the economy, including vast, the vast majority of commercial activity on the internet. and the ftc also enforces several issue or sector-specific laws such as the children's online privacy protection act and the telemarketing sales rule. this broad jurisdiction mean that is the ftc and the federal communications commission shower jurisdiction over much of the internet ecosystem with one significant exception that i'll discuss later. whether at the ftc or the fcc, all regulators of technology should embrace two fundamental principles. one, regulatory human till. and -- humility. and, two, a focus on evaluating consumer harm. unless regulators follow these two principles, even agencies with the best design, statutory and regulatory structure will be less effective and possibly make consumers worse off.

on the other hand, regulators who embrace these principles can help limit harms caused by the flaws that exist if all regulatory -- in all regulatory approaches. practicing these principles is particularly important when the area to be regulated is rapidly changing and difficult to predict. it is exceedingly difficult to predict the path of technology and its effects on society. the massive benefits of the internet have, in large part, been a result of entrepreneurs' freedom to experiment with different business models. the best of these experiments have survived and thrived, even in the face of initial unfamiliarity and unease about the impact on consumers and competitors. for example, you may remember the early, widespread skepticism directed toward online shopping. but today let me ask how many of you bought something online this month?

early -- yeah, me too. early skepticism does not predict potential consumer harm. and conversely, as the failure of thousands of dot.coms has shown, early enthusiasm does not predict consumer benefits. because it is so difficult to predict the future of technology, government officials like myself must approach new technologies and new business models with a significant toes of regulatory -- significant dose of regulatory humility. and this means we must work hard to educate ourselves and others about new developments. we must research the effects on consumers in the marketplace. we must identify benefits and any likely harm. and if harms do arise, we must ask if existing laws and regulations are sufficient to address them rather than assuming that few rules are required -- new rules are required. and we must remain conscious of our limits. the success of the information economy means that we regulators can now gather so much data, but

data isn't knowledge or wisdom. data-driven decisions can be wrong. even worse, data-driven decisions can seem right while still being wrong. political polling expert nate silver notes that one of the pervasive risks that we pace in the information age is that even if the amount of knowledge in the world is increasing, the gap between what we know and what we think we know may be widening. and regulatory humility can help narrow that gap. equally important, we ought to focus on evaluating consumer harm. before intervening, regulators must understand how new technologies and business models affect consumers, both positively and negatively. this requires careful factual and economic analysis. it also sevens as another -- serves as another check on action for the sake of action.

as noted in the ifs tc -- ftc at 100 report, which i played a large role in, it's the proper objective of the agency's competition and consumer protection work. our consumer protection laws encourage us to focus on consumer harm, whether the cause is from deception or unfairness. so in analyzing a potentially dive practice or a -- deceptive practice or a mission, the ftc asks if it's material. absent the deception, would the consumer have made a different choice? as explained in our deception statement, if different choices are likely, the deceptive claim is material. and injury is likely as well. thus, injury and materiality are different names for the same concept. the ftc's unfairness statement relies even more explicitly on harm. it games the practice unfair if

it causes substantial harm not outweighed by any offsetting consumer or competitive benefits and the consumer could not have reasonably avoided the harm. the ftc's unfairness statement specifically identifies financial, health and safety as varieties of harm the commission should consider substantial and further states that emotional impact and more subjective types of harm will not make a practice unfair. i believe that these clear statements as to what constitutes consumer harm have focused the ftc and made it more effective than it would be, for example, under a less specific public interest standard. when the ftc exercises its competition authority, it also carefully evaluates consumer welfare or its corollary, consumer harm. the core mission of antitrust law is to improve consumer welfare by protecting vigorous competition and economic efficiency. the ftc has expressly

acknowledged that its dual consumer protection and competition mandates are bound together by this single objective of improving consumer welfare. this is in part why i have is said that consumer welfare must be among the guiding lights for the ftc to apply section five authority to cases outside the reach of traditional antitrust laws. in such cases i've argued that before taking action the ftc ought to establish substantial harm to competition or to the competitive process and, thus, to consumers relying on robust economic evidence that the challenge conduct is anti competitive and reduces consumer welfare. by focusing on practices that are actually likely to harm consumers, the ftc has limitedded its forays into speculative harm, thereby preserving its resources for clear violations. i believe that this self-restraint has been important to the ftc's success in tackling a wide range of

disparate problems without disrupting innovation, and i think that this is a model worth replicating. so regulatory humility and a focus on evaluating consumer harm are both necessary to successfully protecting online consumers and e competition. however, regulators also need the proper tools for the job. although the ftc and the fcc share jurisdiction over the internet, the tools they use are very different. the fcc has tradition traditionally regulated using prescriptive ex-antiregulation. the communications act and legislation established a system of classifications for various telecommunications providers or services. and within that silo structure, the fcc has generally conducted add morive procedure act rule makings that classify entities as falling within a specific silo and then detail the procedures that these various types of entities must follow.

so friedrich hayek, who spent a lot of time exploring the interaction between laws and liberty, would call these types of rules commands or rules of organizations. as distinct from rules of spontaneous order such as common law that arose organically and evolve over time. i believe that the prescriptive ex-antiapproach is not reserved. it faces at least three significant knowledge-gathering challenges. first, a regulator must acquire knowledge about the present state and future trends of the industry being regulated. the more prescriptive the regulation and the more complex the industry, the more detailed the knowledge the regulator must collect. second, collecting such information is very time consuming. if it's even possible at all, because such knowledge is

generally distributed throughout the industry and may even be latent. third, as a regulate ared industry -- regulated industry continues to evolve, collective knowledge can quickly become stale, and this is a particular concern for fast-changing technological fields like telecommunications. now, these knowledge problems can lead to negative consequences. first, because statutory, procedure and resource constraints make it impossible for the regulator to continual lu update the rules, it's difficult to keep up with technological change. now, these problems may not be as acute if the regulated industry is evolving slowly over decades, but in the internet ecosystem which rapidly innovatd evolving, a prescriptive approach has resulted in significant mismatches between the rules and reality. second, because ex-anti regulations are an attempt of the almost impossible task of

predicting the future, some harms will occur that weren't anticipated. simultaneously, willinglations may prevent harmless or even beneficial practices. and third, prescriptive ex-anti regulations can hinder innovation. if an innovative product or service doesn't easily fit within a particularly statutory or regulatory classification, the innovator may be uncertain about how to comply with the law. such legal uncertainty exacerbates the already-risky effort to develop something new which ultimately discourages innovation. so in short, prescriptive regulation -- particularly of fast-changing industries -- risks becoming procrustean, a son of poseidon, who offered

travelers a bed for the night. he even built an iron bed for his guests. it sounds nice and welcoming. but there was a catch. if the visitor was too small, he would forcibly stretch the guest's limbs this they fit. if the visitor was too big, he would amputate limbs if necessary to fit them into the bed. now eventually, procrustes met his demise who pit him p to his own bed by cutting off his head. the general lesson is a warning against the tendency to squeeze complicated things into simple boxes, to take complicated ideas, technologies or people and force them into our preconceived models. as is pointed out in "the book of procru, the es" we often do not see this approach.

now, regulatory humility counsels embracing the lesson of the greek myth. regulators should resist the urge to simplify. we should make every effort to tolerate complexity and develop institutions that are robust in the face of complex and rapidly changing phenomena. unfortunately, due to the limits of knowledge, regulation too often is a bed for the regulated industry. when the regulated industry is rapidly evolving, yesterday's comfortable regulatory bed quickly becomes a torture rack for tomorrow's technologies. in particular, the history of telecommunications regulation is largely a story of regulatory attempts to put new technologies into an out-of-date regulatory model. from the 1913 kingsbury commitment to the 1996 telecommunications act and its subsequent implementation, congress and the fcc have

constructed a bed of regulation that makes distinctions based on physical platform, business model and geographic characteristics that are increasingly irrelevant. consequently, when considering the con vrnlging technologies and overlapping business models of an ip-based world, the fcc has struggled to deploy prescriptive ex-anti regulation tool in a legally sustainable manner. title ii bed simply doesn't allow the fcc much flexibility. the verizon v. fcc decision and the underlying open internet order together provide a fascinating example of the inflexibility of the approach. in a 2002 declaratory ruling and several subsequent decisions, the fcc determined that broadband internet service was information service and was, therefore, not subject to title ii common carrier regulation. in other words, the fcc decided not to subject broadband

internet services to the bed of title ii regulation because it just didn't fit well. but fast forward to 2010 where, in the open internet order to, the fcc established three requirements on broadband service providers; antidiscrimination, anti-blocking and transparency. and as you all know, the d.c. circuit recently struck down these rules in part. the court found that by imposing antidiscrimination and anti-blocking rules, the fcc was inper mismy treating broadband services like common carrier services. so we're turning -- returning to our gruesome greek metaphor, it was as if the fcc had said, broadband providers, we're not going to force you into bed, but we're going to trim some of your limbs and never mind that these are some of the same restrictions, we would impose if we were going to force you into title ii. the upshot of the court's

decision is that to impose antiblocking and antidiscrimination rules, the fcc would have to reclassify broadband as a title ii common carrier service; that is, force it into the title ii bed no matter how badly it fit. net neutrality is not the only internet issue where technological change is exposing flaws in the ex-anti approach. voiceover internet protocol is another good example. now, voip looks nearly identical to the traditional voice service that the the fcc has regulated as a common carrier since its earliest days. yet although the fcc has imposed certain regulations on voip, the fcc does not regulate voip as a common carrier service. and the fcc has not acted on a long-pending rulemaking proceeding posing the question of whether voip is entitled to common carrier service.

now, i don't raise this to encourage the fcc to regulate vo ip under title ii, but rather to emphasize that the ongoing transition will continue to push difficult issues like this to the fore. given that the prescriptive ex-anti regulatory approach faces such difficulties, what's the alternative? for consumer protection and competition issues, i have significant experience operating within the model we use at the federal trade commission. the ftc model is quite different from the fcc's. instead of a siloed statute, section five charges the ftc to prevent and punish urn fair methods of competition and unfair or descent i have acts or practices. the act applies across all industries with a few exceptions. and where the fcc's regulations generally set the boundaries of what certain types of entities can do, the ftc's statute fences off deceptive and unfair practices for all entities but

generally permits everything else. the ftc's process is an enforcement-centric rather than a rulemaking-centric one. and as such, it is ex post rather than exantiand case by case rather than one size fits all. and because an enforcement action requires a complaint and a case to move ahead, the ftc's method typically focuses on actual or at least specifically alleged harms rather than having to predict future harms more generally. because of these structural differences, the ftc's enforcement process is less effective by the systemic knowledge problems of the fcc's prescriptive ex-antirulemaking approach. so, first, rather than having to collect detailed knowledge about an entire industry, the ftc only need gather enough information about the specific parties to dispute and their behaviors in the relevant market. and the ftc has significant many

invest story authority to gather such information. second, collecting such information is much simpler because the vast majority of that information will be in the hands of the parties to the case. and third, even in rapidly changing industries, the ftc's decision on the case will bind only those parties to the specific case. now, the case will have precedential value, but when the ftc weighs that precedent in future cases, it can then consider any changes in the underlying facts. thus, the ftc -- [inaudible] what is called permissionless innovation or the antiprecautionary principle. better than a prescriptive rulemaking approach. and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. as the internet has become an increasingly integral part of society, the ftc's enforcement-centric approach hasen abled it to serve an increasingly large role in

protecting consumers and competition online, even while the industry has continued to innovate. so, in fact, the ftc is already addressing major internet-centric concerns including new issues in privacy and fraud and advertising and other consumer protection issues along with competition issues. perhaps the most significant internet issue that the fcc has tackled is privacy. the ftc leads the federal effort to protect the privacy of consumers online. now, online privacy is a very wide-ranging topic covering spam e-mail and data collection and security, the safety of children and online advertising. and hot new topics include the internet of things and big data. and the ftc has been active in all of these areas, using a full range of tools including enforcement, consumer and business education, policy research and convening stakeholders for a discussion. so, for example, the ftc has brought a wide range of enforcement cases addressing consumer harms related to the internet, including more than

100 spam and spyware cases and 50 data security cases. and we've brought these cases against a wide range of defendants including an international hotel chain, a major data broker, a national drugstore chain and the folks from media site twitter. and we also hold companies to the promises they made in their privacy policies and have brought actions against companies such as google and facebook for violating these promises. and additionally, we've brought over 20 cases to enforce the children's online privacy protection act, and we've collected more than $7 million in civil penalties. and i believe that this strong enforcement record reflects the ftc's readiness and capability to protect consumer privacy online even in the face of technological change. so enforcement is a cornerstone of our activity to protect consumers online, but it is supported by a wide range of other complementary tools that the ftc uses to promote consumer welfare and competition online,

including consumer and business education and policy r&d efforts. so in some respects the commission's consumer and business education efforts affect a greater percentage of american consumers than anything else we do. so, for example, the information available on our web site to help consumers abecoming victims of identity theft and then to mitigate the damages of id theft have had millions of hits and have been distributed very widely in hard copy as well. we also educate consumers on how to avoid falling victim to online scams, how to deal with spam e-mail -- spam e-mail and how to keep children safe online among a variety of topics. and for businesses we also offer a wide range of legal resources and guidance and handbooks on topics including online advertising and privacy laws and best practices across the sphwhert. internet. the ftc also has a strong policy research and development capability that it uses to stay

abreast of new technologies and emerging issues. so, for example, the ftc has been closely studying the related issues of big data and the internet of things. and we've hosted successful workshops on these topics and others including disclosures in online marketing and advertising practices and children's online privacy and mobile tracking. and future ftc workshops will cover topics such as consumer behavior prediction and analysis and consumer-generated health data. now, these workshops are particularly valuable because they not only educate consumers and businesses, they also help the commission stay informed about ongoing technological developments and the benefits and risks of any new such technologies. so we're turning to the verizon decision for a moment. although the decision does not explicitly affect the ftc's important role in protecting the internet consumer, it may have two indirect, but important effects.

first, the d.c. circuit did uphold one provision of the open internet order that could assist the ftc's consumer protection efforts. specifically, the court upheld the order's requirement that broadband service providers be transparent about what they offer. this transparency requirement could provide useful information to consumers. and the ftc can monitor the information provided by broadband service providers to insure that it's accurate and consistent with their actual practices. and to the extent that we find statements inconsistent with reality, our deception authority empowers us to take action to protect consumers. second, the d.c. circuit while striking down parts of the open internet order did accept the fcc's assertion that it has independent authority under section 706 of the communications act. now, the partial dissent in verizon raises significant and legitimate concerns regarding the majority's interpretation of the fcc's 706 authority. and on its face the scope of

this authority would appear to be bounded only by the fcc's creativity in connecting its proposed regulatory action to the promotion of broadband deployment. now, a lot of uncertainty about the extent of the fcc's 706 authority, but it does appear a particularly aggressive fcc could assert overlapping jurisdiction with the ftc on internet consumer protection issues. for the reasons i've already discussed, i believe that the ftc's enforce-driven, case-by-case approach is much better suited to the fast-changing internet world and, therefore, i counsel caution in adopting other prescriptive rules in this area. so with our array of enforcement and education and research tools, the ftc is well equipped to advance its competition and consumer protection mission online, even in the face of constant change. but this isn't to say that the ftc is perfectly equipped. there is one significant change

that should be included in any update to the communication laws. common carriers should no longer be exempt from ftc oversight. so although the ftc and the fcc share jurisdiction over much of the internet marketplace, common carriers are exempt from ftc jurisdiction. now, in the prior era of separate regulatory silos of communications channels, this may have made sense. but today common carriers and noncommon carriers compete directly in a number of markets. and the common carrier exemption to our jurisdiction means that these competing technologies face disparate regulatory regimes through an accident of history. and this exemption also frustrates effective enforcement with respect to a wide variety of activities, including privacy, data security and billing practices and should be removed. so just to sum up, i wanted to thank you for your attention today, and now i know a lot of

energy will be spent over the next several years looking at how we can reshape our communications laws. i hope that during this process legislators and regulators will embrace regulatory humility and focus on evaluating and addressing consumer harm. and further, i'd urge all of you to reflect on the demonstrated challenges of using prescriptive approaches to regulate a fast-evolving technology like the internet. and i believe the ftc's successful expostenforcement of consumer protection rules provides a useful template, and i look forward to working with all of you and with congress to update our laws to serve consumers better. thank you. ms. . [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> well, maureen, thank you so much for that. that was very substantive address, and i i think an

important address. is i appreciate that. i just want to say two quick things, and then we're going to take -- in keeping with the tradition before adjourning today, i'll take a couple questions, and commissioner ohlhausen has graciously agreed to answer those. but first i want to say, you know, i'm going to pick a confession, and i'm probably a minority in the room. but, you know, i didn't know who that greek god really was. i didn't know the myth. and, you know, we always refer to that, so i thank you for that. and i'm much better educated now. secondly, i'd like to say, you know, i hope you don't take this personally, but i wish we could clone you, actually, and then put one of you over at the ft -- fcc if an appropriate occasion should arise over there as well. [laughter] now, i want to just remind you that we can continue the conversation on twitter at

hashtag fsfconf. i hope you'll do that so we can keep the conversation and ideas going as well. so i'm going to see whether we have a couple of questions. if there is someone who hasn't asked a question, i'm going to give them first dibs, and then if that's not the case, you might be able to be a repeat offender. so do i have any questions? okay. well, i've got one right back in the back, and just, please, state your name for the record and then ask a question. >> thank you. earl comstock. question for you, i thought that was a fascinating presentation, but obviously there's more to the communications act than just looking at some of these this things, and i'd be curious, i

didn't take it that you were suggesting -- or i'd be interested in hearing how your agency's authority would allow you to address issues like universal service, access to networks in the first place, for example, what if a broadband provider said you can't attach devices that aren't approved by me? be that's the kind of regulation that actually led to the creation of the internet, was obligations to allow attachment devices that met certain standards without qualification. and, for example, in cable networks today you don't see that. so i'd be curious how your agency's authority would be able to address things like that. >> so the ftc wouldn't be addressing issues like universal service, right? that is not a competition or consumer protection kind of issue. that's another, basically, policy goal that you would need a different approach to. but, for example, obligations of broadband service providers more

generally towards consumers, initially it made sense when you have a monopoly provider to have a more pervasive regulatory structure to control how they, how they deal with consumerses because consumers don't really have another choice, right? if they don't like that, they don't have anywhere else to go. but one of the strongest things we've seen in this area is a move towards greater competition and greater choices for consumers. so i'm not sure it makes sense them to have these very prescriptive regulations when you have a market system that may provide different option toes for consumers. so, for example, if a broadband provider were to do that, if they were to try to impose this on their or subscribers, i think those subscribers would have a pretty strong incentive to say, well, who else is offering this service? i don't like this. i'm going to go, i'm going to use wireless, or i'm going to use, you know, some other broadband provider. so to try to design rules for issues that are unlikely to

arise in a competitive market, to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. but that's what, that's how i would answer that, i think. first we need to look at is this something likely to happen, and then if it's likely to happen, do we already have the tools available to address those types of concerns such as the antitrust laws and the consumer protection laws. so if a provider said, oh, you can do what you want and then they don't actually adhere to to that promise, that's a fairly straightforward deception issue. >> [inaudible] >> i want to, i'm sorry, i'm going to -- because i've only got the room for a certain amount of time here. so if there's another question over here, if someone else has one, i'll recognize them. yeah. and -- anyone else? barron has one, but be no one else has one, doesn't look like none does.

barron? question. >> three cheers for the hayek reference. [laughter] so what do you view is the essence of the common law? is it case by case, or is it something more than that that happens in each case? >> well, certainly we have, right, our basic principles, unfair and deceptive acts of competition, and it's important for the ftc to articulate, i think, generally what those mean. we have an unfairness statement on the consumer protection side. and as you, barron, probably know and i don't know if others do, using unfair meds of competition -- methods, i've said we need to have a similar statement saying what does that mean generally. but then as you apply it to evolving facts, that's where the common law comes in where you start saying, okay, what does that mean when you're talking about online advertising? what does that mean when you're talking about a new technology? and we, you know, we kind of

apply it in an ongoing way that way. what's the kind of harm we should be addressing? that's what we talked about in the unfairness statement. what substantial harm. things like that. so i think that over time it's much like how a court would apply a general statute to a, to the facts at hand. so i think that's kind of what our role should be rather than to try to get in ahead of time and forecast what all the problems may be and to create a rule that controls business behavior to forestall all of those problems. >> okay. well, first of all, i just want to thank all of you for coming before i thank commissioner ohlhausen again. as i said at the beginning, this was our sixth annual free state foundation telecom policy conference, so we're certainly already looking forward to thinking about the next one.

and our events, by the way, in between, our seminars and other events. so, commissioner ohlhausen, i've got as a token of our appreciation a free state foundation, that's a blanket. it may come in handy today. now, commissioner clyburn and commissioner o'rielly, i think, both took theirs. i said at the outset of the conference with commissioner clyburn it not only costs $14 despite how nice they like. [laughter] so hopefully, that fits within any restrictions over there at the federal trade commission. but i want to thank you again for a very, very substantive and important talk. thank you, and this concludes our session. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> you can watch this entire conference on our web site at c-span.org. later today, president obama presents the medal of honor to 24 army veterans. live coverage from the east room begins at 3:40 p.m. eastern time here on c-span2. booktv prime time tonight focuses on military stories. starting at 8 p.m., peter monsoor, "surge." at 9:25 p.m., kayla williams, "plenty of time when we get home: love and recovery in the

aftermath of war." and at 10:20 p.m., bing west, "the wrong war: grit, strategy and the way out of ask." that's all coming up tonight at 8 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. >> today's young adults, the so-called millennial generation, who are having a lot of trouble getting started at life, they are paying money into a system to support a level of benefits for today's retirees that they have no realistic chance of getting when they themselves retire. so there needs to be a rebalancing of the social compact. it's a very important challenge, it's a very difficult challenge for this country politically, because not only is social security and medicare half of our budget or about to become half of our budget, it's by far the biggest thing we do, but it is symbolically the purest statement in public policy that as a country we are a community, all in this together.

these are programs that affect everybody, and the old math of these programs doesn't work. >> paul taylor on the looming generational showdown, saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday at 9 on booktv's "after words." and in a few weeks, your chance to talk with military strategist and former assistant defense secretary bing west. he'll take your calls, comments, e-mails and tweets on the mideast, iraq and afghanistan live from noon to three eastern, "in depth." booktv every weekend on c-span2. also this month, join the online discussion of peniel joseph's new biography of stokely carmichael. look for the book club tab at booktv.org. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy eventings. and every weekend, book tv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your

local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> lead palestinian negotiator saeb erekat discussed the process of the two-state talks between israel and the palestinians today at the wilson center. he praised president obama and secretary of state john kerry. >> i am very impressed that you managed to brave the climate and the security in this building and join us to welcome someone back who is a wonderful friend of the wilson center. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo, a recovering politician and someone who cares very deeply about the work that saeb erekat is doing. as most of you know, our scholars closely track the

ever-shifting tectonic plates of the middle east. nearly half of our signature ground troop briefings, which many of you listen into featuring experts in hot spots around the globe commenting on breaking news as it unfolds, have focused on egypt, iran, syria and the peace process. our middle east program, led by our iranian inmate, has held 63 events in this last year alone, and that program, too, is keenly interested in this latest washington leg of the peace process. two weeks ago on the sidelines of israeli prime minister bebe netanyahu's visit, we hosted israel's minister of justice and chief negotiator, zippy livni, and we also hosted here at the senator the minister of intelligence. as a member of the u.s. congress over 17 years, i traveled more than 25 times to the region, and

i continue to visit. and i've just invited myself to saeb's home next year along with my large family. i was in gaza in 1998 when the plo removed the provision of its charter calling for the elimination of israel. saeb was there too, and dennis ross -- who was just a few feet away from me -- was crying. be we all thought -- we all thought that peace was at hand. but since then there have been countless missed opportunities. i strongly believe -- this is my personal view -- that without a two-state solution, both sides lose. israel forfits her legitimacy as a jewish democracy, especially once the youth bulge in the palestinian population within

>> saeb has, quote, seen it all and remains a champion of the palestinian national narrative,

unquote. from madrid and oslo to camp david, annapolis and the kerry process -- that's a good name for it -- he has remained a constant. but the last time he was here he said, quote: my cv is one line, negotiating with the israelis. i was not born to be a mercenary for territories. well, we agree, and we hope to add another line soon or to replace that with another line soon, with another word soon, and that word is peacemaker. saeb has decided not to make some opening remarks. instead, he just wants to start a consideration with aaron -- a conversation with aaron. and following that we will take your questions. i also want to recognize the league of arab states ambassador to the u.s. who is here somewhere -- who is not here. yes, he is. there he is. welcome, ambassador. and, now, let me turn the

program over to two very special people, aaron miller and our dear, dear friend, saeb erekat. >> thanks, jane. thank you. >> jane, thank you very much. and for your extraordinary leadership of this center. and thank you all for coming at such an early hour. saeb, i have four questions for you, but i want to begin with just one personal observation. we've known each other for a very long time, since the early '80s. before madrid, through toes low process -- through the oslo process, through the collapse of camp david, through the darkest years of israeli/palestinian confrontation, through the annapolis process right up to the present. we've had our arguments, disagreements, we've yelled at each other, we've celebrated with each other, we've actually shed a few tears with one another as well. throughout it all, i just want you to know that you have maintained a relentless belief

in one primary conviction, and i agree with it as well. and it is the notion that only through negotiations -- as imperfect and as flawed as this process is -- can the israeli/palestinian conflict be resolved. and negotiations are not perfect. they're based on human weakness and frailty, tear based on the need -- they're based on the need to make extraordinary decisions that depart and force people to give up dreams and aspirations. and they're imperfect. as i get older, i realize the peace process too, like old age, is a very imperfect thing, but it sure beats the alternative. and my real concern, frankly, and my own analysis has been quite sober on these matters more years now. my real concern is if the idea that talking and negotiating cannot resolve that, this

conflict, if that dies, then the alternative truly is one that will bring catastrophe for all of us. and you've, your willfulness, your stubbornness at times, your conviction has made you a formidable interlocutor in these negotiations, representative of pal the sin yang narrative but with a capacity to understand the needs of the israelis. so i want to welcome you again, saeb erekat, to the wilson center. i have four questions for you, and i'll start with the obvious. what can you tell us about pratt abbas' meeting -- president abbas' meeting with barack obama yesterday? >> thank you, aaron. thank you, jane. i look forward to seeing you in jericho. i have six grandchildren now. >> i've got a few. [laughter] >> from i think the meeting was

at times candid, the meeting was difficult, and the meeting was long. and contrary to what people expected that will come out of this meeting with an official american proposal, document, this does not happen. we're still at the stage of discussing ideas. but i think no one, no one benefits more from the success of obama and kerry than the palestinians, and no one stands to lose more if failure than palestinians. we want to do it. we really want to do it. i did not wake up one morning and feel my conscious aching for anyone. i'm doing this, jane, for me. i'm not doing this as a favor. it's time for palestinians to

have a state of their own, it's time for palestinians to stop -- you know, in 2014, this year, january, 27 pal stints died of starvation in a remote refugee camp in damascus. this happens in 2014. and it's really becoming to be so difficult to be a palestinian. so we really want obama and curry to succeed. -- kerry to succeed. their success means my freedom, my independence, my statehood, it means that palestinians would have a home to come to. and we hope that these nine months we have til april 29th will bring with it a solution and it's durable and can be done. it can be done. >> what's the expectation? you mentioned the fact that you, that there was a sense that maybe out of the meeting would come a piece of paper or a formal document. what is the expectation on your

side with respect to what the americans ultimately will put on the table? >> i hope that the americans will will put on the table something that's fair, and i hope that the americans -- you know better than anybody else, i discussed this with you as an american diplomat, an american peacemaker -- the day the americans will depart from the squares of what's possible to the square of what's needed, we make it even. what's possible, american diplomacy. what the prime minister can do and what the israeli prime minister cannot do and once they design this, they come to us trying to convince us of their ideas. you know the story. i hope the americans today will move in the direction of what's needed. what's needed, you don't need to reinvent the wheel. it's really two states, 1967. we have organized the state of

israel -- recognized the state of israel's right to exist on the 967 borders. -- 1967 borders. i hope and pray that the prime minister will stand tall and say i recognize the existence so palestine and israel can live in peace and security. you know, the irony here, aaron, is that when we began the negotiations july 29th til today, i think it's been, now, seven and a half months, 10,589 housing settlement units, in a supposed-to-be palestinian state. four times the natural growth of new york. i cannot weigh 200 kilos in jericho and 800 kilos in washington, i cannot. you want to make peace, you need to have your constituency believe that you can do it. and what is this behavior? why the dictation? why the settlement activities?

why the demolishing of homes? why -- look, i agree with you, i agree with you that the most important thing for palestinians and israelis to realize, that negotiating in peace and us from ration for -- frustration for five years is cheaper than exchanging bullets for five minutes. so talk, i mean, when people say that we cannot solve our problem by talking, it's over to. it's over. it's a disaster. it's a nightmare. ask you don't want to do this -- and you don't want to do this. palestinians and israelis don't want to do this. and what is it? it's going to be two states or 1967. i know since i'm the most disadvantaged negotiator in history. have no army, no navy, no air force, my people are fragmented. if it's my word against an israeli in the congress and the senate, i don't have a chance. i'm out there to make peace.

i have recognized the right of israel to exist. and up til today, the 18th of march, 2014, i haven't heard any israeli from the government saying i'm going to recognize the state of palestine's right to live this in peace and security. just assigning the blame game, blaming me. you're smearing me, and what does it do? does it save lives of israelis and palestinians? it's really time for decisions. do the israelis see us as their neighbors? do they want to live and let live? do thaw want to have two-state solution? they cannot stand gartsdz, i could care less if someone is pro-palestinian or pro-israeli. my world is divided between those who are pro-peace and those who are against peace. and those who are pro-peace are those who want the two-state solution. those who want to save lives of israelis and palestinians. so i hope that this american administration -- and, look,

there's a difference now. kerry is different. >> i was going to ask you about that. >> ask me. [laughter] >> you've dealt with at least three u.s. prime presidents andt least a half a dozen -- seven, actually -- secretaries of state. >> it's time to move on. [laughter] >> well, i was a lot taller before i started -- [laughter] how is kerry different? >> i've known john kerry for 26 years. number one, he knows me merchandise out. inside out. i can't play games with him. he knows israelis inside out. he's a man who's really a believer in the two-state solution, and he has no doubts whatsoever that can be done. thirdly, you know, the difference today is that, you

know, syria and libya, iran, yemen, egypt, the middle east is changing. it's different than the middle east you were seeing me in a few years ago. and yet mr. kerry believes that the key to stability, democracy in this region is a solution to the palestinian/israeli conflict. he does realize that begin there. he believes that, you know, this region needs, number one, peace between palestinians and israelis, and here you don't need, you don't need to -- [inaudible] from the start. john kerry knows it can be two states, not mutually-agreed swaps, so on and so on. and he knows that a second element that this region needs is democracy. and anyone who says arabs are not for democracy is --

[inaudible] so this is the combination of delivering the middle east towards stability, human rights, accountability, transparency, democracy and the rule of law. and he's a firm believer in this. >> one more question on americans and ten one on the israelis and palestinians, then we'll go to to the audience's questions. you know as well as i that the traditional -- and i say this with the ultimate detachment and objectivity -- the american m.o. in negotiations, at least since the first bush administration, has essentially been to operate in the arena of the possible. not in the lean of what is required. our traditional med of operating -- method of operating has been to take israeli ideas, alter and change them and try to market them to palestinians, and i say this -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm just reporting here. it's not a moral judgment, it's simply an accurate assessment of

the way american peace games have operated. there may be legitimate reasons for all of this, but it is fair description. so it was your, it's your point of departure, and i'd like you to just comment on it for a minute. is this administration operating the still in the area of the possible rather than in the area of what is actually required to reach an agreement? and if so, how do you reconcile that with praise for the secretary? >> because at least with president obama and with secretary kerry i'm allowed to speak. about what's possible and this is what's required. this is on the table. this is, we discuss about it. >> right. >> and the second point is i don't believe that the u.s. borders with canada and mexico

and the two oceans today. your role has shifted. you have presence in many areas with the middle east. your borders are with iran, china, pakistan, the gulf, syria, jordan, egypt, and when the political geography of superpowers change, the functional role of nations change, and what do you want to do? i mean, the possible does not get us anywhere. it does not get us anywhere. because i told you my situation, and i know that israel has 3,000 tanks, 2,000 fighting planes, nuclear weapons, but also they have three options. number one is by option to. two states, 1967. live and let live. number two, honestly if the israelis, some of them believe that they want to call my hometown jericho -- [inaudible] if they want to refer to jerusalem as -- [inaudible] [inaudible] i tell them talk to me about it.

i'm not a rousist. -- racist. once i said that, oh, you undermine the state of jewish israel. recognizing 1967, accepting to establish my state, accepted swaps, accepted -- many, many things that i cannot elaborate now. and they're still building settlements next to my bedroom inier row, all over. jericho, all over. and when i say your actions in the gulf, there is no such thing as one-state solution. there is a one-state reality being created by the dictations on the ground. cannot be. people are wrong when they say one-state solution. there can never be a one-state solution. israel will never accept a one-state solution. but what they're doing is creating a one-state solution. number three, and that's an eye-opener for those and people must listen to what i say, number three is that there are

roles in the west bank and jerusalem i cannot use as palestinian, only israelis can use. and, aaron, such diseases as bigotry and racism, once they inflict underneath our skins throughout history, arabs, muslims, christians, whites, blacks, j well,ews can be racis- some people justified, you know, bigotry with sociology, sociological tools, economic tools, sexual tools, and now it's being spread by the term security. this is -- it's not good for any society, for their own society. these are israel's options. what does he want to do with me? i ask all of them to walk me through my hometown, jericho, to tell aveef in the mediterranean. what cothey see -- do they see in 2019? what do they see? why do they feel