be observed. the resolution emphasizes humanitarian law and humanitarian access. it is an effort to respond to the humanitarian personnel. i repeat, it is an effort to

respond to the critical role of humanitarian personnel in providing aid to civilians affected by the conflict. mozambique's position is aligned with the global effort to safeguard civilians and uphold their rights during times of conflict. together with other members of the security council in our national capacity, we have in two the rafah hospital and rafah crossing the border and could see with our own eyes and feel with our own hearts the tragedy that has befallen the palestinian people. we therefore strongly believe that this resolution is an important step towards alleviating the humanitarian needs of the palestinians have been population throughout the gaza strip. the civilians in gaza need enough food, water, sanitation,

electricity, telecommunications, and medical service for their immediate survival. by voting in favor we have emphasized the critical need for urgent military aid to reach civilians in gaza during this ongoing conflict. the situation is dire and immediate action is necessary to prevent further humanitarian suffering. we agree to the urgency of this demand to the parties in the conflict to allow and facilitate access by all possible means and forms of humanitarian aid to the civilians in gaza. this resolution is also crucial to operationalize implementation of resolution 2712, however, the best alternative for peace

remains a durable and sustained cessation of hostilities and the return to a constructive dialogue between the parties. mr. president, we reiterate mozambique's call for dialogue between israel and palestine. in the myths of long-standing tension open communication remains essential for a negotiated settlement of the conflict. we hope that both parties will heed this call and work towards a constructive dialogue that can pave the way for understanding and reconciliation. we strongly believe that the palestinian people and the israeli people can live and coexist side-by-side in security and peace, in the fulfillment of normal decision in resolution of the security council, and of the general assembly. i thank you, mr. president. >> i thank the representative of

mozambique for his statement. i now give the floor to the representative of ghana. >> mr. president, let me begin by commending the uae for all their efforts they put in the resolution to obtain an outcome that we help will scale up the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of gaza. while we believe it is time for hostilities to end in dialogue and diplomacy to be given it's chance ghana voted in favor of resolution 2712 because with so many lives lost, mostly women and children and many more dying of starvation and pestilence, it is imperative we take every opportunity to save lives, facilitate human humanitarian access to gaza and alleviating humanity and conditions on the

ground. as the resolution we have rightly emphasizes all parties to the conflict have an obligation to comply with international law, in particular as it impacts the protection of civilians and their well-being. the need to fully respect u.n. and its personnel and assets cannot be over emphasized. we welcome the decision to open the border crossing to help the delivery of humanitarian assistance and aid all procedures to speed up the delivery of human intern assistance. we also reiterate the call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. mr. president, as this will be our final remarks on the subject during our present membership on the security council, we ask the council not to lose sight of it historic responsibility for the implementation of the two-state

solution, even in this darkest of moments. we have often stated that two -state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders with jerusalem as a shared capital is the key to the resolution of the stability in the middle east. in this regard the political horizon should be a commitment that the council should not waver from. finally, we express the hope that implementation of the resolution just adopted will be done in good faith to save human lives in both the gaza strip and israel. we see the appointment by the secretary-general representative in this regard as important. may the coming year open new of this that opportunity to resolve this decades long conflict. i thank you. >> i think the representative of ghana and now give the floor to the representative of the russian federation.

>> mr. president, distinguished colleagues, earlier when i introduced it i said the vote would be a moment of truth. and that is what happened. the united states once again exposed their true face in front of the entire world, blocking an extremely weak call for the cessation of hostilities in gaza and instead washington is playing in underhanded game, essentially a license for israel to kill palestinians in gaza instead of creating conditions for the cessation of hostilities. today the coordinator on strategic communications of the national security council at the white house john kirby said the authorities understand the need to lower the intensity of the fighting and it is up to them to make a decision about the timeline went that would take place.

this is a tragic moment for the council, one of gross unprecedented blackmail on the part of washington on the suffering of palestinians in the hope of the global community to put an this. today the permanent representative of the usa spoke about the direct bilateral diplomacy at a high level. previously we heard this argument and can see what it has led to. the security council essentially is being asked not to get in the way while the united states goes around twisting arms in the region, not for peace as my colleague asserts, but assuring the short-term interests of washington. colleagues, if this document were not supported by a number of air but states, we would of course have vetoed it. at the same time we know a number of the states withdrew their cosponsorship. but we consistently are of the view that the council is able to

take decisions and responsibility for them and why we did not block this document. i want to underscore we categorically do not agree with the content of the op2 and view the responsibility for all consequences lies with those states that gave consent. we will not put our names to this. distinguished colleagues, regardless of the outcomes of today's vote, a clear demand by the security council for a full-fledged cease-fire remains the imperative and without that as the experience of security council resolution 2712, implementing the resolutions as gaza is impossible. the u.n. secretary general antonio guterres unambiguously stated this, in the same conclusion emerges from his letter to the council with

adoption of 2712, we are of the view that whatever the resistance may be and however much they might protect the main ally in the region by the united states the council will get back to this issue and precisely unambiguously demand a cessation of hostilities. thank you. >> i think the representative of the russian federation for his statement. and now give the floor to the representative of the uae. >> mr. president, for the record i would like to state that the draft resolution that was put in blue on friday evening did receive 83 cosponsors from this membership, but this resolution was not open to cosponsorship due to the last-minute nature of negotiations and the fact it was put in blue overlay this morning so no one withdrew that has not been open to cosponsorship, but

i am sure it would have received widespread support if it had. i would like to reflect on the vote we just held and what it says about this conflict in this body. we welcome its adoption and are grateful for this councils support and we believe the resolution begins to unblock lifesaving aid whose denial has condemned more than 500,000 people in gaza to famine. the text compels the international community to finally share the burden egypt has been shouldering and commits all of us to breaking the cruel blockade strangling gaza for the last 16 years. but the palestinian struggle is singular and how every instance of progress serves as a reminder of the scale of the tragedy. it is not lost on us that while today we start building the humanitarian architecture responds to an intolerable situation, we are still unable to stop the war.

it is not lost on us that despite the incalculable damage, palestinians except that diplomacy is the art of what is possible. it is not lost on us that even though what has been possible has been brutally an adequate, they have kept faith with this international system, but what is possible is not predetermined. it is the product of active choices, the collective choices of this council influenced by its structure have shaped the grim reality and they can help shape a different future. during that -- doing that must begin by understanding that 30 years after they recognized the state of israel, there is very little left for the palestinians to concede. the injustice of the occupation persists with the international community's complicity. if you have a moral, national or political interest in saving the

two-state solution, you must act now. this resolution gives us an opportunity to demonstrate that at the very least the world will not tolerate the continued deprivation of the people of gaza from basic necessities. it puts in place a system that is necessary now and will remain necessary when the war ends. we are all responsible for making sure it works. mr. president, we thank each and every member for their support of this process, including the e10 and would like to thank united states again in the u.k. for their important constructive diplomatic work behind the scenes on this. i would also like to thank the ecuadorian presidency for their patience and wisdom enabling this adoption despite really challenging negotiations. and to the united states i would like to thank ambassador linda thomas-greenfield's personal

dedication and commitment to help save lives made today possible. this outcome will enable lifesaving humanitarian assistance to get into gaza and reach those in need. it will quite literally make the difference between life and death for hundreds if not thousands of civilians. it is vital but this council lives up to its responsibility by ensuring its full implementation. but as we help save lives here in gaza, so too must we focus on restoring the hope and resolve in the conflict in today's resolution is an important step on problem during the head, and any lasting and comprehensive solution demands an end to the war, addressing the dramatic situation of those internally displaced, uniting gaza and the west bank under a single, legitimate and representative palestinian authority, reconstructing what has been destroyed, and ensuring that never again shall violence,

incitement, and terror be allowed to survive. none of this, none of this will be sustainable if there is no equality between israelis and palestinians in their shared destiny together. it can never be a just peace if equality and dignity are not the basis of it. this resolution gives us a signal that the political horizon ahead. the two-state solution with an independent, sovereign palestinian state is the only path to achieving a just peace that guarantee security, stability and prosperity for the palestinian and israeli people alike, who both have a right to statehood in their ancestral land. the uae will never tire in its pursuit of that goal. thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative of the united arab emirates for her statement. i shall not make a statement in my capacity as a representative

of ecuador. the council has voted in favor of the draft we have been considering. this was the outcome of careful negotiations and shows the good faith and constructive spirit that can achieve this. we very much appreciate the willingness shown by all members on hope this will be repeated in other matters. the humanitarian situation in gaza is disastrous and a despairing situation. during our visit last week we saw so many people suffering and the alleviation of their suffering must be our priority. the eight that has reached gaza is not sufficient for the survey and population. the text we have voted aims to increase the quantity of aid and calls for the necessary steps to be taken to make this possible

and in this regard, calls for an increase in the access and to optimize the inspection processes. for ecuador, it is of vital importance humanitarian aid be delivered insufficient quantities and there be adequate inspections to ensure that those inspections are reliable. this uh resolution in no way contravenes the previous resolution 2712 and should be seen as an additional step towards the urgent need for a cease-fire. her excellencies, and this text the council deplores the violation of international humanitarian law, violence against civilians, and acts of terrorism, and demands the unconditional immediate release of all hostages. it could not be otherwise. ecuador repeats the robust condemnation of october 7 and believed the text could have clearly mentioned the fact the hostages are in the hands of

hamas and other groups. but, you cannot always get a perfect text, and the important and is the humanitarian aspect here. and it is also important that at times such as these that the text reiterates the commitment of this counsel to the two state solution in ecuador is convinces is the only path towards peace and security in the area, and we hope this resolution can be implemented urgent be implemented urgently given the situation and will effectively contribute to alleviating the humanitarian situation in gaza. i would like to congratulate the uae delegation which this month is ending their membership of the council. and -- we are very happy to see this resolution was approved under our presidency. ecuador has tried to be a responsible presidency. and the president and the foreign minister have visited

new york and tried to create bridges that make this kind of thing possible that we have seen today. i would like to thank all outgoing members albania, brazil, uae and others for their timeless contributions to our work in the last two years. and now i resume my functions as president of the council. i'd give the floor to the permanent observer of the observer state of palestine. >> mr. president, this conflict first met to address this this counsel, this great crisis was hundreds of palestinians had been killed by israel and the occupying power in its seizure and aggression on the gaza strip.

the council is now meeting after over 20,000 palestinians have been killed, almost half of them children, and 60,000 people have been wounded and 2 million palestinians have been forcefully displaced. it is meeting as homes, shelters, schools, hospitals have been destroyed, and as hunger and disease are spreading like wildfire. no one should forget that what we are talking about our 2.3 one million palestinians who have been fighting for their lives and facing death every day for 75 days. they have been fighting for their lives, for their very existence, for over 75 days. mr. president, the arab and oic

groups with the support of an overwhelming number of u.n. member states have been mobilizing for three objectives, and we said that at the beginning. end the carnage immediately, immediate cease-fire. the military assistance at scale -- humanitarian assistance at scale and no forced displacement. we meet today as part of this continuous effort to advance these three goals. mr. president, allow me to pay tribute to all the humanitarian and health care workers who are at peril to their own lives, struggling every single day to address and alleviate an occupation and humanitarian

catastrophe of unprecedented scale. they are operating under conditions where no place and no one is safe, under widespread and discriminant bombing, where hospitals, shelters and ambulances are shelled and with minimum to no access to humanitarian supplies necessary to save and sustained lives. we pay tribute to the palestine red crescent, which many of you have met them in your trip to the rafah crossing, to palestinian medical and civilian rescue teams, to the personnel of the united nations and its agencies, to the members of palestinian and international humanitarian organizations on the ground, and to the icrc --

their work is heroic and deserves our utmost recognition and respect. the draft resolution presented by the uae is to allow them to conduct their sacred mission to assist civilians in need, to save human lives, as israel occupying power continues to ignore the global demands for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire, and to deprive the palestinian people of the humanitarian aid they desperately need. there are thousands of trucks of humanitarian aid on the egyptian side, and egypt's is willing, feel willingness and mobilization -- full willingness and mobilization to see this aid delivered -- you saw those thousands of truckloads in your

trip from the airport to the rafah crossing. there are over 2 million palestinians in desperate need of such aid on the palestinian side. this inhumane and criminal heresy and use of humanitarian aid for the survival of population as method of war has to end now. mr. president, on november 4, the deputy head of the israeli civil administration stated from inside gaza, and i quote, "who ever returns here, if they return here after, will find scorched earth, no houses, no agriculture, no nothing.

they have no future." this is just one statement among far too many demonstrating in shocking terms that what we are dealing with is an attempt at the destruction of our people and their displacement forever from their land. this is the goal of the israelis. it is its true objective. no future for palestinians in palestine. that is why it is bombing everyone and everything. that is why it targets homes, hospitals, schools, bakeries, agricultural fields, water and sanitation networks, so that sustenance of life becomes impossible -- and it has become impossible. that is why the targets, the

landmarks of gaza, which stand witness of its ancient history and of our rules in the land, our historic churches and mosques, our monuments and our architecture. israel also targets the storytellers, those who capture our people's lives, suffering and death, including the journalists conveying to the world the truth about the massacres, about this grave and unbearable injustice being endured by the palestinian people and their families. but israelis target is not only the past and present of our people, but indeed the future. that is why it kills our doctors, engineers, poets, academics, artists.

this is right it is destroying our cities, towns, universities, and cultural institutions. that is why it kills art open and terrorizes and dramatizes them, scaring -- scarring and disfiguring their futures. we often call the number of children killed an unbearable tragedy, but we should never forget the 25,000 children orphaned and tens of thousands wounded and amputated. a 12 year old palestinian girl with the most beautiful of names, tunya which means -- an arabic, it means the whole world -- lost both her parents.

[indiscernible] her sister and their brother, all killed in the israeli shelling of her house. she also lost her leg, and i believe she was interviewed by the cnn journalist that uae managed to let her in the gaza strip and to make that important reportage that she did. and donya said that while she will never forget her loved ones , she has to continue living, that she would become a doctor to help children, as doctors helped her. but dounya did not live to

become a doctor. she was killed a few days later in a strike on the maternity ward of the hospital. israel wants to convince us that we need to choose between life and our country by making life in our country impossible. our people want to be in their country. they want their children to grow safely in their country. there is no simpler dream. there is no aspiration more sacred. mr. president, israeli treatment of palestinian civilians and its abhorrent crimes against him

were further revealed after israel killed three people raising a white flag in representing no danger. it later discovered that they were three israelis who have been held captive in gaza. it could have saved them had it observe the laws of war, but if thought they were palestinians and shot them in yet another display of total, abject disregard for palestinian lives. this confirms that many reports of summary executions of palestinians being murdered in cold blood by israeli soldiers in gaza. israel has also continued its ill-treatment and mass arrests and humiliation of palestinians in despicable scenes filmed by its own soldiers boasting about

their depravity. those are the soldiers of the army, unhinged and empowered by the impunity it enjoys, certain that it will not be held accountable, and army that commits atrocities every single day. in the words of israelis closest allies, its indiscriminate bombing and killing needs to stop. that means it's crimes need to stop. gaza is like a patient whose wounds you are trying to treat while a killer keeps shooting at them. you will need to stop the killer you will never be able to save the patient. mr. president, death is everywhere in gaza, in its

different manifestations, destruction, deprivation, disease. people are starving. they have no water. no food. no medicine. or barely any. the draft resolution that the council voted on today is intended to help address this inhumane situation, to alleviate the untold suffering being borne by millions of civilians. we will come to the decision to establish a new mechanism to etc. rate the provision of humanitarian -- accelerate the provision of humanitarian relief. the council also called for urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered, and expanded humanitarian access. the secretary-general and all u.n. agencies as well as

humanitarian organizations have all said that this requires an immediate military and cease fire, now back by 153 states around the world. it took this council 75 days to finally utter the words, "cessation of hostilities." to utter the words, "cessation of hostilities," 40 days after the general assembly -- and tens of thousands of policies were killed later. we support the russian amendment in the uae as a representative that reflected its support in that vote. of course that paragraph which was in the blue form, the

original one, by the 83 cosponsors. the resolution is also clear about the unwavering commitment to the two-state solution consistent with international law and u.n. resolutions, and end this context on the status of the gaza strip is an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and as part of the palestinian state, and on the unity of the gaza strip, west bank, and the role of the palestinian authority, and the complete rejection of forced displacement in violation of international law. mr. president, let us back now to save -- back now to save lives and provide lifesaving assistance and life-sustaining hope. this resolution is a step in the right direction and must be implemented and must be

accompanied by massive pressure for an immediate cease-fire. i repeat, immediate cease-fire. there is no way to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide underway, but an immediate cease-fire. cease-fire, again. there is no way to start addressing the occupation, humanitarian catastrophe, but an immediate cease-fire. cease-fire, again. there is no way to release those held captive but an immediate cease-fire. this resolution calls for protection of civilians, deplores attacks against the aliens, rejects -- civilians, rejects forced displacement, and calls for access and humanitarian aid reaching the

palestinian population. all that requires an immediate cease-fire, immediate cease-fire , as requested and as called for by the secretary-general in his famous letter to the secured counsel. humanity must prevail, international law must prevail, millions of lives hang in the balance, and i thank you very much, mr. president. >> i think the permanent observer of the observers state of palestine for his statement and now give the floor to the representative of israel. >> thank you, mr. president. just a week ago, a terror attack was carried out in iran where 11 police officers were killed in the security council condemned the act of terror and it took the security council one day to

express their condolences in sympathy with the families of the victims. it is true that terrorism must be condemned even if attacks are perpetrated against police officers that a rogue regime. mr. president, 77 days ago hamas intensely murdered, raped and mutilated 1003 hundred israelis and took 250 hostages in this council has yet to issue a statement condemning hamas in the atrocities. in addition to the inability to condemn the attack of the 130 hostages the women, children, elderly are still held in gaza and must not be allowed to become a footnote. the amendatory aid is pouring into gaza every day, yet the hostages being held by hamas are not allowed visits by the red cross. this is the most heinous war crime imaginable. hostages must be at the top of the agenda for this council. council members, there is no doubt that humanitarian aid is

crucially important and israel is facilitating hundreds of truckloads of aid into gaza every day and israel is willing and able to increase aid into gaza. israel has opened a crossing to ensure the entry of more trucks and facilitate the entry of dozens of trucks from jordan. the only roadblock is the ability of the u.n. to accept them. enhanced u.n. monitoring and coordination of eight and coordination of aid in any enhancement cannot be done at the expense of israel's security inspections. israel not only has a right but an obligation to guarantee its security. this is why our mission to eliminate hamas's capabilities has not changed in security inspections of aid will not change. israel will not let the regrouping and rearming of hamas as the atrocities of october 7 can never be allowed. israel exposed another tunnel

that stretches four kilometers and was constructed 50 meters underground. it is wide enough for vehicles to drive through and can house hundreds of terrorists. the amount of cement and equipment to build this tunnel alone is immense. this is just one part of the subterranean city of tear -- terror, missile manufacturing facilities in terror training across gaza. for years we have sent letters outlining the terror threat and growing capabilities and held countless meetings with officials and done everything possible to make it clear that action must be taken, but our words fell on deaf ears. mr. president, if this council seeks to end hostilities, it should start by supporting the mission of returning hostages and eliminating the hamas threat that has at the very least impelled hamas into its impairment.

just as this council is committed to increasing age, it should stop the smuggling of weapons to terrorist, and just as it is committed to aid it should ensure the safety aid is not diverted to hamas terrorists who do not care about the civilian population. the focus of any resolution should hold hamas accountable by taking every step from allowing them to entrench themselves and regain power. mr. president, hamas is a genocidal terror organization in a direct threat to the security of israel, gazans and regionals [overmodulated music playing] stability. [overmodulated music playin it should focus on the elimination of that. it should be focused on freeing the hostages and focused on preventing mas from exploiting aid and ensuring hamas can no longer expand its terror infrastructure. any resolution adopted by this counsel should be focused primarily on this point sent is

the responsibility of the council and t2 security. i thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative of israel for their statement and give the full now to the representative of egypt. >> thank you, mr. president, on behalf of egypt. i congratulate you on the success of the security council in adopting today an important resolution that will facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to gaza. as the secretary-general will assign, our humanitarian affairs coordinator who will facilitate and coordinate the aid and will establish a mechanism to work inside gaza under the u.n.. to address the horrific

humanitarian crisis endured by the people vote and the gaza strip for the third month consecutively as a result of the devastating war by israel on the defenseless people of palestine. i would like to thank the uae and its relentless, sincere efforts. in its intensive consultations with members of the security council and agencies that led it to the adoption of this resolution and thanked the uae for ensuring success of this adoption. mr. president, the adoption of today's resolution builds on the previous comprehensive resolution submitted by the arab and islamic groups.

cosponsored by 81 states. an implementation of the decision of the special islamic arab summit in riyadh held on november last, related to lifting the humanitarian blockade imposed on our brothers in gaza. today's resolution is a step on the right way to address the humanitarian impact of this war in gaza and ensure that aid will be delivered and hindered through a mechanism under the supervision by the u.n. so the humanitarian work will not remain hostage to the will of the occupying power that cannot be perceived legally or reasonably as a neutral party

when it comes to the delivery of humanitarian support. mr. president, we are looking forward for this resolution. to support efforts of the international community. to provide aid to gaza. the gaza strip that is witnessing a horrific humanitarian crisis unprecedented since world war ii. the crisis that led to the killing of more than 20,000, most of them, 70% of them women and children in more than 53 injured. gaza is starving. houses are destroyed. hospitals and medical facilities

are destroyed. this is accompanied by the attacks by israel on the west bank, causing casualties. that is in addition to the continued attacks by settlers in those areas and in jerusalem which might lead to a spike in violence in palestine. mr. president, egypt expresses its thanks and -- we also express our appreciation to the commissioner general. we pay tribute. for the sacrifices made. and the efforts in the conditions in gaza. also for the commissioner general who addressed the general assembly, highlighting

the collapse of the humanitarian situation in gaza. submitting the resolution to support humanitarian efforts. mr. president, now that the security council has adopted a resolution -- we look forward to implementing it without delay and immediately. an effort to draw up a comprehensive plan that will translate this resolution into functioning and affective mechanism. in coordination with the international community. this is the first step that should be followed by other steps geared the first of which is to oblige israel's occupying

power for an immediate cease-fire and all hostages released with no condition and all points of gaza. all efforts that aim at alleviating the humanitarian crisis and supporting the humanitarian condition with the security council. a binding resolution of a cease-fire. without any condition. and to end the killing of civilians and to allow for humanitarian work and provide protection to humanitarian workers. this demand for a comprehensive cease-fire is a response to the will of the international community.

it has been expressed on many occasions. a resolution adopted in the general assembly and its emergency special session on december 12 that called for a humanitarian cease-fire. the resolution garnered 153 votes in favor, which reflect a consensus that cannot be argued. the resolution is not binding politically or legally. the resolution adopted today has focused on other items that should the implemented. obligations under international law should be respected. civilians should be protected. humanitarian workers should be protected. relief trucks should be protected. civilians should not be forcibly

transferred. the resolution also stressed that the unity of the palestinian territory in the gaza strip -- under national palestinian authority should be respected. egypt reiterates the importance of creating a political prospect and resuming negotiations that realizes the legitimate aspirations of the palestinian people in establishing an independent state along borders with jerusalem as its capital. achieving peace in the region and bring security and stability for the people. mr. president, your success

today is a glimmer of hope. it should be upheld. put an end to the horrific humanitarian crisis in gaza. we call upon you to make efforts to put an end to the war and end the massive suffering of the palestinian people. mr. president, we call upon you to make efforts to end the bloodshed of the innocent people and to save the lives of innocent people. thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative -- i thank the representative of egypt. there are no more names on the

list of speakers. this is the last scheduled meeting for the counsel for the month of december. i would like to express the sincere appreciation for the delegation of ecuador to the members of the council and to the secretary of the council for all the support they have given us. it has been a busy month, when we rallied to consensus on issues in our purview. we could not have done it alone and without the hard work, support and positive contributions of -- including the technical support team, conference service offices, translators, reporters and security staff. as we end our presidency -- as it draws to a close, i speak for the council in wishing the delegation of france good luck in the month of january. i would also like to express sincere thanks to the five

outgoing members, albania, brazil, uae, ghana. i commend their contributions on the security council. the meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> [indiscernible conversations]

>> the u.s. and russia abstained from the vote on the u.n. security council's resolution calling for more humanitarian aid to the gaza strip. it passed with the support of 13 other nations. u.n. secretary-general antonio guterres held a press conference after that. he said there is no justification for hamas' october 7 attack against israel or israel's response to palestinians in gaza. >> good afternoon. the secretary-general will deliver some remarks and then we'll take a few questions. sec. gen. guterres: ladies and gentlemen of the media, over the last weeks and days, there has

been no significant change in the way the war has been unfolding in gaza. there is no effective protection for civilians. intense is really bombardment and ground operations continue. more than 20,000 palestinians have reportedly been killed, vast majority women and children. meanwhile, hamas and other palestinian factions continue to fire rockets from gaza to israel. some 1.9 million people, 85% of the gaza population, have been forced from their homes. hospitals are dealing with at least three times their capacity , and in the north, they are barely operational.

describing the deathly silence of the hospital with no medication or treatment for the sick and injured patients. widespread famine looms. more than 500,000 people, a quarter of the population, are facing what experts defined as levels of hunger. four of the five hungriest people in the world are in gaza. unicef found that displaced children have just 10% of the water they need. in these desperate conditions, it is little wonder that people cannot wait for humanitarian resolutions and are grabbing whatever they can from aid trucks. as i warned, public order is at risk of breaking down.

humanitarian veterans who have served in disasters around the world, people who have seen everything, tell me they have seen nothing like what they see today in gaza. israel began its military operation in response to the horrific terrorist attacks launched by hamas on october 7 and nothing can possibly justify those attacks or the brutal adoption of some 250 hostages. i repeat my call for all remaining hostages to be released immediately and unconditionally. nothing can justify the continued firing of rockets from gaza or the use of civilians as human shields. at the same time, these violations of international humanitarian law can never justify the collective punishment of the palestinian

people and they do not free israel from its own obligations and international law. ladies and gentlemen of the press, many people are measuring the effectiveness of the humanitarian operation in gaza based on the number of trucks from the u.n. and other partners that have been allowed to unload aid across the border. this is a mistake. the real problem is that the way israel is conducting -- is creating massive obstacles for the distribution of humanitarian aid inside gaza. an effective operation inside gaza requires security, staff who can work in safety and the resumption of commercial activity. these elements do not exist. first, security. we are providing aid in a war

zone. the intense israeli bombardment in densely populated urban areas in gaza threatens the lives of civilians and humanitarian aid workers alike. we waited 71 days for israel to finally allow aid to enter gaza via the crossing. the crossing was then hit while aid trucks were in the area. second, the humanitarian operation require staff who can work in safety. more than 100 of our colleagues in gaza have been killed in 75 days. something we have never seen in the history of the united nations. nowhere is safe in gaza. i honor the women and men who have made the ultimate sacrifice and i pay tribute to the humanitarian aid workers who are

risking their health and lives in gaza even as i speak. most have been forced from their homes. all of them spend hours each day simply struggling to survive and to support their families. it is a miracle that they have been able to continue working under these conditions. and yet, those same colleagues are expanding humanitarian actions into southern gaza to support people working there while trying to assist the flood of displaced people from the north with nothing. they are currently providing aid in communities and doing their best to reach the north despite huge challenges, mainly security. in these appalling conditions,

they can only meet a fraction of the needs. third, logistics. every truck that arrives in rafah must be unloaded and the cargo reloaded for distribution across gaza. we, ourselves, have a limited and insufficient number of trucks available for this. many trucks were destroyed or left behind following evacuation from the north. the israeli authorities have not allowed any additional trucks to operate in gaza. and this is massively hampering the aid operation. delivering in the north is extremely dangerous due to active conflict, unexploded ordnance and heavily damaged roads. everywhere, frequent communication blackouts make it virtually impossible to coordinate the distribution of aid and let people know.

fourth and finally, the resumption of commercial activities is essential. shelves are empty, wallets are empty, stomachs are empty. i urge the israeli authorities to release restrictions on commercial activity immediately. we are ready to fill up support for families, the most effective form of humanitarian aid. in gaza, there is very little to buy. ladies and gentlemen of the media, in the circumstances i have just described, a humanitarian cease-fire is the only way to begin to be the desperate needs of people in gaza and end their ongoing nightmare. i hope today's resolution may help it finally to happen but much more is needed immediately.

looking at the longer-term, i am extremely disappointed by comments by senior israeli officials that have put the two state solution into question. as difficult as it might appear, the two-state solution in line with international law and previous agreements is the only path to sustainable peace. any suggestion otherwise denies human rights, giving hope to the palestinian people, fueling rage far beyond gaza. it denies a safe future for israel. the spillover is already happening. the occupied west bank is that a boiling point. great risk to regional stability. attacks to shipping on the red sea by the who -- houthis in yemen.

beyond the immediate region, the conflict is polarizing communities, fueling hate speech. a significant and growing threat to global peace and security. as the conflict intensifies and the horror grows, we will continue to do our part. we will not give up. at the same time, it is imperative that international communities speak with one voice, for peace, the protection of civilians, for an end to suffering and a commitment to the two-state solution. thank you. >> thank you very much, secretary-general. on behalf of the u.n. correspondent association, thank you very much. it has been over two weeks since you invoked article 99. until today, the security

council has failed to act and we have not seen a resolution. this resolution calls for an increase to aid but does not. join a call for cease-fire. . when you invoked article 99, we you hoping for more urgency on part of the security counsel and for them to join your call for a cease-fire? sec. gen. guterres: of course. i was hopeful. that does not mean things happen according to our hopes. in any case, today, you can see the glass as half full or half empty. i hope today's resolution makes people understand a humanitarian cease-fire is indeed something that is needed if we want humanitarian aid to be effectively delivered. >> secretary-general, i was just wondering, the resolution calls for both sides to allow unhindered, safe delivery of aid

. we know the status more or less about israel's role. in terms of hamas, how significant is hamas's control or not allowing access to aid for the people? sec. gen. guterres: we have condemned all violations against national humanitarian law. violations by hamas using civilians as shields, the rockets, the violations done by israel. the relentless bombardments. the fact we are having a policy that is totally unprecedented in all conflict until now. obviously, that is why a cease-fire is needed. to stop all obstacles coming from wherever they may come. a humanitarian cease-fire. >> how significant is hamas's

denial of access to aid? is it minor? a medium amount? sec. gen. guterres: it is one of the contributions that needs to be taken into account. it is not a major factor when we look at the situation today. >> first i want to wish you and your family a very happy holiday. sec. gen. guterres: happy holiday, too. >> my question also involves hamas. do you realistically think that a viable, sustainable two-state solution as long as hamas exists? when there threats to repeat october 7 over and over again? what is your comment on the fact that israel has authored at least a seven-day pause to allow the release of hostages and more aid to come into gaza but hamas

has flatly turned that down? thank you. sec. gen. guterres: first of all, i do believe that we need a humanitarian cease-fire. that is what i believe is needed. of course, we are favorable to any pause that can lead to improvement in humanitarian aid and the exchange of prisoners. i have been actively in contact with qatar, egypt and with others and i hope the negotiations will be able to lead to new opportunities for the release of hostages. the release of hostages is very clear. we believe there must be in the immediate and unconditional release of hostages. >> my first question, they kind

of relate to each other, the first question was whether you believe, realistically, there can be a two-state solution as long as hamas exists? the second question, i would specifically be interested in knowing a comment on hamas's refusal to accept even a seven-day pause. they want all or nothing. sec. gen. guterres: both sides apparently want all or nothing. that is why we have not managed to have an agreement. it is important to have spirit of compromise. the first question is very important. we believe that a legitimate representation of the palestinian people is the authorities. what we want to see is the creation of conditions that will allow the palestinian authority to assume responsibility in gaza. that is, in our opinion, the

solution to allow for the two- state solution to become a reality. >> what is the situation and do you plan to communicate with russian officials or russian president vladimir putin? sec. gen. guterres: we have been in contact with both sides, trying to explore new forms. i do not think the repetition would make sense. i am a strong believer that it would be very interesting if we would be able to have conditions in the black sea. >> secretary-general, let me ask

you a broader picture question. in 2023, it seems very chaotic, we have two conflicts going on. the united nations and you, yourself, have been put under huge pressure. what kind of hope do you see for 2024? sec. gen. guterres: we have in the u.n. a very important process taking place. in the summit of the future, i hope it will be possible for us to agree on a new agenda for peace, with an approach to prevention. yesterday, we had an important victory. after many years we have been fighting for the need to have peace enforcing operations done by our african partners with

mandates and contributions. it was possible to have a resolution that creates the possibility of something at 75%. it was one of the key elements for the agenda for peace. there are many others. on the other hand, we have already -- we will be publishing today of the report of our intelligence. i hope it will be possible to have some form of network governance of artificial intelligence with flexibility, taking into account different situations around the world. that will create more opportunities for artificial intelligence being used for good and minimize the risks of artificial intelligence and i hope you see the u.n. in the center of that effort.

we have simultaneously and number of very other important questions on the table in which member states will be able to make decisions in relation to future generations and decision-making into the forming of the international financial solution. independently of the crises happening, there is a dynamic effort within the u.n. to look to the need to reform and to make multilateralism stronger and effective in the world that is becoming multi-polar. multi-polarity will not guarantee if there is not a strengthening of multilateral governmental institutions. i am very optimistic about the work that can be done in the u.n., knowing that some of the crises will be difficult to overcome. >> thank you very much. sec. gen. guterres: thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the united nations security council has approved a resolution on za cbs news reptshe body voted to speed up the process of deliri aido lestinian civilians in gaza a demand all the hostages held by hamas be released immediately and without conditions. the u.s. abstained on the measure. read more at cbs news.com. >> my name is ryan, i'm in the library of congress. domestic policy politics, which includes law and iludes our collection of federal judges and

supreme court justices. we do not have the papers of oliver wendell holmes but we are standing in his library right now. it was originally from his washington, d.c. home. it contains thousands of books. he had another library at his home in massachusetts but this is the largest of the two. oliver wendell holmes was one of the most famous jurors. he wrote the book the common law on display here. it was published in 1881 and was a product of his intellectual thought. he had been lecturing at harvard for a number of years. the main item on display is his black book. it is every book he read from 1881 to his death in 1935 and connects to all the items on the table. it get to the world that all of her window holmes created when he wrote the common law, which

at its heart basically says -- it is a judicial text that judges and policymakers must find a way to balance -- with law that sometimes this creation was not transparent and was somewhat opaque. good men and women had to find a way to take modern policy and mend it to make law. what is interesting about this page in the black book is you see agatha history -- agatha christie is on here. you even see virginia woolf. he talks about how he had been reading at the time and how the justices used to describe alpine trips.

leslie stevens was virginia woolf's father. oliver wendell holmes when he produces the common law, he knows henry james, leslie stevens, all these folks who are engaged in this thought in transforming the 19th century into the 20th. i just finished this with a letter from his nephew. oliver wendell holmes never had children. the horror of the civil war put him off on bringing life into this world. edward, his nephew, is in the will in 1935, 100 books from the library. one of the individuals who stay close to oliver wendell holmes. i have the right to choose 100 books. i want to choose the books that touched his mind and his heart

and i don't think anyone knew him better than you. even in death, people were thinking about what he thought about. the books he read, the ideas he promoted on the foxy put into american law. ♪ >> this week, watch washington journal special holiday authors week. each morning, a new writer. on saturday, discussions about how lincoln succeeded in the divided america. watch washington journal live saturday morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern with our special holiday authors week series on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> next, treasury secretary janet yellen gives remarks about inflation and the economy. secretary yellen discusses relations with china, interest

rates, fiscal policy and what she describes as a soft landing for the economy. this conversation took place during the wall street journal ceo summit. place during the wall street journal ceo summit. >> >> let's start with the inflation report. inflation has been much better behaved. inflation is down to 3.1% in november from 9.1% in june of last year. core -- a 3.5% annualized rate. has inflation vanquished? sec. yellen: it is meaningfully coming down and i see no reason on the path that we are currently on why inflation should gradually declined to levels that are consistent with defense mandate targets. mandate and target, so supply chain supply chain issues that resulted from the pandemic and

mismatches and disruption in labor markets seem to be healing. as that happens, inflations move down. the labor market, while it remains strong, we have had 22 months with below 4% inflation, which is quite a phenomenon. we have not seen that in about 50 years. the labor market is cooling some as job openings come down. some as job openings come down, and the intensity of hiring has diminished some, but of course, we have not seen layoffs and we have excellent job creation, labor force participation increasing, and at this point with the down this much and wage increases continuing at a healthy pace while wages are rising. real average hourly earnings are

up 1.4% over the last year. >> there is a view among economic commentary that says the last mile of getting inflation down will be the hardest. what do you think? could inflation be more persistent if wage growth runs above 4%? sec. yellen: as price pressures decline, real wages are rising, but productivity has been healthy, and we are not seeing pressure on unit labor costs. i personally do not see any good reason to think that the last mile is going to be especially difficult. i think we have an economy operating at a roughly full employment, and it will continue to do so. you know, i think people

predicted that unemployment was going to have to rise considerably in order to get inflation down, but inflation expectations are an important element in the inflation process, and inflation expectations -- well, recent data suggests they have come down, but i think they have been well under control, and that is important because he means there is no underlying inflation momentum that we would need a softer labor market to managed to bring down. >> over the last couple of years, the two big worries you hear about from economist are we will have a wage price spiral, or inflation expectations will become unanchored. do you think policymakers have cut off those tails?

are those no longer things we need to worry about? sec. yellen: policymakers are paid to worry. that is not on my worry list. i do not see any evidence that inflation has become engraved -- ingrained or that we have a wage price spiral. neither of those things seem to be problems we are dealing with, and the fed has done a good job of managing policy. as i said, importantly the labor market is showing signs of less stress, so well wage growth is healthy, it has come down some and real wages are rising. >> on expectations being anchored, markets certainly seem to agree. bond markets think interest rates will be lower. it is implausible to have interest rates coming down when inflation is still above 2%? sec. yellen: the decision of

what the right monetary policy is is up to the fed. >> i thought you would say that. sec. yellen: i think they need to carefully watch the economy and make a judgment about what's appropriate. if inflation comes down, real interest rates tend to rise, which causes the uptake of monetary policy. that's one factor you could weigh in the decision that the fed makes about the interest rates. >> i want to take a step back and take stock of what we learned about inflation over the past two years. people will watch their p.a.d.'s about this years from now. what caused inflation to go up so much, and why has it fallen without any serious weakness in

the economy so far? sec. yellen: i do think we don't know the answer to this at this point. it's appropriate that there be some phd thesis and a lot of research papers on this, and there's going to be time ahead. but just looking at what has happened, i think there were very significant supply disturbances that were caused by the pandemic shortages, big shifts in the structure of demand that went to sectors like automobiles that were faced with in norma's excess demand, shortages of chips shipping, huge increasing shipping costs from asia. so, the supply disruptions have gradually come down and, i can't

say exactly how much that has contributed to lower inflation, i think that has been a factor. you also have enormous disruption in the labor market with a very significant number of people laid off who are losing their jobs who need to find new work. and, i think that led to disruptions in the labor market. they are also gradually healing in a way the natural rate of unemployment is coming down as people settle into new jobs. that's a very disruptive process we saw, not only desperation on the part of firms as the up -- as the economy picked up and they were desperately trying to add to their workforce, but mismatch of workers and forms -- and firms that made people quit

their jobs and look for other work as they settled into a good match. so it was unusually high. job openings were high, wage increases were very high in the labor market. it had been so disrupted, but now if you look at it, job openings are down substantially. i don't mean by that to levels that are worrisome low, but normal low good labor market pre-pandemic level. the quick way, which is i think the driver of wage increases, -- >> workers could quit their jobs when they think they can get a better price somewhere else. sec. yellen: absolutely, you see quick rates come down to normal levels. the labor market is normalizing and labor force participation

has moved up among adults. we have seen it move up to the highest levels in decades. and that is helping to ease inflationary pressures as well. >> you said you see a soft landing is a most likely outcome for the economy, do i have that right? sec. yellen: yes, in the sense that, to me, a soft landing is the economy continues to grow, the labor market remains strong and inflation comes down. i believe that's the path we are on. >> when i look back on history, soft landings were rare. in 2000 and 2007 the economy was slowing into a soft landing. most recessions look like a soft landing for a little while. it gives you confidence this might be like an episode in the mid-1990's and in the last two downturns. the covert shock where it looked like we were soft landing and then we had a hard landing? sec. yellen: i agree it is an

unusual thing to have happen. it certainly takes skill on the part of the fed to calibrate monetary policy properly. but, if you just look at the data, it looks as though that's the path we are on. and i will say this, the last several years, what i've been saying when they asked about the economy is that, i believe it's possible to have a soft landing. there's nothing inherent about those sharks that have hit the economy that make it necessary to have a time of high unemployment to get inflation down. many economists were saying, there's no way for inflation to get back to normal without it in tailing a time of high unemployment or recession. one year ago, i think many economists were saying a recession was inevitable.

but actually, i have never felt there was a solid intellectual basis for making such a prediction because as long as inflation -- the times in the united states needed a downturn to get inflation down, those were times like after the oil shocks of the 1970's when inflation expectations clearly had moved much higher and inflation then becomes self perpetuating. you have a wage private stash wage price spiral where the only way to bring inflation down is getting inflation expectations down, and that involves a time of high unemployment and pushes inflation down and shows people you were wrong, inflation is actually lower than you thought. that's a painful process. we didn't need that.

and because inflation expectations had never meaningfully ratcheted up on a long-term basis, we just had set help the economy normalize and get the labor market back to a full employment state to bring inflation down. of course there were shocks along the way, russia's invasion of ukraine led to soaring food and energy prices that of course boosted inflation and had the potential to dislodge inflation expectations. so there have been many risks along the way. but, we have managed to avoid the adverse real consequences of those risks. and, i think we are in a soft landing path, which is a -- which is highly desirable. >> there's a disconnect right now, you see some of the surveys, people say they are unhappy with the economy, they

feel worse off than three years ago. you look at the headline numbers and say what's not to like about low unemployment and inflation coming down. why do you think there is a disconnect and are you concerned about the fact the administration's message about bidenomics isn't landing? sec. yellen: i think we have been through a lot, the pandemic caused a norma's amount of disruption in people's lives. and we are still in the aftermath of what has been a serious shock and we have had serious global shock's. and although prices are rising at a much slower pace than they were, inflation is substantially off with the level of prices of some things that people buy, and are important to them are higher. a good example would be rent. rent has gone up considerably.

and, the cost of, if you are in the market to buy a new home at this point, with mortgage rates in house prices having increased. i think a lot of young people who are in the market want to start families, are renting and want to buy a house, and we see costs continue to rise. the prices of new rentals have stabilized and that means that over time, shelter inflation will come down, bringing headline inflation down as well. but, people are seeing increases in rental costs, and that's an important aspect of their cost of living. but, the biden administration is doing all that it can in taking steps that are very meaningful to lower costs in areas where

they can. an example would be capping insulin prices for seniors at $35. we now have prescription drug prices coming down up the whole energy, the inflation reduction act, the energy initiatives, and the bipartisan infrastructure law will bring energy prices down over time. so the biden administration certainly understands that high prices, even if they are no longer rising, are definitely a concern to americans and we are trying to -- to take the steps we can to address these prices. >> you mention mortgage rates. it's been an interesting time. we saw a selloff on the note up to 5% and they are back to 4.25%. how much stability is on bond

markets, do you attribute to the treasury's decision to issue fewer long-term decisions in the market expected, and was that a deviation from the treasury's protocol of regular issuance? sec. yellen: regular and predict people influences the core strategy the treasury follows. experience shows that regular and predictable issuance is central to keeping borrowing costs contained over time. we routinely confer with market participants to understand changes in the market, shifts in demand through different maturities of securities and our borrowing needs shift. and, really, the adjustment that was made, i guess it was in november, was really quite

marginal. we had been increasing our issuance in order to finance deficits, and we meet -- we made an adjustment to increase issuance of a bit less since the long end, given the strains that we saw there. but really regular and predictable. we do not as a routine manner, respond to movements in market rates. >> of rates came in below forecast and you are forced to issue more, would you keep it lighter on the long and given concerns about demand for duration? sec. yellen: i'm not sure, no decision about that has been made. we do get the advice of market participants and are trying to understand what's best. >> is the long-term fiscal picture for the u.s. sustainable?

particularly the average interest rate on the u.s. debt is higher in the coming years and we don't go back to the very low interest rates that prevailed before the pandemic? sec. yellen: one way i judge sustainability of our fiscal path is buying, looking at the net real interest rate on the debt. which is our financial cost in inflation adjusted terms. that has been quite moderate and well within historical norms. projected as, over time, to rise somewhat, but still in our last budget toward things that are not worrisome. but of fire interest rates -- if interest rates are substantially higher on the long-term basis, then we previously projected,

that results in some extra stress on the fiscal outlook. the president has recognize that it's necessary to take steps to reduce the deficit over time to have a more fiscally sustainable policy. and he has proposed, in his last budget, $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction. a lot of this comes about through tax rates that are higher on corporations and wealthy individuals are tax collections as consequences of job cuts and tax act in 2017 have fallen to historically low levels. taxes at the share of gdp are now at 16.5%.

so, that's about a point -- 1.5% of gdp below projections before the act was passed. and, the president has proposed a large number of ways to make up that gap. in addition, we have in the united states and utterly enormous tax cap. i'm referring to the differences between taxes that are actually collected in that are due under our existing tax code. that range is the estimate over a decade is $7 trillion. congress allocated $80 billion in the inflation reduction act to restore the capacity of the internal revenue service to higher the kinds of personnel,

tax lawyers, accountants who are able to enforce the tax code. that is going to have a substantial payoff over time. the republicans recently proposed and we did agree to take 20 billion of that back. that's no economy at all, that's a totally false economy because taking money away from the internal revenue service, and it has been shown in the estimates, it doesn't reduce the deficit, it raises the deficit because this money goes to close that tax cap and makes a considerable difference. so we have opportunities on the revenue side. i think it needs to be part of any plan and of course with an aging society, we do have

greater spending. we have differences on medicare and social security that may need to be addressed. >> before we close, you are in the apac meeting in san francisco with chinese leaders xi jingping, what would be the goal of u.s. engagement with china, given so much of the frustration and disappointment over the last 20 years? is the u.s. doing enough to de-risk from china and is there a danger of doing too much de-risking? sec. yellen: i see a three-part agenda with respect to china. the first is that we want to have a relationship that involves healthy competition, trade, investment that is broadly beneficial both to the united states and to china, is good for businesses, china is a huge market and is good for american workers, creates jobs.

we do not want to decouple the biden administration does not seek to decouple from china, but we do seek to de-risk. that means we don't want to be overly content when it comes to key supply chains on china, instead, i promoted an approach called friends shoring, which involves diversifying our supply chains. we are working with india, vietnam, mexico, indonesia, with other countries to continue to get the benefits of international trade, but to be less reliant on china. we also need a level playing field. the president, in his meeting with president xi and i met a few days before that with my chinese counterpart. china has -- practices the

result in unfair trade subsidies , intellectual property practices that create an unlevel playing field that we intend to address, but no decoupling and continued engagement. that's plank one, plank two, we will protect our national security and speak out about human rights. there's no compromising about that. we will try to make our approach as narrow, as targeted as we possibly can, and let's say the recent rules that we put forward , with respect to investment, where we do see some dangers of u.s. firms investing in china, are very narrowly tart -- very narrowly targeted, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and with real national security

implications. the third plank of the china policy is, we need to cooperate to address global challenges. we have a responsibility to the world to do that, to where it is that is very important to climate change in debt, that there are a lot of countries around the world that are suffering, especially with high interest rates from unsustainable debt burdens. they need to restructure their debt, and we need to cooperate to do it in china is one of the biggest lenders. this is in a u.s.-china issue, it's a multilateral issue, and we are in regular conversations with our chinese counterparts to try to make progress in these areas, and i feel encouraged by the signs that things are getting better.

>> we are nearly out of time, maybe a quick lightning round. you are one of two people who have been share of the fed and treasury secretary, what are the biggest differences between those two jobs? sec. yellen: the fed's job is very focused, mainly on, well, supervision is an important piece of the fed's job. but with the respect to the economy, it's focusing on constructing a monetary policy that best allows attainment of price stability, maximum employment, mandate. the treasuries jobs are very, very broad. i have never been in a position where the responsibilities are so diverse. we have a thousand people who work at treasury who deal with sanctions and threats from

terrorists, illicit finance. we have tax policy, international economic relations with a variety of countries representing the united states and the multilateral development banks in the imf and on and on. the range of responsibilities to treasury is really a norm us. >> which job is better? sec. yellen: they are both great. i'm a lucky person to have had either of them. i'm very grateful for the opportunity. >> on that note, we are grateful to have had you join us this morning. thank you very ♪ >> weeknights at 9:00 eastern c-span's encore presentation of our series, books that