Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140801

There was progressively increasing knowledge that there were problems in meeting that launch date. And did mr. Cohen know that . I dont know that. But either through lack of oversight, he should have known it, or he knew it and reported this committee under oath that everything was fine on august 1, it was going to be ready for launch. What youre telling us is theres ample evidence in whats reviewed that people within hhs knew it was not ready and people under oath told this committee something entirely different. I dont know what specific individuals knew or did not know, but we saw evidence in the files that we reviewed that there was knowledge within the agency that the operational readiness was in jeopardy. Thank you. Im over time. This is an important issue. So youre saying people within the agency knew that the website was not ready, correct . Yes or no. We saw you saw it that people do you think that people in the agency knew that the website would collapse on october 1st . Yes or no. I cant speak to that. You dont have any, do you have indication from the files that people in the agency knew that the website would not work on october 1st . Yes, we saw that, yes. Can you produce that to this committee, please . There was a series no, can you produce it . Absolutely maam, yes. Thank you. My next question because miss tavener and mr. Cohen did come in and testify under oath several days before as the chairman has said that the webswould wo. Do you have evidence in your file that this website would not work . Yes or no. Thank you. In your opening statement, it talks about provisions of gao to strengthen the website for security concerns. Is that correct . This particular report [inaudible] okay. So you are not looking ng at privacy and security . Other teams within gao are looking at and that work are you aware of any Security Breaches in the websites . Yes or no. No, i am not. Okay. Now the gao made five recommendations you referenced in your opening statement, to cms to avoid the mistakes that you had identified. Is that correct . Yes. And i just want to go through those recommendations, because you said we should, and i think its important to know. The recommendations i think are good recommendations, but theyre a little vague, and so im going to ask you about each one of them, if you have specific details, but then also im going to ask you, mr. Woods, to supplement your testimony and provide to this committee and to cms specific details on each one of them, because i think its important for the kcms to actually be able to implement these recommendations and our last witness said he agreed with the recommendations and he did want to implement them. The first recommendation is that cms should take steps to assess the causes of the increase in costs of the continued development of healthcare. Gov, and the delays and functionality of the website, and develop a plan to mitigate those costs and delays. Can you briefly give us a little more detail on what steps the gao believes cms should take to make those assessments . Certainly. We did see Cost Increases in the accenture contract, the current contract. What steps do you think cms can take to rectify these problems . We think that they need to step back and identify the causes, the reasons why costs continued to increase in that particular contract. Okay, and do you have any thoughts what should be included in a mitigation plan . They need to make sure that costs are under control and that the schedule can be met. Yes, i think those two things are key. Now the next thing the gao recommends is that Quality Assurance surveillance plans and other oversight documents are collected and used to monitor contract performance. How can those documents be effectively used to monitor performance . The Quality Assurance surveillance plan is a standard document thats required in most efforts of this size that provides a road map for how the agency, any agency is going to oversee the contractors performance. Right, does the gao have thoughts on how it can be used to do that . Yes. Okay, if you can give us that information, that would be great. I want to go through your other recommendations. Certainly. Briefly, while i still have time. The gao also recommends that kr cms formalize existing guidance of responsibilities of personnel assigned oversight duties. The roles and responsibilities were spelled out in some way. How would formalizing existing guidance prevent confusion about the responsibilities and authority Going Forward . This gets to the issue of unauthorized individuals making changes. Okay, great. And when they learned of that, there was internal guidance provided to all of the people, but that has not been institutionalized. It has not been made part of the permanent guidance at okay so they already have a way theyre doing it, that just needs to be formalized. It needs to take the next step. The next thing you recommend giving staff direction on Acquisition Strategies, and developing a process to ensure that Acquisition Strategies are completed on time. Can you flesh that out a little bit for us . That was a very important deficiency that we identified. Yes. Is that there were a number of steps that cms took to expedite the rollout of this healthcare. Gov, but each of those individual steps added risk to the process, and the purpose of the plan or the Acquisition Strategy is to first of all identify those risks, to be able to come up with a plan to address them, and we found that that Acquisition Strategy was not prepared. So does gao have some ideas what this process could look like if it done appropriately . The process is already in place. Okay. He to regulations that hhs are very clear. In fact, this was done. Zero great, it follows as. Perfect. Last, do you recommend ensuring information type allergy and governments for approval to 4 . What ackley does that mean . What report are you referring to . What are the requirements and why did the board approved health care. Gov . The mac the agency had its place and provided for an oversight board. The problem we found is those governance board meetings were held and decisions were not made as we would have expected to approve or make modifications. So once again, this is have to follow. There was a process in place they did not follow. Indulgence. North carolina for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Woods, for being with us today. As im sitting here listening to your report findings, i am incredibly amazed by the inefficiency that went forward with a plan of action that was in place, and i keep coming up with the same question of why. Why were these steps taken . Why was action taken the way that it was . Why were there unauthorized individuals making decisions. I think one of the most glaring questions that i have based on your findings is that, and you use the word, that they expedite, they took measures to expedite the rollout, that that added risk, obviously, and it was a failed strategy essentially. Why, in your opinion, based on your findings, did they stay with that october 1st rollout date, when they knew based on what im listening to, that it was not going to be accurate and successful and that it would be a failure . Well, the law itself, the Affordable Care act set a hard deadline of january 1st, 2014, and they needed to have some period where consumers could determine their eligibility, look at plan availability, and make decisions about what plans they wanted to choose by that january 1st date. So they stuck with the october 1st date, knowing that their time was running out, and that they so now this is me just again trying to process why they would go forward with something that obviously was not put together well and steps were taken, it wasnt an efficient system and yet they were moving forward, so based on your knowledge, they had to go forward with that october 1st date, so that they could have the enrollee numbers that they were looking for by january 1st. Regardless of the fact that it wasnt going to work . Thats been cmss position is they needed to stick with that october 1st. They had to stick to that date because they needed those numbers of individuals signing up essentially. Yes . Well, they needed to comply, to have a system in place by october 1st, by january 1st in order to comply with the Affordable Care act. Okay. So im going to go back to some of the questions also on the tech surge, when the tech surge was implemented. To the best of our knowledge and based on the report findings, we understand there was a tech surge in october to fix the site after healthcare. Govs failed october 1st launch. Based on your investigation, what actions did cms take in october to fix the site . In october, they continued to work with cgi federal, but the level of frustration reached the point in november of 2013, where they sent yet another letter detailing the shortcomings of the contractor, asking for corrective action plan. Cgi responded to that and clearly disagreed with cmss assessment at that point. Okay, so they were disagreeing with it. There were other contractors involved, too, is that correct . There were many other contractors involved, right. But particularly it was cgi that, where the frustration was, where the disconnect was. They were responsible for the heart of the system, if you will. Okay. And thats where most of the dollars were in terms of contract expenditures. So to that point based on the fact that cgi was the main contractor for that, were there other contracts, was their contract extended . Were there any new issued contracts based on the frustration that cms had . The cgi contract had been extended earlier until february of 2014. And that was before october 1st . I believe that was before. It was already extended before october 1 as soon as. Thats correct. Okay, so then to that point, were there any other, again, getting back to this, were there any other contractors that were selected knowing cgi was not doing necessarily what was necessary for the repair of the website . The only contract that im aware of is the new one to accenture to continue with development of the federally facilitated marketplace. And can you refresh my memory on when that actually took place, when the new contract went forward . That was january of 2014. That was january, okay. Okay. Well, mr. Speaker or excuse me, sorry, mr. Chairman, i have gone over on my time and i apologize. Thank you, thank you mr. Woods. Thank you. Now going to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. Griffith, for five minutes. Thank you so much for being here today. I appreciate it very much. The report indicates that cms did not engage in effective planning or oversight. What do you recommend they do in the future to make sure they have proper planning jeempb sight . Because they apparently dropped the ball. They have the tools in place. Okay. One of the primary tools is a strategic plan, an Acquisition Strategy is what its called. Theres actually a template in the hhs regulations for each of the areas that needs to be addressed, and fundamentally, its a tool designed to identify the risks that the agency is undertaking and to be able to come up with a plan to be able to mitigate those risks, but they did not follow it. So the tools are there, they did not use the tools that were there. I want to ask you an openended question because i think its important that we get this perspective from time to time, and that would be out of the report what have with he not asked you about that we probably should have asked you about or the people watching this at home, something they ought to know about your report that you havent already covered in your testimony here today . One thing that comes to mind is the next Enrollment Period. I think people are wondering are we going to experience similar problems or are we in better shape. Thats why we have one of our recommendations thats focused on the current contract with accenture, where weve seen some cost growth, and we think the agency needs to make an assessment of why that cost growth has occurred, whether they are in fact on schedule and whether there are any risks to the 2015 Enrollment Period. My hearing is not as good as it should be. Youre talking about the cost growth . What was that phrase you used . Cost increases. Okay. And we have somewhat of a disagreement with the agency about the term cost growth, and thats why im reluctant to use it. Their position is that any cost increase since about april of this year is totally based on new requirements. So its unfair to call that cost growth. Our position is that when you look before that, when they initially awarded that contract at an estimated value of 91 million, and now its at 175, that the agency needs to make an assessment about why that, why those costs increased from the 91 to 9the 175, and that is not the end of it. There are, that contract continues in place today. Our numbers are dated in terms of, you know, we completed our audit work a couple of months ago, so costs on that particular contract are almost certainly higher today than they were at the time that we completed our audit work. We think the agency needs to make an assessment about why costs continue to grow. Well i think they do as well, and i appreciate you raising that point, and its kind of interesting that it would seem to me some of those new requirements are probably because it didnt work the first time around. Wouldnt you agree . There are enhancements to this system. Theyre constantly changing and trying to make improvements to the system. The ones early on i think youre right, that those are related to the inability of the system to function as intended originally, but the agency tells us that the more recent Cost Increases are due to enhancements. All right. Well i appreciate that, and i appreciate your testimony here today, and im happy to yield my last 55 seconds to whomever might want it. I will, thank you. Thank you. I do have one followup question, and it has to do with the conversation you were just having with my colleague. When were talking about the Cost Increases, you had mentioned the enhancements are what has been cited as the reasoning. My question for you is did cms get congressional approval for the additional funding or spending i guess i should say . Im not aware of what that process was at all. So to your knowledge, based on the report, you did not see any effort put forward to come to congress for additional funding for spending . I cant speak to that. We didnt see it, but that wasnt part of our review. Okay. Thank you, mr. Woods, and thank you to my colleague for yielding. Thank you. Im going to do a second round with ms. Dagett and i. Followup here. Are you saying that cms is not analyzing why the contract with accenture is growing in cost . We dont think that they have done that fully yet. This original contract which was a cost plus contract, who signed that contract . Who is responsible for that . Those contracts are signed by the contracting officer, and as i said, i dont have that name. Those have to be approved by mr. Cohen or miss tavener in the chain . I dont know. Is that something your study encompassed to find that paper trail or look at that . We did not review that, no. Let me ask you, too, you talk about the pressure of deadlines, january 1, 2014, but a number of delays were put into place, employer mandate, or the retirement issue, enforcement of canceled plans, individual mandate to the shop plan. Should the rollout have been delayed as well . Im not sure about that but your observation about delays is accurate, when they realize that they would not be able to be fully functional by october 1st, they did make some tradeoffs, and pushed projects that they thought they were initially going to be able to complete by october 1st, pushed that off into the future, and the Small Business program that you mentioned is one of them. The Financial Management module was also pushed off until a later date. But none of those delays caused a delay on the website. None of those many of those things i mentioned, they didnt cause a delay in the website readiness. These several dozen other changes internally which were one of the factors in the delay, in the website readiness, though, am i correct . Well, the website was launched, im not sure but you had said a number of decisions made during i guess it was 2013 to 2012 were part of the complexity. One there wasnt proper oversight of the contract and second a number of internal changes were made by someone who didnt have the authority to make those changes. Thats correct. So do you know or can you find out for us in terms of someone making these changes, who approved the decision for them to make these changes, or who gave that person the authority to be in that position to make those changes . Do you have that information . There are a number of people working with the contractors on a daytoday basis, and the 40 instances of changes or direction to the contract was made by multiple individuals. Some of these were technical people, as i said, working side by side with the contractor, some of them more and more senior officials. All of the changes, though, ultimately, were ratified by the person with authority to do that, and that is the contracting officer. But what did it go to the level of miss tavener or mr. Cohen . I dont know. Is that something your records to review . We need to know if your records show or if you can find out for us. You have an excellent investigation but its very important to know this, if they knew or should have known in terms of approving these changes or being aware that the website wasnt ready or, well, let me ask that part. Do you have any information on those . Well, as i said, well certainly review our materials and provide an answer to that question. Because it comes to this point, this committee, members of each side of the aisle have different points with issues with regard to health care reform. Thats fine, part of what makes our nation great, people have differences of opinion, they move forward on that. There are certain standards within a committee that i think she with you be unified in understanding that if someone comes before the committee under oath and claims that something is ready to roll on october 1, thatter should be able to sign up, knowing full well that its not, its either incompetence, its dereliction of duty, its sloppiness, its lack of supervision oversight or its perjury to this committee, perjury in terms of making a claim they know is not true or making a claim they have no business of making. The only answers to questions like this is the website ready october 1 is yes, no, or i dont know. Anything beyond that, when the claim was made by mr. Cohen to this committee under oath that october 1 everybody would be ready to sign up, its clear from your investigation and your testimony that people within the agencies knew it was not ready. So any information you could provide us that tells us if they knew and made false claims as committee or if they didnt know and made false claims to the committee its important for the integrity of this committee to let us know, and if you could submit those, that information to this committee, id be grateful, your paper and other reviews. Miss dagett recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and mr. Woods, i can understand why the chairman is concerned about this, based on your testimony today, so i want you to think very clearly about what your investigation found, and what you have testified to this committee today when i ask you these questions. Because i dont want the record to be confused, and i dont want a misimpression to be left. Are you aware of either miss tavener or mr. Cohen coming before this committee and lying about whether they knew the website was not ready. No, i cannot speak to that. I dont know. You dont know. Do you know mr. Miss tavener or mr. Cohen personally knew the website was not ready . I do not know. You dont no he that. Do you know whether miss tavener or mr. Cohen specifically approved those changes . No, i do not know. You dont no he thknow that . No. Do you know who within the agency did approve those changes . Ultimately those changes were ratified and approved by the contracting officer. The contracting officer so you could give us that information through that list . Absolutely. Thank you. I just think, and i know the chairman agrees, we dont want to loosely be throwing around allegations of perjury or anything else, when we we dont want to put words in your mouth either so i think were clear on that. Theres one more thing i wanted to clarify about your testimony today. Your first recommendation that, in your report on this topic, as we discussed, was take immediate steps to assess the causes of continued ffm cost growth and delayed system functionality and develop a mitigation plan designed to ensure timely and successful system performance. Is that right . Thats correct. And thats the one youre concerned about cms following as they look at the implementation of the 2015 program, is that correct . The effort thats under way by accenture is to move the Development Forward to be ready for . Right. The 2015. And that relates to that recommendation . Yes, it does, we and huh . We think that cms needs to make that assessment in order to ensure itself right. Its on track for that Enrollment Period. For next year . Right. Now, you were sitting here i believe when we heard the testimony of the previous witness. Is that correct . Yes, i was. Mr. Slavitt. And i specifically asked mr. Slavitt if he had reviewed the five recommendations gao had made. Do you remember hearing that . Yes. And do you remember hearing mr. Slavitt say that cms agrees with all five of the recommendations . Do you remember hearing that . I remember hearing that, yes. So i would just, i would just, you know, sometimes i like to have both the agency witness and the gao, so that they can answer each others issues, but i just want the record to be clear that mr. Slavitt has said that they recognize this recommendation, they intend to comply with it and i think mr. Chairman we should follow up and make sure that happens. Thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. I recognize dr. Burns for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair opinion. Mr. Woods, thank you for being here and i commend the General Accountability Office on great work. This has not been easy and i appreciate how difficult its been to be here today and i appreciate your forbearance. Along the lines of what miss dagette was just asking you, do you know whether or not the center for medicare and Medicaid Services is adopting your recommendations right now . What they told us is that they fully agreed with four of our recommendations, and they partially concurred with our fifth recommendation. Have you any evidence that you can point to that shows that, in fact, they are taking steps to comply with four of those recommendations . Weve seen some indication. You have their assurances but is there anything that you can point to in data, in fact, that they are taking those recommendations . What they told us is, what they told us is they are providing additional training in certain areas that they plan to implement those recommendations, were hopeful that they do. We have a normal regular process for following up with agencies to make sure that if they tell us that theyre going to implement recommendations, that they, in fact, do so. So that process will continue at gao. I look forward to the followup hearing we have about that implementation. Now, you know, a lot was written in august of 2012 about the lack cnss or hmss lack of production on rulemaking as it related to the essential health benef benefit. Ss or hmss lack of production on rulemaking as it related to the essential health benefit. Mss or hmss lack of production on rulemaking as it related to the essential health benefit. In fact that rulemaking was delayed, the rule actually came out about a week after election day that year. I dont know if you recall that. In your work, was there any evidence that that delay was politically motivated or am i just being overly sensitive and overly cynical by the rule coming out a few days after election day 2012 . We found no indication of that, sir. So your inference is im being overly cynical . We cant we found nothing to let me point out to shayou, s came up several times today. Mr. Cohen was here i think it was about 10 or 11 days before october 1st, and i asked him a very direct, very specific question. In fact, i tried to do what john dingell said, yes or no, the website will be ready on october 1st. He gave me what i presume to have been a wellrehearsed and studied answer, because he repeated it verbatim twice, and it essentially said on october 1st, consumers will be able to go online, see premium net of subsidy, and make their purchase. Now as we know, that didnt actually turn out to be the case. So it is a valid question to ask. He must have known that ten days before the launch date, because it sounds like from your report that it was pretty clear that things werent going well. Am i wrong about that . I simply cant speak to what he knew or didnt know at any particular point in time, but i can say that we found indications in the documents that we reviewed that the system was projected to be only 65 wa only 65 complete by that october 1st deadline. If you had been asked that question and answered it unoath, would you have answered it the same way mr. Coen did . I cant you have written in your report october 21st deadline for establishing enrollment through the website, cms identified significant performance issues involving ffm, facilitated federal marketplace contractor but the agency took over only limited steps. Can you provide for the committee what correspondence, evidence relied on to make that statement . Absolutely. We can summarize what led us that conclusion and wed be happy to do that. As a part of making that statement, did you have access to internal emails within the center for Consumer Information and insurance oversight and cms . We reviewed lots of do you mean, contract documents, emails, memos. So we had very good access to cms. I would ask that be made available to the committee, transcripts, make it available to the subcommittee. I believe we already have that information in the subcommittee. Lets find out. Its been produced already. Again, i would ask we be certain you have the information the committee asked for. Wed be happy to work on t t that. Let me ask you, open enrollment is going to be shorter than last time. In your opinion, are they going to be ready for second open Enrollment Period . Im not in a position to make that judgment. Thats why we had the recommendation we did is that we think cms needs to make that assessment of cost and schedule to make sure that they are on track. We said in the record thats the risk, some impact on the 2015 Enrollment Period and thats why we had the recommendation we did. Thank you for you answers. Thank you for being here. Without objection the documents entered in the record. Thank you for your thorough and candid report. All this Committee Requests is honestness, thoroughness and reputation of organization is based on that ability to honor and thoroughly provide to a candid world. We appreciate that members have skefrl questions for followup. We ask that you respond to that in a quick manner. We also ask your commitment, majority and machine ort staffs so they can revee and ge get details. Participate in the hearing, remind members 10 Business Days to submit ques the senate voted to give israel 225 billion or it ironed him antimissile system. The dumbest credit of shooting down dozens of weapons fired into israel by pallas demands. The u. S. Will go to restart the antimissile gun. The Senate Approved that money for israel by unanimous consent. Let me just say to my friend, the majority leader, this is a good ample about being able to put it eyed partisan considerations and Work Together to help our good friend israel out. I particularly want to use lose senator graham and senator mccain to be absolutely relentless effort to make sure that we sent this important signal to israel at an important time. They are being, in my view criticized by everyone for pursuing a policy that i am not the least dirt we would pursue if somebody across our border for launching missiles at our civilian population. I think it is important for us to send a signal that the United States and behind one of its best friends its not its best friend in the world. I think the Prime Minister of israel pretty well summed it up when he said there is no moral equivalence be here. Hamas launches missiles on the billions and israel warned civilians when it attempts to attack and hamas uses its own civilians to protect its missiles. No moral equivalency whatsoever. So is much of the world bubbles its criticism in israel, it is important to the United States to say and suggest that israel is doing any a met anyone in the world is doing at it and had it to do since been threatened by a neighbor as israel is six. Scum is no obvious way i do not object. Senator from arizona. Mr. President , i would like to take a moment to thank both leaders for there are for in bringing about this muchneeded, not only the funding, but the signal that the congress will send on the net will sign that we are supportive of them. We all know the latest news is tragically that a proposed ceasefire is working down. Apparently and israelis holger has been captured in all of us know the ramifications of that in the future and the value that the Israeli Government and people put on each one of their ends to serve. I would like to thank again the majority leader and republican leader for coming together en masse most important signal. It isnt just about money. It is a signal from the American People and the american taxpayer that we are with the israelis because if they do not have iron domes, they cant defend themselves. It is that simple. The iron dome is the ability to keep innocent civilians in neighborhoods and families from being destroyed by these barrages of literally thousands of incoming rocket. So again, i aint my friend. There has been no one more relentless than the senator from South Carolina and i would like to yield to him. Senator from South Carolina. The mac yesterday, time is blurred now. I dont know if it was yesterday or early this morning, a very bad thing happened to the people of israel. During a ceasefire that they agreed to come an israeli unit was attacked by the hamas suicide armor and after that attack against the internet question and this soldier has been kidnapped. Today a holiday the United State Senate seeks one voice. I cannot thank you enough for making this happen. You make sure it got cleared on our site and it finally has. They are running out of fire go missiles to protect themselves. Who do they turn to . Eyes. 225 million is a lot of money in the budget. Its not only the missiles that matter. The message that goes with the missiles. We are with you. Here are the missiles. Use them to defend yourself but we will stand with you on the battlefield. We will stand with you in Public Opinion and we are going to push back against the United Nations is becoming more and were antiisraeli. As dysfunctional as the congress has been, this is one of our finer moments. We are about to leap years doing with a lot of work done. Let it be said that we did have the foresight and the ability and quite frankly the moral decency to end on a positive note. You can say a lot about this congress and much criticism does hurt. We left israel in a lurch in a bipartisan manner we were there when they need it the most intolerant friendliness growth day as long as you need to stay, do whatever you need to do for our friends in palestine. Theres no more innocent person on the planet and a child. The Palestinian Peace both reject hamas in the peace. We are not your enemy. We stand to help you, do you have to reject this terrorist organization that has the coldest in darkest part. That would put your children at risk. Reject this hateful ideology while you still can to our friends in israel, there is more to calm when it comes to standing by your side. They both leaders of the senate for rising to the occasion. Leader. I appreciate my three friends. Mr. President , there are times when partnership does not ask us. I hope everyone will note that last night we could get this cleared. I. , we, there was no fingerpointing. I understand apers and objected to a fine and come in an apparent bowl. But i had a fitness in to to shannon and are sticking by our friend. I am happy to be here today and part of this conclusion. Now, the situation in israel is grave. We think this iron dome protects israel. To protect one of israel, but israel does not have enough training to protect it. They need more. This will be certainly a step in the right direction. 3000 rockets have been fired in the last two and a half, three weeks. 3000. But for this to knowledge he, that was perfect it by the israelis. They would be in drier streets. It would be a war in the can imagine. Lets be realistic. Are we going to benefit from what theyve done . The course we are. This technology tear sharing with us. There is a ceasefire that lasted about 2. 5 hours. Its terribly unfortunate with going on over there. As david brooks that on the news hour, and its conservative columnist said he had never known of a conflict in history where one side says kill more of us. It is hard to come behind. The israelis notify someone in the action taking the building when you leave. Leadership in gaza is unfortunately a lot of them too. This is some pain to comprehend that something might viscose on. That Little Country, that tiny Little Country is only the democracy in the whole area. That is it. Netanyahu, a fire in israel i wouldve voted for someone else. But the israeli people determine who leads the country. And i dont know the bond of friendship we have or ever had in a World History better than this one. So i will stand by israel. I will stand by israel for a lot of personal reasons, and i have no hesitation in declaring thats how i feel. Theres no objection to the unanimous consent request to order. she was so beautiful and so smart and also so witty that she was just always there is this well tonight. Even in old age, richard cohen, the washington communist sat together after dinner having coffee. At one point she began to beard. He said ive never known an 80yearold before. She had this seductive quality her entire life. the former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority spoke yesterday at the Atlantic Council of washington d. C. He offered his ideas to resolve the conflict between israel and hamas said he took questions from the audience. [applause] thank you very much. Thank you for the very kind introduction. And i thank you, ladies and gentlemen for the interest you have taken, which i wish red hat and against a different actor out relative to what you are lucky not with the situation in terms of what has been going on for 25 years. That destruction we are talking about more than for a hundred people, including many, many children. More than eight and many today are in my spirit situation. Even more name given the condition of the gaza strip. In addition to infrastructure this is the extent of the project unfolding for the past 25 days and counting. Unfortunately, the prospect in the immediate teacher of the ceasefire. The great d. O. For the absurd that have been made to reach some kind of an arrangement that would secure a ceasefire. The most important being given to which the situation of course what is really important beyond the obvious, which is a secure ceasefire, the most important thing, is to see what needs to happen. In order to build nonnot ceasefire to ensure that as we speak in to converge to a new normal of sorts, that that new normal is not so different from the old one. The old normal means specifically that it was found in a couple occasions before this time around workroom that was not really for the expert patients with preparation for the next round literally beginning immediately after the ceasefire was secure. First things first, let us get the urgently needed ceasefire. This is the second thinking, more like a mediumterm to longerterm contacts. Anytime you have this type of situation, it is very difficult to introduce elements of the strategic nature or longerterm implications. To listen . At time theres death and destruction, tragedy and misery about longterm or strategic dimension to whats going on. At the same time, unless those considerations are factored into the discussion, unfortunately, this situation will be one of moving from a crisis to the next one. Besides, i think i happen to believe in the context of the current tragedy that were looking at thats unfolding and continues to unfold before our own eyes, thinking strategically or seemingly longer term is absolutely essential in order to make the ceasefire promise to be a lasting one, relative to previous efforts made in this direction. The focus of my remarks will be on this. And i think in a way, it was suggested by my colleagues an the council and im proud of the association. Thank you for the help and i look forward to working with you and others to promote ideas related to this very conflict but also to grow the region which continues to be really going through a period of unprecedented turmoil with unprecedented violence, extremism and that has not been seen. One really has to go back in history a long, long time where one can find the unprecedented violence thats been taking place for a long time. And threatens to continue to be the case. Against the backdrop of all of this and the title suggested for this conversation which im eager to have with jeff camp in short order, try to access breaking the vicious cycle. The choice of title, which was not mine, imparts the dimension to this conversation that i have just alluded to, which is what do we do in order to ensure that the new normal is fundamentally different from the old one. And if thats not really enough, and i think in the words of a woman in gaza sitting by specifically and i make mention of this in my prepared remarks which would be made available to you at the conclusion of this conversation, sitting by the remains of what used to be her home only two weeks ago destroyed completely by an air strike, and pointing to it and saying, you know, even before this, she said, we have much to lose. Even before this, so much misery. We are alive simply because there was not enough death to go around. I thought it was important significant words of this kind in addition to what we just talked about in terms of the title as defining this conversation today. This is really as good a reason as any for us to engage in this kind of conversation, discussions as to what needs to happen to place this in a context that ensures the tragedy what has been unfolding the past 3 1 2 weeks. And as we do, there are some ideas that have been put forward that involve certainly not, you know, rushing back to a political process that has gone through yet another round of failed diplomacy without adjustment, nor to focus on that exclusively to the point where efforts that need to continue to be made in earnest now to secure a ceasefire, but rather to consider what it is that has to be done. In the experience over the past 20 years or so and particularly over the past 15, since the presumptive date of end of discussion or negotiation, socalled permanent status issues, what is it in light of that experience that should be taken into consideration . To inform a process that could lead to introducing badly needed adjustment to promise delivery so that we would not end up doing this over and over again, expecting different results we cannot possibly obtain. That is really the direction in which i decided to take this conversation in the form of the remarks that i have prepared for this conversation which, again, will be made available to you. And dare i suggest, as a matter of fact, the importance of taking a new look at some of the more important precepts of the existing framework. What is a framework, negotiation framework or peacemaking framework, if you will. One fundamental question. Who represents the palestinians. What is it that that party actually represents. And the other one, the other element or the other area of possible adjustment i feel would be necessary to take a good look at is the design of the original framework thats oslo. I would make to make it clear to you, this is not going to be an argument for ditching the existing framework. This is not about a statement that says let us abandon the twostate solution concept to the contrary. In thinking through the adjustments of the kind that ill be talking to you briefly about, actually what i had in mind was steps necessary to be taken and undertaken in order to ensure that viability of the steps necessary can be restored in order for this framework to be successful. And very briefly, those two key areas of adjustment or possible adjustment that need to be examined thoroughly, on the question of palestinian representation, there is an issue, quandary, if you will, of there being essentially two camps. One that happens to have the power of representation. That is the plo. But without much effective presence with one that has really waned over time, for a variety of reasons including most importantly as a direct consequence of the failed political process. And on the other, another group, another camp that does not have the power to represent but has real strength and field presence in ways that cannot be ignored. The doctrine has referred them, deal with what exists, and the framework that does have the power to represent, reach a Peace Agreement that the process itself plus the outcome would be transformative enough to really take us all to a successful end, if you will, conclusion. That has not happened. That has not happened over the past 20 years. I would say over the past 15 years since may 1999 when this was supposed to have been concluded by agreement and through negotiation and it wasnt. If anything, the goal achieved and developed out of this political process looks more distant today than in 1999. That is a really serious problem and one that did contribute to the plo being what it is. So thats a point that needs to be considered as we really move forward. Both in terms of its implications for overall peacemaking effort but also in terms of its relationship with the question of National Palestinian governments. How much longer can you keep on going with the countries separated and with this much marginalization going on and without adequate representation and various factions, parties having enough presence and sense of partnership that goes on. So the International Requirement on one hand, the requirements of peacemaking but also the requirements of governance that would require taking a good look at. Last, its the second issue. The second issue that needs adjustment, thats the overall design, if you will, of the framework. Once again, im emphasizing that i am not talking about forgetting about that framework, but really fixing it. Also, many people forget was about an arrangement. It was not a permanent arrangement. It was supposed to have ended. It was supposed to have was supposed to and in that construction was emergence of the state of palestine, something that was not elaborated with this exactly before at least in the United States june 2002 when the ors. Of a viable state of palestine, living sidebyside was put forward as the way forward and the solution, and therefore making it a sort of making it universally accented doctrine. A lot of things did not happen the way theyre supposed to happen and thats why we need to go back. Oslo was supposed to be an arrangement. May 1990 it was supposed to happen, did not happen. The arrangement may have made sense or could have been understood to make sense because it was interim, because actually by virtue of signing the accord, the palestinian side, by virtue of signing that, was in a formal seasons accepted the occupation or continuation of occupation in a formal way for a maximum of five years beyond the 26year period that had elapsed. But not forever. It was accepted as an interim period. After 1999, nothing made sense anymore and what was a interim arrangement baghdad an openended arrangement became an openended arrangement. The signing of the accord on the success of delivering life, freedom and liberty in a country of Palestinian People and that obviously has not worked out. And it became openended, to put it bluntly, palestinians go on, continue to negotiate with israel, accept what israel has to offer for you, or else accept reality of continued occupation. That doesnt make sense. Thats why i said this side needs to be look at again. That is what needs to be reconsidered. Question, how do we make sense out of these considerations, how do we put them together and order to come up with a concept that can, on the one hand, reinforce the efforts. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, very much. Thank you. [applause] thank you for submitting to interrogation. Thank you for those opening initial comments. I missed saying something that in these modern days you said its different times i was supposed to say from the top and that is for those who are tweet, its hash tag acgaza. This is all on the record, obviously, and not only will the full comments be made available physically outside of 5 00 p. M. But well also have then on our web site if i know our team, right at the same time. So, i think it should be at the same time. I do want to give a special greeting to steve hadley. Didnt see he was in the audience at the beginning. So much a part of bringing dr. Dr. Hyad here, and many Board Members and members throughout, thank you for being here. Let me start by drilling down on what you were saying. You were essentially saying, we dont have the representation. We dont have the framework right. Could you tell us what should the representation be, what should the framework be . More than i hope a very complicated problem here. On the one hand, the accord were hung ton by the plo and the palestinians, and those involve everyone. Recognition by the state of israel, the plo representing the Palestinian People. And that defines the palestinian council. And that point in time always, this is the criteria how the plo wants to be judged, delivering freedom to Palestinian People. That didnt happen. As i alluded to in my opening remarks, and if anything, that goal appears to be more elusive today than then. Not surprisingly, the standing of the plo has eroded over time. Consistent with and con tom tenant with an erosion in the terms of the peace process. Things that used to be taken for granted, like, for example, the questions about 1967 being the all of a sudden, in 46 years, having become an issue of contention, whether or not it can be included in an occupancy, and one for the United States, not israel. A remarkable erosion. This is not something that is easy. Thereby this was very costly. It made the difference or stayed involved, and the minimal accept able to the palestinians. A plo failed to deliver by the end of the fiveyear swim period fiveyear interim period, and then 2014, the failure after fall our after failure. Negotiations, giving way to the next. The next negotiations started with having erode even further. So the fact of the plo having the power to present the the responsibility to effectively represent Palestinian People, but then looking at the situation becoming more and more difficult to handle. At the same time, there were these other factions that never were part of the plo framework. From the very beginning, they did not accept oslo as a frame of resolving the palestinian issue from the very beginning, and over time, and in parallel with the decline and erosion of the standing of at the plo, their power, strength, the extent to which their ideology resonated with people, not withstanding the ups and downs of the political side and sentiments, but over time, i think once you look at it in the transaction, one cannot but see the rise in the standing over time. And that happens to be influenced by failed diploma is diplomacy, and could be more pronounced in times like these, death and suffering and tragedy. And them saying, look at what this other faction has done or this other school of thought or ideology, failure. So you have a situation where you have favres standing on the platform, gaining strength, at the same time the plo acting for palestinians to represent losing ground. This is something that we need so you have to somehow bring these factions into the representation. Is that what youre saying . You know, it is very important for two reasons. One, there are two dimensions, international in terms of engagement with israel, the International Community, and then theres the government issue. What do you do about government when certain factions are excluded . When we have at the same time this much power and field presence. Im really talking about what appears to be what appears to be perception is superior ideology. At the time when unfortunately before it started to develop that, supposed to be not the plo that had committed, not to nonviolence but to peace, all along said thats not going to happen. And then say where necessary the hoyt of National Liberation movements, National Liberation movement had to lay down their arms . Difficult to argue against that. You look at the history. But youd understand it in the palestinian context all lead to the extent that oslo was supposed to be an interim arrangement. In the sense of promising delivery five years later, the commitments undertaken by the plo on behalf of palestinians, and also renounce violence, made sense in the context of coming to an end. But once we cross 1999, started to become very difficult to really argue initially. A number of things happen over the time that in a way validated that kind of thinking, and you cant ignore that and the assumption or even you have to make sense to to you govern. Many things happened over the course of the past 20 years that actually validated the theory that says, violence pays off. Many things. Not only in the palestinian context but the region, where they talk about lebanon, for example, and this all appeared over the course of the all the framework, and several instances of dealing between Palestinian Authority and israel. Take, for example, one example, the prisoner exchange, where in one room, israel traded the freedom of more than 1,000 palestinian prisoners to secure the release of compare that with the experience that we and the plo had to go through trying to resecure what does that send the public at large . You cant ignore the perverse etack of events like this on perception and you cant ignore perception. You cant govern without people. Its not good enough to say that i think. The question is, can you carry . Experience of diplomacy in the past years is very difficult for me to see the palestinian political framework, as it, occurring and thats the bottom line. Thats the bottom line. So, that cant be ignored. I know in what im telling you here that drivers people away from the comfort zone. This is not really the position of too many. And i wouldnt exclude myself from the many, but theres tragedies going on and will repeat themselves time and again. You cant deep doing the same thing and really do nothing more than kick the can down the road, and have all these disasters and pretend you can go back to the old framework. You just cant. Im really sorry that this pushes some outside of their comfort zone. We need to do something. How to do it is the question. This is not that were stopping from principle would be luxury of designing things to the liking of everybody, but we need to take into account the complication. Lets go to the how to do it question, because it seems to me that youre saying very passionately and articulately that this vicious cycle were in cant continue. And violence pays off and were also experiencing unprecedented violence. Sounds like youre describing changed representation in the Palestinian Government because its necessary and urgent but without saying specifically what it should be, and a changed framework without saying specifically what it should be but just saying it has to change because youre not specific. Ill do what i can to be more specific. I dont know i can be too specific for the reason what i have in mind is a set of ideas that im putting out for consideration, and what or the extent to which we wont be successful and have discussion on this is important. Factions. So what im talking about here is, if you will, the broad architecture of this but not the specific details in terms of, for example, i talk about time balanced commitment to nonviolence. What does that mean . The concept there is but really up to all concerns to define it. But the idea is the following, the substance of this to be more specific than just to see it needs to be adjusted. Make the point that adjustment was necessary, but then in what direction . First of all in terms of the existing framework you have the plo which as a matter of course and legality, if you will, has entered into an agreement to the state of israel going back in 1993 has a good deal of significant. That cannot be ignored, and the power to represent what certainly is there. Continues to be there today. But then what do you do to make that adjustment . My own suggestion would be to leave the plo alone, to not really get to the point of saying, lets undo this, or open it up without any aware that makes International Engagement very difficult. Keep it as it is, with its right to represent in the way that refers to the agreements but in the way come to be known. Leave that alone. But in parallel, in parallel, have a unify leadership framework that involves participation by everyone, all factions, whether theyre plo or nonplo, all sitting at a table, and there, together, collectively, are to inform decisionmaking by the executive committee of the plo. What does it really mean . Is this asking too much . Say the plo doesnt want to do this, just for the sake of argument. I dont think they would but what is the basis for the executive committee of the plo or plo to continue to engage in International Diplomacy when it is not fully ensured it can carry. We could really choose the kind of game we want to play, but to not want to deliver results unless we have good answers each question. It is in the interim of the plo, and the executive committee, the leadership, to really have a decisionmaking process informed by other opinions to be able to secure the consensus needed in order to deliver an agreement. After all, this is not going to alleveat just an agreement between two nations. Get to the point where that is going to be something which allows people have lost their life for, its very important to prepare for so no, i dont think anyone should say to them, the plo i think it should welcome it. Now, what kind of processes are involved . And that is why i say this is really open for discussion. Much intended our own domestic political as international. Exactly how we are going to consider yourselves in order to create an operational life, this framework which exists as a consequence of dialogue which has taken place. How to precisionallize it in a way that is meaningfully informs digsmaking, which continues to serve. Thats one element. And how to govern domestically. A question of anyone out the who thinks that there is going to be an end to this conflict, and a state of palestine emerging, full, viable state of palestine, without gaza, needs to really not going to happen. Not going to happen. Look at it from the point view of israel, who supported the twostate solution. What is it they say to the israeli public in order to make the case for twostate solution . Clearly based on the kind of government and country they would like to have, and so demographics are important, and time and again, i see them making the case for the state of palestine. Without gaza, if you take gaza another of that mix, they will not have very important. We need to have all of those factions represented, full partnership, if not a complete or inclusive. This is in the interest of everybody. And at some point theres two final elements. One, needs to be a basis for consensus. There is a Critical Mass that is absolutely necessary in order to per mate takeoff here. Permit a take yacht takeoff here, without especially on security. Something needs to be agreed. And so far as far at violence is concerned, needs to be an understanding of the need for there to be period of nonviolence. Its nothing more, how long that be discussed and agreed. Thats of interest to anybody, and you the time to rebuild use, the time to reunify the institutions. Gaza and the west bank have been separated for seven years now. These are matters that require diplomacy in a serious way. So you put this together, let us say a consensus can be formed on the palestinian side on these critical issues. I think that is when we palestinians should feel empowered enough to go to the israelis and International Community and say, this is what we have, this is what we can and expect to do over the next period we define it can we now this is a most adjustment intended to deal with the design flaw in the overall framework. Can we now agree on a date certain for ending the occupation . Thats how you really put all of these elements together. Can we agree on a date . We just cant keep going like this. We need to start from the end, agree on a set of directions. The default to failure in negotiations cannot continue to be continuous occupation. It has to be certainty of the end to occupation. Can we agree with that . Then your domestic front and international front, engagement, would begin to proceed with the dealing of sense of coherence that makes sense to the people and thats very important. They cannot be left behind for us to suspect the process to succeed. Thank you for that. Some in israel would say lets come to the present tense, the situation on the ground. Some in israel would say the way to brake the vicious cycle is to completely defeat hamates once and defeat hamas once and for all, argued in the Washington Post recently. The last week the security form, Lieutenant General michael flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence agency, warned that if hamas is totally defeated in the current round of fighting, its likely more extreme group would rise in its place. Id likeow your vision on this. And i know your job is not to advise the Israeli Government but what would you advice be to the Israeli Government in this sense. You see the popularity figures of what is going on right now of netanyahu rising. So, so, first, this question of what replaces them would be more extreme, this tension between what the ambassador said and he head of the dia, and then if you were sitting in a room advising the Israeli Government, what you tell them. Stay with it, to be hospital honest with you. This notion youre going to continue to engage until it leads to the elimination of hamas and other factions, at the same time, apart from the obvious tragic consequences of the and implications of continuing fighting over ground that has been taking place, and this is were talking about peoples lives, and lots of lives that just simply cannot be tolerated. This is completely unbearable. And then what . Number one, we are dealing here, at least so far, with nonstate assets. Hamas is in control of gaza for sure. As far as the Palestinian Government. Has since 2007. Notwithstanding the unity arrangements that was broken recently. Effectively it is there. But hases not acquired the status of a state operation. This is really a quandary. Not only so far as factions of the palestinian winning and losing are different when youre dealing with nonstate access to state access. We have seen this happen time and again. Your own and experience in the United States, afghanistan, bombing and the rest of it. Talk about ideology and talk about the survival of a few who, after the extensive damage to infrastructure, loss of life, misery and all, would rise from underneath the rubble and say, we won. What do we want to do something about this . This is serious. And your lives are at stake. And with futility. Absolute futility. Thats number one. Number two, whether or not you agree with hamas, and likeminded factions, is not as significant as realizing the need for any palestinian leadership to carry in order for that leadership to deliver agreement, and you simply cannot continue to ignore the ideology. And the even if you disagree with it. That the kind of world we live inch these are the kind of standards by which develop and advanced countries live by. A set of standards for the developed countries, certain standards that should apply to others. Its time for all of this to be taken onboard. I think it should not really be beyond strong leadership, enlightened leadership to accept at some point somebody needs to pay for this is not 1990 and 1991. More than 15 years passed, the end of the timeline under oslo, and to somehow pretend were just starting this, and if your approach to this, wanting to solve it in a manner that conforms to the heist standards is the other thing, no would be right and thats important . D to govern in a way thats effective enough to ensure that there is sufficient support for that which we stand on. Otherwise we should not be there presenting to the conflict. This is essential to what were looking at. Its a necessity, in other words. But to think, you know, this way is i think is constructive and productive. Unfortunately 1,000 more lives and more suffering, people come back to the same conclusion. Its not hamas, per se. Its that ideology. What do you do . What do you say to people who look at the record over the past 20 years and tell you what have you done for us . What do you tell them . Forget about hamas. Lets just put hamas aside. Unless youre able to be convinced and to make sense when you say, you know, we have an alternative. You need to really provide an answer to that question. If a solution is what youre interested in, we need to show enough courage to be accepting, of being pushed away from our comfort zones in the direction of finding something sensible. Finally, on the other point that you raised, the region, and i sort of alluded to this in my opening remarks. Really when it will end and how it will end, only god knows. But there are very few people i know who would have expected things to be the way they are today. But they are. I mean, in terms of extremism, violence. This is unprecedented, and i think defies expectations of many in terms of whats going on. The degree of extremisextremisme this, extremely grotesque and certainly alien to any kind of decency if you really think about it this way. What do you really need to do to somehow understand this and prevent this becoming an ideology. If its managed by and led by few, you know, unless something is done, im afraid this is really going to be most dangero dangerous. The key to the solution lies in good, honest, responsive government. One that responds to the needs of people. Good governance is really key to do this. Its not a luxury. Something thats absolutely essential. Let me ask a quick question and quick answer, then i want to turn to steve hadley to start the audience with the first question. I want to pick up on what you just said. Tom friedman in april 2013 when you resigned wrote that that it was an arab spring before there was an arab spring. He described you as a new generation what was needed was a new generation of dont leaders whose primary development, their own people, not the enrichment of tribe, sector, party. And part of the difficulty and failure of the arab spring was noncorrupt, that there was not enough support and the arabs, u. S. , israelis for noncorrupt institutionfocused leadership. Do you agree, has the arab spring failed and are these the reasons why the arab spring has failed . Id like to still believe its a nature of a work in progress, although its hard to use those words to describe the state of play when youre looking at the extent of violence and extremism that has taken place and continues to take place. Nevertheless, you know, from time to time, i think its really important to try to take a step or two away from what you see, to put it in perspective. I think its useful to look at the experience of other nations and other revolutions, going back not that far back in history, recently, and see if things like this happened before elsewhere before we would come to the conclusion that, you know, things are impossible in the region. That somehow, you know, arabs are or belong to a species that cannot handle both democracy and stability at the same time. Somehow you need to choose, you know, either democracy or stability. Thats the wrong conclusion. Were like everyone else. We can handle democracy and we need stability. Democracy sustains stability. You cant achieve stability on the strength of force, but you cannot sustain it with a strength of force of governance. Thats what we are missing. Thats whats really important to keep in mind. Looking at history of this, the arab spring is the nature of a revolution. People standing up for their citizens right, for being respected, listened to, taken seriously, if you will. Not thinking that the most important task in life the arab spring, its essence was about this. Its essence was about this. And i think in that sense, it was overdue. You know, it took a long time. Deep sense of injustice, you know, thinking that there was too much double standards in the way the world was managed, the region itself was managed. The way the global west was relating to the region. The arabs were siding with regimes that were not doing the right thing for their own people. Only they would present the case for them was the case against the alternative, with the alternative first being communism and then muslim brotherhood. You get a region thats unhappy, and so therefore in that sense, it was overdue. But it happened. Its in the nature of the revolution. What else are you going to really tell me that experienced a revolution that delivered stability immediately afterwards. It did not happen even in this country. I found the french revolution, it took three of those. It didnt happen in the chinese refuse solution, the russian revolution. And so yes, the extent of the violence is important. Theres no question about that. But to think that somehow the arab spring, if it is really about a revolution, i think it is fundamentally, to expect, you know, to deliver, serenity, stability, tranquility in the aftermath of a major upheaval like this is expecting too much. Two things. We need to place it in that kind of perspective to get a better handle on it. But i think its really time for everyone to begin to think that this is a region like all other regions. These are people like all other people. People are people. And stand and have to be laid out for systems of governance that respect their own citizens. This is so basic, but its basically obvious, but somehow you and they think they need to find a solution immediately. Youre not going to get there unless they respect them. Thats it in a nutshell. Fascinating answer. Thank you so much, doctor. Steve hadley. I have to make a disclosure that i had the opportunity to have lunch with salim fayed, and id like to invite you to share a little bit of that conversation, and i realize there are some sensitive pieces to it. The reason i say that is because i think theres a lot of despair in the United States that the Current Situation in gaza can lead anywhere positive. And i think its useful if you could share some thoughts about that both to give some hope but also to stimulate some thinking. And im thinking specifically some comments you made about the kind of ceasefire that might allow both what the israelis want, which is the demilitarizization of hamas and what might allow hamas to get what it wants, which is the opening of the borders for flows of goods and services. You talked a little bit about that. What kind of arrangement might permit that. The role that the p. A. Might play in that. And also, the issue of reconstruction of gaza and how that might be structured in such a way that actually could begin not just a reconstruction process but a reform process that could begin to do what you talked about, getting these institutions in a line between gaza and the west bank. I admit these are sensitive questions. I think what you said was very interesting and would be useful, and i would just simply invite you to share that portions that youre comfortable with. Thank you very much. No, i would be extensive on those issues. I think its really important to place this in the right context in terms of how to deal with gaza and to begin to bring that into this course. As i said in my opening remarks, its hard to use thinking in a time of crisis. But in this particular case, i think bringing that forward may help in facilitating an agreement on a ceasefire. People really start to get a sense of what happened afterwards. Understanding divergence. Take, for example, what you said about demilemilitarization of g. Id said that would be a tall order now. Gaza was not demilitarized even when he was there. Minus the rockets, there was just about everything else. This is the reality. So for someone to come and say hamas and gaza should be demilitarized as a condition for ceasefire, that really is setting the bar too high. Death, injury, misery, epidemics, water and the power plant having been bombed and water stations and the rest of it is simply beyond and there is, you know, on the palestinian side, the legitimate demand and expectation for lifting the siege on gaza. One really needs to separate issues here. Its a key point. There was a lot of focus on rafa. I think its important to really take rafa out of the discussion in terms of not completely out of the discussion but not to make the debate on access exclusively one of what to do about rafa. Its now an issue of egypt and palestine. I think all along the idea i mean, post 2007. But since then, after 2007, it became exclusively a palestinian egyptian issue. I think its important. But even before and i think really sadly didnt happen, it should have happened before. You know, nobody really needs to get to an he saescalation like. It should have been dealt with before. And discussion between palestinians and egyptians. And the solution to it, even at time of separation, would have been to open it subject to it being run by the Palestinian Authority. Something that really made sense, even at time of separation. It would have brought the p. A. Back into gaza for the First Time Since june 2007. Important. Something to build on. It could have paved the way for the government afterwards. But to begin with that something basic. Something as basic as that, didnt happen. It should be approached this way. It should not mask the need for resolution, of access issues elsewhe elsewhere. For sure. But from our point of view as palestinians, opening gaza northward, connecting it with the best bank, is strategically a lot more important. It should be open. Subject matter. Focus on rafa and pushing gaza southward, if you will. Or peace in the region, a twostate solution concept. Something that requires immediate attention. It didnt happen before. It should not be something about ceasefire or no ceasefire. Ceasefire is absolutely necessary. And that discussion needs to begin. You know, egypt needs to say, you know, in order for my National Security interests to be protected, the following arrangement should be respected. And i think palestinians would be more than willing to accommodate. The statelike structure of the palestinian side. And now that there is unity even though its not deep enough and has not taken hold. Regardless of what happens elsewhere. But then again, at this moment, what can happen to immediately change the landscape . History tells us that it takes time. You need to really secure the ceasefire. But you need to give people a sense of what is going to come later. Short of demilitarization. And again, if you could everything, youd have everything. This is natural. This is what economics is about, after all. But you have to make choices. Here is a proposition. You look at a situation where youre the state of israel demanding demilitarizization. I dont think thats really realistic. I dont think its really in the cards. Again, they were not able to achieve this even when they were in gaza itself. Lets face it. What kind of nonaccepsense is t . That doesnt work. But short of that, what if there was serious consideration of a promise of a period of calm, calm, total commitment, by consensus, by everybody on the palestinian side. Not the ultimate objective. We surely look forward to the state of palestine to be one that is based on coexistence and total respect for agreements and renouncing violence and to assume nonbelligerence. Including state of israel. But in the runup to that. What if we say a long time with this in my pocket what if we could commit everybody on the thats not demilitari demilitarizati demilitarization. We need to really look at the situation. Fortunate fortunately, its not between good and bad. Its between better or worse. In this particular case, number one, the ceasefire. Two, the promise of people. Thats better than not having anything. But it gets things going. It requires a greater role for the Palestinian Authority. Not of the crime thats happened postunification which has not happened. Its for ballistic, if you will, so far. What we really need is one that is inclusive. One that is seriously supported by the factions but one that can gain strength and presence possibly in a way that could make it an effective player. And remember, that was part of the thinking early on in terms of what the Palestinian Government was supposed to do, going back to the road map and inpower person of government. This is not a small issue. This is something that gives all four people to be included. And i prefer personally for it to be guilty of factions am themselves. This is a time of national crisis. You know but doesnt require commitment . To unify, but at the same time to agree with israel and for a date certain on ending we cant really push on the domestic front with the international front. Something like this i think would be necessary. Thank you, doctor. Jane harman. Thank you very much. Its a pleasure to see a dear friend in washington. Thank you. Really a pleasure. Congratulations to the atlantic counsel for this enormous cow in getting our friend to join you. Two things. First of all, everyone in this audience wishes you were still Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. I speak on behalf of everybody here. And dissenting voices, please be violent. Uhhuh. And we all remembered the twoyear plan to improve so sfa. That is what my questions about. Theyve done a pretty good job of running the west bank. And ramallah is, and build settlements and other things that israel has done. Is there a fact that given the arab neighborhood is not fond of hamas to use that story with their support to help build a coalition for enhancing the pas role. Something youve just suggested. As part of the solution which would include a ceasefire, which would include an agreement for i would hope demilitarization of gaza. I understand thats a hard thing to do. But also an agreement for a version of a Marshall Plan to rebuild gaza and run gaza as part of as part of the Demonstration Program and hopef hopefully in the state of palesti palestine. Are there more to find out how much its earned in light of the governance of the west bank . When we say fees fire, agreement by whom . Mainly hamas. But theyre the ones calling the shots. On the other side, who is really committing to this . And the fact that theyve a difficult situation for me to watch doesnt have the formal presence in gaza, and that has been the case since 2007. Without, you know, putting together an arrangement that is open to being more inclusive, being capable to act only, you though, again, i think its really a question of choosing a it. What, you know, governance, framework. Procedures followed and something that made accepts to peop people. Its a most interesting area for consideration. And two, up with needs to keep into account that there are elections elections. I havent said anything about the election so far, but its important. Moving toward having a democratic state. It militant, strong show values of open communication, what have you. We need to rebuild our political process. As this process moves on and the system begins to be opened up for more participation, grow the base of participation, opening it up and then have elections at the point you know, if that happens, i think that is something thats a lot easier. Given where we are, we need to somehow find a way. We need to improvise and find a way between now and then. Because were going to d you know, give rightofway, someone el else. We have the ones on the front li lines. How to really approach this. Think seriously about putting something that could enjoy Critical Mass of support, adequate, just enough to enable it to begin to deliver, rebuild and implement policies that do all of these things and open the system, political system and then have elections. Thank you very much. Questions, please. Good afternoon, sir. 22 years ago i was the staff author of a law that requires the state department to report on the rights of indinl nuss peoples around the world and its annual human rights reports. In terms of yl and t, there is. And if you use the term indigineity as used by the United States, it would force israels neighbors to israel to the area, but will they then recognize the palestinians having a right to their homeland. Nerd, a nation state has viable. Why isnt the question of indiginetity part of the new paradigms that need to be discussed in the future once the bloodshed dies down . You know, ive argued for something less than that. Among other things, you know, going back to 1993, socalled declaration of mutual recogniti recognition. The pla plo. The right of the state of israel to exist in peace and security. Thats what has not happened. What did not happen then and has not happened since was for therr right, the palestinians right to an independent state. That, i think, should be adequate, to really put the process in a more symmetrical path Going Forward. That, in some way, begins to address the deep sense of security. And impossibility and disillusionment. Thats so prevalent on the palestinian side when they see the expansion of settlements and what all of that is doing. The settlement and the state of israel on the part of its rail in terms of the Prospect Country and you have a form of recognition of our right is this too much to ask for after all the right of the state of israel to exist in peace and security since 1993 . Contrary to conventional wisdom, have you thought given the name of it, the declaration of mutual recognition, it recognizes the right for a palestinian state did not happen. For much of the period, much of the period, since 1996, governing coalition of israel, the platform of the partners were to say there is not very friendly to the concept of the solution. And so it is important for it to be that recognition. But i agree with that. You have that taken it beyond that. Thats the basic requirement thats really needed. I wouldnt really take it to the next level in terms of what kind of state and in terms sunday on book tv former republican congressman from texas and president ial candidate ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history. With his latest, the School Revolution on americas education system. Join the conversation as he takes calls, emails, and tweeds live three hours sunday at noon eastern on cspan2. Watch more book tv next week while congress is in recess. Book tv in prime time. One point she began to stroke his beard and he said happens, he said i have never met an 80yearold that i wanted to leap into bed with. She had this quality, a seductive quality her entire life. President obama commented on congresss failure to pass a Border Security bill and fighting between israel and hamas in gaza. He also addressed questions about calls for the resignation of cia director john brennan. He spoke for about 45 minutes