anniversary in 2018, the palestinians will mark a very different anniversary -- 70 years since what they call the catastrophe. next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the six-day war when israel again fought for its survival and palestinians will again marked just the opposite security council resolution 242 which called for the withdrawal of israel's territory that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and security orders as the basis for ending the conflict. it has been more than 20 years. since israel and the plo signed their first agreement. the oslo accords. and the plo formally recognized israel. both sides committed to a plan to transition of much of the west bank to palestinian control

during permanent status negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. unfortunately, neither the transition nor the final agreement came about. in both sides bear responsibility for that. some 15 years ago, king abdullah of saudi arabia came up with a historic peace initiative which offered fully normalized relations with israel when it made peace. an enormous opportunity then and now which has never been fully embraced. that history was critical to our approach to find a way to resolve the conflict. based on my experience with both sides over the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations, the core issues can be resolved. if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding the solution.

in the end, i believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide. but because the level of trust was too low. both sides were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated and would come at too great a political cost. and the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult for them to be able to take risks. in the countless hours that we spent working on a detailed framework, we work through numerous formulations and develop specific breaching proposals. we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. in the past two and half years i have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders, including our quartet partners. i believe that what has emerged from all of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles

that would satisfy the core needs of both sides. president clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago. today, with mistrust to even start talks, we are at the opposite end of the spectrum. neither side is willing to either risk egg knowledge and the bottom line of the other and more negotiations that do not produce progress will only reinforce the worst fears. everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and difficult. nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in advance. could ate parties least demonstrate that they understand the other side's most basic needs and are potentially willing to meet them if there is are also met at the end of

comprehensive negotiations, perhaps enough trust to be established to enable meaningful progress to begin. spirit that we offer the following principles. not to prejudge or propose the outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious partiesions where the are ready. individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues. as we do, by the way. but i believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the following. principle number one, provide for secure and recognized international borders between israel and a viable and continuous palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent

swaps. resolution 242, enshrined in international law for 40 years, provides for the withdrawal of israel from territory occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its and secure and recognized borders. it has long been accepted by both sides, and it remains the basis for an agreement today. secretary, one of the first issues that i worked out with the arab league was there agreement that the reference in the arab peace initiative to the would from now on include the concept of land swaps. which the palestinians have acknowledged. this is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground. and mutually agreed equivalent swaps ensuring that the agreement is fair to both sides. there is also broad recognition of the need to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible.

and at the territory of palestine is viable and contiguous. virtually everyone i have spoken to has been clear on this principle as well. no changes by israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides. to, fulfill the vision of the u.n. general assembly vision -- two, fulfill the lines woulde two equal rights for the respective citizens. this is been the fundamental and foundational principle of the two state solution from the beginning. creating a state for the jewish people and for the palestinian people are each can achieve their national aspirations. resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents

of both the israelis and palestinians. recognition of israel as a jewish state has been the u.s. position for years. based on my conversations in these last months, i am areinced that many others prepared to accept it as well, provided the need for a palestinian state is also addressed. are 1.7know that there million arab citizens who call and must nowhome and always be able to live as equal citizens. make -- which makes this a difficult issue for palestinians and others in the arab world. that's why it's so important that in recognizing each other's homeland, israel for the jewish people in palestine for the palestinian people, both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens. principle number three, provide

fair, and, agreed, realistic solution to the palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples. the plight of many palestinian refugees is heartbreaking and all agree that there needs have to be addressed. as part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, the suffering must be acknowledged, and there will be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. the international community that provides significant support and assistance, i know that we are prepared to do that, including raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of refugees are met.

many have expressed a willingness to contribute to that effort. particularly if it brings peace. there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples and cannot affect the fundamental character of israel. providee number four, an agreed resolution for jerusalem as the internet -- internationally recognized capital of the two states to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo. jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides. the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. that is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo

maintained. most acknowledge that jerusalem should not be divided again, like it was in 1967. and we believe that. at the same time there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there. principle five, satisfy israel's security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that israel can defend itself effectively and that palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state. security is the fundamental issue for israel, together with a couple of others i have mentioned. but security is critical. everyone understands that no israeli government can ever except an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs.

or that risks creating an enduring security threat, like gaza, transferred to the west bank. israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats. there is a real willingness by egypt, jordan, and others to work together with israel on meeting key security challenges. that those collective efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence sharing, joint cooperations, joint operations, can all play a critical role in securing the peace. , fully endingme the occupation is the fundamental issue for the palestinians. they need to know that the military occupation itself will really end after an agreed transitional process. they need to know that they can live in freedom, dignity, and a sovereign state while providing

security to their population even without a military of their own. this is widely accepted as well. it is important to understand that there are many different ways, without occupation, for israel, palestine, jordan, egypt, and the united states and others to cooperate in providing that security. balancing those requirements was among the most important challenges that we faced in the negotiations. but it was one where the united states had the ability to provide the most assistance. that is why a team that was led by general john allen, who is here, and for whom i'm very grateful for his many hours of is one along with -- he of our foremost military minds and dozens of experts in the department of defense and other agencies, all of them in gauged extensively with the israeli defense force, they are trying to find solutions that could help israel to a its legitimate security needs. they developed innovative

approaches to creating unprecedented, multilayered border security, enhancing palestinian capacity, and a being -- enabling israel the ability to address threats by itself, even when the occupation had ended. general alan and his team were not suggesting one particular outcome or one particular timeline. nor were they suggesting that technology alone would resolve these problems. they were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. some very impressive work that gives me total confidence that israel's security requirements can be met. principle six. end the conflict and all outstanding claims enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisioned by the arab peace initiative. it is essential for force that

-- both sides that the final status resolves all the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to the conflict so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. for israel this must also bring broader peace. with all of its arab neighbors. that is the fundamental promise of the arab peace initiative, which key arab leaders have affirmed in these most recent days. the arab peace initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of the region. envisaging visage in israel as being a partner in those efforts , when peace is made. the area where israel and the arab world are looking perhaps of the greatest moment of potential transformation in the middle east since the creation of israel in 1948. the arab world faces its own set of security challenges, with ,sraeli-palestinian peace

israel, the united states, jordan, together with other countries will be ready and willing to define a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking. so, ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace. that we not lose hope in the two state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem. there really is no viable alternative. we all know that a speech alone won't produce peace. but based on over 30 years of experience and the lessons for the past four years, i have suggested, i believe, and president obama has signed on to and believes it, a path that the parties could take. realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the party's on prior commitments that will

begin the process of separating into two states a political horizon to work towards, to create the conditions for a successful final status talks and the basis for negotiation that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace. we can only encourage them to take this path. we cannot walk down it for them. ,ut if they take these steps peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and stability of the prosperity of israelis, palestinians, all of the nations of the region. the palestinian economy has amazing potential in the prospect of independence with private-sector responsibilities and a talented hungry, eager to work young workforce. the israeli economy could enjoy unprecedented growth as it becomes a regional economic

powerhouse, taking advantage of the unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new era meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement in which israel cooperates openly with key arab states. that is the future that everybody should be working for. i know thatama and the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path. even suggesting breaking from the long-standing u.s. policies on settlements, jerusalem, and the possibility of a two state -- two state solution. that is for them to decide, that's how we work. but we cannot in good conscience whenthing and say nothing we see the hope of peace slipping away. this is a time to stand up for what is right. we have long known for two

states living side by side in peace and security looks like. we should not be afraid to say so. now, i really began to reflect on what we have learned and the way ahead when i recently joined president obama in jerusalem for the state funeral there. shimo0n was a beautiful man. i was proud to call him my friend. i know that president obama was as well. i remember the first time that i saw him in person, standing on the white house lawn for the signing of the historic records. i thought about the last time and the intimate one-on-one dinner, just a few months before he died when we toasted together the future of israel and the peace that he still so passionately believed in for his people. simply andt up

eloquently as only he could -- the original mandate give the palestinians 48%. now it's down to 22%. i think 78% is enough for us. as we laid him to rest that day, many of us couldn't help but wonder if peace between israelis and palestinians might also be buried along with one of its most eloquent champions. we cannot let that happen. there is simply too much at stake for future generations of toaelis and palestinians give in to pessimism. especially when peace is in fact still possible. must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. we must not give in to those who say that what is now must always be. that there is no chance for a better future. it is up to israelis and palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace.

but we can all help. of futureke generations of israelis and palestinians, for all the people of the region, for the united states and all of those around the world who have prayed for and work for peace for generations, let's hope that we are all prepared, particularly israelis and palestinians, to make those choices now. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> this week, on c-span in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a review of house and senate hearings from 2016 on topics including the flint michigan water crisis and the wells fargo unauthorized account scandal. >> seriously? you found out that one of your divisions had created 2 million fake accounts, 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 antonin scalia up. memoriam 8:00 hour in program continues with mohammed ali, john glenn, this week in prime time on c-span. ♪ >> the presidential inauguration of donald is friday, january 20. c-span will have live coverage of the day's events and ceremonies. watch live coverage on c-span

and c-span.org. watch live on the free c-span radio app. the league of conservation voters and nicolas loris of heritage foundation back at the ofk as we discuss the future energy and environmental policy in the trump administration and icolas loris, there is recent article in scientific america that took a look at this topic and the headline talked about trump's first 100 days and said the incoming administration u.s. fromkly withdraw climate change agreement, but likely be ange would slower. what do you expect in the first 100 days? with that?e guest: some sense, yes, it will take time to roll back regulation in force, go through formal rulemaking process. there is opportunity to stop hings that were going down the pathway, clean power plan, regulations on the waters of the united states. there is a lot of regulations where e in limbo, or

congress and the trump administration could use congressional review act to unto of last-minute regulation that the obama administration has finalized. there is an opportunity to undo both, but withdraw from united nations on climate change can be done within a year. process is to t go after domestic regulations ecause getting out of the u.n.s.c.c u.n.s.c.c.c. -- u.n. explain what that agreement does. guest: snet place in 1992, leads that climate negotiations we've had. the most recent one being paris, administration signed sole executive agreement to reduce greenhouse gas 26-28% below 20 to 25 evels and while there is no repercussion if we don't meet is goals, what his plan is

to put in place clean power lan, regulations on new power plants, all of domestic regulations to achieve those targets. trump administration has been critical of the paris deal, of international agreements broadly and i think in this case, for good reason. they inflict a lot of harm, energy cost for american families and businesses and do little to mitigate global warming even if you are concerned about climate change. guest: your expectation for the first 100 days of the trump administration. guest: for starters, i hope dosident-elect trump doesn't -- protects dical the air energy cost for that we breathe, the businesses water that we drink, public air we want to protect for future generations.

it is hard to predict what president-elect trump will be volatile.s eradic and he said some outrageous things on the campaign trail about many energy and uding climate change. he tried to back away from actions speak louder than the words. if you look at people nominated, talking about in the previous people like climate denier and really radical nominee for scott pruit, who sued e.p.a. on multiple hilerson, or rex eriously, the c.e.o. of exxon mobil to be secretary of state. outrageous. will try.they we know there is extreme members of congress next week we expect he house to take up a lot of extreme anti-regulatory regulation. host: you say donald trump is hard to predict, it is easier to congress and what they will introduce in the legislation you expect to see next week? guest: the house made clear it intends to move on bill that ould bundle together something

called congressional review act, used radical tool successfully one time to verturn clinton administration osha rule. it is extreme because it not only congress overturn that will prevent it any future administration from issuing substantial, similar future.the these are protections for our air, our water, they are what us make so much progress in the clean air economy and the rains act, which people continuing is about process or regulation. no, it is about food safety, keeping things like meat safe. host: the regulation in need of act, if i remember my acronym correctly. guest: very good, thank you. essentially says that both chambers of congress, u.s. house nd u.s. senate need to affirmatively approve major regulation before it can take effect. administration, future administration can propose a rule that the congress

final decision. host: why is that a threat to environment? guest: we have seen president obama with people like e.p.a. mccarthy, the energy secretary, use executive to great effect to protect public health, they have relied on the law, science and things like clean power plan, single largest thing e've done to cut carbon pollution and reduce global warming in this country. ive states flexibility to make those reductions and carbon emissions as they see fit. embraced by businesses and had more public support, eight million comments, rule in history. these are the things that unfortunately, as nick was president-elect has threatened to undo, along with canceling tariffs. will go to the mat to defend these protections that are so our economy, for creating jobs, for protecting the planet, improving national security and more. nicolas loris, staying on

congress for a minute, what would you like to see them pass quickly when they convene next week? guest: i think some sort of regulatory check is necessary. congress seated too much power to the agencys and simply ignore cost benefit analyses when regulation and the clean power act is a great the cost that, where will ripple across the country, will energy costs increase, disproportionately ffect low income families who spend their budget on energy costs and even the e.p.a. won't reduce emissions in any meaningful way combat global warming. that is the whole basket of across ons, the story the board. it is economic pain and no real environmental benefit. regulatory sort of check for the agencies who have of senses overstepped

these oundaries and used regulations like the clean air act and the clean water act to promulgate regulation for diminishing marginal return. necessary. i think some tax reform is necessary, as well. government stops using the tax code to pick winners and losers among energy that, and technologies is for all energy sources and technology. subsidize natural gas or renewable, let the market ompete and the most economically viable source should meet our energy needs. regulatory reform and tax reform should be two of the biggest cruxes for broader form. host: nicolas loris study research fellow at heritage foundation. tiernan sittenfeld with the league of conservation voters, they are e president, with us for the next 50 minutes or so as we discuss energy, and the ntal policy

incoming trump administration. taking your calls. are a republican, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. up first is dan on the line for independents. lewisville, kentucky. go ahead. caller: hi. yes. i would like to say that i'm pleased with the nomination of pruitt.y general voted for. change i what he said in the article you scientists don't agree on the degree and extent f what adding co2 to the atmosphere will do. that is 100% true. estimates g of co2, vary from one celsius degree to degrees.sius they don't agree. another point, about half reference health concerns. it is true that for kilo watt produced coal and

especially chinese coal, kills hour eople for kilo watt produced. however, i think your viewers might be surprised what the is in terms of deaths and that is nuclear. in particular, i wonder what nicolas loris knows about where administration will take us as far as adding more nuclear getr, instead of 20%, maybe 70% host: we'll start that. pruitt doesn't want wants to wild west, he give to the state. been d water have largely cleaned by clean air exact clean water exact a lot of echnological innovation that helped improve the environment, too. it is about having smart, ensible environmental regulations, largely empowering the states to do so.

comes to nuclear, there is potential here and the people are writing off nuclear because of cheap natural gas, it doesn't need to be that way. we need regulatory reform that allows power reactors and nuclear technology to compete in marketplace. we have a large antiquated regulatory process largely toward large light water reactors we have in the united neat, today there is innovative technologies trying nuclear e in the regulatory commission is turning them away. we need to have really reform allow smaller advabsed modular reactor to nuclear see the renaissance folks have been talking about. host: i know you want to respond to dan's question, he mentioned on t pruitt's comment climate change from national review column that he wrote. et me read those for the viewers. healthy debate is the life blood democracy and global

warming has inspired a major policy debate of our time, the from settled. scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of warming special its connection to the action of mankind that, debate should be ncouraged in classroom, public forum and halls of congress, he said. guest: vito say, so much about absolutely is absurd. it is almost 2017, 15 of the of the 16 hottest years on record have been this 2015 was the hottest year on record, 2016 we had were the nths that hottest record-setting months ever.ly the hottest month so 97% of scientists at least there, is no debate about science and climate change is real and for someone ike scott pruitt, attorney general of oklahoma, to turn his back on basic science and that being climate change is he tip of the iceberg, we have

seen him take oil and gas industry letters and almost erbatim put them on his letterhead and submit them to this administration, he's sued he administration over the clean power plan and water and taken hundreds of thousands from gas companies, this is the person who would be running the agency charged with health and theic environment, it is beyond the ail n. terms of nuclear, this industry received so many government handouts and tax handouts for decades there is really no suitable solution for with the waste and it is an expensive source of energy league of the conservation voters believe we need to embrace the clean energy f the future, wind energy, solar energy, these are the industries growing so fast. are ieve in 2015, there more jobs in those industries than in oil and gas industry. focused, ere we're about the opportunity in the american ingenuity of the

future. changing climate, you first appearod this program 10 years ago and you said at the that segment, it was 2006, you said, 2005 will go the year when any lingering debate about whether global warming was real went away. still feel that way? guest: for most rationale settled.he science is unfortunately, too many climate and somen the congress president-elect trump nominated administration. those are out of touch with incredible progress over the last eight years. how do you s loris, eel about the claim climate denier? guest: i don't necessarily agree. i agree with the caller, the 97% number is often thrown out there and that number is real, but it needs to be put in context. yes, we know man-made emissions contribute to warming and reenhouse gas and we have had warming and experienced it over the past especially 50 years warming has been

man-made cause. where the disagreement is on warming, what a doubling of co2 will actually do to the earth's temperature and there is lot of disagreement among the climate model even inter-governmental policy have a lot of disparity and more recent peer-reviewed literature showing less warming than initially projected. of room here is a lot for debate to say how much uture warming are we going to see from man-made greenhouse gas emissions and most importantly, policy to reduce gre epicion, even if you thought we were heading toward catastrophic warming tomorrow, that is where i have most concern, the policies that will stifle energy production, drive up cost for and can families businesses, won't do anything to mitigate global temperatures whatsoever. taking your calls in this segment as we have that discussion this morning. republicans,

202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002. let's head to puerto rico, anthony, good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas. host: thank you, anthony. caller: to the lady's comment, she says donald trump speaks erratic. let me remind you that eight obama, crisis in flint and other -- you haven't let's head to puerto rico, anthony, good morning. caller: good morning. merry christmas. okay. about that, you sit here and say donald you tos erratic, who are say if donald trump is irrattic or not. voted for donald trump, we will see what happens, okay. his cabinet together and we'll see what happens. here and ing to sit say his speech is erratic. re you -- who are you to say that? host: all right. guest: thanks for the question, anthony. thank you for bringing up the of flint, michigan, this

tragedy did not need to happen. the people of flint, michigan treated so poorly, had to drink polluted water, too many this across the country and we have been working so hard with champions in michigan ike the congressional delegation led by killdee, to bring relief and funding they need and nsure a crisis like this never happens again. president obama wbt to flint, ichigan, the e.p.a. focused on bringing relief to the people of michigan. too many republican obstructionist stood in the way funding for far too long. it didn't get threw until the final days of this congress, given and there is far more to be done in flint n. president-elect trump's comments i am concerned about any things he said, not just climate change and clean energy tis unfortunate the elections were not at all substantive. largely thanks

to some behavior and actions of the president-elect. did try to e who talk about climate change and clean energy and there are examples across the country climate change and clean energy champions won up and down the ballot, that is very encouraging, but i think to say that people cannot have opinions comments is pretty misguided. host: the caller said, let cabinet ump get his together. run through them real quick. do you think the nomination blocked in congress? guest: we feel strongly scott pruitt's nomination should be blocked. i would be shock federal we on't score that as a negative vote. gospel do you think ryan dickie's nomination should be mroked? we are concerned about his record, we had 3% on the scorecard, meaning 97 times out of 100, voted land, wildlife, clean energy protection charged with overseeing. rick perry for

energy department. fweekt the nominee who forgot, to that posed nomination. host: nicolas loris does the heritage foundation do scoring endorsement of nominees. guest: our lobbying arm does, we don't, but that said, we're encouraged by the direction of picks for nt-elect's these cabinets, especially rick understands e who the market can drive energy success and so here is an reform an agency and eliminate the taxpayer commercialize technologies, again, not just for renewables, but also for nuclear, one of the largest subsidies out there, commercialize technology, that is not the role of the federal government, they hould focus on the environmental clean up on science and basic fundamental meets national

objectives and the national nuclear security administration, related aspects of the department of energy, that will focus in the right trekz. host: sharon in long creek, oregon, line for republicans, good morning. morning.ood i am a faithful washer of c-span. watched the director of times. testify many agreement tely in with president-elect trump and is an excellent choice. it is time to reign in the e.p.a. e.p.a. has gone far out from they're supposed to be toing. the country in can't drive electric cars. the wind ched situation, don't think those people haven't been subsidized government because they

have. certainly getwill any from me. i know that my two senators they are democrats and they are ruled by the west people my state, but where i live are very much e.p.a. has hat the been doing and it is time to reign them in and get back to hat they really should be doing, not destroying jobs, not that are industries very important to the people with.i work host: i'll let you respond. guest: appreciate your comments and unfortunately, the historically has not been part of the issue, you mention democratic senators are in agreement. i think nick even mentioned the clean air act and clean water act, these are bed tlt rocks passed by bipartisan majorities in the early '70s, many by republican president nixon.

historically the case the environmental have enjoyed public support there is a number of polls, including recent poll from morning consult and group that show strong majority of trump voters support like u.s.tion, things continuing to stay in the paris agreement and meeting commitment support clean power plan, support invest nment protecting clean air and clean water. encouraged and i think unfortunate a lot of what the tion like clean power act to. informationmpelling about the billions of dollars in avings from public health impact, from climate change, extreme weather that would be the clean power plan, which dwarf the economic cost of it and we haven't talked about the impact on regular people and their lives, whether he hundreds of thousands, i believe 140,000 tax that could because of y 2030

clean power plan. even many premature deaths could avoided. this is a commonsense, using law approach that gives states flexibility. host: the caller touched on this point, isn't the only caller to this today. those who can afford the alternative t of energy are happy to champion it, but for most americans, it is affordable. what do you say in response to that? thing i think one great about the clean power plant tis going to be putting money back n the pockets of everyday americans, but again, in 2030, year ans should save $7 a in health benefits. actually is significant that adds up, but also, i think the avoided trips to the hospital for things like attacks, avoided health impacts, we also think about impacts that people in colorado from the forest fires, people who have lost their people who are

experiencing sea level rise in florida or virginia, the drought are, lifornia, where you these are having a significant impact, both economically and on quality of everyday life. host: nick, give you a chance, as well. payingi think people are ratepayers and taxpayers. subsidizing the rich to buy $100,000 electric vehicles and they are fed up with it. they are seeing policies that drive out coal and drive up energy costs and so they're sick and tired of it. it is not they don't want clean water, of inkable course they do, they just have seen an agency that has run far and not e too seeing environmental benefit from regulations that are towns.ng their host: hamburg, new york. democrat. morning. caller: good morning. good morning. my question is to the man from the american enterprise nstitute, specifically --

host: the heritage foundation. aller: the requirement for using ethanol in gasoline, the is a 25% ivalent of ethanol andse i'd like to hear his response to to eliminate that equirement in our fuel, that everyone in the country uses. take care. host: nicolas loris. this is a policy that needs to be done away with, something put in place during administration and expanded during the bush administration, blend 36 billion biofuel into the fuel supply by the year 2022 and it was done combat climate change, reduce dependence on foreign oil and things.done any of those it has been an economic and environmental disaster, where you have a lot of environmental groups like friends of earth opposed to the policy, a lot of nti-hunger organizations

opposed to the policy, because it is diverting food to fuel and fiscal groups,of like the heritage foundation and the american enterprise opposed to the policy because it distorts markets. the problem is, you have interests who benefit from the policy and you disburse the cost amongst the rest of us, one of those policies that even though it's a lot of people is difficult it to remove. that said, congress should standard whole how poorly it's designed and just not the function of the federal government to be determining what is in our fuel supply. host: i saw you writing down notes, did you want to respond, tiernan sittenfeld? guest: we have concerns, too. tepends what kind of ethanol we're talking about. it gives us a lot of concern. host: richard in springdale, arkansas, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. just give me a quick moment here, i'm going to have

from the national auto baun society. recessionthing called from second century bc. polaris, north star is 000 years ago it was durbin, has long-term consequences for the seasons. persession affects what time of year closest and furthest from the sun, this could trigger ice ages and global warming. nobody mentions it. you are not living in the garden eden, the earth changes. it has a consequences for the seasons. persession affects what26,000 y on a cable. seasons andects the the climate. ost: do you want to talk about

procession? guest: i think what we're experiencing right now is weather and climate change events like we have not seen before. to think k we need what this means for regular people. i mention, for the people in who lost homes to forest fires. the people in california experiencedought or bizarrely warm temperatures in right now. impact in regular people's lives everyday are taking economic i believe nal toll, we have had in as of september a dozen ear, at least weather and climate events that had an economic impact of more a billion dollars each, more than 68 people lost their events.cause of these these are cataclysmic events and e need to build on the progress, the common sense science-based progress that has fantastic that president obama and administrator mccarthy

and munoz, have led the charge congress whoons in wake up think whatting they can do to combat the climate crisis. about the mistic future, even though we know we are in for a huge fight as to the the president and administration may try to do. it is underway and progress will countries, at er the state level, we haven't talked about prot aggress being municipal level and incredible public support from country.ross the can you olas loris, focus on california regulatory structure. taxed and regulated carbon, yet our economy is booming, that is from twitter. guest: in some senses, you could argue it is booming, other contexts, it is probably not. are leaving nesses california because of strong again, iy policies and would ask what they are getting for the policies, not getting a change in the earth's temperature that you could even measure.

if california wants to go that route, that's fine. i someoning states are invest clean energy and using axpayer dollars to do so, not all states want to go that direction. laboratories in the market. critical of california of renewable power regulations of traditional resources, but i don't think you should force states to go down the same path. host: clear water, kansas, art is a democrat. good morning. you.r: republican, excuse host: sorry about that. caller: two questions, actually, one question ought to administrati he administration, shouldn't people involved with the idea of be in a hange example, if you know what i mean? gore flies around in jet planes, the president has taken 30% more trips around

the world that burns an awful fossil fuel with his ent raj of the planes that go along see any of i don't this leading by example. the other question i have is who in the e.p.a. has been taken the on the r that spill animus river? not seen a conclusion on that. to hear an answer to both of these. thank you. by example?g guest: absolutely. i think one incredible thing we've seen over the last eight years, the united states and president obama, in particular lead by example 6789 the last had and a half, we've probably the best year and a half ever in a fight against finalization on on clean power plan to reduction f the dirty and dangerous pipeline, to historic international agreement in more, to the protection of coast lands and waters from drilling, including exciting,

week about ast protecting the arctic ocean and atlantic from drilling. we are absolutely thrilled to see progress. think that united states leading by example is what has brought so many other countries round the world to the table and that is just what we need, combating climate crisis is something that must be done the globe. host: i don't know if you can done bout what e.p.a. has on the spill in colorado that the caller was referring to? guest: i know they were concerned about it and have taken a lot of steps, i specifically who has been -- host: nicolas loris. guest: it speaks to need of the issues.form for there are nonprofit organizations in colorado, for to help out. want they are not trying to clean up, if something else happens, liable for it. i think there needs to be some sort of legislative reform that nonprofit organizations and state groups to help protect the mine up some of

sites that have been a legacy issue and problematic. lot of companies don't exist anymore. host: head to rich field, wisconsin, greg is a democrat. good morning. good morning. thank you for c-span. proponent of developing safe energy for all forms of energy, including clean coal and oil, as well as i'm confused with the wind, how we can do that safely without killing and endangering a lot of birds and my comment really for is, you need nfeld to learn how to be a bit more not being so aggressive because you are now not in power and if we're going succeed with energy policy, we have to learn how to negotiate, which you don't sound are doing at all. thanks. host: let you respond. i st: thank you, greg, appreciate your comment. host: what do you do at league of conservation voters? government affairs senior vice president do there? for the last eight years,

working closely with the obama administration, the white house e.p.a., d the department of interior, the state department, department of nergy and many others to advance a lot of administrative progress we've been talking about. i work closely with members of congress and i mentioned this a little bit, one that is encouraging, there are growing number of members of ongress who are absolutely committed to doing everything they can, both to defend recent rogress we've ahead and to defend our bedrock environmental protection and also to even we can't in this time, legislate or pass strong doironment legislation, they have the senate floor, the house floor. hey have a bully pulpit using to great effect. a couple years ago, the senator rom hawaii, great champion in congress, got 32 colleagues to stay up all night talking on the to te floor about the need act on climate change. whitehouse when congress

has been in session, has gone on the senate floor to call on on climate act change. eople like the senator from massachusetts, grateful for the lookingfrom california, forward to working with her successor harris. day-to-day sely on a basis. day-to-day basis. host: that all-night session where congressman whitehouse going to the floor every week to talk about the issue, is it having an effect? guest: i continuing is absolutely having an effect. and bringing issue it to the public consciousness. the elections were not as we would have liked, many people made choices weren't necessarily based on the impact on their air or ater or the lands they want to cherish today and for children and grandchildren. i think it is incumbent upon us league of conservation voters and members of congress and elected officials up and down levels of government to make

clear, crystal clear, what is at science n it comes to and the environment and public health that, is what we intend do. line for independents, clark, go ahead. caller: hi. don't know y that i if anyone remembers, it is in the 1980sidence it wasin the east coast, smog and getting worse and worse and worse. t was beginning to get like london. and what happened was they add to gasoline and that the ed it up, that is answer, that is the answer f. every car in the united states fuel standard combination of ethanol, meth gasoline, then the world would get on the standard because they would want to sell here. we get off oil and the oil spill before, talking about

if that was ethanol, that would days leared up in three and nobody would have known it was there because it is alcohol-based. there is a solution book called "energy victory," by robert zubrin. if you read this book, the man is brilliant, has a brilliant idea to get people on ethanol track. nicolas loris, i imagine that fuel mandate is not support. you would guest: not so much. if people want to drive flex or natural powered vehicles, that is fine, it should be dictated by market and by vidual choice, not mandates. he's right, ethanol is an reducest oxygenate that smog, if we got rid of renewable standard, you wouldn't see ethanol reduced to zero, the compete and still be economically viable. when we predict what is the and y source of the future

invest taxpayer dollars and arek with bad policies that both economically concerning, but have unintended environmental effects like the had.te has host: go to wisconsin, mike is a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. two quick things. change the we should conversation of the topic to one of stewardship? this goes for all of us, i'd like both guests to comment because i think and ask the question and teach our kids to ask the question and ask ourselves, would you want to breathe what is coming out of that smoke stack or the tail a car? the second point is, i think a story to point to is the work that's been done ith the department of energy and the e.p.a. concerning diesel truck emissions. these diesel engines vastly mproved, where they were 15

years ago. i remember 20 years ago, this was talked about, that industry oh, you're going to kill us. it is not, it is a huge success comment.ease host: i'll let you start. guest: thank you for your points, mike. the first one, we at lcv and i, of two young boys, think about stewardship and what orld we want to leave to our own children and grand tlt children and future generations across the country and globe. we've been talking about energy and climate, in particular, but have made progress when it comes to protecting public land and open space in this country. president obama and secretary of interior designated many national monuments. we have a couple more to come in the closing weeks of this administration and i think that thinkingy we should be about the personal choices we make and also about whom we vote and the we elect choices they make to be stewards for the planet. we head into t as

the hearings and the votes the for nominees ote that all senators think seriously about their esponsibilities and what the nominees would to and would they diesel rds n. terms of trucks, one thing is we see when progress, there can be pushback or resistance from particular industries, what inevitably see, industries thrive and succeed and it becomes a great success story. talked about increases in fuel efficiency for cars during the last several win, that has been win, win, save consumers money at the good for it is climate, good for national security, yet another reason for optimism. would say, one on environmental stewardship, this is an opportunity to have some type of reform. the department of interior is gency bitten off more than it can chew and has tens of billions in maintenance backlog that led to economic opportunity

terms of energy production and recreation, grazing, fishing but also g, environmental degradation, so having right stewardship where and local citizens are more involved, private involved, s are more private property owners ncentivized to protect their own backyards, those regulations make sense when you reduce that have adverse health and human impact with the additional regulations like the efficiency regulation, the trucking industry is an industry root down to tenth of a mile, they are so concerned bout saving money on transportation fuel. i don't think this agency needs to determine how much fuel they actually use. they can do that on their own. on the stewardship issue, ongressman ryan, in his statement after his nomination was made public, touched on this

issue. what he had to say. someone who grew up in loging nd rail town and hike nothing glacier national park, honored to serve montana and america as interior. of enscribed in the stone at yellowstone national park in i shall thankfully uphold the belief that land are benefit of the people and work tirelessly to nsure public lands are managed is preserved in way that benefits everyone for generations to come. happens in the upcoming nomination hearings. about 15 minutes left in today's "washington journal," getting your comments, taking your questions as we look ahead to he future of energy and environmental policy and the trump administration. bill is in pennsylvania, a democrat. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. just want to comment on the fact that with all the co2 we're putting in the atmosphere, i'm sure which numbers are right as how much the temperature will say that like the

come true, any studyos how long it will take levels back to time and maybe erring on the side of caution idea?not be a bad thank you. i'll take your comments. host: what are the best numbers off of?d go guest: we certainly agree erring on the side of caution is the way to go. if we continue with business as usual, we're headed for an absolute global disaster that is why we're focused on common-sense science-based plan on like clean power and the paris agreement. guest: yes, when you have china es like india and and brazil, rapidly developing, their have a lot of population allow access to affordable, reliable lectricity, they will continue to build coal firepower plants and have more pressing environmental issues they need

address from burning coal, ut look at china's problems, not caused by co2. focus is about getting their populations a better tandard of living and protecting air and water quality. they are going to get co2 result of s a reducing criterion emissions, where priority shoulds lie. host: china lake, california is next. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to know what mrs. tiernan do about obama's carte blanche on killing all the condors and i live next to the wind mills, they are very inefficient and on wind days, most of them don't even turn. have videotape on a window day, none of them were turning. anyway, i want to know what she was going to do about the eagles. thank you. guest: i think actually the resident has done a lot to

protect wildlife in this country. certainly that is an issue the wind industry continues to work on, we feel strongly that we need to really focus in on the lean renewable energy of the future, like wind and like solar, which are putting people are clean k, which and which are good for addressing climate change. host: staying in california, lan california, tom, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to talk about nuclear plants like fukishi let on the coast salmon, the luting ea, what about the warm water discharge coming out of every one of them. about global warming, you think that is warming up our globe? big toxic poisonous

electric,e have hydro we could use our water, we have we have pipelines and are fighting le for their very existence over pipeline put a toxic that you can reroute right their water, i'm native my ican, i am worry body son's future. time.ls in all the it's sickening with big business it is so wrong, eagles, like crest, i r from ridge live out here around the wind lot ofthere used to be a eagles that flew by. now now -- host: thanks for the call.

i'll let you start. guest: the bird issue, it speaks hypocrisy of a lot of the environmental left f. this was would er industry, they be screaming with their heads cut off theird to industry, rather than taking to actually solve the problem. private energy froze our energy rather than have big businesses corrupt politicians plants can build power or wind farms in the district and receive hand outs that are taxpayer, i the think that is the real problem, the government cronyism that losers among and energy markets.

guest: go back to the comment about standing rock. tv has been proud to stand in solidarity with standing rock against the dakota access pipeline. we were pleased to see president obama and the army corps of denied the permit and andnd to make this priority a fight going forward. we need to stand with the tanding rock and ability to defend sacred places and their water. bet: permit denial, can that reversed in the new administration? anticipate the trump administration will try to reverse it. flippant, ny outrageous things on the campaign trail or since, it is of these,y to do some not a stroke of a pen or something he can do on day 1. we move forward --

-- the protest there. guest: i think the army corps administration army corps who has not been that energy production on federal lands offshore denied excel and wouldn't contribute to global warming. trump's army corps saying this pipeline was ready to go. his was the obama

administration, the only reason they pulled back the permit was these protests that i think are misguided and again, based on scientific or sound technical analysis. kay, a o missouri, democrat. good morning. caller: hi, hello. must apologize for my voice, it was damaged in surgery, i'm sick. words, industrial hemp and passenger trains. getting rong with people out of cars? cities have been small towns have train p when passenger service was withdrawn and taken from the mid-19 60s on to

sell cars. according to mr. smith, head of g.m., who is recorded on a local in st. louis, louis passenger system.ar had 354 miles in st. louis up until 1965. host: thanks for the call from missouri. tiernan assenger rail, sittenfeld. guest: thanks for the question. increased public transportation, i ride d.c. we ay system and i think hope if there is infrastructure package that moves forward, it s a climate smart infrastructure package that focuses on things like mass transit and public rather than n, locking in decades of dirty and dangerous infrastructure like pipeline, for example. guest: i think it gets back to d.c. mic environment,

streetcar is smz that has been here in washington, d.c. and so think there is concern that public transit spending nitiatives, whether by the state or federal government are going to cost a lot of money or overruns and not amount to significant ridership people prefer nd cars. that is not to say we can't have investments in public infrastructure, but it needs to be done sensibly, it can be done sector, and the private not huge federal government infrastructure plans we should reducing union labor requirements, environmental regulations that unnecessarily stall permitting process, sensible reforms that private investment infrastructure for both public well as private transit. host: tiernan sittenfeld talked movingnfrastructure bill

forward, i know at the end of the last congress, they are passing the firsttransit. you talked about infrastructure bill moving forward. at the end of the last congress, they were close to passing the first energy bill in more than a decade. do you expect another push at a major energy bill? guest: i do, although it will look different. this one was concerned on energy efficiency mandates, efficiencies for hydro, a lot of workforce training programs. this is not the way to grow the energy sector. legislationany should be focused on three fundamental reforms. there are a lot of renewable energy projects that have been unnecessarily held up by red tape. subsidies,l energy

energy is the last sector that needs help. fortunately, the chair of the -- the ranking member of the energy , we have leaders like chuck schumer, the incoming minority leader in the senate. these are real champions who are leading democrats. they will absolutely insist any energy policy that moves forward is a clean, forward-looking, positive development. vonnie in martinsburg, west virginia. go ahead. have her would like to answer a question for me. she did not answer the gentleman who called earlier about leading

by example. about how we run around the country in jet planes , and how much that impacts the environment. you went right over that like he didn't even say it. i would like you to talk about how much it is the amount of spits that we do by jet it out, and how much you all right around in just all the time and you don't want to talk about it. guest: thank you for following up. actually, i think the white house has done a great job leading by example, whether it is putting solar panels on the garden,use roof, or the those are great examples of how we can make personal choices. as i mentioned, it's important what we do as a country. what we do as a country is critically important but there are also times when world leaders need to travel and it is

unfortunate that uses gas. --t is my we are constantly whether it is the cars we drive or the planes that we fly -- more efficient and cleaner. if you want to check out their work, >> john kerry defended the decision to allow a resolution critical of his euro to go forward. he said it was part of an effort to preserve a two state solution to the easily rate -- is really-palestinian conflict. they said after the vote last week, it was to be expected that israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with values we share an veto this resolution."

todayompelled to respond , votehe u.s. did, in fact in accordance with our values just as rabia's u.s. administrations have done at the security council before us. thisfail to recognize that friend, the united states of america has done more to support israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to deal -- delegitimize israel cannot be true to our own values or even the stated democratic values of israel. we cannot properly defend and protect israel if we about -- allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes in that is the bottom line. the vote in the united nations was about preserving the two state solution. that is what we were standing up for.

israel's future as a jewish and democratic state living side by side in -- in peace and 30 with its neighbors. that is what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs. beenadministration has israel's greatest friend and supporter with an absolutely unwavering commitment to addressing israel's security and protecting its legitimacy. on this point, i want to be very clear. no american administration has done more for israel's security and barack obama's. the israeli prime minister himself has noted our "unprecedented military intelligence cooperation." our military exercises aren't more -- are more advanced and savedsistance has countless lives. we have consistently supported israel's right to defend itself

by itself including during actions in gaza that sparked great controversy. time and again, we have demonstrated that we have israel's back. opposedstrongly investment campaigns and sanctions targeting israel in international fora whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked. we have fought for its inclusion across the u.n. system. in the midst of our own financial crisis, and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support israel. in fact, more than one half of our entire global foreign military financing goes to israel. this fall, we concluded an historic emirate random of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the u.s. has provided to any country at any time.

that will invest in cutting-edge missile-defense and sustain israel's qualitative edge for years to come. that is the measure of our support. >> you can see the entire speech at 6:40 p.m. eastern here on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's ande television companies brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. the reagan national defense form from the reagan presidential valley,in simi california hosted a discussion on u.s. deterrence strategies mostly focusing on china and russia. you will hear from the deputy defense secretary, the army chief of staff, and the head of the u.s. pacific command. this is one hour and 10 minutes.

>> welcome, everyone. it is a really amazing privilege to be here. i think the reagan national defense -- i think the forum for the invitation. we have extremely important questions to address and to get to a first which i will -- it is who will win the army-navy game next week. >> i think the nation will win. >> i will say this is my 15th time on a panel that -- these 15th army-navy game we have one. this is the first time on a panel with the general.

>> we will stay with playing the first army-navy hockey game on the same weekend. admiral carter who is the superintendent of the gathering team andoaching navy's i will coach army's team. fighting will be authorized. carter's callsign as an aviator is slapshot. we will see. gotten thesee have major affairs of state taking care of, it really is a privilege to be here at the forum and with an amazingly distinguished panel. the personalities are well known but to start briefly from my the secretary of defense

after a long career in the u.s. marine corps and leading thinker on the future of competition and admiral harris is the commander of u.s. forces in the pacific. the admiral is the chief of staff is -- of the u.s. army. and the ceo of l3 communications of bae systems, incorporated. that echoes the third of said, i suggest we are now in the third modern era of deterrence. if we say that the first was the 1930's which did not go well at all in deterring aggressive, adventures, dangerous behavior by nationstates, the second

would have been the cold war which is generally seen as a success of nuclear deterrence although there were some exceptions around the korean war . we had the post-9/11 moment where it was questioned whether classical" -- principles of deterrence apply to nonstate actors and terrorism. we have returned to the third classical deterrence considerations. there are differences in the environment and capabilities that establish our era from the past whether it is the nuclear realm, cyber, and otherwise. it is helpful, i find it helpful to look at a historical context and to see the ways in which there are differences, the key

difference with cold war teams, that was an environment that looked overwhelmingly at one adversary in the soviet union, the u.s. today looks at a diversity of deterrence challenges. we are speaking today chiefly about china and russia but there is also iran and north korea. it seems that that diversity requires also a diversity of deterrence approaches because one deterrence approach is unlikely to fit all. forward toch i look discussing together in which the current environment is especially challenging, it seems arehat china and russia withrent countries different governments, different institutions, different histories, different things that motivate them, different vulnerabilities. it would seem that requires the

united states to tailor its deterrence approaches and with a particular focus on the different individuals who lead these systems, these political systems. because to speak about capability alone in talking about deterrence would run the risk of missing the personal and psychological aspects and just as different individuals are affairsd differently in of the heart or art, they are motivated differently in perceptions of risk and national that withnd it seems kim jong un, and vladimir putin, it is important to look also to the individual personalities and institutions will we take these situations into account.

it is not just business, it is personal. i am looking forward to speaking with all of us about the capabilities aspect of did -- deterrence and the personal ones and the industrial ones and others because we have an absolutely first-rate panel and it really is a privilege. i will open it up to all of us with the question of what is the most important to understand, and not misunderstand about getting deterrence right, given these rising shower -- powers in china in particular. >> you heard the chairman say and you have heard secretary carter say carter say that we have to address the state powers and a non-state problem. inna and russia are rising importance that the department of defense is focusing its

attention on. tospective, china is going cause the united states to spend more strategic capital and both are large nuclear powers. both have started to challenge us. to a greater or lesser degree, that disagree with the global

order. both are aggrieved. still smarts and both are security council members that arecause problems and both prickly. deterrence, of the thinkingbout the west that competition is inherently negative and the russian and chinese governments believe that competition is a natural state of affairs. we have to have strategic deterrence against the nuclear

deterrenceventional on the conventional side for the likelihood of the conventional theck to be minimized and third thing is to manage strategic competition and i link argue that the between the bottom to is crisis management and the top is escalation control. this is not a unified field theory. comprehensive and strategic stability. we have to get these things right. >> thank you. the reagan, in

said that weeagan ,annot be innocent abroad because there is no innocents abroad. that is how i look at nuclear deterrence and it is complicated. i am from the south, if you can't tell already. and i will boil it down to my --a of nuclear to town nuclear deterrence. resolve, andity, signaling. if any of those things, the capability, the resolve, the

signaling, if they are not there, you will not have new year deterrence. you can have great military, resolve, but if you do not have the signaling or you signal incorrectly, you have note nuclear deterrence. this is in the eyes of the holder. so, it is about who you are using to influence and your capability, resolve, and signaling. say, fromhing i will theerspective, is that military capability part of that part of the is only equation.

this is a whole-government thing and this is where i fall out. talkingas said, we are about china, russia, great we were inside of the international system and i look at this through the dark giving theg at this in a manage complex way. >> i look forward to your questions. say peace just through strength. from the same phrase

george washington's farewell address. you have to have the capability, the size, the skills, and the readiness. after that, you have to demonstrate the will to use it in the adversary has to know that you have the will to use it. iu have to be strong and think that the u.s. military capabilities are strong, but to therophied adversaries that they were talking about. true in the army and air force. i will not speak for the navy, but it is true. single been focused on a type of four.

we have been focusing on its urgency. partse not optimize other of the structure and we still have an aggregate competitive advantage. aree are gaps and there proximity issues. operates the ability to faster. so, the bottom line is, while it is true that the united states capable,is strong and let us be careful about eating our chests. the world is a serious place and there are serious actors who and there deterred are significant threats to the

since 1945al order and we, as a nation need to come to grips with that and continue the international order. is being challenged by andia, china, iran, terrorists. we will have to maintain our capabilities. in my mind, it is not a difficult science project. it is strength, which is a size of -- a combination of size and capability. >> thank you. story is thee story of conventional deterrence, restoring some of

the technological capability that has eroded or atrophied. industry.e job of nothing is made in the pentagon. moredversaries have a lot speed and flexibility to do whatever they need to. we, on the other hand, deal with stakeholders, shareholders, and a regulated environment. technologytoring the involves having the will to adequately fund the budgets. we have gone through sequestration and it has done damage to the industry and the

perception of u.s. willingness and seriousness with the technological advantage. a goal to own the night and now we are sharing it. number, over the last the industry has lost 1.7 million employees because of downsizing and we need to back andhe workforce we need to get young people programs andthese there has been some partnering on the coast and we need to

bring some of those commercial practices into the aerospace and defense industry to help us get this inserted into our products faster. so, that is part of what we're doing and how we're looking at the problem. extending on that, the role of industry is, whatever the vision is is whatever the military needs. andelies on the free market aerospace and defense for the most part. to be healthy,ry our customer needs to be healthy and mike talked about the certainty of budget and that has been problematic. i think we have heard that throughout this session and all of us spend some time on the hill see some bipartisan recognition that at a minimum, there needs to be greater

stability, if not increases in the budget so we can get at these readiness issues and the mid-and long-term equalizing of the threat where perhaps we have lost some ground. first and foremost, i would say for industry to be able to help our customer and help the mission of deterrence, it needs to be robust. get rid of the caps so priorities can be established. then establish the kind of initiatives mike has talked about where we have streamlined. statistics show the top five or six aerospace and defense contractors since 2008 have reduced 15% of the workforce. if you carry that through the second and third tier, you get to mike's numbers. we send a man to the moon and have the most advanced weapons in the world.

i'm confidence our customer can get stability and robust funding, they can set priorities that collectively in a partnership, we can achieve what they want to do. this morning, we heard from several panels about reform or rebuild. it is both. congress was discussed by two members this morning. it also has to recognize that we have to focus on dod and we have to streamline and get rid of these regulations or reduce people. dod operates in an echoes system that starts with congress and they operate in a political and legal framework in an ecosystem. congress has to understand there are implications with its discrete and granular management of the process and reporting on the process. it has consequences. similarly, we would offer dod, an opportunity there to look at the industry at its model and we all here how many signatures it takes to get through a j rock

process. whether it is to two or 28, with the quality of that decision be any better if it had 52 incidents 26? i don't have the answer, but that regulatory regime affects quality of decisions and we have got very transactional in our business looking contract by contract, regulation by regulation. the most recent rule without understanding the implications of that for industry which operates in competitive capital markets as mike alluded to. sometimes, we see actions that have the reverse effect. incidents supporting the innovation for the third offset and providing the capital to do that, we need to carefully consider that ecosystem.

i think we will have resources and we have demonstrated the agility as a team to work on these difficult problems. lastly, i think it would behoove all of us and assist industry in helping the department meet its goals if we could look at the export regime or the export regulation regime. it is obvious, the interoperability gains in the solidification that comes in our alliance when we share the equipment and it strengthens the coalition, which we can bring those economies of scale back and assist in the investment of new technologies, price reductions, more effectively supporting our customer.

>> admiral harris, i would like to circle back on the definition of deterrence that you offered. you put it forward as capabilities times intent times signaling. i have heard others put it similarly, but with the distinction capability times intent of times belief. it's the belief of the other guy and our willingness to act. that gets to the point that you made about the terms of being in the eye of the boulder. i wonder if you can contact -- can talk about whether that's an important decision about the way the united states act and how the adversary and potential adversary calculates risk? then, if we could speak about how that belief part of the equation looks in china and russia today and how the belief of china, russia and the u.s. deterrence compares today to a few years passed. >> i think we are talking about the same thing in the sense that

the belief of the deterred is affected by the signaling of the deterring power and the resolve and capability. the deterred power, if you will, is going to look at all of that. the deterred power's belief determines whether you determine the deterred power's actions in the spectrum of conflict. i think we have been successful as a nation in determining great powers using the secretary's definition of a great power in terms of russia's actions on the global stage and china's actions on the global stage. i would say we have to keep at it and continue signaling part of that in order to affect their belief and continue to deter them in the great spaces, if you

will. >> just consider this for a minute. we are on the 75th anniversary year of the japanese attack of pearl harbor. before the japanese launched that attack, they knew the capability of the united states and they knew they would lose a war. they knew that. they consciously made a strategic decision to attack when they knew they would lose a war. they knew we would fight back and a new our will was there, but they believed it. history has several cases where countries understood the

opponents capability, understood the guy had the will, and they believe it and they still attacked. there are some other things to consider, like myths of short course, the japanese thought they would knock our fleet out and the war would be over and we would negotiate a peace. they thought it would be over in six weeks. we are also subject to that and thought things would be pretty sure in iraq and so on and so forth. it is not an exact science, the whole idea of deterrence. it's a matter of judgment and it is something that is different in every single case. there is no uniform, cookie-cutter stuff. the one thing to deter is to maintain very strong and capable military forces.

until such time as a universal government, maybe someday 200 or 300 years from now, the world by definition is in arctic because there's no over no -- no overarching force that can overrun the rules. you have to maintain strong, large, capable forces to terror. >> you used the word intent and harry used the word resolve. it's the capabilities you bring to the table plus the signaling of what you can and cannot tolerate and the resolve you show. what is different in our strategic competition with china and russia is our national strategy values allies. what the president has said, every president since world war ii, article five commitments are ironclad.

there may be other areas where we may decide what we do, but in terms of article five commitments, i don't inc. anyone in russia or china doubts our resolve to nato and our allies in the western pacific and i think that's a very big help or deterrence against these great powers. >> thank you for the correction on resolve and intent. i did not mean to put words into the admirals equation. if i could ask more on how china and russia looks at the u.s. in a deterrence ballasts -- deterrence balance and a capability resolve, how do you assess their views on our standing compared to years past. we had the crimea episode, ukraine generally is not risk to the baltic's -- we have seen some moves and a presence that is growing and growing.

how do you understand the chinese and russian view compared to let's say 10 years ago? >> i know for certain that the chinese conception of turns on demonstrated capabilities and the chinese and russians are trying to complicate -- trying to copy and duplicate our version of deterrence. i'm confident both russia and china believe the united states, as the chairman has stated has a competitive advantage today. they may be looking at the trendlines and we are looking at the trendlines and we are trying to make judgments on how to ensure american overmatch remains, but today, i believe they do believe in our resolve for article five and commitments to our allies and i believe they believe we have an advantage. the irony is that's forcing them to put a lot of money into capabilities, so the trendlines are what concern the department

of defense. how do we keep track and make sure the trendlines still have us thinking we had a competitive advantage? >> if we could step back and look in a strategic sense about china and russia, what would we say their goals are? i think you mentioned this in your opening remarks -- two what extent are they impatient powers or patient powers? how do their economic and political circumstances shape their strategic thinking?

what should that mean for u.s. deterrence strategy? >> i would defer to harry. he's been thinking about this for a long time in the china strategic initiative started in 2008, we are really trying to understand them. although the chief worries about providing forces in the pacific and europe, he has been thinking a lot about the european problem. i would ask them first to see them from a military perspective and ask what their judgment is. >> i have spoken about china and we typically attribute patients to china but i have spoken about how china has become a nation in a hurry and how the president

has become a man in a hurry where they try to ramp up their military development and all of that. there island reclamation, there aggressive actions and assertive actions in east asia in a hurry, i have testified before congress that i believe china seeks hegemony in east asia and their view is to push the united states out. that's where those military capabilities that we have come into play and where the government view on deterrence comes into play. >> i think the united states enjoy certain asymmetric advantages over every country on earth that would challenge us.

and as asymmetric advantages include anti-submarine warfare, jet propulsion, our culture of innovation and our ideals. but those hardware aspects of those asymmetric advantages are at risk if we don't continue to invest in them and resource them. china is trying to overcome that asymmetric advantage cap we enjoy quickly and they do that through cyber theft and everything else because they are not constrained by law,

regulation and policy as we rightfully are. we have to be sensitive and be aware of the threat that is post by a closing of the gap. the chairman talked about we don't want to go into a fair fight with our enemies or adversaries. i have said before i want to go to a knife fight with a knife -- a knife fight with a gun and a gunfight with a piece of artillery. >> why is china in a hurry? >> asked china why they are a nation in a hurry. they seem to have put aside any sense of strategic patients. >> there is a saying that war is a cause of fear, honor and interest. there are other interests, but those get to the heart of the matter. in both china and russia's case, i think fear plays a big part. in russia's case, they have in living memory -- are people who surround dinner tables or the leaders of the sons and daughters that have living memory of a nazi invasion and

that was brutal. both of my parents fought in world war ii. my dad hit the beach at iwo jima. at the united states has not suffered anything like eastern europe and russia did. that is living memory. putin is the son of survivors of leningrad. just a butte -- brutal 900 plus day siege. people need to remember that, that what russia went through. that's the first time in terms of big invasions. you have the mongols who occupied for three centuries doing everything you see isis doing today. fear of external invasion is a palpable narrative in russian internal politics. it is not fake. they view nato, rightly or wrongly. they think nato is an existential threat. fear is driving some of their behavior and their political

leadership believes it themselves and exploits that for political gain. they want to defend the russian people. they want to defend mother russia. ukraine is part and parcel. the idea of defending against an external fear is very real in their mind. there is also pride. russia was a great power starting with peter the great all the way up until the fall of the romanov dynasty and the russian revolution. it was a great power and a great empire and you have the russian revolution and then it becomes a power in its own right eye making the greatest contribution to defeating not the journey and then -- nazi germany and becomes

a superpower drink cold war. all that came shattering down between 89 and 90. putin himself called at the greatest catastrophe of the last century. it was something that ripped apart at the self-esteem and pride of a country that was fed propaganda about how big and tall they were. they want to regain russian nationalist pride in themselves and there's a lot of interest involved, not the least amount of money and so forth. those three factors are significant to the russians and that is translated into behavior. along comes a guy who gets in a horse, takes his shirt off, says i will lead you to restore your pride and defend you. i will take care of yourea