the highest in more than 15 years. thanks donald. ♪ the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20. c-span will have live coverage of all the days events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org, and listen live on -- free c-span review app radio app. 11:00, secretary of state john kerry outlines the obama administration's vision of how to achieve an israeli-palestinian peace agreement. we expect the secretary of state to address allegations from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu that the u.s.

orchestrated last week's security council resolution condemning israel for continuing to build settlements in occupied territory. reportsyork times secretary kerry has long wanted to give a speech about the israeli palestinian conflict but was held back by white house officials who feared it would anger the israeli prime minister . according to the times, the white house gave mr. carry the go-ahead for the speech after last week's disagreement with israel over the u.n. resolution. secretary of state john live from the state department in washington coming up at 11:00 .astern tonight, i look back at some of the notable congressional hearings of 2016, including investigations of plant, michigan's drinking water contamination, and wells fargo allegedly opening accounts for its customers. here is a great look. what are you doing to make

sure state employees communicate with you, especially regarding issues of great importance, like the people of flint? >> i stood up in front of the state of michigan in my state of the state address and said these people who made these terrible decisions that showed a clear lack of common sense failed us. but since they work for me, i am responsible for their actions, and i take that responsibility, and i kick myself every day about what i could've done more. but i told the people of michigan, there is a passionate commitment to say we are going to change the culture in these places. i apologize to the people in flint. i understand why they are angry. it is terrible what they are having to go through. but i made the commitment to fix the problem. i cannot take some damage done ,s ranking member cummings said but there is a lot we can do to help the people of flint, and

i'm absolutely committed to do that. we are following through and getting that done. i am going back to flint tomorrow to keep working on that issue. this is not about helping customers get what they need. not have toou would squeeze your employee so hard to make it happen. cross selling is all about pumping up wells stock price, isn't it? >> no, cross-selling is shorthand for deepening relationships. >> let me stop you right there. you say no? of 12re the transcripts orderly earnings calls that you 2012 twoted in from 2014, the three years in which we know this scam was going on. i would like to submit them for the record, if i may, mr. chair. these are calls where you personally made your pitch to investors and analysts about why

wells fargo is a great investment. in all 12 of these calls, you personally cited wells fargo's success at cross-selling retail accounts as one of the main reasons to buy more stock in the company. more from those hearings on flint, michigan and wells fargo, also increases in the cost of the epipen, starting tonight at 8:00 eastern. the c-span video library is an easy way to search and view help theograms and to viewers. >> go to c-span.org and look on the front page. on the left side are all of the hearings, presidential events of that day, political campaign events.

right underneath that on the left side is a link that says recent events. they appear in the order they were on the network. you can search for a person's name. has pages that contain all of their videos. on that page is a link, a search box. you put in a word. let's say you want sheila jackson lee, and you want stuff on climate change. members of the congressional black caucus will receive the signatures and statements of those demanding that this body fully support president obama's clean power plan. >> maybe you want ted poe talking about iraq. put in those words, and that will get you to particular small pieces, almost like paragraphs. >> the soldiers were members of

the field army regiment, second army brigade combat team of the first cavalry division. these american soldiers were volunteers who swore to protect the united states. >> across the top, we have a of our video clips. you can find clips that people make, available for other people to look for. >> who leaves first, obama or assad? >> i certainly hope it is assad. but i don't think so. what a bizarre decision by the president of mexico to invite donald trump down there. >> then on the far left side there are breakdowns, much like you would find on any shopping website. you could say i want to see a particular person's name, a particular senate committee, or a tag for a policy.

this is very valuable for narrowing down. play onh, click, and the c-span video library on c-span.org. on c-span in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a review of house hearings from 2016 on topics including the flint, washington -- michigan water crisis and the wells fargo unauthorized account scandal. >> you found that one of your divisions had created 2 million fake accounts, had fired thousands of employees for improper behavior, and had cheated thousands of your own customers, and you didn't even once consider firing her ahead of her retirement? >> thursday, we remember some of the political figures that passed away in 2016, including former first lady nancy reagan, and supreme court justice

antonin scalia. friday night at 8:00, our in memoriam program continues with shimon perez mohammed ali, and the john glenn. host: we are now joined by elana schor from politico news and emily holden. we are looking at donald trump and his running of the department of the interior and energy program. scott pruitt has been picked to run the epa, probably the least familiar to viewers. how was he picked to run the epa? >> one thing that president trump has said he wants to do is get rid of the claim power plan, -- plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and scott pruitt has been leading the charge.

pursuing the epa over that role now the supreme court saying that they do not have to implement it. host: how does it work with pedebody being tacked -- tap to run the agency come assuming the agency -- suing the agency? >> what remains to be seen is his style. elana: they believe he will dismantle it from within. he believes on a cooperative federalism model, so instead of prescriptions, and i know this is letting the states decide, scott pruitt will go more in the direction of the state deciding what to do. host: we should explain what the clean power plan is in its history. emily: essentially it lays out individual goals that each state

must meet to reduce carbon emissions and it lets states decide how to do that. the epa was looking at the power sector moving away from coal and toward lower carbon fuels, natural gas and renewable power and said they want to see them do any little bit faster. but they let the states decide how much of a shift to make and what to do to get there. host: scott pruitt in his own words, 2015 at the conservative political action conference that took place. he was asked about the clean power plan before he was made the head of the epa. >> for the affordable care act was for health care, what dodd frank was for the finance system, the clean power plan is for the power grid in this country. the generation of electricity, when you combine oil and natural gas and coal, that equates almost 70% of electricity generation in the country. 2008 andident ran in

he has carried this outside the administration, declared a war on particularly and since 2010, we have seen facilities shut down in this country. this plan that the president is advancing, it is all about an anti-fossil fuel strategy to shut down coal generation and the fossil fuel generation and you should be concerned about that. because, if it goes away, if l making up 40% of electricity in the country, what will it be replaced with? the cost of renewables will be insurmountable for the country. this is very much a policy that is being carried out during his last term, the last year of his administration, to push these things through on the regulatory front. that is the last thing i wasn't sure. the clean power plan monopoly

about picking winners and losers, it is executive power to bypass congress. host: that was the epa nominee scott pruitt. what kind of reception has a gun on capitol hill -- adopted on capitol hill? elana: they are eager to make this a referendum on climate change. scott pruitt believes human activity is the leading cause of climate change. so the democrats see this as a golden opportunity, they want to humor home that the president elect does not believe in a science and this is wrong and against public opinion and the majority of americans who want action, right? the filibuster for these nominees makes it easy to tonfirm scott pruitt, so i is likely it will go through. join theyou want to conversation, republicans at

(202) 748-8001, democrats at (202) 748-8000, and independents at (202) 748-8002. we are answering the question of what donald trump's department of the interior and energy will look like in his first 100 days. and like him a talk about what you believe on science. you wrote about this recently. emily: the main thing we have a record from him is an op-ed that he wrote saying, this is basically in area that is still open for debate and is something that must be discussed in public policy. a lot of the lawsuit against the epa and scott pruitt has had at least eight of them as attorney general in oklahoma, have focused on states rights and more on whether the federal government is exceeding authority in regulating things that are traditionally meant for the states to be working on. host: we want to show viewers

what he said to that column you are talking about. he wrote, along with another healthy debatet is the lifeblood of the american democracy and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debate of all time. it is far from settled. they continue to disagree about it and -- the extent of global warming and the debate should be encouraged in public forums and the halls of congress." what kind of response has that got in from the science -- gotten from the scientific community? elana: a big backlash, people say this is a settled issue. emily: this is a debate. scientists say this is happening and it is a big threat and action must have been right now to prevent the immediate problems from occurring from more droughts, to the sea level

route -- level rising. achy isngressman ryan's the nominee from president-elect donald trump in his background is a navy seal, how did he come to this nomination? emily: montana is -- elana: montana is in outdoor state and he is a relative newbie on the hill. he goes against the emerging conservative election for selling off federal land in the west. this is something the president elect and his sons have repeatedly of the sized, but is not something that the entire right agrees with. a lot of conservative voices from his home state want to see more private control, not federal, but he disagrees, so it will make him an interesting pick. host: he has received praise from conservation groups about

not transferring land, correct? emily: he has had praise for wanting to keep federal control of the land for conservation, but on the other hand he is from montana and it is a cold of the state -- coal heavy state. host: in terms of him having the votes, what are the early readings? said on think as was other nominees, it would be difficult to filibuster them and keep them from moving forward. it is likely. elana: absolutely. a big factor is the congressman was considered a favorite to challenge custer in the election. the democrats are pretty happy. host: he is out of the way. not being off the democratic senator. taking your calls as we go to the nominees for the energy and environmental posts. again, democrats, (202) 748-8000

. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . bill, good morning. caller: i voted for donald trump, but i do not like his energy policies. know,pruitt, he would not he does not like climate change. he would not know what would happen if he fell into a whole -- hole caused by the earthquake's from the oil companies in oklahoma. almosto, germany is getting to be all solar, and brazil, they do not use that much gas in the cars anymore and we are supposed to be in innovative nation, where we have had people like edison, like alexander graham bell, and 30 --

dirty coal is a thing of the past. and i guess this is a payoff by the republicans to the koch brothers and we need to move forward. and with climate change, you see people, the eskimos losing their houses in alaska. and also in louisiana. we cannot deny this anymore. it may even be too late. host: that was bill in connecticut. coal, one up dirty o earlier caller said there was no such thing as clean coal. donald trump says he wants to promote clean coal. what is it and how does he do it? elana: many have said it is an oxymoron, but what it means is when it is mined and burned, the carbon emissions are sequestered

and captured, the most common concept is injecting it underground. with clean coal, and with natural gas, the leading product in oklahoma, they are at odds. so donald trump is promising to promote the gas industry and the coal industry, when really they are in competition. that is the big factor here. host: ben is in california. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i wonder if those who are more progressive in wanting to add it just -- adjust to the new energy, much like the farm industries, we send a few billion dollars to the coal regions, do not know how many employees would be covered, but we pay them to stop producing coal, and then the minors --

miners can't afford their lifestyle -- can afford it up lifestyle and we can bomb from coal. that could be one way to handle the situation and stop producing coal, by paying them to stop mining. host: you have studied emily the clean power plan quite a bit. somethingcommendation in the plan? emily: it is something discussed around the margins of congress, but it is difficult politically. i think what you would see push back on is the idea of giving money to shift away from coal, because states that are further ahead going toward natural gas would say, we already did that and we were able to bear the burden of it, so it is not fair for you to then get that assistance. it is a tricky political question, but i think certainly

even hillary clinton has ideas for the coal communities and helping the transition. it is difficult to get done. host: can you explain the moratorium a little bit more? how long it has been in place and where it came from? it has gotten criticism from the coal industry. emily: the three-year moratorium , while it was under review, looking at the environment the implications of the program, it is something that donald trump would like to reverse. host: can he do that in the first 100 days? isn't that something he can pull back or is it going through a process? likely to doms that, yes. host: we are talking about the nominees for energy and interior, taking your questions about donald trump and what you will be doing in his first 180 and beyond. -- 100 days and beyond.

good morning. caller: good morning. with respect to everybody in appalachia district who are obviously in peril for their jobs, which i am sympathetic to, the science is pretty clear and i would ask if the general public would go back to the captain joe hazelwood and one of the worst ecological disaster that has ever happened in america and then look at the people donald trump is putting in his cabinet. and look at the contrast. i guess my point is, there are many alternatives, i am initially a canadian and we are switching over to a greener form of energy and we have got to consider the collective good of the next generation into the green about these. host: that was ed in detroit.

anything you want to pick up on from that? elana: while we are talking about donald trump's nominees, we should include rex tillerson, the ceo of exxon mobil. he is the pick of -- for secretary of state. they have a role in climate change and certainly the exxon valdez, that will come back up in the confirmation hearings. host: let's explain the role a little bit more. the secretary of state playing a key role in the exxon pipeline debate. explain how that worked, that was the epa, the white house and department of state. elana: and the caller might notice because he said he was canadian. when we have the pipeline going from canada or from mexico, a complicated process was set up under george w. bush that leaves the state department in charge,

juggling the environmental considerations going into building a pipeline or transmission line that crosses borders. certainly, mr. trump wants to bring the keystone pipeline back and will be involved in other inastructure projects, butr. tillerson would more or less be in charge of that. host: justin trudeau said on wednesday last week that donald trump was "very supportive of the keys don't crude oil -- keystone crude oil pipeline in their first conversation after the election. he brought it up and is that he was supportive of it and the he said, i am -- confident the right decision will be taken. he has been covering the pipeline quite a bit. how much would it take to restart the process? elana: not a lot of work. transcanada is considering re-crafting the application.

essentially, when it was rejected in november, he canceled out keystone as we know it. it could change one or two aspects of this, call it something else, then resubmit it fairly easily. that will be harder, just as it was under obama, getting the late approval on the ground in the states. friendly, mr. trump is likely to face activism on the ground. so it is simple in concept, but not really in practice. host: for those opposed, what can they do? do they have much power or a place to look to to stop the process? emily: certainly, the courts. and you are certainly seeing that they are ramping up activity. the first week after the election around 7000 more donors monthly helping them to fund raise and the environmentalists

saying this is the only way to fight the anti-environment agenda, if we are giving money to organizations that will bring challenges to the issues. host: sheila, a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. they talked about scott pruitt being dangerous. oklahoma has not disappeared, he is not a dangerous person. he has been helping people when he takes epa to court. you forget the main aspect, you put the environmental stuff on a different company, like og and e , or gas and electric, and they have had regulations, they have had to clean it up and make it cleaner. here comes epa, another one, that is costly. if you think pays for it? i do. the people do. our wages going up? no. i do not think these people,

they are supported by activists, and you forget about the people. i listened to that man say, they need to just pay the coal miners money so they can go to other jobs. who is going to pay for it? we are. i think we forget about the monetary side, the people do not have it, the rich people do. the middle class is going down. one more point, i have been to alaska and we got to go to the iceberg, the famous iceberg up there. it was melting before they even had gas and oil. it has been melting for years, ever since it was established. it is not global warming melting it, because they can tell you how far it had been, like in 1900 and before. host: thank you for that call from oklahoma. i am sure the economic argument she was making there on the sort

of energy decisions that we will be making in the future, that is an argument we are hearing from the donald trump administration and we have heard from scott pruitt. elana: arguably, the caller just described the appeal to the energy workers. the data shows donald trump has a point in that it is union jobs and the democrats have been talking about, let's just transfer it to green jobs and solar panel installations. it is not always that simple. the wages are not guaranteed to stay the same. so this is certainly a that workers care about and that is why they voted for donald trump. host: flint, michigan. a democrat. caller: yes, i am home of the bad water. we have a plant we put in 19 years ago. and under the 1968 rights -- civil rights law, it should not

have been allowed to be built. the epa allowed them to build it and i've spoken to 26 people who live in the apartment complex adjacent to it, low income apartments, 23 of them have asthma. you take people who walk around in china with the masks on going back and forth to work. the lady who called said, who wants to pay for the person in the coal towns not to have to come to work. they did this in the south with the farmers for years. do you want to pay in next are nickel in order to breathe clean air? you know, that is kind of a no-brainer. host: do you think a change in the administration, in leadership, at the epa will get the issue addressed? caller: you are referring to which issue? host: the power plant?

caller: the power plants, i have personally called the epa and i spoke to the director's assistant about the power plant, as well as about our water, and i was ignored. the hundreds of letters that went to the epa about it, the only way that we got anything done was the people from virginia tech came and they brought in 300 test kits to send out to the community. and we got back to hundred 70 kits that-- 270 test we know that. the water supply, the blood levels, the lead levels were high. the only thing that really brought the whole thing out was the hospital here in town that tested children's blood realized that there were elevated blood levels.

host: thank you for the call. and like, there has been a lot does thatn flint, focus continue in the next administration? is there concern it will be lost in the transition or what will the donald trump team say about flint? emily: what has always been challenging for epa is addressing the social issues and looking at specific communities with clean water and clean air and how the broader regulations could affect an individual community. what donald trump said about staff and funds, i think you can see the programs definitely being smaller and the issues being more difficult to address. host: david in georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. happy new year, c-span. host: thank you. caller: i have a lot of troubles with anything donald trump does. this guy just told a lie in the

clip, by saying it is impossible. that man is chicken little. y'all need to wake up. coal country has found a way to use it for something other than burning it. you can use it to make roof tiles that generate electricity. oh my god, that will put them out of work. that is what the problem is, these people are cronies that donald trump is installing and they will be worse than the woman that signed off on all that stuff for flint. so you need to wake up. of an american that is 175 million of us that did not vote for and neither of these cronies. you need to wake up. host: that was david from waynesboro, georgia. one nominee we have not talked

about is rick perry, called by nancy pelosi, and anti-science climate change denier. he has been tapped by donald trump to take over the department of energy. gas guy, is an oil and but with some people do not realize, he is also a wind power guy. texas is first in the nation on wind power generation and a lot of that compliment was happening under rick perry. he is in line with donald trump's basic plan to have less of a climate friendly and gender is notda, but he entirely anti-renewables. host: a statement was put out after the nomination became known, saying that rick perry will be the final energy secretary, that he would close that agency. is it possible to shut down in

agency and it does rick perry want to do that? emily: it seems unlikely. he has said before he would want to do that, but it is not what we are looking at right now. is the department of energy largely focused on nuclear activities and that is not something the u.s. can't stop looking at. they do a lot on clean energy research, most of what they do is handling the country's nuclear arsenals. times,rom the new york on rick perry as energy secretary, saying nuclear tests would be resumed. patrick is in florida, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i have a couple of comments. number one, america being divided as we are on this issue and every other issue, we need to stop being divided. we need to come together and

understand as long as we are pitted against one another, pro-gun, anti-gun, etc. pro-energy, clean energy -- nothing is going to get done. we will be talking about this issue six years from now, 16 years from now and it will keep going. we need to not be divided. host: how do we not be divided? what is your recommendation? caller: there is the way a look at it. it is a capitalistic country and when i worked in corporate america, we got a group of intelligent people together, and we formed a plan we thought would give us the best results. then we implement the plan and we have success. we got better. we hired more employees, etc. in this country, republicans will find the democrats, democrats will fight the republicans in because we do not

get together and say, look -- i am the minority on issues and i'm ok with being the 20%, 80% of the country says, this is the way we are going to do things and i am a 20%, i can say, ok, great, let's do the most efficient way possible. host: where are you willing to compromise on energy? energy, this is where i am not on energy -- am at on energy. i will ask but reporters, let's assume i am building a house, three-bedroom, two bath, middle-income family type of house. how much does it cost me when i am building it, to install solar panel, or wind power, or geothermal -- let's say solar. how much is the additional cost to build it were i can be energy-efficient, or even put it

75% of all of my energy will be coming from solar? how much would it cost today? host: i'm not sure if you can give an exact price, but these installations on homes, are they affordable? elana: it depends where you live. solar is really the only option, scientists have not figured out how to have rooftop wind turbines. in washington dc, they offer pretty good packages for homeowners that want to put solar panels on their roof. then you are dealing with local utility politics and excess power going back into the grid and having the ability to do that. the basic point is correct, renewable power in the u.s. must be scaled appropriately to that size. emily: it is difficult to tell, it depends on which area of the country. it is affordable in some. another point patrick made by the division, i think overcoming

the division, like americans would like to see, requires being more upfront about the -- and one point we have not gotten to, it is pretty much impossible to bring back the coal jobs as president-elect trump says he wants to do, because he would unconvinced a power committee to convince au will not power company to build coal. we do not think president-elect -- you will not be bringing back the mining industry necessarily. host: even if you list -- lift the moratorium and the power plan is rescinded on day one? emily: they looked at the number if you had the plan or you do not, but without the clean power fromyou see coal dropping so you do not0%,

see a growing. and there are other things that president-elect trump can do around the margins to make the companies happy, but you already have most of the major coal companies in bankruptcy and they are not looking to bounce back from that. host: rather green put it this way, those who can afford clean energy champion the change, but the vast majority of the population cannot. we have gabe in connecticut. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i want to talk about energy sources and conservation and investment in each of these. i am on twitter. the energy source, we need to think about, we need the energy and the only way to reduce the need for energy is efficiency and conservation. as long as we need energy, we

will invest in where it is coming from. if we want to invest in coal, we needed and about who benefits from that. probably the established infrastructure, just like oil, as we invest and conservation we will be creating new jobs to get people out of the mines and into the factories, just as we invest in technology through batteries. connecticut is leading the way in battery technology, holding the energy that we made through coal or solar. this is an important part. and that is what it is all about. trying to compose my thoughts because i've never called you guys before. host: we appreciate the call. elana: i'm not familiar with what the caller is stating about battery technology, but i am familiar with the power of states to pass their own laws

and i think we will see more of that under donald trump. a lot of it will not please conservation activists, but some of it may. we have seen northeast states ban together on greenhouse initiatives. progress can happen on either end at the state level. host: and from california, pledging to go beyond their the time ofets in the donald trump administration. talk about what the governor is trying to do. emily: you said if donald trump climateg to pull -- on change, they within their own into orbit. they are a leader in climate action. a little more on battery technology, something that is really important to transitioning the grid away from fossil fuels and it is growing rapidly. but not quite fast enough. so you see more and more

arguments on renewable power, not necessarily where we are right now. and it is technology that if it does not grow fast enough, we policiesa shift in under the donald trump administration. it is a way to lock us into fossil fuels for decades to come. so even if these states are moving ahead in ways that they can, forming compacts, like in the northeast, we may still be using a lot of fossil fuels into the future. natural gas has about half of the carbon footprint of coal. host: about 15 minutes left in this segment. we are taking questions with elana schor and emily holden. patricia is on the line. caller: good morning. we need to move full speed ahead, 2017 is coming and we need to get a solar panels in and let's get the robotics going

and let's just move forward, full speed ahead. host: ok. how about solar panel installation, a name that viewers will remember when it comes to solar power is cilendra , and the energy department's efforts to promote solar energy. explain if that sort of system can come back under rick perry and his energy department? elana: it is very unlikely. it was part of a loan guarantee program from the energy department that the republicans opposed before the scandal erupted and they continue to oppose to this day. i think we can expect under rick perry to stop issuing these guaranteed, but the final guarantee issued by the current energy secretary was actually the first advanced fossil fuel loan and it shows -- sends a

signal that is can be used to boost the gas and oil industry. so i would say the chances are great that it does go away. host: diana, good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i am calling for a couple of things. i want to remind the people watching and listening that when they use the term epa, so many people are misinformed and they think it is strictly the federal government, like in their state even. that is not the case. in many states, what governors are doing is appointing their own people that they want to work for epa. in my state, which has been sued by the federal government so many times, they have dismantled d and r, he appoints everybody, like he is the god of the state. what i am trying to say is,

people should not be misled when they hear the term epa and think about the federal government. they are not even following their own rules. the rules are being made by the state. and by the people controlling the state. you look at snyder in michigan, look at all of the things happening in the water, in the sinkholes, and all that. wisconsin is next, they are like buddies, bosom buddies, our governor and snyder. i want people to be aware, when they say states rights, they need to be careful who is running the state. host: perhaps you can pick up on the interaction between the federal epa and some of the state agencies. emily: when we have been saying epa on the show, we've been talking about the federal agency for things we are about, like the clean power plan. and if agencies at the state

level that focus on the state issues. the federal epa is looking at things that would impact -- state epa is looking at things that would impact state issues. maybe you have pollutants going into another state, that is something they would be regulating. yes, states rights, it depends on what your state wants to do, maybe something you want to support. you might be more aligned with what the federal government wants to do. or what the state wants to do. dependent on your political leanings. host: al, good morning. caller: thank you. a couple of questions, a gentleman just flew a solar powered airplane around the world. why hasn't anybody talked about that at all? the second is, the scientists at the university of sheffield

discovered 18 they can make -- change they can make in solar panel that would drastically reduce the cost and the never heard anybody talking about that, why is it that being discussed -- isn't that being discussed? elana: i have not heard about the solar powered airplane either. it sounds interesting. renewable cost issues will be front and center next year. mr. trump won the election that renewables are too expensive to implement along the lines of what the previous caller was talking about with rooftop solar. i think the caller will be excited to find debate about that starting next year. emily: so actually, from the past couple of years since the epa put out their plan, we have seen wind and solar decline far more than expected.

it recently came out from the university of texas that if you take out all the subsidies and all of the additional cost, that natural gas and wind power would usehe least expensive to around the country in different areas. host: what are the main cost drivers of solar? people think that sunshine is free, what is the main cost when somebody's trying to get energy from solar? emily: the technology and how quickly it is developing and connecting it to the grid, power lines from solar panels to the homes. it depends on the state you are in and who is developing the regulations, whether you are looking at a wind farm, or rooftop solar panels, it varies throughout the country. an, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. host: ok, we will go to michael. in independent -- an

independent, go ahead. michael, are you with us? caller: yes, sorry. a few years ago, it was said 55% of our driving is for five miles or less and -- can easily help with energy expended. that thenstitute says bicycle is the most efficient known tol conveyance man, so why are we not promoting bicycles? host: are there members of congress who are promoting bicycles? or pathways to get more bicycles? caucus, whichs a

is bipartisan, many members of the congress do bicycle to work. i am not sure of the tiger program, which is the initiative more started to promote bicycles in the cities. bike trails and things like that. it is popular with both republicans and democrats. host: speaking of the obama administration, one thing they pride themselves on is expanding the national park system and the protected lands through the national park service. what have we heard from the cap administration -- trump administration, is that something that the interior secretary supports? hasy: i think because he looked at the conservation fund and wanting to protect that, that is something he has gotten credit on.

looking at national parks in particular, i'm not sure how much we've heard from the president-elect on that. host: go ahead. elana: he actually has indicated that he would be supportive of antiquities authority, the big issue here, the more than 100 year old law that allows the president to set aside land as national parks. preserveid he wants to that, but i think you will face pressure from the right to roll back decisions that president obama has made, like the decision recently to take the arctic waters and atlantic waters out of consideration for drilling, so we think of this power as creating national parks, but there are more options to set aside land and mr. trump may pull back. host: an interesting exchange from earlier, the budget hearing for the department of the interior, the current secretary appearing before the natural resources committee in the

house, of which conversation -- of which he is a member of, and he was questioning her on the priorities of the park? >> i'm sure we all agree on the importance of the parts, but looking at the budget, we know you are behind and i just finished talking to the superintendent of yellowstone and i know how important it is -- you and i have both toured the parks. it does not seem in the budget are you prioritize the intersection. infrastructure is so important on road maintenance and why isn't it at the top of the budget for the national parks? >> infrastructure and dealing with the backlog is high priority in the budget, it is in their not only in the discretionary budget, but also for the centennial initiative which would clear up the backlog over 10 years. >> what you say it is a top

priority? there are a lot of other programs in there, but it should be infrastructure first before the other education programs, these want that are less on the list. >> visitors experience is also important. host: that was the exchange at a natural resources hearing, if you want to watch the whole hearing, it is available on c-span.org. he often talks about the parks he visits, the ones in his backyard. it's easy and as a champion of national parks? emily: i am not sure about a champion. i know the outdoors is something he appreciates. if you look at the league of conservation voters, about a 3% lifetime score from them goes to him, so they might disagree on how much he is looking at protecting the environment. host: in the next panel coming up at 9:00 on the washington journal, we will look more at

that. and ronald, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i am an electrician in west virginia. comments all day that us coal miners do not want to move away from mining. we have no problem with gas. our problem is, our president shut us down, and we are having trouble feeding our families. we have to go to food banks to feed our children. and we are using electricity to power our houses. and people say we do not want change, we have no problem with change. our problem is, is almost 50 years ago the u.s. landed a man on the moon and now they say they cannot burn coal clean. we do not agree with that at

all. they can, they do not want to. that is my comments. host: donald trump has said he wants clean coal. elana: absolutely. i believe he will try to make it possible. but importantly, the idea of replicatedhas to be bowl and cheap enough to get loans to implement it. that is where they could fail. just not on the economics, but on the science, the size of the facilities that would take carbon out of the system. host: we will go to don, golden valley, arizona. good morning. caller: yeah, i was watching pbs news hour last night and there was a physicist, i believe he was from greece or somewhere over there, he had this hydrogen

evidently you and can power your own house off of water right there, without theological grid and everything -- electrical grid and everything. he has been offered millions of dollars for the invention. they showed it on the tv last you we willbet never hear anything more about it. somebody will buy him up and that will be it. host: have either of you covered hydrogen as a possible fuel source? emily: i cannot say i have. i think there is an important point about policies and different fuels in competition with one another. that is something you need to remember, you cannot assume all fossil fuels, and he cannot

incentivize all renewable power, because they will all be competing against each other. if you do incentivize, there is a concern about picking winners and losers, what we heard about before. elana: absolutely. it is arguable that oil and gas received the most subsidies of any fuel out there and i think we are about to see a big debate about what that means, to pick the winners and losers, whether we should will that all subsidies. host: we will go to tim in new york. good morning. caller: yes, the cost of solar panels to be installed on a about $20,000. ok? for solars quite high panels.

when you install them on your house. an extra $20,000 that people do not have. elana, one more time on solar panels and the cost of doing it in the last minute we have. elana: clearly, callers are interested in the topic and i would encourage them to reach out to local governments and find out about the tax incentives, because that could cut the $20,000 bill with reductions he could take at the end of the year, particularly if you are a first-time homeowner. emily: i would say they will continue to drive down the cost. the federal tax credit, which it seems is safer now, there are conservative lawmakers that create that for wind energy club but we will have to see, because they are looking at a big overall tax reform and we are not sure what it will include. host: emily holden

now to the state department in washington, d.c., secretary of state john kerry will make marks today outlining the obama administration's to achieve an israeli-palestinian peace agreement. we are also expecting the secretary of state to address allegations from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu that the u.s. orchestrated last week's security council resolution condemning israel for continuing to build settlements in occupied territory. we expect to hear from secretary kerry shortly. --e coverage year on c-span here on c-span.

waiting for john kerry to make a speech today outlining the administration's vision on how to have a israeli-palestinian peace agreement. the new york times says secretary kerry longtime wanted to give a speech about the conflict but was held back by white house officials who feared it would anger the israeli prime minister. the white house gave him the go-ahead according to the new york times after the disagreement last week over the you in resolution. .n. resolution.

we are waiting secretary of state john kerry. >> john kerry speaking today at the state department on israeli-palestinian peace. his remarks scheduled to get underway about 11:00. he is running a couple of minutes behind schedule so while we wait we will show you at least some of the un security

council meeting from last week about israeli settlements. remarks from samantha power, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who spoke after the vote to condemn the israeli settlements in occupied land, the u.s. abstained from that vote allowing the resolution to pass. begin with a quote -- the united states will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional time. the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze israel more than any other action could create the action it needed for wider participation in these talks. further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of israel and only diminishes -- that a final outcome that can be freely and fairly negotiated.

that is the end of the quote. this was set in 1982 by ronald reagan. he was speaking about a new proposal he was launching to end the israeli-palestinian conflict. this proposal was not realized, his words are still eliminating in at least two respects -- first, because they underscore the united states's deep and long-standing commitment to achieve a lasting peace between the israelis and palestinians. that has been the policy of every administration, republican and democrat since before president reagan at all the way through to the present day. second, because president reagan's words highlight our long-standing position that israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 undermines israel's security, hurts a negotiation outcome and

erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region. the security council reaffirmed its established consensus that settlements have no legal validity. the united states has been sending a message that the settlements must stop, privately and publicly for nearly five decades. administration of president lyndon b. johnson, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, bill clinton, george w. bush, and now barack obama. president, the only who had not had at least one is really-palestinian related security counsel resolution passed during his tenure is barack obama. line withoday is in the bipartisan history of how american presidents have approached both the issue of --

and the role of this body. given the consistency of this position across the u.s. administrations, one would think it would be a routine vote for the u.s. to allow the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one, reaffirming the long-standing u.s. position on settlements, condemning violence and incitement, and calling for the parties to start taking constructive steps to reverse current trends on the ground. these are familiar, well articulated components of u.s. policy. for us was this vote not straightforward because of where it is taking place, at united nations. for the simple truth is that for as long as israel has been a member of this institution, israel has been treated differently from other nations at the united nations. to only in decades past but the infamous resolution that the general assembly adopted in 1975 with the support of the majority

of member states officially determined that zionism is a form of racism but also in i-16, look at thene need 18 resolutions against israel adopted during the general assembly or the 12 israel specific resolutions adopted this year in the human rights council, more than those focus on syria, north korea, iran, south sudan put together. 2016 israel is treated differently from other member states. like the u.s. administrations before us, the obama administration has worked to fight for israel's right to be treated just like any other country. from advocating for them to be regionalembership to a body, something other -- no other -- the fighting to ensure deniedrael is are not united nations accreditation simply because they are israeli and getting juncker for recognized as a united nation

holiday. indefensible silence in response to terrorist attack on israelis. the united states has said repeatedly such unequal ,reatment not only hurts israel it undermines the legitimacy of the united nations itself. the practice of treating israel differently at the united nations matters for both like this one because even if one believes the malaise -- resolution proposed today is justified or necessitated by events on the ground, one cannot completely separate the vote from the bin u.n. member states that say they are for the two state solution must ask themselves difficult questions -- for those states that are quick to promote resolutions todemning israel, but refuse recognize when innocent israelis are the victims of terrorism, what steps will you take to stop treating israel differently? for those states that passionately denounce the closures of crossings in gaza as

exacerbating the humanitarian situation, but say nothing of the resources diverted from helping gaza residents to dig tunnels into israeli territory so the terrorists can attack israelis in their homes, what will you do to finish the double standard that undermines the legitimacy of this institution? member states should ask themselves about the double standards when it comes to this counsel taking action. morning, we came together as a council and we were unable to muster the will to stop the flow of weapons going to killers in south sudan who are perpetrating mass atrocities that the united nations has said could lead to genocide. could not come together to stem the flow of arms and earlier this month this counsel could not muster the will to adopt the simplest of resolutions calling for a seven day pause in the savage bombardment of innocent civilians, hospitals, and but when aaleppo

resolution on israel comes before the council, members summon the will to act. it is because of this forum which continues to be biased against israel, because there are important issues not sufficiently addressed in this resolution, and because the united states does not agree with every word in this text that the united states did not vote in favor of the resolution. it is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground and is consistent with u.s. policy across republican and democratic administrations throughout the history of the state of israel, the united states did not veto it. the united states has consistently said, we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine israel security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict. we would not have led this resolution passed, had it not addressed counterproductive actions by the palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to

violence which we have repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the palestinian leadership and which must be stopped. unlike some on the united nations security council come we do not believe that outside parties can impose a solution that has not been negotiated by the two parties. nor can we unilaterally recognize a future palestinian state. it is precisely our commitment to israel's security that makes the united states believe that we cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our long-standing objective. two states living side-by-side in peace and security. let me briefly explain why -- the settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two state solution. the number of settlers in the roughly 150 authorized israeli settlements east of the 1967 line has increased dramatically. since the 1993 signing of the all slower course with lost

efforts that made a comprehensive and lasting peace possible, the number of settlers has increased by 355,000. this total settler population in the west bank, east, and jerusalem exceeds 500 -- 590,000. nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by israel itself. since the light of 2016 when the middle east cortez issued a report highlighting international concern about a systematic process of land seizures, settlement expansion, and legalization come israel has advanced plans for more than 2600 new settlement units. rather than dismantle these and other outposts which are illegal, even under israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing the israeli knesset that would legalize most of the outcast -- outposts which propelled this resolution. the israeli prime minister recently to scrap his government

as more committed to settlements that any in israel's history. one of his leaving coalition partners recently declared that of the twoe era state solution is over. it prime minister said he is committed to pursuing a two state solution. these statements are irreconcilable, one cannot simultaneously champion expanding israeli settlements and champing a viable two state solution to end the conflict, one has to make a choice between settlements and separation. the united states vetoed a resolution of focused exquisitely on settlements as this was the only factor harming the prospects of a tuesday solution. the circumstances have changed dramatically. since then, settlement growth has only accelerated. since then, multiple efforts to pursue peace through negotiations have failed. obama and, president

secretary john kerry have repeatedly warned publicly and privately that the absence of progress towards peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two state solution at risk and threatens israel's stated objective to remain a jewish state and a democracy. in 2011, this resolution condemns violence, terrorism, incitement which also poses an extremely grave risk to the tuesday solution. this resolution reflects trends that will permanently destroy the hope of a two state solution if they continue on their current course. takingted states is not the step of voting in support of this resolution because a resolution is too narrowly focused on settlements when we all know or we all should know that many other factors contribute significantly to the tensions that perpetuate this conflict. -- even iflear everything will settlement were dismantled tomorrow, peace still would not be obtainable without

both sides technology uncomfortable truths -- acknowledging uncomfortable truth which is an indisputable fact, too often overlooked by members of the united nations and by members of this counsel. for palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious, in addition to taking innocent lives, the incitement of violence and glorification of terrorist and the growth of violent extremism stops prospects for peace as this resolution makes crystal clear. the most recent wave of palestinian violence have seen terrorist commit hundreds of attacks including driving cars into crowds as innocent civilians and static mothers in front of their children. condemn these attacks, hamas and other radical factions and certain members of fonda have held up the terrorist as heroes and -- used social media to incite others. while president abbas and his party's leaders have made clear their opposition to violence, terrorism, and it stream is a, they have to often failed to

condemn specific attack or the praise heaped upon the perpetrators. our vote today does not diminish the united states's steadfast in that commitment to israel, the only democracy in the middle east. we would not have let this resolution passed did not address counterproductive actions by the palestinians. recognize that israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. israelis are concerned rightfully about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven store. president obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to israeli security but that's because that is what we believe in. our commitment to that security is never wavered and will never even as the financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support israel's military. in september, there was a member to provide more

assistance, the largest pledge of military assistance in u.s. history to any country at as the israeli prime minister noted, our of a terry cooperation is unprecedented. ismilitary cooperation unprecedented. vote as aast the u.s. sign we have finally given up on a two state solution, nothing could be further from the truth. none of us can give up on a tuesday solution. we believe that that solution is the only viable path to provide peace and security for the state of israel and freedom and dignity for the palestinian people. we believe that the parties can still pursue this path if both sides are honest about the choices and have the correct to take steps that will be politically difficult. , ite we can encourage them is up to the parties to choose this path as it always has been. we sincerely hope they will make

these choices before it is too late. i thank you. >> i would like to thank the ambassador for the united states and yet the floor to the ambassador of france. president, the adoption is anolution 2334 important event and in many ways historic in the work of the security council, the first resolution adopted by this counsel on the israeli-palestinian conflict in eight years, the first time the security council is making its position known as clearly as this. to do state what is obvious which is israeli settlement

building undermines little by little the possibility of a viable and independent palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with israel. for theecessary security council to recall a collective and unanimous attachment of the international community to the two state solution. and to express its position clearly on the threats to that solution. resolutely, a two state solution will disappear like a mirage in the desert. even though there is no credible meet theve that could legitimate aspirations of both parties. israeli settlement building over the past two decades has been accelerated. this only fuels tension on the ground. and undermines the aspirations

of the international community. settlement building, which is illegal under international law, is part of the liberal policy which aims at -- delivered policies which aims at putting the international community and -- le on the ground before the expansion of settlements be on the green line and the de facto annexation of zone c forst transfer of population and demolition of palestinian homes and restrictions to movements, the building of separation wall, this is all part of this policy which is not only illegal under international law, it threatens the prospects for the creation of a viable and independent palestinian state which is in fact the best guarantee for israeli security and for a lasting solution to this conflict.

that is a message that france my voting in favor of this resolution wants to send today. settlements are the main threat on the ground to the two state solution, it is not the only threat unfortunately. active violence and incitement of violence and terrorism also undermines the chance of having -- [applause] sec. kerry: thank you very much, thank you. thank you very much, thank you. excuse me. thank you for your patience. all of you. celebratedho christmas, i hope you had a wonderful christmas and happy hanukkah. to everybody here, i know this is the middle of the holiday

week, i understand, but i wish you all a very, very productive and happy new year. today i want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for decades has animated the foreign policy doll -- dialogue here and around the world. the israeli-palestinian conflict. throughout his administration president obama has been deeply committed to israel and its security. that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the middle east. this is an issue which i have worked on intensively during my time as secretary of state for one simple reason -- because the two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. it is the only way to ensure that israel has a future, as a jewish and democratic state.

living in peas and security -- peace and security with its neighbors. the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the palestinian people and it is an important way of advancing united states'interest in the region. i will like to explain why that future is now in jeopardy. and provide some context for why we could not in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the united nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace. i am also here to share my conviction that there is still a way forward if the responsible parties are willing to act. i want to share practical solutions of how to preserve and advance the prospects for the just and lasting peace that both

sides deserve. it is vital that we have an honest, clear eyed conversation about the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices, because the alternative that is fast becoming the reality on the ground is in nobody's interest. not the israelis and not the palestinians and not the regions, 10 not the united states -- and not the united states. there is an important point, my job is to defend the united states of america and to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. if we were to stand idly by and in doing so allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold, which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interest, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities.

regrettably, some seem to believe that the u.s. friendship means the u.s. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words and principles. even after urging again and again that the policy must change. friends need to tell each other be hard truths. and friendships require mutual respect. this real's to the united nations who does not support a two state solution, said after the vote last week, quote -- it was to be expected that israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values we share and veto this resolution." todayompelled to respond that the united states did in fact vote in accordance with our values.

just as previous u.s. administrations have done at the security council before us. they fail to recognize that this friend, the united states of america, that has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that is blocked countless efforts to delegitimize israel, cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. and we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes. that is the bottom line. in the united nations was about preserving these two state solution which is what we were standing up for. future as a jewish and democratic state, living side-by-side in peace and security with its neighbors. that is what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for their sake.

administration has been israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. hasmerican administration done more for the security of israel that barack obama's. the israeli prime minister himself has noted our "unprecedented military intelligence cooperation." our military exercise are more advanced than other and our persistence for iron dome has saved countless israel he lives. we have consistently supported their right to defend itself by itself. including during actions in gaza, that sparked great controversy. time and again we demonstrated that we have israel's back. we have strongly opposed

boycotts and investment campaigns and sanctioned -- actions that targeted israel. wherever its legitimacy was attacked, we have fought for its inclusion across the u.n. system. in the middle of our own financial crisis, and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased lending to support israel -- funding to support israel. or than one half of our entire global foreign military financing goes to israel. this fall, we concluded an historic $38 million memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the united states has provided to any country at any time. that will invest in cutting-edge missile-defense and sustain israel's qualitative military edge for years to come. that is the measure of our support. this commitment to israel's

security is very personal for me. on my first trip to israel as a young senator in 1986, i was captivated by a special country. one i immediately admired and soon grew to love. over the years, like so many others drawn to this extraordinary place, i slam in the dead sea, driven from one vocal city to another, i have seen the dark side of has rockets and's walked through the exhibits of the health of the holocaust -- help of the holocaust -- hell of the holocaust. out of those experiences came a steadfast commitment to the security of israel that has never wavered for a minute in my 28 years in the senate or my

four years as secretary. i have also often visited west bank communities where i met palestinians struggling for basic freedom and dignity admits the occupation, passed by military checkpoints that can make the most routine daily trips to work or school and ordeal. and heard from business leaders who could not get the permits they needed to get their products to the market and families who have struggled to secure permission just to travel for needed medical care. i have witnessed firsthand the ravages of a conflict that has gone on for far too long. i have seen israeli children whose playgrounds have been hit by rockets. i visited shelters and to schools. children have 15 seconds to get to after a warning siren went to and see the devastation of war in the gaza strip were palestinian girls played in the

rubble of a bombed out building. no children, israeli or palestinian should have to live like that. so despite the obvious difficulties that i understood when i became the secretary of state, i knew that i had to do .verything in my power to help i was grateful to be working for prepared obama, who is to take risks for peace and was deeply committed to that effort. previous administrations, we have committed our influence and our resources to trying to resolve the arab-israeli conflict because it serves american interests to fulfill america's commitment to survival and security and well-being of israel, at peace with its arab neighbors. despite our best efforts, over

the years, the two state solution is now in serious jeopardy. the truth is that trends on the ,round, violence, terrorism settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation, they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing any irreversible an one state reality that most people do not actually want. today, there are a similar palestinianss and living between the jordan river and the mediterranean sea. they have a choice. they can choose to live together in one state or they can separate into two states. but here is a fundamental reality. if the choice is one state,

israel can either be jewish or democratic. it cannot be both. and it won't ever really be at peace. willver, the palestinians never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one state solution. most, on both sides, understand this basic choice and that is why it is important that polls show their is still strong support for the two state solution. in theory. they just don't believe it can happen. conflict, manyf no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies. both sides continue to push a narrative that plays to people's fears and reinforces the worst stereotypes rather than working

to change perceptions and build up belief in the possibility of peace. the truth is the extraordinary this conflictn extends beyond israelis and palestinians. allies of both sides are content with a "withthis us or against us" mentality where too often anyone questioning palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with israel policy is anti-somatic. antisemetic. this critical decision about the future, one state or two states, is effectively being made on the ground every single day despite the express opinion of the majority of the people. the status quo is leaning

towards one state and perpetual occupation. but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. and with this passive resignation, the problem only gets worse, the risks get greater and the choices are narrower. this sense of hopelessness among --aelis is exasperated exacerbated by terrorist attacks and incitements which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace. let me say it again. there is absolutely no justification for terrorism and there never will be. the most recent wave of palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings. many by individuals who have been radicalized by social media. yet the murderers of innocence

are still glorified on websites, including showing attackers next to palestinian leaders following statements despite by president abbas and his party's leaders, making clear their opposition to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists. president obama and i have made it clear to the palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitements to violence must stop. we have consistently condemned violence and terrorism and even condemned the palestinian leadership for not condemning it. far too often they have pursued efforts that delegitimize israel in international forum. we have opposed these

delegitimization's including the recent unesco resolution regarding jerusalem. we made clear our strong opposition to palestinian efforts against israel at the icc, which only set back the prospects for peace. thell understand palestinian authority has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance. hamasroubling of all, continues to pursue an extremist agenda. they refuse to accept israel's right to exist. they have a one state of their own. all of their land as palestine. and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of incitement to violence. many of the images they use are truly appalling and they are willing to kill innocents in israel and put the people of

gaza at risk. compounding this, the humanitarian situation exacerbated by the closings of the crossings is dire. is home to one of the world densest concentrations of people. enduring extreme hardships with few opportunities. 1.3 million people out of gaza's population of 1.8 million are in need of daily assistance. food and shelter. most have electricity less than half the time and only 5% of the water is safe to drink. and despite the urgency of these needs, hamas and other religious groups continue to rearm. threatening more attacks on israeli civilians that no government can tolerate. time, we have to be clear about what is happening on the west bank.

the israeli prime minister publicly supports a two state solution. but his current coalition is the most right-wing in israel he history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. the result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister just described as more committed to settlements than any in israel's history are leading in the opposite direction. they are leading towards one state. increasinglyel has consolidated control over much of the west bank for its own purposes. effectively reversing the transitions to greater civil authority that was called for by the all slow accords. i don't think most people in israel and certainly the world have any idea how broad and systematic the process has become. but facts speak for themselves.

the number of settlers in the roughly 130 israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. bankopulation in the west alone, not including east jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since oslo. sinceing 100,000 just 2009 when president obama's term began. there is no point in pretending that these are just large settlement blocs. nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier. that was created by israel itself. anyhe middle of what, by reasonable definition, would be the future palestinian state. the population of these distant settlements has grown by 20,000 just since 2009.

the government approved a new settlement well east of the barrier, closer to jordan than israel. what does that say to palestinians in particular but also to the united states and the world about israel's intentions? let me emphasize that this is areto say that settlements the hole or even primary cause of this conflict. of course they are not. nor could you say that if they were removed you would have peace. without a broader agreement you would not and we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years. we understand that. including the new democratic realities that exist on the ground. they would have to be factored in.

but as more settlers are moving into the middle of palestinian areas, it is going to be that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty. that is exactly the outcome that some are purposefully accelerating. let's be clear. settlement expansion has nothing to do with israel's security. many settlements actually increase the security burden on the israeli defense forces and leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate palestinian aspirations. among the most troubling illustrations at this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under israel's own laws. they are often located on private palestinian land and strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible.

there are over 100 of these outposts and since 2011, nearly one third of them have been or are being legalized. despite pledges bypassed israeli governments, to dismantle many of them. now leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented legislation that would legalize most of those outposts. for the first time it would apply israeli domestic law to the west bank rather than military law, which is a major step towards process of annexation. when the law passed in the israeli parliament, one of the chief proponents said proudly, "today, the israeli moves from heading towards establishing the palestinian state towards israeli sovereignty in judah and samaria."

even the attorney general said it is unconstitutional and a violation of international law. advocatesay hear from that the settlements are not obstacles of peace because the settlers who don't want to leave can just stay in palestine like the arab israelis who live in israel. but that misses a critical point. the arab israelis are citizens of israel. subject to israel's law. does anyone here believe that settlers will agree to submit to palestinian law in palestine? likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements and remain as israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of palestine. there are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier.

many located in places that would make the continuous palestinian state impossible. does anyone think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable palestinian state? some have asked why can't we build the blocks? which everyone knows will eventually be part of israel? therethe reason building or anywhere else in the west bank results in such push back is that the decision of what constitutes a block is being made unilaterally by the israeli government. without consultation, without concent of the palestinians. and without granting them a reciprocal right to build what will be by most accounts part of palestine. without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral choices became a major point of contention and

that is part of why we are where we are. you may hear that these remote settlements are not a problem because they only take up a very small percentage of the land. we have made it clear it is not just a question of the overall amount of land available. it is whether the land will be broken up into small parcels like the swiss cheese that could never constitute a real state. builtre outposts that are , the more the settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a continuous state. in the end, a settlement is not just the land it is on it is also what the location does to the movement of people. what it does in the ability of a road to connect people. what it does to the sense of statehood that is chipped away with each new construction. no one thinking seriously about

peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements posed to that piece. but the problem obviously goes well beyond settlements. trends indicate a copperhead sieve effort to take the west bank land for israel. and prevent any palestinian development there. today, 60% of the west bank known as area c, much of which was supposed to be transferred to palestinian control long ago under the oswalt -- the oslo accords is not palestinian development. most, today, has been taken for exclusive use by israel simply by unilaterally designating it as state land. or including it within the jurisdiction of regional settlement councils. they flourish in the jordan river valley.

the resorts line the shores of the dead sea. they line the shore of the dead sea where palestinian development is not allowed. in fact, almost no private palestinian building is approved in area c at all. only one permit was issued by 2014 and 2015.f while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced during that same period. palestinian structures that do not have a permit from the israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. they are currently being demolished in a historically high rate over 1300 palestinians , including 600 children have been displaced by demolitions in 2016 alone. more than any previous year. agenda istler defining the future of israel.

their stated purpose is clear. they believe in one state, greater israel. in fact, one prominent minister who has a pro-settler party declared just after the u.s. election "the era of the two state solution is over." and many other ministers publicly reject a palestinian state. and they are increasingly getting their way with plans for talkeds of new units and of a major settlement in the west bank to follow. so why are we so concerned? why does this matter? ask yourself these questions. what happens if that agenda succeeds? where does that lead? there are currently 2.7 5 million palestinians living under military occupation in the west bank. most of them in areas a and b.

where they have limited autonomy. they are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints, they are not able to travel into or out of the west bank without a permit from the israelis, so if there is only one state, you would have millions of palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the west bank. with no real political rights, separate legal education and transportation, vast income disparities, under a permanent occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. separate and unequal is what you would have. nobody can explain how that works. an israeli accept living that way? will the world except it? if the occupation becomes the palestinian

authority could simply dissolve, turn over all responsibility to the israelis. what would happen then? who would administer the schools and hospitals and on what basis? does israel want to pay for the dollars lost in international assistance that the palestinian authority receives? with the israeli defense force police the streets in every city and town? how would israel responds to a growing civil rights movement by palestinians demanding a right to vote or widespread protests? reconcile thel permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? continue to u.s. defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals? goody has ever provided answers for those questions because there aren't any. there would be an increasing risk of more intense violence between palestinians and settlers and complete despair among palestinians that would

create very firm ground for extremists. with all the external threats that israel faces today, which we are very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, want anreally intensifying conflict in the west bank? how does that help israel's security? the answer is it doesn't. which is precisely why so many senior israeli military and intelligence leaders past and present believe the two state solution is the only real answer for israel's long-term security. , if israele do know goes down one state pass, it will never have true peace with the rest of the arab world. i can say that with certainty. the countries have made clear that they will not make peace with israel without resolving

the israeli-palestinian conflict. that is not whether politics are. but there is something new here. in counteringts iran's destabilizing activities, diversifying economies, creating real possibilities for something different if israel takes advantage of the opportunities for peace. i have spent a great deal of time with leaders exploring this. there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with israel. that was stated in the arab peace initiative years ago. conversations,t arab leaders have confirmed their readiness in the context of israeli-palestinian peace, not just a normalize relations but to work openly on securing

that piece with significant regional security cooperation. it is waiting. it is right there. many have shown a willingness to support serious israel he palestinian negotiations. as it takes steps on the path to normalization, including public meetings, providing there is a meaningful progress towards the two state solution. my friends, that is a real opportunity that we should not allow to be missed. that raises one final question. is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a jewish democratic state of israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? because that is really what is at stake. is what informed our vote at the security council last week. the need to preserve the two state solution.

both sides in this conflict must make response ability to do that. -- we have repeatedly stressed that all incitement to violence must stop. we have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism and we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize israel in the international fora. we have made public and private -- to stop the march of settlements. we have had hundreds of conversations and i have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for international response. known for sometime that the palestinians were intent on moving forward in the u.n. with a settlements thelution and i advised prime minister repeatedly that further activity only invited u.n. action. yet the activity just increases, including advancing the

unprecedented legislation to thatize settler outposts the prime minister himself reportedly warned could expose israel's actions at the security council and international prosecution before deciding to support it. in the end, we could not, in good conscience, protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two state solution. we could not, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to palestinian actions. it is not in u.s. interests to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. we may not be able to stop them but we cannot be expected to defend them. it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies. not to why we decided

block the u.s. resolution that makes clear on both sides that they have to take steps to save the two state solution while there is still time. we did not take this decision lightly. the obama administration has always defended israel against any efforts of the u.n. and any or biasednal fora one-sided resolutions that seek to undermine legitimacy or security. that has not changed. the change will be slow. but remember, it is important to note that every united states administration, republican and democratic, has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace. and action at the un security council is far from unprecedented. previous administrations of both parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of israel to pass, including on settlements.

on dozens of occasions under george w. bush alone, the council passed six resolutions that israel opposed, including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete freeze on settlements, including national -- growth. let me read you the lead paragraph from the new york times story dated december 23. with the united states abstaining the security council about the resolution today strongly deploring israel's handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories, which the resolution defines as including jerusalem. all of the 14 other members voted in favor." my friends, that story was not written last week. it was written december 23, 1987. 26 years to the day that we voted last week when ronald reagan was president.

pressureite growing the obama administration held a strong line against u.n. action, any u.n. action. we were the only administration since 1967 that had not allowed any resolution to pass if israel opposed. only time in eight years the obama administration exercised its veto in the united nations was against a one-sided settlements resolution in 2011. and that resolution did not mention incitement or violence. now, let's look at what has happened since then. there have been over 30,000 settlement units advancing through some state of the planning process. that is right, over 30,000 settlement units notwithstanding the positions in the united states and other countries. if we had vetoed this resolution just the other day, the united states would have been giving

license to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose. so we reject the criticism that this vote abandons israel. on the contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating israel, it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace in possible. virtually every country in the world other than israel opposes settlements. that includes many of the friends of israel, including the united kingdom and france and russia. all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again this year along with any other member of the council. fact, this resolution reaffirms statements made by the security council on the legality of settlements over several decades. .t does not break new ground

in 1978 the state department's legal advisor advised congress of his conclusion that israel's government program establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory was inconsistent with international law. and we see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion. that someve heard criticize this resolution for calling east jerusalem occupied territory. but to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. it was one of a long line of security council resolutions that included east jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by israel in 1967. that includes resolutions passed by the security council under president reagan and president .eorge h w bush