>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. mamie eisenhower's hair style and love of pink created fashion sensations. mamie pink was marketed as a color, and stores sold clip hon hon -- clip-on bangs. ..

share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. in paperback published by public affairs is now available at your favorite bookseller and also as an e-book. >> next israel defense minister talks about u.s.-israel relations and ongoing events in the middle east with cnn anchor jake tapper. this was part of an annual forum hosted by the brookings institution. it is just under one hour.

>> it's so nice to be here. i know so many people in this room i can't acknowledged everybody. from senator coons, senator markey, senator blumenthal. the ambassador. i would be remiss if i did not point out that congressman ted deutch was my junior counselor at camp. [laughter] so he knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. or literally. it's an honor to be here. martin, thank you so much for the invitation. minister lieberman, thank you so much. i assume you saw your brother, senator lieberman here as well. i'll just start with the questions and we'll see what the edges. >> first of all i would say you have too many questions. >> i do have many, many questions. let me start off with the fact president-elect trump has named the man he wants to play your

role in the united states, retired marine general james mattis. do you know him or what do you think of him? >> i didn't meet him, and we don't have any real previous talks, but, of course, i know who the general, and he was a commander of centcom and in israel know a lot about him and about as tense and what we've seen in the press, for my point of view is very positive. >> okay. obviously, there are many things the president-elect has said having to do with the state of israel. onone of the things he is a visibly feasted on said on day one he would want to move the capital to jerusalem. obviously, that is, i think it's fair to say, easier said than done. do you think that he should do that on day one?

>> first of all, i think that, you know, we see before in every elections the same thomas to move the embassy to jerusalem. but i think that we will wait and we will see. you know, a year ago i was here. it was much easier. i was in position. now as minister i try to be politically correct. [laughter] we will wait and we'll see, but i think some publicly and strong public commitment, and we will wait. >> i won't be too many follow-ups but just as a matter

of whether or not the movie itself would be perceived as incendiary and provocative, is it something that you think should happen if it happens immediately or is it something that you think should be made to be done with full but more deliberation? >> it's really crucial for us to bring with the new administration regarding all our foreign policy. not only one point like american embassy. it's very important that we have many other issues. in iran and palestinian issue and settlements and syria. we have now in of challenges all around israel took and i think it will be mistake, you know, to take the embassy as the focal point.

i think it's crucial to move forward with all agenda, and we have many of them on our common agenda. i think maybe the embassy will be one of the points. >> let's talk about the other items that you listed, starting with the iran deal. we are getting somewhat mixed messages about whether or not president-elect when he becomes president trump will literally ripped out of the iran deal, or whether there will be reach at liberation's. one senator suggested to me that all they need to do, all the new administration would need to do is enforce the iran deal, which would set new sanctions into place since international monitors have said they are our violations. what would you, what would israel like to see happen when it comes to the iran deal?

>> first of all, i will speak only about my personal position, and it's not a secret, my position was very, very clear against the deal with iran, but it really doesn't matter. what is the real question? it's to understand what happened since they signed a deal with the iranians. and what we saw, we saw the ballistic missiles in the center of tehran with inscriptions in hebrew to wipe out the state of israel. we saw competition in tehran for the best cartoon to deny the fact of holocaust. we saw a lot of state department annual reports regarding terror in the world, and according to

this report, the biggest sponsor of terror all around the world. and we see iranian penetration to yemen, lebanon, syria, the activity in iraq. and they are trying to undermine stability and all the middle east. and i think it's very important to understand what happens with iran after the deal. and my conclusion, it's also very, very clear, but it's my conclusion and i think that negotiations, talks with the united states about our common position regarding tehran, it's only during the first meeting between prime minister and president elect. we will see. at least my position will be very clear.

i think it's crucial to move forward with more sanctions, he chose it was clear violation of the agreement, especially in the area of missiles like, not nuclear, but ballistic missiles. the next step will be nuclear missiles but at least right now it is only ballistic missiles and, of course, violation of human rights and their activity in syria, responsible for the massacre half million people, and the atrocities in which they were there. it's necessary to continue with the sanctions be and to be very, very tough. >> so just to clarify. if i'm understanding you correctly, and tell me if i'm

wrong, please, you believe that you're not the only one that iran has violated the due. so you think the united states just institute to the u.n. security council and get the trigger to enforce more sanctions on iran because they have already violated the deal. not that the deal should just be torn up? is that a fair characterization? >> look, what happens in the world today, it's very, very problematic picture. because not only iranians, all crazy guys, all radical guys, they understand that there is no payment for violation of commitment of violation of all accessible norms. forget for a moment for middle east. look what happened with north korea.

be one crazy guy took his own population as hostages, clear violation of all resolutions, security council commitments, these negotiations between five plus north korea, united states. north korea nuclear bombs, missiles, et cetera, et cetera. and i don't see any ability or any readiness or political will to stop this crazy guy. and the same with iranians. they must pay for violation for their commitments. and what happens at least with ballistic missiles? is a clear violation of the commitment according to the agreement that they signed. >> let's turn to syria right

now. you refer to assad and the massacre he has been give me against its own people. we just learned that 600 more were killed in aleppo. and i'm wondering what you think the role of the united states in the trump administration should be when it comes to syria? because my impression is that president-elect trump would like to basically wash his hands of syria and let putin and assad do whatever they think is necessary, and just have the united states focus on isis. is that a position that you think would be the right one? is that at the sydney you think would be good for the state of israel? >> again, it's not only israel. we should know that we are

living in a real small global village be, and everything is connected vessels. it's much better to see all the picture in the middle east, in the broad middle east, that we have every day at least 500 people slaughtered, killed, hundreds of people injured, and we don't see any readiness to stop this bloodshed. if i take all, yemen, syria, iraq, you have every day at least 500 people killed and slaughtered. and what is responsible

international community? and to speak only about isis, not isis, all of them the same, muslim brotherhood and al-qaeda and isis. they are the same. i think that our challenge to stop this radical people doesn't matter one what's their name, but this violence, this bloodshed, it's 21st century. i think it's clear it's completely unacceptable for all the people. i don't see any difference between hamas, hezbollah or islamic state. and only speak about daesh, it's not right. of the differences between hezbollah, hamas and islamic state is the same. >> would you put assad in that

group? >> assad, today, like an adviser, what is crucial for any deal in syria year from my point of view. i'm not sure it's possible, but two preconditions, assad out of syria and iranians out of syria. it's impossible to accept the fact that the guy who's responsible for killing of half-million people, 8 million people displaced and first time maybe since the first world war the heads of state that used chemical weapons against his own people, and he will continue to be acceptable player in the international arena. and the same with iran. i think they're penetration, their efforts to undermine the stability of every country of all this region, we must put

assad in his place, iranians in their place. [applause] >> and who leaves that effort? >> no doubt, you know, from our point of view the united states. its biggest power in the world, and it's their responsibility. it was maybe 100 years ago, more than a century, but today if the world, it's impossible to speak about isolation. i think it's clear and especially president elect, he speaks about the military power and strong army and powerful united states.

and i think the biggest challenge even here in the united states is daesh, isis, also. we saw isis trying every day to issue some terrorist, to create more recruiter in the united states. and daesh and all radical islamic, they are coming from middle east. if you really want to confront this phenomenon, you must start from the middle east. >> i know you are a minister nestlé have to be more diplomatic, but you do recognize the president-elect has talked about withdrawing more from the middle east than even whatever status you think the united states has there right now? >> you know, i don't know if he

spoke withdrawing from saudi arabia or the gulf, but we hope with regarding syria he will be active and regarding the solutions, and to speak frankly. it's impossible to achieve any solution without american active participation in this process. we need strong america. we need america active in at least in our region. and i hope that we can really achieve, you know, within the greenbelt common vision regarding future of the middle east. >> let's talk about the israeli-palestinian peace process going forward. president -- >> no peace and no process. [laughter] >> the future of --

[laughter] peace process. president-elect trump has said that perhaps his son-in-law can be put in charge of that peace process. have you met jared kushner? >> no. speed what you think of the idea of jared kushner being put in charge of the peace process? >> what we know, he's a really smart, tough guy, and i hope he can bring new energy to our region. but maybe you forgot, they before yesterday the convention in somalia, he gave his last public speech there and what he said, it was very clear. he will never give up the idea of refugees.

and, of course, he will never recognize the right of israel to exist as a jewish state. with those two preconditions, you know, we really don't have nothing to discuss with the palestinians. the right of return for palestinian refugees, it's end of the zionist ideal, the zionist state. and he insisted he will never recognize israel as a jewish nation-state. what exactly will be the issue to discuss? i think it's clear that the same, he doesn't have any sovereignty represent the palestinian people. you know, the elections, the

presidential elections in palestinian authority were supposed to be held in januar january 2010. he doesn't have any control of gaza strip. even in the municipal elections last october he postponed for many years. and i think to achieve real strategic breaks, to achieve comprehensive reasonable solution between us and palestinians, we need somebody who is very strong, that has support from his own people, very popular, and somebody who is a real leader and ready to sacrifice something for peace. and i don't see mock mode as

real partner to achieve final established agree. and to speak frankly, what we need to do is enter integrated for some years, to build a trust between two sides and to wait for real opportunity. you know, israel proved, we proved our desire to achieve real peace many times. we signed peace agreements with egypt, and we give up sinai, territory six times more than all israel today. we signed the peace agreement with jordan. we withdrew from gaza strip until the very last inch according to '67 line. we give up half of judaic and somalia to palestinians, and we evacuated 21 forging supplements

from gaza strip and transferred 10,000 jews. i think we decide to achieve real, you know, peaceful or reasonable solution. but for this kind of solution, you need, as i mentioned, i real strong partner, and i don't see today on palestinian side this kind of leaders. >> one of the things that's interesting about any potential peace process, other arab states would likely have to be involved. many of these arab states don't even acknowledge let alone the right to exist, they don't acknowledge they've ever had conversations with people like you. have you ever talk to any members of the saudi royal family of body peace process? >> i don't remember but -- [laughter] many contacts with our neighbors in the region.

[laughter] [applause] >> this is normally when i would be very aggressive, but this is a different setting here. ass so on the subject of the peace process, just to get into the weeds a little bit but leave its own monday the knesset will have its first vote on whether not the subtle but you going to be made legal. you have proposed i believe, and correct me if i'm wrong, a sort of freeze that would give any sort of peace process and opportunity to move forward. am i describing that in accurately? how would you describe it? >> no. my proposal is to wait for the

new administration and to create together with new administration a common policy, not without any surprise and not to create some fix, but to wait and to discuss with the next administration our policy and our vision. and i think it makes sense because, you know, the reason that we freeze and the de facto, you know, our construction activity in jordan, in jerusalem, it's really, i'm personally not satisfy. the main reason, it's not because we really don't want to build new homes in jordan and somalia or in jerusalem.

because we have to have disagreement with american administration. i think it's clear for us, for me at least, that the key to the future of the settlements, it's understanding with united states, not only our design, we are not in a vacuum. and i think the last 80 years it was huge problem. it was one of the main points of disagreement between us and the current administration. >> the current administration, the outgoing administration would often feel as though they would be settlements announced at inopportune times, right before vice president biden were to arrive in israel, that sort of thing, that it was almost done in their face. is that an unfair

characterization by the obama administration? >> i think there are many prejudiced views regarding the settlement. i would like to underline that the settlements, they are not an obstacle to peace. as i mentioned we signed to peace agreements despite the settlements. and even when israel evacuated after are withdrawing from gaza 21 settlements, the response from the palestinian side was missiles on south israel and even on tel aviv. and i think it's really very biased approach, and to say that the settlements, their problem, it's really wrong approach. again, all settlements together, they are less than 1.5% of all territory of jordan and somalia but if i take total all the

settlements together including other areas, less than 1.5% of whole totaled territory of jordan and somalia. another point, you know, i remember the annapolis meeting. and it's impossible to offer more than was offered in annapolis. what we saw in our press the proposal, final shock. we will never have any other prime minister that will offer more. everything was ready for huge ceremony in the white house. at the last moment, mahmoud

abbas refused to sign the agreement. it's also the fact, we were ready to open up and return all the swaps and everything. another maybe illustration what the real problem of solution between us and palestinians. >> just a period on this topic, do you think the vote on monday to legalize some of the settlements should be postponed until after the united states and israel get together and on the same page? >> you know, i clarified my position in cabinet publicly, in press, and i think it's much better to postpone all of this

legislation and steps until 22 january. >> anti-semitism reared its head quite a bit during the presidential election, in a way that i think probably a lot of americans under a certain age had not seen perhaps ever in their lifetime. how much notice did they get in israel, these rise of the so-called all right, a lot of them are anti-semites, white supremacists, and almost unanimously supported the president-elect, which is not to say his supporters are the way but certainly a minority were. did that get attention in israel? tgv about this? did you have any concerns? >> we have concerns regarding all kinds of anti-semitism. it doesn't matter if it's, comes

from the left, the right or from radical islamic groups. because what we saw, especially europeans saw, it's not only slogans, it's not only accusations. we saw the attacks on the jewish school. on supermarket in paris and with that comes, with the bloodshed. anti-semitism very strong. it's not a part of our existence. it's part of everyday for our existence. we see hypocrisy especially international community. if you take, for example, the last resolution of unesco, it may be world record in hypocrisy that the jewish people, they

don't have any links to the western wall. it's something really crazy and it's clear at the semitism, nothing new. another issue you mentioned unesco. one of the problem of international immunity was at an international institute, more and more irrelevant to results, any problem. middle east, north korea, africa, boko haram, nothing. i didn't remember any example of some successful solution that comes as initiative for security council, for example. another very respectable, not my point of view, institution like human rights council, 70% of

full resolutions against israel, not against iran, not against zimbabwe, not against north korea but against israel. and i think it's a weakness of all international community of the western world, speak a lot about human values and democratic values, but when it comes to the prophets, everybody prefers his profits, not values. it's maybe biggest problem. >> there is a race going on right now for head of the democratic national committee. congressman keith ellison, a democrat from minnesota is one of a position. the anti-defamation league recently issued a statement saying that comments congressman ellison made about israel and about a population of -- i'm

paraphrasing -- but a small population control policy in the region compared to a much larger arab population didn't make much sense but again, it's a sloppy paraphrase but it was enough for the anti-defamation league to say that the comments were disqualifying. are you aware of this? do you have any take on the? >> no, i'm not aware but if it's too i think it's really unnecessary statement, especially with united states, our biggest friend, the united states, you know, the really friend in deliberations and discussions or whatever, includes of course israeli knesset. i hope that, you know, some kind of mistake. >> lastly, what do you think is

the most serious problem, the most serious threat facing the state of israel, the one that should be on the top of the agenda? is it iran, without question? >> no question it is iran, because it's not only iran. it's iran process. you should know that any budget from iran to hezbollah is about $900 million the last year. and the same for their financial support, hamas, hezbollah, all their technology, political support, although without they are not able to exist. and iranians -- against israeli, jewish institute, jewish people. not only the middle east and

africa and south america. we see what happens, even in the last month regarding iranian participation and involvement in buenos aires against our embassy and our jewish community. and we have every day, you know, provocations and aggressions against israel and jewish people. >> one last question i want to ask before i let you go, and that has to do with the relationship between the american jewish community and the israeli community. i studied at the university of tel aviv. i had a roommate. like you, he was a soviet

immigrant and he was a tough guy. he fought with goal line he, and his attitude towards me i thought kind of like some of some of the tension between the american, jewish community and the israeli jewish community, which was he thought all of us exchanged in some united states were soft, and he wasn't wrong. but he also thought that we should just shut up about our opinions about israeli policy. united states can give money or don't give money but you are not living your so be quiet. and there does seem to be a point in american and israeli relations right now, american jewish and israeli relations but whether not the american jewish community, especially younger american jews, are concerned about the direction of the israeli -- whether the country

is lurching too much to the right in english parliament. i'm wondering what you make of it, which is think of it? is your attitude like is, or does there need to be a great effort of understanding between, especially younger american jews and israelis speak was first of all the state of israel was established as a state for all of jewish people all around the world. and from my point of view, of course, we are really responsible not only for our citizens but for our diaspora also. and i think that we failed with that, especially with jewish and zionist education in the united states and in russia and in france, and all around the world.

because the problem, it's not right, left. the problem is that only 5% of the jewish people in the united states, they really have jewish zionist education. it's the biggest problem. i think today it's our turn to allocate money for the jewish education, jewish zionist education. first of all, in the united states. because what we have people really more and more disconnected to the jewish values, they don't know the jewish history, and it's a huge problem, but it's not their problem. it's our problem. we failed. and i completely agree that dialogue especially with young

jewish generation is crucial. it's crucial for our future. at least me and my friends, and we try to discuss with all jewish communities around the world. they must be part of this discussion of the future of the jewish nation. >> we are going to open the floor to questions from is that right? is there a microphone? i think i recognize you. >> showed i shout or wait for c-span?

>> here it comes. >> thank you very much. i would just like to clarify something about keith ellison and him running for head of the dnc, because that point wasn't clarify. simply, the defense minister was not aware of all the intricacies of the details, but i think it's important for this audience. first, the fact that keith ellison is a muslim is a non-issue at all. that is not an issue. with that out of the way, if you listen to keith ellison today and you see his statements, he's more of a zionist. it's amazing. it's a beautiful thing. if you go back to his positions,

his papers, his speeches, the way he is voted, he is clearly an anti-semite and anti-israel individual. words matter and actions matter more. keith ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the jewish community and the democratic party. now i have said what i have to say. [applause] >> that wasn't really a question lasquestion. [laughter] but it is the sabin for him. >> another question? am i supposed to call on them? we will call on that gentlemen right there. i believe i recognize him. >> mr. minister, you mentioned that you see iran being the

biggest problem in the region, and, obviously, not just towards israel but actually towards the rest of the, most of the sunni arab world as well. you also have maintained i think over the years our relationship with vladimir putin and yet today if you look at the russian position towards iran, really no one else is doing as much to abet iranian power, served in syria. but i would say that goes to the rest of the region. given your long standing relationship with putin, you see any potential to separate putin from the iranians? and if so, how would you go about doing that? >> will look at, we have many issues and disagreement with russians, and we have many, many disagreements. we have many causes with china and we have many disagreements with china.

i don't think it's the right approach to disregard russia or china. at the end of the day we are a small country. we have the same priorities, our relations. and, of course, putin, he still not a zionist guy. he thinks about russia in the russian interest. but the fact that we have a clear dialogue, we have some coordination, including syria, i think it's very, very helpful. be what can be only dialogue between united states and russia. putin looks not for some deal with israel. he looks for deal with united states. regarding the sanctions in ukraine and syria, and many other issues.

they have interests all around the world. i don't have any illusions with all due respect to israel and to myself. we understand that we are not able to resolve all problems of russia, not in the world and not even in the middle east. final agreement, a final solution, it's possible to achieve only between russia and united states, include their stance on iran come on syria and many other issues. >> we have a question here. >> martin indyk. thank you very much for joining us again this evening.

onenew development i'm sure you're aware of is the way which israel's strategic interests these days tend to coincide with those of your arab neighbors, jordan, saudi arabia, the emirates in particular. and i wonder given your position as defense minister whether you think that they can play a useful role when it comes to trying to help you resolve the conflict, your conflict with the palestinians? they recently, they call themselves the arab quartet, they recently intervened in an effort to try to report a secession process among palestinians. which is something that you will be talking about tonight. so i just wonder what role you see them playing, if any, in

help you trying to resolve the conflict? >> thank you. you know, the arab world really regarding palestinian issue, they only paid lip service. it's really not their concern, and not in their priorities. because if arab world, you know, huge, huge territory, hundreds of millions of people, if they really are ready to resolve the palestinian issue, it's not possible for many, many years. and again, you know, what happened between 48 and 67, during 19 years arab world controlled all territory, and

gaza strip under egyptian sovereignty. i didn't remember that somebody tried to resolve palestinian issue during 19 years. today, we speak about the 67 lines, et cetera, et cetera. but problem is it's not history. problem is reality of today. and to resolve palestinian issue, from my point of view, it's possible only for large reasonable, regional comprehensive solution. palestinian issue is only one point. because today it's clear for the arab world is the biggest threat for them, it's not zionism, it's

not israel, it's not just mac but it is iranians and daesh and hezbollah and hamas. i think that they understand, but still they don't have political rule. they don't have enough power to move forward with this approach. and from my what have you, it doesn't make sense to sign an agreement with palestinians without agreement with all modern western world. it must be something simultaneously, one final status agreement with all arab world. not only with palestinians. we are not able to impose on palestinians some kind of solution.

and bilateral efforts. i don't think that they bring some better future. even united states, what we saw also, you don't have enough power, ability to impose on palestinians. but it all modern world, if all of them come together, if you can sort it out, saudi arabia, jordan and gulf countries, they are able to bring them to the table and to impose a solution. but the problem is there's a huge gap, disparity between understanding among the leadership and what happens

among people, among the crowds. it's clear that it's timing even for the arab world for their leadership to start with, you know, with public opinion to explain their positions to move forward, not only in the closed meetings, not only in russia, in arabic to explain what the real threats and what are the real opportunities. does cooperation between us and the modern arab world, it's real, huge, huge strategic breakthrough for entire world. together, i believe that we are able to resolve all problems in the middle east, even with iranians. you know, the combination of our

technology and their financial capabilities. it's something new. but, you know, my position, it's enough with closed talks. it's timing, it's opportunity for all open talks, not only in the closed rooms, and i would like to see our embassy in qatar and saudi arabia, and kuwait and their embassies in tel aviv. [applause] and for me, it's a relief, not only an agreement. the problem between israel and the arab world when we talk with them, it's all israel, state of israel. and from there it's only the

leadership it is not with the state, not with the people. it's only with their leadership. and it's not enough. >> i see a woman back there. if we could get the microphone to her. >> thank you so much. and i would like to ask about -- >> could you talk a little bit louder? i'm sorry. >> i would like to ask about the arab initiative for peace that was submitted by saudi arabia in 2002. is it a good time to revisit this initiative? i would like also to ask about the relationship with egypt. is there any cooperation between israeli right and egypt regarding fighting all of, all

islamic groups and terrorists in the sinai? and last question regarding two islands that there were some discussions between saudi arabia and egypt regarding ireland. can you elaborate anything about these discussions? because it was not only between egypt and saudi arabia but u.s. and israel working towards this discussion. what's the logistics about these two islands? is it secure or what's not -- >> thank you, i understand. >> thank you. >> i will start with first issue, saudi arabia initiative. there are some points that are very positive, and we can discuss and it's possible to

take them for the negotiations. there are some other points like right of return that is completely impossible your but when we talk we will, without any restrictions, without any precondition preconditions. and my expectations, if we will start negotiations, they will come without preconditions. regarding collaborations with egypt, it has no relations. we have embassy in cairo. they have embassy in tel aviv and we have had talks, context and i think it's motivation between two normal states.

regarding the relations with saudi, it's not our business. of course, we are monitoring everything what happens in our region, but it's bilateral talks, bilateral deal between saudi arabia and egypt. and i don't think that our opinion of our public statements will be so necessary regarding that issue. >> i think i speak for ago whend when i say i'm sorry, that's all the time we have. i think i speak for everyone when i say thank you for your time. >> thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please enjoy your dinner. [inaudible conversations]

>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am delighted to have the opportunity to join bruce to welcome you all to this 13th save in forum. iit's also my special privilege and honor to introduce you to a very special guest, our keynote speaker this evening. his excellency the foreign minister, the arab republic of egypt summit sameh shoukry. he is very well known in washington as is his wife and we're very glad to have her join

him this evening. he is one of architects of the current u.s.-egyptian relationship, having served as ambassador to the united states between 2008-2012. in those dramatic years, his steady hand, his wife judgment and his diplomatic skills help navigate the relationship through stormy seas, safeguarding and preserving the partnership it under and between the united states and egypt. he left washington with admiration and friendship of many people, including myself. during his long and established were, he served as the representative in geneva as well as in london, buenos aires, in europe, vienna and in many central roles in the ministry of

foreign affairs in cairo. he is the very model of an egyptian diplomat. in 2014, presidency see called sameh shoukry out of retirement back to serve his country as foreign minister. and in that role as represented of the largest most powerful arab country he is one of the key players in shaping the middle east today. i task we need not in the. as part of this mission has been instrumental in the early relationship between egypt and israel which he visited just this summer, and again represented egypt at the funeral of the late president shimon peres. this relationship between egypt and israel is critical to the peace and welfare of the two countries, it is also central to the prospect of broader peace

and cooperation in the region. kai bird was and remains a key to regional stability and peace -- cairo. anwar sadat was the first to make an official visit to israel. egypt was the first arab country to make peace with israel. it was the first arab capital to host an israeli embassy, and with president cc leadership and involvement, israeli-palestinian peace may again become possible. in this regard relationship between israel and egypt naturally depend upon a third partner, the united states. ..

>> we are truly honored and delighted that the prime minister accepted the invitation to address the forum tonight. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming his excellency the foreign minister of the republic of egypt. [applause] >> thank you for that introduction. i'm honored and delighted to be with you tonight. this important forum and i'm definitely glad to be back in washington and to see so many friendly faces. ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed, my pleasure to be back in washington today and to share

with you egypt's perspective on the key questions and the guiding principles that governor's egypt's foreign policies through our troubled region and explore with you how egypt and the united states can navigate such a turbulent regional environment in such troubled times. five years ago, the dynamics that governed the middle east for at least six decades were profoundly changed. a wave of large scale societal change swept the regular owned to its very core launching a historic moment that it's at one promising and alarming. how to navigate the turbulent waters is core policy of our time. and is indeed, what will determine eventually to quote dickens whether we are on the spring and winter of despair.

a framework for making sense of the epic we are in and a guide for policy varied. the the crux of the debate or over how to navigate revolve around to contradictory positions, the first is opportunities for long-awaited change. it's proponents argue that it is time for change. the structures of power and governance in the arab world. this is what the people want and this is what they should get at any cost. this is probably the thinking that has informed and continues to guide strategies of several regional and international actors that support change necessarily without being fuzzy

about allies and this is how extremists and terrorist organizations including isis and al-qaeda found support in syria, iraq and libya to mention a few examples. on the other end of the political spectrum is another opposed position in the face of a wave of messy social change to reverse the clock, dysfunctional government that failed to address the people and were war lords and militia leaders or the terrorist threat, all that was needed therefore was to restore the old regime and do business as usual, however, dysfunctional that may be. if the price of restoration of the old ways of governing is to quash every legitimate demand for change and crush popular hopes thereof, then sobeit.

we are also quite familiar with the consequences of this strategy as well as inherent futility. change cause for change and progress. the question remains, however, the benefits of the wave of change was minimizing the price thereof. this is the core dilemma of foreign policy planning and execution in the region. ladies and gentlemen, our approach in egypt is to this dilemma is pretty straightforward. and our opening hypothesis is twofold, first that orderly change is the much needed prerequisite to breaking through the historical impact that the region has reached an filling aspirations of millions of people in the middle east, region in which more than 50% of the population are under the age of 30.

second that compromising the integrity and stability of the institutions of nation states in the middle east is not the way to achieve the much needed and much desired change. indeed, the experience of the last five years has demonstrated beyond any doubt that undermining the institutions of the nation state creates a political and social vacuum that is quickly filled by institutions, militias and outright terrorists whose ideologies are hostile. from syria to libya, iraq to yemen, examples about. the challenge therefore is to achieve change within the nation state, not on the ruins thereof. the nation state remains most viable vehicle for social change and in its more progressive

versions, is the embodiment of civic order and democratic principles and policies. that is the hopes that inspire the calls for change since 2011. egypt traditionally intellectual political power house of region demonstrated through two waves of its revolution in 2011 and 2013 that progressive change of the vast majority while maintaining integrity of the nation state, institution is a viable choice. egyptians demand change but rejected ruin of the state institutions in the process. they believe that they can have a democratic government that was at once representative and responsive to their needs and desires. forward-looking and boldly committed to ambitious reform,

the foreign policy of this rejuvenate reform and revie -- revived and respect for the independence of nation and nonintervention in their affairs while believing believing that regional and international interests are essentially reconcilable and face challenges of our times. if egypt would change and revive regional role and embark on the most ambitious program of political and economic reform in its modern history without undermining the integrity city of the state, so can the world

and the arab region. revive democratic and reform nation states are the answer to the aspirations of the civic uprising that swept the regions five years ago. militias, blood thirsty war lords are the product of the civil wars, democratic aspirations of several countries of our regions have regressed to. ladies and gentlemen, if you would disagree that orderly change based on nation states would probably be the west -- best way out of today's turbulence in the middle east and, indeed, this continues to be the guiding principle that governs regipt's -- egypt's policy. take syria, for example.

it's difficult to remember that the strategy started with peaceful and legitimate demands of the syrian people are perfectly entitled to. however, to achieve regime change in syria and those two sought to diverse the clock at any cost, they had to endure one of the bloodiest civil wars of modern times. how to we break the vicious cycle in syria, to start with we need to accept that attempts to reverse the clock and restore the status quo are as delusional transformation in syria. by contrast our vision for the way forward in syria is based on two pillars, the first is to preserve the national unity and integrity of the syrian state and prevent the collapse of its institutions.

the second is to support the legitimate aspirations of the syrian people in rebuilding their own state through acceptable political solution that represents them all. and furnishes an enabling environment for reconstruction efforts. this is why we continue to support the efforts of the united nations special envoy and we call him to resume political negotiations immediately and without delay. this is also why we hosted two all inclusive conferences for the moderate syrian opposition groups in cairo in 2012 and in 2015 which brought together syrians from across the political spectrum and demonstrated that they can agree on a comprehensive document that included a doable road map for the transition from current flights in syria, you must have all noticed that these documents were the foundations upon which every subsequent effort, syrian

or international, to put forward the practical political sentiment were premised. ladies and gentlemen, the revival of a reform national state means that external political engineers is neither desirable nor possible. the international community is not in the position to pass judgment on the suitability of national stakeholders let alone to decide to exclude any of them on grounds of convenience, the experience in iraq in syria should have taught us at least that much. the same applies to libya. underlying the agreement towards acknowledgment that any viable sentiment should revolve around the three legitimate state institutions, the presidency, council, the house of representatives and the national army. naturally achieving consensus among the three institutions in the wake of violent is not easy.

problems of contradictions abound and deadlocks emerge profusely. it does not mean we cannot take sides in moments of disagreement or even though decide to alienate one of them in the hope that this might speed up the process of reconciliation. in all frankness, several international and regionals players have opted at wasn't point or another to undermind one of the institutions or replace the national army with allegedly denying militias, but not egypt, though. we remain convince of the political engineering and we do not think any nonlibyan party is in a position to award or exclude libyan stakeholders, thus our vision for libya is based on unwavering commitment to full implementation to the agreement and follows a clear sequential approach, our duty is now to encourage presidency

council to fulfill its duty to present more inclusive representative government of national accord. we should all shift our attention ensuring that the house of representatives needs to endorse the government and undertake its constitutional work in preparation for libyan elections that would bring about elected libyan governing bodies that exercise their full authority over a united and territorially impacted libyan state. meanwhile we should devote our efforts to supporting the libyan national army's efforts in the fight against the growing terrorist organizations in libya . i could go on and explore other cases of troubled nation statehoods in the region, say in yemen and iraq but they all follow the same pattern and creating a vacuum that the subsequently filled by deal organizations and militias and they can all benefit from the same answer, revive, reform and

all inclusive modernization state based on civic efforts and full citizenship. the request for reform and modern statehood is not emerging threat of the region but also the answer of oldest conflict in our region. egypt as you all know was a pioneer of peace in the middle east. our vision is and still is nation statehood for everyone in the region. we are committed to bring successful end more of six decades of this conflict which we cannot shift resources of the region to more productive channels. to do do the palestinians cannot and should not be denied the right to independent nation state. the alternative to a two-state solution is open and the turmoil even if in the short-term things look deceptively quiet and

manageable. desperation and lack of any light at the end of what is, indeed, a very long tunnel could only be detrimental to any hopes of stability and prosperity in the region. the structure thereof are quite self-evident, what remains is a return to the negotiations in good faith. i would like here to remind you that president has offered publicly to support any forthcoming negotiations and to provide if needed post agreement security guaranties. ladies and gentlemen, large scale developments that i have talked in more than one area of the region obviously do not occur in a bubble. given the strategic importance of the middle east it is only natural that several regional and international powers may want to be involved in seek to go influence the course of developments in our region,

egypt appreciates the stakes of the middle east are of interest of several international players and while we insist on national ownership of all solutions to the arab's world problems and reform nation statehood as key response of challenge of our time, egypt remains as always ready to cooperate with all the partners to bring satisfactory conclusions to the crisis that spread in our region. and in so doimg, we -- doing, we cannot accept any attempt to use substate entity. acceptance of the necessity of change from within, one that preserves territorial and constitutional integrity and social cohesion of nation states is a core criterion of deciding whether or not we can cooperate with any regional or international stakeholders in this regard. ladies and gentlemen, i am back

today in washington at the moment full of promises and challenges. i came -- i come from a country that is moving quickly to the leading role in rapidly changing region. the egyptian people have reached ability and the first two initiate change and the second to preserve the nature of egypt's unique moral and social foundation. we recognize that we face monumental changes and inherent problems but the current determination to deal with these challenges is unshakable. egypt has changed in many ways, most important of which is confidence of egyptians in their leadership and the faith of the leadership in the resilience and fortitude of the people. this confidence and this faith allows us to embark on a new chapter in our history, to deal with our problems head on and to

take difficult decisions and rise to the occasion to create a better future for our children and grandchildren. we recognize our first comings and the necessity to achieve greater progress in the areas of political economic and social reform while dealing with the internal challenges associated with societal evolution, educational and economic deficiencies as well as regional and global turbulences and threat. egypt will continue to be the beacon of modernity in the middle east. this will be enforced by implementing policies based on moral code of conduct and values derive today a more history heritage. ladies and gentlemen, we are on the eve of a new u.s. administration that has stated its commitment to work with its regional partners to fight terrorism and restore stability to the middle east. question of how are two great countries can

cooperate to address the regional challenges that i have outlined is therefore in order. i believe that we share with the united states and with the new administration a firm belief in the importance of restoring stability and territory integrity through supporting nationally processes of reconciliation and revial of these states. how else can we face the growing threat of terrorism and how can we bring about peaceful conclusion to the multitude of crisis in our region? the interests of our two countries are in clear convergence. in libya we can both work to support the full implementation of the agreement and all inclusive government of national accord. we both share the same and relenting commitment to the

education and we both agree on the stagnation between is ralel and palestinians and need to relaunch efforts to reach two-state solution. i could go on but i trust that you get the idea. the middle east is in turmoil. i have outlined our vision on how to address these challenges and i trust you will agree with me that this vision converges with the stated goals of the new u.s. administration and the middle east thereby furnishing conditions for revival of much-needed strategic partnership. i thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much minister shkry for offering us with a keynote speech for which we are very grateful. >> i was quite struck by what you appear to be saying about a common agenda with the united states and the implication with the trump administration. you talked about restoring stability, interestingly president-elect trump yesterday spoke about his focus being on promoting stability in terms of his foreign policy. do you feel that the kinds of principles that you lay out

about eradicateing and restoring stability and promoting peace are, in fact, the common purposes between the trump administration in formation and the government of egypt? >> well, there's great deal of convergence by president-elect trump and some of his advisers in terms of the meetings we have had with president-elect trump during the campaign. there is a clear vision in this regard, a vision that correspond s with our objective and to create from egypt a point of expanse of what we have achieved in other parts of the region. i think this is a mutual interest that we share with the administration and it shouldn't

be in any way conceived that the call for stability is a call for status quo, it is a call for an organized change and progression of a societal demands of the population of the region which have clearly indicated the desire to forge ahead in a new fashion of includivity -- more inclusive society free from scourge of terrorism and sector rian pressures. >> versus the status quo and no

change at all and rejected both of those models and spoke about this model of olderrerly change, again, i assume that the implication to that is that egypt is going to be this model of orderly change. what does that mean actually in terms of reform, political reform, economic reform within egypt? >> well, it's certainly, i think, opened to the necessary involvements of all segments of society to phrase and achieve those common values of d democratization. these are values of humanity that are well embedded in our common heritage and i don't think they are any longer matters of contention or debate

but they are ability and i've taken into account various characteristics. certainly what has -- what happens in the united states and having the benefit of living in this country for a variety of years over the last 40 to 450 -- 50 years ago. it was different 50 years ago in terms of development and degree of maturity of its systems and social and moral fabrics. so i think this is a necessary revolutionary process one that corresponds and continues to be the motivator of reform. it is a response from governments who are keenly aware of the ability of the people to

take matters into their own hands, institute change and also it is important that, though, necessarily always the demands for change can be vibrant and can be overreaching, but the threat has been what has resulted in places like syria and libya in a dysfunctionalty in creating vacuums and energy and the potential of the civil conflict that can be detrimental. when we see more than half of the city, the populations that has been renounced for entrepreneurial abilities for its education, now the destruction and what the people have had to endure is -- is, i think, an example of what we should avoid.

>> when it comes to syria, you've outlined an approach which i think if i'm interpreting it correctly, really leaves the issue of political transition to layza that from your point of view the first thing is to preserve institutions and try to to resolve the conflict and deal with the political transition, is that fair? >> not really. it's not sequential issue, it's an issue that has to be addressed all at once. from a political process, because we cannot continue and advocate the same process that we have witnessed over the last five years and expect different results. conflict and the structure

continues, it's apparent. but none of the proponents is able or capable of achieving any success and therefore we should change course. the international community, united nations security council must initiate political process, must include all participants and must reach an agreement that is inclusive of all of the political entities in syria. we take it for granted that such a process will necessarily change the nature of the dynamics of syrian governance and this can only be expected in terms of the consequences that have occurred out of the last five years. it would be ludicrous to think that those who had suffered --

>> yeah, i think that's absolutely right. it's hard for me to imagine, i don't know if you would agree with me, that the syrian people could accept president assad at their leader given the incredible destruction that he has rained on his own people. >> i would think that this process should be all inclusive and take into account the interest of all participants, all segments of syrian society and it's up to the syrians to decide the future, the manner in which they are governed. >> that's why i called you in my introduction, the model diplomat. [laughter] >> you talked about the unacceptability of countries who are supporting, i think, it was -- you used the term substate entities, the use of substate entities to advance their interest and, again, i don't want to put words into your

mouth, but iran uses substate entities to advance its ambitions in the region and -- and that -- that is a concern of many of your fellow arab leaders in this regard. but my sense is that each -- each has a bit of a nor -- more nuance approach. can you elaborate on how you see iran's role in the region? >> as i indicated, the arab world and egypt is a contributor of arab national security is always advocating that this is a responsibility of the arab countries and that we do not accept interference or intervention of -- from -- without the regional context from my states.

this is a matter of the sovereignty and a matter of the cohesion of the arab entity and we base polls -- policy we recognize that there are interests and we must all accommodate national interests but not at the extense of what might be deemed as influence or interference. we have a very clear vision and there must be consequences to any infringement on arab national security and that is something that the arab world in its solidarity will always rise to the occasion to defend. >> one of the things that has always struck me about egypt, egypt is the largest most consequential arab state and has a long, long history of

civilization, ancient civilization and cohesion as a state, that you -- you look at the region and you look at the other regional powers there, so egypt, saudi arabia, israel, turkey, when you look at the broader strategic picture within the region, how do you see those other players? how do they fit into your broad strategy? >> i think there's a great deal of cohesion within the regional arab states and their commonality of purpose, but then we recognize, of course, the presence of the states outside of the arab domain and it has

always been our position that relations should be based on principles and mutual interests and benefits and that that should not overreach into positions of influence or intervention to manipulate proceedings or manipulate conditions within states and these are well-founded principles in international law and one thing we should continue to advocate and to build the international world order upon is our core principle that the more we are clear on the definition and limitations that are created, the better benefits, i think, all will extract. >> finally, i wanted to ask you about what you said about the peace process and there's

clearly a strengthening of the relationships between egypt and israel that's being quite noticeable under president and a greater egyptian leadership role of life than we've seen over the last five, six years. but what i heard you say this evening, sounded more like you would be supporting perhaps an american-led process rather than taking your own initiative to try to resolve this. on the other hand, egypt has been quite active on the palestinian front in terms of seeking a succession. so can you give us a little more granuality in egypt's role and what you think can actually be done in the circumstances?

>> part of its foreign policy objectives to consolidate the peace treaty can israel and to continue to regard the peace treaty as a fundamental component of stabilizing the region. it has, i think, served for that purpose and continues to be guiding example for wider peace in the region and the end of conflict but it's not only that we have supported the initiatives of others, i think, most recently president indicated very directly his vision for the end of the conflict and readiness to be an active participant in bringing together the two main proponents, israeli government and palestinian authority in whatever form of renewed negotiations that they would deal appropriate and they would be willing to engauge in.

it remained stated publicly that this is how we view the way forward to the end of the conflict but there are many other initiatives. there's the u.s. administration, the current administration's efforts led by secretary kerry has been valiant in determination, the french initiative, there's the constant referral to the united nations security council to which we are currently a member. we will continue to promote and advocate but this has to be on the basis of the conviction of the two sides to end the conflict, to achieve the two state solution of the viable way forward that can be embraced by not only the two peoples but can be embraced by the region and by the international community and we will continue to provide whatever we can to support that

process within the ability of both sides to recognize that this is a historic moment and that it is in their best interest, interest of the region and the interest of international peace and security that we finally end the conflict. >> as you know, i had a little bit of involvement in the last go-around of direct negotiations. one of the things that was highly problematic there was the fact that we had no agreed terms of reference. 338 don't really apply to israeli-palestinian dimensions of the arab-israeli conflict. we have, indeed. it doesn't have terms of reference for final status negotiation. so i'm wondering, you know, there's been a lot of talk that it would be useful to introduce

by the security council updated resolution 242 that would lay the terms of reference for renewed negotiations. is that something that egypt should wind -- find useful? >> the main two sides would embrace and implement such proposal. again, i think we have a multitude of -- of resolutions that have set the tone and address many of the dimensions of the conflict but have not had the necessary impact to -- to forge ahead in resolving the conflict but any proposal or initiative or direction whether in the security council or elsewhere, i think it's necessary that both sides are fully committed to recognize the

value of such a process to their interests. >> mr. shakri, you have been generous with your time and insights and we are all very grateful to you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> later this morning a group of lawmakers talk about expectations of the first hundred days of the trump administration. 11:45 a.m. eastern on c-span two. they'll be joined by the cochairs of the commission on

precedential debates. live tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern on c-span3. >> follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we will take you the key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, watch on demand on c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. >> next outgoing house republican committee chair bill flores and incoming chair mark walker. from the american enterprise institute, this is an hour. >> all right. good afternoon, everybody. good afternoon for those what are joining us here live. i'm delighted here to welcome

you to the republican study committee. we are going to talk about the republican committee and what the plans are for the future. please join me in welcoming our guests. [applause] >> as things generally are we have an audience here and we have a larger audience who are watching us here not live but semilive, over the internet and a lot of people are joining us by live stream today. before we start, i want to start with tinny bit of housekeeping. if you're watching us on live stream and you want to join in on the conversation, the way that you do that is on your becauser to go to slido and enter the code event, the event code aei event.

soi.do and the event aie is the event code and i want to welcome viewers on c-span. thank you for joining us. it's a relationship that we truly cherish. the republican study committee has been a force of intellectual ideas, has been a moral force in the u.s. house of representatives for a long time and certainly since i've been in washington, d.c. the rnc has 170 members. it's the majority of the majority of the laws. it promises to do more in the coming years given the political whirlwinds in washington, d.c. productive and very special relationship. this is the third time that we've hosted the conversation between the outgoing and incoming chairman. wet me introduce the outgoing

chairman before we turn to the event. the current rnc chairman is bill flores, represents 17th district of texas. he's on my far left here. if not ideologically at least geographically. >> geographically. >> was elected in 2010, epic year of 2010, changes in party politics around the country and was elected at rnc chairman in 2014. before that he spent years in the oil and gas business in texas. next is mark walker from the sixth district of north carolina. mark and i have gotten to know each other through series of communications which is lovely thing for him. he was first elected to congress recently in 2014 and had a

rocket-like accent heading up the rnc in the beginning of the second term. before he was in politics he worked as a poster, before ministry he worked in finance and finance. he has done a lot for the pocketbook and the soul of a lot of americans and now in politics. two weeks ago he was elected by colleagues to chair rnc and i want to congratulate you on that. we couldn't be happier. a few things i want to do is i want to ask questions and then direct a few questions to the incoming chairman, and we are going to open it up to discussion and finally we will take live and virtual questions and discussion and finish up by 4:00. we will start with you. representative flores, you've been the chairman of the rnc for the last two years of president obama's presidency. we didn't know where the country was going. we all got a little bit

surprised in the last section, i think it's fair to say. it's one of the few elections where both people on the left and people on the right were equally surprised by how things turned around. one of the key lessons in politics as far as i'm concerned, i'm not a washington guy. i'm -- i'm from the real washington. i'm from seattle, washington. the remarkable thing that i find is that so many politicians, they interpret victories as permanent and defeats as permanent. this election tells us those that those who saw permanent realignment in 2008, to the left are wrong, were wrong and those who see this as a permanent victory for the republican party are probably wrong too. we should never treat any political victory or defeats a permanent. so let's talk about what you have seen over the last few years. what's your assessment looking back over the past two years of what you've done in rnc and how you're thinking about it? >> well, let me say this, i

think that if you look at the macro environment that we started with, we started the 114th congress with head winds in front of us. first of all, if you remember the president's first state of the union right before he got reelected he was going to bypass country. i have a pen and i have a phone. that set the theme for the last four years of presidency and he followed through with that threat. he largely viewed the constitution as irrelevant and congress as an inconvenience and that's the way he behaviored in the last four years. we had to deal with that. that ultimately in order to our benefit because the american people rejected that style of leadership. but that's the environment we were living with in the rnc. we did have a majority in the house and the senate, the senate majority you couldn't tell if we were a majority or not because it was hard to tell who was controlling the agenda over there.

so rnc had to maintain a clear thoughtful conservative course moving forward and i think we did a pretty good job in 114th congress. we created a framework of task forces to be able to provide the underlying conservative substance for what became the speakers a better way agenda. when speaker ryan became speaker and talked about setting a new path for the country, we decided that we are a conservative majority in the house. let's set that. let's take ownership of this. we createed and we dealt with fiscal responsibility, economic empowerment particularly those who serve the permanent underclass folks in poverty that we have in the country, we look at better ways to deal with that, tax reform, we looked at

healthcare reform, we looked at restoring the limited constitutional and form of government and we took all of those on and we created a serious of white papers for the speaker to use, or for the house task forces to use and they ultimately formed 70-80% and if you take that one step further to the presidential race, donald trump's make america great again, it really has most of this embedded in it. now he articulated in a matter that was a lot different than the way i would do it and a different way that mike pence did. he was saying essentially the same things in terms of let's get america back on the right set of rails and so, you know, i feel like the rnc played a part in the transformation of government that we've had over the last few weeks. now, the history will determine whether that's the case or not. i do want to echo you said. i gist read a headline before i

headed over here today saying the democratic party is dead. i think most of us in this room would like to say that's true, but if it's going to stay -- if it's going to be dead it's up to us to keep it that way. if we as conservatives lose and go in the wrong direction, you saw republicans trail away in the 70's, stray away from core principles, if we stray away, then that will provide the crumble that allows to democratic party to come back. we have to stay thoughtful to the core values that we spoused in the last election that gave us a unified government. i'm pretty confident that we are going to do that. i think mark is exactly the right person to lead us forward. >> what would you say are the biggest head winds that you faced over the past two years?

>> the biggest headwind, first of all, you have a senate that believe -- i don't know how to say this carefully. [laughter] >> let's put it this way, the rules -- >> we are not on tv or anything. >> no. i've already had about comments after the election and some of them were house-broken senators too. let me say this. the american people make decisions in elections and they really don't care what our rules are up here. they don't care about this inside washington stuff. when they say drain the swamp, they mean drain the swamp. they want to get things done. and so i think the biggest impediment we had over the last couple of years or was primarily that you had an out of control executive branch and when you actually dig in into the constitution we have a limited set of remedies to deal with

that if you don't have a senate that's willing to go ahead and use their majority in an effective manner to help you out with that. if you want to change the behavior of the executive, change view of how you allocate dollars. that means you have to pass an appropriation bill. if you want to change the direction of the executive branch, then you've got to work -- you have to find a way to pass legislation that tells -- puts the president on notice that he's in the wrong direction. we had difficulty doing that. you all saw how productive we were in the house. it's just -- we couldn't really get that all the way through the article 1 branch and that was frustrating to many of us that are conservatives in this country. >> i can imagine in that

situation the tension between house and senate going forward particularly when there's a president and who knows what the tension is even going to be between conservatives and the white house itself. it's going to be a big adventure. that leads me to my next question, what advice have been been given that you can tell in public to mark? >> first of all, i don't think i need to give very much advice to mark because mark is wired already. i hate to use that terminology but i haven't told him that. you know, mark's core is fundamentally conservative and he's a greater. i think he has all the tools in place. i guess the advice that i would give to mark is the advice that i would give to any conservative and that is remember we are fighting each other, we are not fighting the true enemies of the hard-working families in this country that are suffering and so we knee -- we always -- when

you decide that my conservative bill is better than your conservative bill instead of working together of how to make the common con tervetive -- conservative thing, that energy that you're spending on doing that takes away from being able to achieve the objective of getting a thoughtful conservative solution across the finish line and on the president's desk so that you can improve the lives of hard-working american families. make sure that we are very careful to not let our rnc conservatives fight among each other. make sure they have the north star to go out and to try to touch all the time. >> can be a policemen and usually is a problem and what can we do about that? i will turn it over to marbling walker for a second. he's a trumpet player, which i respect. it's important that we all be brass players, i believe. [laughter]

>> and also is this right that you have an elvis impression that's well known in the hill? >> i cannot confirm or deny at this point. >> i see. we will try to do this next time. i will get you liquored up. what do you see right now -- you've been a member of rnc and you know your way around the hill pretty well at this point. what are your top priorities for the republican study committee for the next chairman? >> it's interesting how those have grown in the the last 30 days. we work hard to throw legislation in the wall to make sure it sticks. listen, we have a chance to push forward policies an really laws that impact many generations and a couple of those things that come to my mind is tax reform. how many decades have we been talking about tax reform. this administration added

another 8,000 pages of tax code regulations, we are closing in on 75,000 pages right now. to being able to lay that out, we have good ideas and still keep three major deductions, also something that the part of the american dream, the mortgage interest rate deduction, keeps those three simplifying the tax code, i think that's something that's a huge win that the american people have been clambering for some time obviously without getting too much to the talking point the repeal of obamacare, work with senator lee and rubio, this is an opportunity for us to sink our teeth into it very quickly early on. the reason why i think it's so important of what we do with that repeal, we want to make sure -- i know there's arguments, we have a standard here. we have a chance to go after the heart of obamacare under reconciliation, 51 majority threshold. those priorities are something

that we need to partner, but hopefully partner with the whole conference to get on in the spring. >> terrific. sounds like you are going to be pretty busy. >> we think. >> in doing that in fighting against factualization do you think you can bring -- factualization occurs when the other side is in the white house and you are able to bring people together and more probably a little bit more of a common theme. do you think growing rnc is the way to do it? >> i think it's a by-product of it. it's not my first instinctive goal. i feel like if we do our job, whether it's business politics, ministry, you your job, then fluctuates by itself as opposed to artificially try to recruit people in. that's our goal to attract by the job that we are doing not necessarily by the marketing. >> terrific. >> and if i -- >> sorry to jump in on this? >> no, no, please.

>> the rnc is not effective because of its size, it's effective because of its member that it has and the ideas that they put forth and how they're willing to advocate for those ideas, not only at home among constituents but here among colleagues, here among the outside groups on the media and so forth and so the rsc, today it's 178 members and i'm not sure if that's the right size or not. maybe a smaller rsc would probably be more effective. [laughter] >> i'm not trying to -- i guess what i'm trying to say the size of rsc is not the important issue and i think mark hit it on the head here. if we develop the right policies, the right strategies, then we will have the right people as members to get the right thing done. >> terrific. now, rsc traditionally known as the conservative thinking

coalition on the republican side of the house, but not very many americans, a lot of people in the room are sophisticated in the fashion that is exist in the house, fashions not in a bad way but they are different brands of the republican party on the house side, do the score card for the viewers at home at this point. you know, they hear about the republican study committee republicans and the republicans who are at leadership and then the freedom caucus, just sort of talk us through the different brands of republicans on the house side? >> sure. you want to start with that mark? >> i would love to. >> what we are focused on is effective conservative. >> by we, rsc in. >> rsc. there's no reason we can attract where there's leadership, the house freedom caucus. we are the largest and conservative caucus. what do i mean, i have

challenged the guys however long we are privileged to serve here whether it's two years or 20 years, can you look back and say, you know what, was it about simply winning the argument or making a difference? are there measured marks of success where you have moved the needle forward? >> i think that consists of three things. what i mean by the right voice, if you go back to in business in marketing some of you may have worked in the arena, a product can reach a maturity state. people are walking pass through it in the store. ..