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 your fear.

trust me and i will be the strongman. it has been done thousands of times in history and it is entirely believable. so, they rally around the flag and modernize, reform and rebuild their military while we are involved in a campaign in iraq and afghanistan. then, their behavior follow suit with attacks on georgia, crimea, threatening and intimidating against the baltic states. you see what they have done in syria. they want to be on the same laying field. if we want to deter that kind of further behavior, further aggression, that will require significant strength. china is slightly different but essentially the same in my mind. they published it, by the way. there's no great super secret.

they called it the china dream. by 2049, they want the united states out of east asia and want to be the regional hegemon. they would prefer to do it peacefully. they want the united states to peacefully retrench and withdraw and let the chinese be the dominant power in asia as they have been for five millennia. between the opie moors of any 1840's and the chinese communist revolution, they want to restore what they think is their rightful place in the world. they are on a roll since 1979 in their economy following economic shifts in power like that. the modernization of the chinese military is incredible and incredibly fast. they want to do it peacefully, but they are preparing to do it violently if they need to. if you want to deter, there's a lot of diplomatic action but the baseline of deterrence is a strong, capable military, peace through strength.

>> the only thing i would like to add is what the chairman said at lunch, i hope they understand what he is saying. i hope they have deterred russia and china conventionally. you called it competition below the action and russians are expert at this. both the russians and chinese are investing a lot of effort trying to break our alliances because both in europe and in asia. this adversarial competition below the threshold of action goes back to what harry was saying. to really have a strong strategy

on how to approach and deter both of these powers. >> i would be interested to have you expand on your remarks about the differences or similarities between the american defense industry and its relationship to innovation and government and the russian and chinese cases. how do they compare and how are they organized in how they look to create capable platforms? >> i think our advantage is the great people we have that work within our industry in terms of their technical capability. there is a lot less of an impediment to achieve -- to achieve the objective if it is state run. we need to create a gps divide environment and we wanted in six months and you will do everything you need to do to make it happen.

if we have to get to companies are five companies working on it, that's what they are able to do some a control the ways and means and production to achieve their objectives. whereas in our systems, many of them are publicly owned companies and we have shareholders to answer to. when things don't go well, you have shareholders and activists to answer to and it becomes a dicey environment. we are all very aware of our environment and it's not the end of the world, but i think they can get things done a little quicker when they need to. our job is going to be how do we develop technologies, weapon systems and the like that can operate the gps divide environment. great u.s. force projection was

the carrier group and the chinese have developed missiles now that negate the carrier groups. they can keep them so off sure that the effectiveness has been somewhat impacted. >> i would challenge that. >> i'm just repeating what i read in defense news. in any event, the point is there have been challenges made over the last eight years to places where the u.s. has perceived a technological advantage, whether it is going after her stealth and better developed radars, longer-range missiles and the like. we need to respond in kind and work with our customers to develop systems that will offset those capabilities being developed. we had a panel earlier today on cyber.

it has become a terrible problem. it keeps happening over and over again and seems there is no solution at hand right now but it is something that will have to be dealt with and we as an industry cannot drop everything and everybody focus on one problem because we have multiple customers and other obligations to deal with. the model does not necessarily work as fast as theirs does at times. >> i would offer to expand on mike's point, we are looking at eight, 9, 10 year time frame where we have had to adversaries who have been very focused on what they are trying to address -- what the threat is, what they want to accomplish technically, etc.. as secretary, the admiral in general have said we have been immersed in other activities, not the least of which is a huge downturn in the economy that has caused other restraints on the system and i have every

confidence that as has happened before in our industry, most of the great discoveries are here and the fundamental reason is the free-market enterprise system that we have drives innovation and incentives. we need to focus on those things that will allow us to establish priorities and a reasonable planning horizon to stay with them and the regulatory regime that facilitates rather than restrict that innovation and, just as we do in the pharmaceutical industry through financial instruments that are created to a credit default swaps and those sorts of things, that kind of free-market approach, when you provide the right environment and reinforcement is tremendously powerful and will be again. let's institutionalize in the budget and in the process so we can drive to whatever priorities come out of a long-term budget, whatever those critical things

are, we put a man on the moon, there are many things that could be unleashed. we need to set the fundamentals in place and let this model work. >> before we open up to questions, i would like all of us to weigh in on the aspects of predictability and unpredictability in deterrence. when we look at the asia-pacific and in europe, we see article five covers the nato countries, covers japan and the secaucus as president obama clarified. it has not clarified the philippine holdings in the south china seas are necessarily covered by that. there is no treaty, of course. is well-known that mulled over and other countries are outside of any article five. how do these issues affect the deterrence calculus and what is

the role of verdict ability and unpredictability for good or for ill in establishing deterrence against powers? you can leave aside surprise phone calls to taiwan if you like, which was an unpredictable move. >> i will leave behind the call. i really like harry's three words.

it really has to do with signaling and resolved in a way russia and china believe in our resolve and ambiguity is very helpful in some places, not helpful in others. it goes to managing strategic competition, knowing the competitor you are trying to deter and understand the signals and how you demonstrate resolve. within the context of the third offset, we will reveal capabilities for deterrence. we want chinese military planning -- planner's wondering what kind of military keep abilities the u.s. could bring to bear if, god for bid, we got into a military confrontation. ambiguity is useful in some cases but it is not universal. sometimes clarity is very, very needed, but it is certainly something we want in our arsenal

of deterrence. >> a related deterrence question about the differences between deterrence and provocation. if you want to touch on freedom of navigation controls in the south china sea. >> sure. on the issue of particular the and unpredictability, there are advantages to being predictable in certain circumstances and unpredictable in others. the united states only has five bilateral defense treaties and they are all in the asia-pacific region. the others are nato and real

pack. they should not worry about america's commitment under those treaties and those are treaties with japan, korea and the philippines. they should not be concerned about our resolve in meeting our treaty obligations. i think the president clearly signaled for example where we stand as a nation with regard to our treaty with japan over the issue of secaucus and the fact that they fall under the provision of the treaty with japan. that was clear signaling to china. with regard to freedom of navigation operations and the like and the issue of deterrence

and provocation, freedom of navigation operations are not designed to deter anybody from doing anything. freedom of navigation operations are designed to do just that -- they are designed to exercise a nation's freedom of navigation in international water or over it. and so if you don't exercise the freedom of navigation, then, under international law, you might lose that freedom of navigation over whatever issue it is. the secretary of defense has been very clear that the united states will fly, sale and

operate wherever international law allows and that means we must exercise that and it is the purpose of freedom of navigation. it is simply to exercise our right to operate wherever. >> i agree. sometimes ambiguity is good. sometimes being clear is good, but at the strategic level, i think clarity is more helpful than lack of clarity. i think the question that needs to be asked and answered right now is what is america possible role in the world. general dunford was asked at lunch if you had a magic wand, what would you ask for? he said i would like consensus as to our role in the world. why is that so important? because the answer to that question derives all kinds of things like the sizes of your forces and capabilities and so on. it is a critical question and has been answered for seven decades. it was answered in a hotel in new hampshire in bretton woods when we just suffered 100 million dead between 1914 and

1945 in the first and second world wars. the united states said that is not happening again. we gathered all the diplomats at that new hampshire hotel and everyone hung out for a couple of weeks and they all wrote paragraphs and chapters to essentially the rules of the world. how is post world war ii going to be run? we just did it twice. america wrote those rules. all the other diplomats signed up to them, but america wrote them. those were the rules of the western world of until 1989 and then they expanded to the rest of the world.

some people don't like those rules were that international order and they want to revise it. they are out there right now today. so the question we have to ask as it relates to deterrence is do we like those rules? are we comfortable with them and do we want to keep them? if the answer is yes, that is an expensive proposition and we have to have the capabilities and forces to enforce those rules and you have to have the will, posture, the presence, the capacity, all of it if you like those rules. if you don't like those rules and you are ok with someone else writing the rules, that is ok. it not asked and answered by the military. it is asked and answered by presidents, congress and the people of america. it needs to be asked and answered because from that commie figure out what you are willing to fight for and we have made this mistake before. the end of world war i, britain was the enforcer of the rules. you got what you got in the 20's and 30's and ended up in world war ii and then we got it again post world war ii when dean acheson comes out and says south korea is not important.

then grandfather calls up stalin and said green light, go and you got the korean war and truman jumps in. it started again when saddam was told to wait is not important. so signaling and being consistent at the strategic level matters and knowing what you are able to fight for, knowing what you stand for what your role in the world is is fundamental to deterrence and to our military. i personally think we need to ask and answer it and clarify it. normally, that happens every four years in american politics. we've been answering it one way for several decades that i think it will be answered and we will be in good shape once it is answered. >> what opera pretty debility and unpredictability in procurement, budget and r&d?

what about the surprises we have seen with difficulties with major platforms coming online? how does that affect deterrence? >> the predictability of pledges is essential to execute what we need to do in an effective and efficient manner. it allows us to hire and retain the people we need and it will show future workforces that is stable industries come to work, it's not one that will experience layoffs every few years because of contracting budgets depending on who is in office at the time. i think that in and of itself, the will to fund it is a deterrent. it makes it more predictable and efficient and in terms of the system's proprietary data, companies have addressed that risk in many different ways, but it did reside in a safe somewhere and for now, that's what it will have to be.

the crown jewels will not be exposed on a vulnerable network as far as i can see. i think that's how most companies are dealing with right now. >> clearly, as we talked about predictability through the budget provides stability in the industrial base. if you don't have it, it undermines the industrial base and undermines the will to invest. there are four things we can do with earnings -- we can invest in capital,, we can give dividends or buy back stock. i would argue it's the lack of

stability that is a function of that. it's not the determining factor. we in industry have come to appreciate our obligation in the cyber building. we talk about space and we are part of that battle and part of the defense infrastructure and we are working hard and clever tivoli with intelligence agencies and the defense infrastructure to do everything possible to protect those assets. >> let's open it up. we have microphones. we have one here and if the questioner can identify

themselves and make sure their comments have a question at the end. >> how concerned are you about china's self manufactured naval base in the spratly islands? what, if anything, can we do about it and have a effectively deterred the west through their strong resolve and signaling? >> thanks for the question. i will answer it quickly to give the opportunities for other questions. i think a lot about the islands. i think they held seven new bases. i don't think of them as islands. i think of them as bases. three of them have runways of about 10,000 feet in length. i have two as a military commander think about those bases. i do not think they have deterred us at all. i think they have given us seven additional targets, if you know what i mean.

but as i have said in opportunities in the past, a continuing buildout of chinese capabilities in the south china sea will give them the ability to control the south china sea and $5 trillion worth of trade that travels through the south china sea and it will give them the means of controlling the south china sea against any scenario short of war against the united states, which no one wants, including us. we have to continue to work with china on that and our friends, allies and partners to assure them and we continue to build critical combat power and build a network of like-minded friends, allies and partners to ensure that we can operate internationally. >> let's keep the questions brief. >> i thought i would ask about the military officials on the panel. have you seen any tangible benefits from this initiative?

to the members of industry, how do you view this? do you see them having an unfair advantage with this fast-track acquisition tool? >> i was out there a few weeks ago to check on exactly what you asked. frankly, it is a bit early in terms of tangible benefits. this is not the kind of stuff these wrinkle magic dust on and get magic solutions. i think it's a very good idea. i think there are some tweaks to it. i think it's a very good idea and should be sustained in this initiative because we need to accentuate and accelerate products for the military. but let's give the da a little space, give them some running room before we start parading

them out. >> anything that sparks innovation and brings news thought to the problems that we are trying to solve we would welcome. the aerospace and defense industry does not create a lot of the technology. it integrates and applies that technology, whether it is integration or whatever it is. i think it is early days but stimulating more people to come into the industry can't be anything but good. >> both of the four stars might have a thought on this. you have put a lot of energy

into this offset strategy and i remember you telling me about a year ago that your hope was to set up options for the next administration to choose from. at this stage, how comfortable are you that there has been time to set up good options and hands them over to the next administration across what is going to be probably a more turbulent transition and most? >> we need to run a two minute drill here. if we can get the other questions, we will answer them as quickly as we can. >> my question is primarily for admiral harris. how realistic do you deem an asian equivalent of nato? could the united states reassert itself to leverage the regional

politics? >> i'm here with the alexander hamilton society. there seems to be a growing concern and skepticism on an activist foreign policy and looking at that resistance, especially russia and to an extent, iran seems to be exploiting that. would you say this is a fair assessment and how should it be resolved? >> the third offset, this is all about trying to maintain our conventional advantage and whatever you call it, that is what it is all about. what we have right now as many, many demonstrations laid into the budget.

trillion program. it is a $3 trillion program and we have about $20 trillion late in right now for a lot of different menstruation see incoming administration can elect to either pursue were not. it goes back to what the general said -- there are an awful lot of things going on right now and we are seating a lot of innovative approaches. i will skip over the ttp and asian equivalent in nato, but i don't inc. the data shows the american people are resistant to an activist policy. i think we have to have the debate of american roles in the world and the american people will take part in that debate and tell us.

but i think that is mixed on whether there is any indication. who do we want to deter, how do we want to deter them, who do we want as allies and who will we protect? all of those questions will be answered. i know we are running over time, but let me say as far as deterrence goes, this is what the russian and chinese military planners worry about most -- the american soldier, sailor come and men, marine and coast guard. there is no other military, not in the history of our planet that is as innovative as these people. if i was a chinese or russian military planner and started to crack my deterministic model and say it's time to take on

americans, sooner or later, the model is going to freeze up go some young american is going to say why don't we do it this way and they will whisper something so, look, i have got to tell you, rest assured. i want to talk about nato and asia. but i will add to what the secretary said, and that is that i believe what scares our potential adversaries and our adversaries is that we are having this kind of forum, because we are a society and questioning nation. i cannot imagine this kind of venue where you have military, , civilian, and industry leaders together, answering whatever questions come up in the ways we are trying to do for all of you. that is the other thing that i think scares them quite a bit. i do not believe we are ever going to see a nato in asia.

nato was formed when there is a single-focused threat, the soviet union, and the countries that were aligned with the soviet union and lined up against those that were not and we formed up with nato for all the right reasons. in asia, there's not a compelling, single focused enemy, if you will. china is part and parcel of asia and part of our economic life. in america, and all of that, so in my opinion, a nato in asia -- we will see multilateral frameworks. partnerships with a purpose. particularly northeast asia. that is a natural, trilateral linkage between japan, korea and , the united states. there are countering extremists in southeast asia and natural grouping would be the u.s., malaysia, indonesia, maybe

indonesia, bangladesh, and certainly the philippines. we should be going after these kinds of naturally forming multilateral organizations to get those advantages. , thaten we have asean exist not as a defense pact -- the of the regional form, ars, -- arf, and those things that i think are important to go after crime, piracy, the kidnap for ransom, and in the strait of and in the seas, so that is how i would view multilateral defense structures, if you will, in asia. thank you. host: thank you. thank you to the reagan

administration, and thank you to all of you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: tonight on c-span, a look back at some of the notable congressional hearings of 2016, including the investigations of the flint, michigan, drinking water contamination and wells fargo fraudulently opening up accounts for its customers. here is a brief look. >> what are you doing to make sure that state employees communicate with you, especially regarding issues of great importance, like the people of flint? >> i stood up in front of people in front -- during my state of the state address and said that 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 have done more, but i told the people of michigan that there is a commitment, a passionate commitment, to say we are going to change the culture in these places. i apologized to the people in flint. i understand why they are angry. it is terrible what they are going through. thei made a promise to fix problem. as ranking member coming said -- there is a lot we can do -- as cummings said, and i am going back to flip tomorrow to roll up my sleeves. >> it is not about helping customers get what they need. if it was, you would not have to do this to make it happen. this is all about thing up the wells stock price, isn't it?

>> no, this is shorthand for deepening relationships. stop rightren: there. you say no? no? earnings calls you participated in from 2012 until 2014, 3 full years in which we know it was going on. i would like to enter these for the record, if i may, mr. chair? thank you. called where you personally made your pitch to investors and analysts about why wells fargo is a great in all 12 ofnd 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. announcer: more from those hearings on flint, michigan, epipen prices, wells fargo, and

also cable tv and satellite tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern announcer: new year's night on "q&a" -- >> people starving, having these fancy parties in the white house. it was part of the image making with the poor people, and here was this rich man in washington staring at the poor people. actually a very wealthy man, but he was portrayed as the champion of the poor. they came to parades and waved handkerchiefs. some gave speeches. were very shocking. they were criticized by the democrats. announcer: the author of the ,"ok "the carnival campaign and how it changed presidential elections forever.

q&a." an's announcer: secretary of state john kerry today defended the united states decision to allow something critical of israel to go forward. he said was part of preserving a two-state solution to the palestinian conflict. the speech this morning at the state department was one hour and 15 minutes.

>> thank you very, very much. thank you for your patience. whoof you, for those of you celebrated christmas. i hope you had a wonderful christmas. happy hanukkah. and to everybody here, i know it is the middle of a holiday week. i understand. a very, veryu all productive and happy new year. today, i want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the world. the israeli-palestinian conflict. administration, president obama has been deeply committed to israel and its security. and that has guided peace in the middle east.

it is the only way to assure israel's future as a jewish and democratic state. living peace and security with its neighbors. it is the only way to assure a future freedom and dignity for the palestinian people, and it is an important way of advancing the united states interests in the region. and why it is now in jeopardy, and provide some context as to why we could not in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution of the united nations they must actar now to preserve the possibility of peace. share in myre to

conviction that there is a way , and i want to share practical suggestions on how to this for the lasting peace that both sides deserve. a it is vital that we have vital, clear 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 region and not the united states. now, i want to stress that there is an important point here. my job, above all is to defend , the united states of america and to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. and if we were to stand idly by

so, wew that in doing are 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, our own 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. israel's permanent representative to the united nations who does not support a , two state solution, said after the vote last week, "it was to be expected that israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values we share and veto this resolution."

i am compelled to respond today 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 has 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. and that is the bottom line. the vote in the united nations was about preserving the two state solution which is what we

were standing up for. israel's 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 theirs. in fact, this 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 --no american administration has 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 exercises are more advanced than ever. our persistence for iron dome has saved countless israeli 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 demonstrated that we have israel's back. we have strongly opposed boycotts and investment sanctioned actions that targeted israel. wherever and whenever 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. and this fall, we concluded an billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the united states has provided to any country at any time.

and 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 actually very personal for me. on my first trip to israel as a young senator in 1986, i was captivated by a special country. one that i immediately admired and soon grew to love. over the years, like so many others who are drawn to this extraordinary place, i have climbed masada, swum in the dead sea, driven from biblical city one to another. i have seen the dark side of hezbollah's rockets and walked through the exhibits of the hell of the holocaust. tyad --yadm --

vashem. 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 amidst the occupation passed by , military checkpoints that can make the most routine daily trips to work or school an 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. and 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 at schools where children had 15 seconds to get to after a warning siren went off. i saw devastation of war in the gaza strip where 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 secretary of state, i knew that i had to do everything in my power to help. this conflict, and i was grateful to be working for president obama, who is prepared to take risks for peace and was deeply committed to that effort. like previous u.s. administrations we have , committed our influence and our resources to trying to resolve the arab-israeli

conflict because, yes, it would serve 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 ground, violence, terrorism, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation, they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing any -- an irreversible one state reality that most people do not actually want. today, there are a similar number of jews and palestinians 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. moreover, the palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one state solution. now, most on both sides understand this basic choice and , that is why it is important that pulls of israelis and palestinians show their is still strong support for the two state solution, in theory. they just don't believe it can happen. after decades of conflict, many 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. and the truth is the extraordinary polarization in this conflict extends beyond israelis and palestinians. allies of both sides are content to reinforce this with a "with 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 antisemetic. that is where the issues about this current situation. this critical decision about the

future, one state or two states, is effectively being made on the ground every single day despite the expressed 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 narrowed. this sense of hopelessness among israelis is 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. and the most recent wave of

palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, shootings, the nuclear attacks, and bombings many by individuals who , have been radicalized by social media. innocentsrderers of wah glorified on fat websites, including showing attackers next to palestinian leaders following attacks and despite statements 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 incitement to violence must stop. we have consistently condemned violence and terrorism and even condemned the palestinian leadership for not condemning

it. far too often, the palestinians have pursued efforts that delegitimize israel in international fora. we have opposed these delegitimization's including the recent unesco resolution regarding jerusalem. and we have made clear our strong opposition to palestinian efforts against israel at the icc, which only set back the prospects for peace. and we all understand that the palestinian authority has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance. most troubling of all, hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda. they refuse to accept israel's very right to exist. they have a one state of their own. all of the land is palestine. hamas and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of incitement to

violence. and 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 in order to advance their agenda. compounding this, the situation,n exacerbated by the closings of the crossings, is dire. gaza 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 assistance food , and shelter. most have electricity less than half the time, and only 5% of the water is safe to drink. and yet, despite the urgency of these needs, hamas and other religious groups continue to

funds,and to divert threatening more attacks on israeli civilians that no government can tolerate. now, at the same time, we have to be clear about what is happening in the west bank. the israeli prime minister publicly supports a two state solution. but his current coalition is the most right-wing in israeli history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. the result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself 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. in fact, israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the west bank for its own purposes effectively reversing , the transitions to greater

palestinian civil authority that lowcalled for by the author accords. oslo 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. the settler population in the west bank alone, not including east jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since oslo. including 100,000 just since 2009 when president obama's term began. there is no point in pretending rged these are just enla settlement blocs. nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by

israel itself in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future palestinian state. and the population of these distant settlements has grown by 20,000 just since 2009. in fact, just recently, the government approved a significant new settlement well east of the barrier, closer to than to 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 this is not to say that settlements are not the whole 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 demographic realities that exist on the ground. they would have to be factored in. but if more and more settlers are moving into the middle of palestinian areas, it is going to be just that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty. and 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. israelipledges by past 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 first

reading in the israeli parliament, the knesset, one of the chief proponents said proudly, "today, the israeli moves from heading towards establishing a palestinian state towards israeli sovereignty in judah and samaria." even the israeli attorney general said it is unconstitutional and a violation of international law. now, you may hear from advocates that the settlements are not an obstacle 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, my friends. the arab israelis are citizens 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. protected by the idf. well, there are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make the continuous palestinian state impossible. does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable palestinian state? now, some have asked why can't , we build the blocks? which everyone knows will eventually be part of israel? well, the reason building there or anywhere else in the west bank now 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 the consent of the palestinians, and without granting the

palestinians a reciprocal right to build what will be by most accounts part of palestine. bottom line, without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral choices become 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. well, again and again, we have made it clear it is not just a question of the overall amount of land available on the west bank. it is whether the land will be connected or broken up into small parcels, like the swiss cheese that could never constitute a real state. the more outposts that are built, the more the settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a contiguous state, so 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 pose to that piece. but the problem obviously goes well beyond settlements. trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take the west bank land for israel and prevent any palestinian development there. today, the 60% of the west bank known as area c, much of which was supposed to be transferred to palestinian control long ago oslo accords, most 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. israeli farms flourish in the jordan river valley. and israeli resorts line the shores of the dead sea. a lot of people do not realize this. 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 israel in all of 2014 and 2015. while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced during that same period. moreover, palestinian structures that do not have a permit from the israeli military are potentially subject to demolition, and 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. so the settler agenda is defining the future of israel. and their stated purpose is clear. they believe in one state, greater israel. in fact, one prominent minister a pro-settler party declared just after the u.s. election "the era of the two state solution is over." and many other coalition ministers publicly reject a palestinian state. and they are increasingly getting their way with plans for hundreds of new units in east jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major settlement in the west bank to follow. so why are we so concerned? why does this matter? well, ask yourselves these questions.

what happens if that agenda succeeds? where does that lead? 2.75 are currently about million palestinians living under military occupation in the west bank most of them in areas , a and b. bank where they , have limited autonomy. they are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints and unable to travel in 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 systems vast , income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. separate and unequal is what you would have. and nobody can explain how that works. would an israeli accept living

that way? would an american accept living that way? accept it?rld if the occupation becomes permanent, the palestinian authority could simply dissolve, turn over all of the administrative and other responsibilities 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 billions of dollars of lost international assistance that the palestinian authority receives? would the israeli defense force police the streets of every palestinian city and town? how would israel responds to a growing civil rights movement by palestinians demanding a right to vote or widespread protests against -- in the west bank? how does israel reconcile the permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? how does the u.s. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals? nobody has ever provided good

answers for those questions because there aren't any. and there would be an increasing risk of more intense violence between palestinians and settlers and complete despair among palestinians that would create very fertile 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, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the west bank? how does that help israel's security? how does that help the region? 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. now, one thing we do know. if israel goes down one state

path it will never have true : peace with the rest of the arab world, and i can say that with certainty. the arab countries have made clear that they will not make peace with israel without resolving the israeli-palestinian conflict. that is not where their loyalties lie. that is not whether politics are. but there is something new here. common interests in countering iran's destabilizing activities, in fighting extremists, as well ,s diversify their economies that create real possibilities for something different if israel takes advantage of the opportunities for peace. i have spent a great deal of time with key arab leaders exploring this, and 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.

and in all my recent conversations, arab leaders have confirmed their readiness in the context of israeli-palestinian peace, not just to 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 israeli- 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. and 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. now, that is what informed our vote at the security council last week. the need to preserve the two state solution. and both sides in this conflict must take responsibility 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 international fora. we have made countless public and private exportations to the israelis to stop the march of settlements. in literal hundreds of conversations with prime minister netanyahu, i have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for international response. we have all known for sometime that the palestinians were intent on moving forward in the u.n. with a settlements

resolution, and i advised the prime minister repeatedly that further activity only invited u.n. action. yet, the settlement activity just increased including , advancing the unprecedented legislation to legalize settler outposts that the prime minister himself reportedly warned could expose israel to action at the security council and even 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. that fan hatred and violence. it is not in u.s. interests to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. and we may not be able to stop

them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. and it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies. that is why we decided not to block the u.n. resolution that makes clear 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 effort at the u.n. and any international fora or biased one-sided resolutions that seek to undermine legitimacy or security. and that has not changed. it did not change with this vote. 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.

in fact previous administrations , of both political 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 natural growth. let me read you the lead paragraph from "the new york times" story dated december 23. i quote. "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 defined 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. yet, despite growing pressure , 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 that israel opposed. in fact, the only time in eight years the obama administration at the unitedeto 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. since then, there have been over 30,000 settlement units advanced

through some state of the planning process. that is right, over 30,000 settlement units advanced, notwithstanding the positions in the united states and other countries. and 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 impossible. 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. in fact, this resolution reaffirms statements made by the security council on the legality of settlements over several decades. it does not break new ground. in 1978, the state department's legal advisor advised congress of his conclusion that israel's government -- the israeli 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. now, you may have heard that some criticized 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.

and that includes resolutions passed by the security council under president reagan and president george h w bush. and, remember that every u.s. administration since 1967, along with the entire international community, has recognized east jerusalem as among the territories that israel occupied in the six day war. now, i want to stress this point. we fully respect israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites. we have never questioned that. this resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status the negotiations which must reflect , those historic ties and the realities on the ground. that is our position. we still support it. we also strongly reject the

notion that somehow the united states was the driving force behind this resolution. the egyptians and palestinians have long made clear to all of us, to all of the international community, their intentions to bring the resolution to a vote before the end of the year. and we communicated that with the israelis and they knew it anyway. the united states did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. it was drafted by egypt and it was drafted and i think introduced by egypt, which is one of our closest friends in the region and in coordination with the palestinians and others, and during the time of out, weess as it went make clear to others, including those on the security council, that it was possible that if the resolution were to be balanced and were to include references to incitement and to terrorism

that it was possible the united states would then not block it, that if it was balanced and fair. that is a standard practice with resolutions in the security council. the ejections and the palestinians and others understood that if the text were balanced, it was possible that we would not block it. and we also made crystal clear that the president of the united states would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text. in the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. there are important issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. but we could not, in good conscience, veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement and reiterates what has been for a long time the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements. and call is the parties to start

taking constructive steps to advance the two state solution on the ground. ultimately, it will be up to the israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks that israeli officials have directed towards this administration best serve israel's national interests. and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support, as i have just described. those attacks alongside of a u.s.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims distract attention from what the substance of this vote was really all about. and we all understand israel faces serious threats in a tough neighborhood. israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often referencing what has happened with gaza. and we understand that, and we

believe there are ways to meet those needs of security, and israel ease are fully justified in decrying attempts to delegitimize its state. but that this vote was not about that. it was about actions that israelis and palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering the two state solution impossible. it was not about making peace with the palestinians now, it was about making sure that peace with the palestinians will be possible in the future. now, we all understand that israel faces extraordinarily serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. and the israelis are very correct in making sure that havenis not a terrorist right on their border, but this vote -- i cannot emphasize it enough -- is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that is going to resolve that overnight over one

year or two years. this is about a longer process. this is about how we make peace with the palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so. so how do we get there? how do we get there, to that place? since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks, the u.s. and the middle east cortex quartet havely -- repeatedly called on both sides to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two state solution, not just with words but with real actions and policies to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations. we have called for both sides to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends and send a different message, a clear message, that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation without waiting for the other side to act. we have pushed their basic -- pushed them to comply with

their basic commitments under their own prior agreements in order to advance a two state reality on the ground. we have called for the palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of violence. and we have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their own institutions and to improve governance, transparency, and accountability. and we have stressed that hamas arms buildup and militant activities in gaza must stop. along with our quartet partners, we have called on israel to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion, of taking land for exclusive israeli use, and denying palestinian development. to reverse the process, the u.s. and our partners have encouraged israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to the palestinians in area c,

consistent with the transition that was called for by oslo. and we have made clear that significant progress across a range of sectors including , housing, agriculture and resources, can be made without negatively impacting security needs. and we have called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and from gaza, with due consideration for israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. so let me stress here again. none of the steps that i just talked about would negatively impact israel's security. let me also emphasize this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. we are talking about significant steps that would signal real

progress towards creating two states. that is the bottom line. if we're serious about the two state solution, it is time to start implementing it now. advancing the process of separation, now, in a serious way, could make a significant difference in saving the in building confidence in the citizens of both sides. indeed, possible. much progress can be made in the advance of negotiations and laying foundation for the negotiations as contemplated by the oslo process. in fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks. now, in the end, we all understand that the final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. we have said that again and again. we cannot impose the peace.

other countries in the u.n. that believe it is our job to dictate the terms of the solution. others want us to simply recognize a palestinian state absent an agreement, but i want to make clear today these are not the choices that we will make. we choose, instead, to draw on the experiences of the last eight years to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious negotiation. in a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform and mold the present. it is important to understand the history. we mark this year and next as a series of milestones that i believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution. it is worth touching on them briefly.

120 years ago, the first zionist congress was convened by a group of jewish visionaries who decided the only effective response to the waves of anti-somatic horrors sweeping across europe was to create a state in the historic home of the jewish people, where there -- their ties to the land went back centuries a state that , could defend its borders, protect its people, and live in peace with its neighbors. that was the modern beginning and it remains the dream of , israel today. nearly 70 years ago, the united nations general assembly resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the state of israel a reality. the concept was simple. to create two states for two peoples. one jewish. one arab.

they referenced revolution -- resolution 181 in their declarations of independence. the united states recognized israel seven minutes after its creation. but the palestinians in the arab world did not. and from its birth, israel had to fight for its life. palestinians also suffered terribly in the 1948 war including many who would live for generations in a land that had long been their home too. when israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, the palestinians will mark a very different anniversary. 70 years is what they call the "catastrophe." next year will mark 50 years since the end of the six-day war when israel fought for its survival. palestinians will mark the opposite, 50 years of military occupation. both sides have accepted un security council resolution 242

, which called for the withdrawal of israel's territory that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and security -- secure borders 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 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. and both sides been a response -- and both sides are responsible 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, and enormous an enormousous -- 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. the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult to take risks. in the countless hours we spent

working on a detailed framework, we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals and we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. in the past two and a half years, i have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders including our quartet partners. i believe what has emerged from all of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the court needs of 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 too high to even start talks, we are at the opposite end of the spectrum. neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the others bottom line.

more negotiations that do not produce progress will only bring -- reinforce the worst fears. i understand negotiations would be complex and difficult and nobody could be expected to agree on the final results in advance. but if the parties could at 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 could be established to enable a meaningful progress to begin. it is in that spirit that we offer the following principles. not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. individual countries may have more detailed policies on these

issues as we do but i believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement could -- that could meet the needs of both sides and do the following. number one -- provide or 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, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of israel the territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. it has long been accepted by both sides and it remains the basis for an agreement today. as secretary, one of the first

issues i worked out was there -- their agreement that the reference in the arab peace initiative in the 1957 lines 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 that would insure the -- that would ensure that the agreement is fair to both sides. there is also broad recognition of israel's need that borders or -- are secure indefensible. defensible.e and and that the territory and palestine is viable. virtually everyone i have spoken to has been clear on this as well. no changes by israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides. principal 2 -- fulfill the

vision of the u.n. generalists and we resolution 181 of two states for two peoples. one jewish and one arab. in mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens. this has been the fundamental foundational principal of the two state solution, creating a state for the jewish people and the palestinian people where 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 and based on my conversations in these last months, i am absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as well, provided the need for a palestinian state is also addressed. we also know that there is some 1.7 million arab citizens who

call israel their home, and must now and always be willing to -- be able to live as equal citizens which makes this issue one of palestinians and others in the arab world. by recognizing each other's homeland, israel for the jewish people and palestine for the palestinian people, both sides reaffirmed their commitment to upholding equal rights for all of their respective citizens. principle number 3 -- provide for a just, agreed, and fair and 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.

all agree that there needs have to be addressed. as part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering must be acknowledged and there must be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. the international community can provide significant support and assistance. we are prepared to do that to help ensure the compensation and other needs are met. many have expressed a willingness to contribute, particularly if it brings peace. but there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples and cannot affect fundamental character of israel. principal four -- provide a resolution for jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states and protect and ensure freedom of

access 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 of people 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 that have capitals there. principle 5 -- satisfy israel's security needs and bring a full

end, ultimately, to the occupation. while ensuring israel can defend itself and palestine can provide security for its people in a non-militarized state. security is the fundamental issue for israel. together with a couple of others i mentioned. but security is critical. everyone understands that no israeli government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy security needs or risk creating an enduring threat like gaza transferring 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. i believe that those collective efforts, including close coordination on border security

and intelligence sharing, joint cooperations, joint operation, can all play a critical role in securing the peace. at the same time, fully ending the occupation is the fundamental issue for the palestinians. they need to know that the military occupation will really end after an agreed transitional process. they need to know they can live with freedom and dignity in 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 there are many different ways without occupation for israel and palestine and jordan and 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 has the ability to provide the most assistance. that is why a team led by the general, to whom i am grateful for his efforts, -- he is one of our foremost military minds -- all have engaged extensively with the israeli defense force and tried to find solutions that could help israel address its legitimate security needs. they developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented multilayered border security, enhancing palestinian capacity, enabling israel to retain the ability to address threats by itself even when the occupation had ended. general alan and his team were not suggesting what particular -- one particular outcome, one particular timeline, work technology alone would resolve these problems, they were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed

to. and they did some very impressive work that gives me total confidence that the security measures can be met. principle 6 -- 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 both sides that the final status agreement resolves all the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to this conflict. so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. for israel this must bring broader peace with all of its neighbors. that is the fundamental promise

of the 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. it envisages israel being a partner in those efforts when peace is made. this is the area where israel and the arab world are looking at perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation in the middle east since israel's creation in 1948. the arab world faces its own set of security challenges. israel and the united states, jordan and egypt together with the gcc countries would be ready and willing to find new security -- define and a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking. so, ladies and gentlemen, that is why it is vital that we all worked to keep open the possibility of peace, that we not lose hope in the two state solution matter how difficult it

may seem. because 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 from the past four years, i have suggested i believe and president obama has signed on to, believes in, a path that the parties could take. realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the parties own 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 talk and the basis for negotiations that the parties could accept and demonstrate that they are serious about making peace. we can only encourage them to take this path. we cannot walk down it for them. but if they take these steps,

peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and stability and -- perity of israel he is, israelis, palestinians, all the nations of the region. the palestinian economy has amazing potential in the context of independence. with major private sector investment possibilities. and they are talented, hungry, eager to work. israel has enjoyed unprecedented growth because it is a regional economic powerhouse taking advantage of innovation and trading opportunities. 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 towards. president obama and i know that the incoming administration has

signaled they may take a different path. and even suggested breaking with -- breaking from the long-standing u.s. policy on the possibility of a two state solution. that is for them to decide. that is how we work. but we cannot, in good conscience, do nothing. and say nothing. when we see the hope of peace slipping away. this is a time to stand up for what is right. we have long known what was go -- what to states living side by side in peace and security looks like. we should not be afraid to say so. i really began to reflect on what we have learned and the way ahead when i recently joined president obama in jerusalem at the funeral. he was one of the founding fathers of israel, he became one of the world's great elder statesman. a beautiful man and i was proud

to call him my friend. i know president obama was as well. i remember the first time i saw person on the white house lawn, for the signing of the historic -- i thought about the last time, at an intimate one-on-one dinner, a few months before he died, when we toasted to gather the future of israel peace heiece he so -- so passionately believed in for his people. he summed it up simply and eloquently as only he could. the original mandate gave the palestinians 48%. it is down to 22%. i think 78% is enough for us. as we laid him to rest that day, many could not help but wonder if peace between israelis and palestinians might also be buried along with one of his

-- its most eloquent champions. we cannot let it happen. there is simply too much at stake for future generations of israelis and palestinians to give in to pessimism, when peace is in fact still possible. we must not lose hope and the possibility of peace and must not given to those who say 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 choices for peace. we can all help. for the sake of future generations of israelis and palestinians, for all the people of the region, for the united states, all those around the world who have prayed for and worked for peace for generations, let's hope we are all prepared, particularly israelis and palestinians, to make those choices now. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the c-span video library is an easy way to view the programs. >> go to c-span.org which is the main site. the left side where all the hearing and presidential evidence of that day, campaign events. underneath that on the left side is a link that says recent events. they appear in order that they were on the network. you can search for a person's just pages person

that contain the videos. on that page is a link of a search box, where you put in words. word say you put in a talking about climate change. members of the black caucus will receive the signatures and statements of those demanding that this body fully support president obama's clean power plant. iraq.talked about that will get you to small pieces, almost like paragraph, where they made their remarks. second armored brigade combat team of the calvary division. these american soldiers were to tears -- were volunteers to protect the united states. >> you have links of all our

videos and clips. you can find the clips that people make available for other people to look for. --i do notnly hope think that. >> mentions are quotes that are valuable. decision byzarre the president to invite donald trump down there. , there are breakdowns, much like you would find on any other shopping website, where you can say you want to see a particular persons name or a particular senate committee, or a tag for a policy. it is very valuable for narrowing down.

>> joint as on tuesday for coverage of the opening day at the new conference. watch the official swearing-in of the new and reelected members. our all-day live coverage of the event begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. or he could listen to it on the c-span radio app. republicans have proposed a new rules package that would punish house numbers for live streaming or other disruptions on the house floor. democrats staged on the house floor to demand a vote on guns were control -- on the control legislations. they could face a $500 deduction to their paychecks were shooting video on the house floor. subsequent violations would be $2500 under the rules.

the new rules could be unconstitutional. article one of the constitution states that each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior. sanctions against lawmakers must be approved by the full house with a full vote. republican rules do not require a full or. the fines would be automatically defected -- deducted by the paychecks -- from the paychecks. francis rooney representing florida. tell us what you were doing before you decided to run. mr. rooney: i never thought i would run for an elected office. i'm so concerned about what has happened to our country in the last eight years. to not seekded reelection, my wife and i talked about it and decided i could do

better there than doing some of the writing and criticizing of the obamas -- obama administration's policies. reporter: when did you start your career? mr. rooney: most of my career in business, i built many businesses around the united states, latin america, many other parts of the world. we started small. back in 1980, ronald reagan became president and swept away a lot of oppressive regulations. i think we need that tax code now. submissions and diplomatic activities -- reporter: what was your work as an ambassador? mr. rooney: we were fighting a global world -- war on terror.

the need to work constructively with muslims around the world, to bring it into consists of with modern day -- into consensus with modern day life. how do you think that background, your business background, your work and the government, how does that prepare you for being a member of congress? mr. rooney: i hope it will make me effective. i understand a lot of columns will be debated and talked about and legislated on from the user's perspective. at obama administrations epa working constructively with companies to work safe and take care of our workers area the impact of our government any real-life way to help me be effective -- will help me to be effective. construction and energy business

in latin america, hopefully that will make me effective in representing district 19 and our country. reporter: you have been called a republican mega-donor. mr. rooney: i've given with my life to candidates who policies we believe in. god has been great to us. we build up a wonderful company and have been able to give back to our community in many ways. weive money to candidates believe in. spent yourhe fact he --ey, do you think the word what is the market will do out here? mr. rooney: it help me in many ways because i do have a political track record. i started as an outsider and newcomer politics. in newcomer politics.

we may try to raise funds to broaden awareness of issues, like request for funding for the restoration of the everglades, but as far as my campaign goes, we are fully ready to be independent thinking. reporter: have you figured out where you live in washington? a place in we have georgetown. we have two children who have lived here for some time. paying property taxes was cheaper than all the whole -- hotel rooms. reporter: for you staying with your children? mr. rooney: pretty close. our children live within three blocks. reporter: francis rooney, thank you for us >> join us on tuesday for live coverage of the opening day of the new congress. watch the swearing in of the new and reelected members of the

house and senate. our coverage of the events from capitol hill begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org, or you can listen on the free c-span radio app. few hours, aext look back at congressional hearings from the past year. first up is the flint michigan water problem. residents there have been living with lead tainted water for the past two years or more. the house oversight committee hears testimony from the governor of michigan and the head of the epa. here's congressman elijah cummings, the top democrat on that committee. cummings: there will now be an entire generation of children who suffer from brain damage, learning disability, and many other horrible effects of lead poisoning, that were inflicted