tv Today in Washington CSPAN October 27, 2011 6:00am-9:00am EDT
how many times since you do not have the number now. you said first no, now you don't know, i'm more than happy to put it in writing so there's no misinformation or misunderstanding. i yield back. >> the time expired. the gentleman from puerto rico recognized for your question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, i want to applaud you for crafting a common sense policy of exercising this discretion over when immigration cases to prosecute, but i would now like to address the department's drug intradiction work in the region, particularly puerto rico. many experts, include k the u.s. attorney in miami recognized as the federal government curtails the flow of drugs across the southwest border, drug trafficking organizations are turning to the caribbean as an alternate means to get their
product to users in the u.s.. according to estimates to my office, approximately 80% of the south american cocaine arriving in port puerto rico is subsequently transimportanted in the u.s. mainland and 20% of cocaine that remains in puerto rico for consumption is primary cause for unacceptably high number of murders. you share my view from the federal government's per peck spiff, the death of an american citizen in puerto rico is of no less consequence be it florida, new york, or any other state. i have made several high profile drug arrests over the past year. there's component agencies not devoting sufficient resources to address the surge in drug trafficking in puerto rico. i thus have a couple questions for you.
first, how has dhs responded to the balloon effect that i just describes whereby drug traffickers are shifting part of their operations from the southwest border to the caribbean? have you increased the person tell and -- personnel and assets you deploy in the caribbean? i'm a former port puerto rico, and i know this is a moving target. you have to make sure the resources are well placed, but you can want just leave one -- cannot just leave one area unprotected because they just go there. the second question, and i want to know whether you gave additional attention on puerto rico, but the second question i have is the following, and it's related. most of the drugs entering puerto rico come from the dominican republic these day, but there's been a surge as well entering the island from the east coast, particularly from the smaller caribbean islands, and i understand that it takes
the coast guard over an hour to respond to a suspected incoming drug shipment in the eastern part of the island and presses in the area is minimal. again, what is the department doing in terms of cbs resources, coast guard resources. first question is in general, are you looking at the additional resources that you should in terms of protecting our border? this is the southern most border. secondly, eastern caribbean, what's happening over there because i am concerned. >> first, i think it is -- don't want to make too big a point of this that the fact that drug trafficking moved into the areas you suggest, i think it's evidence of the fact that the southwest border has been fortified to a large degree.
and we have assets deployed there, but do we need to change the number and the kinds of vessels we have, we have the best team now in puerto rico, we will evaluate and continue to evaluate whether we have the right number of agents associated with that. we are working with the unit down there among other things, but the answer to the question is, yes, i'm aware of it. yes, i share your concern. yes, we are looking at our deployments there. >> okay. i have met with attorney general holder to go over the details of this situation in the past, and i would really appreciate it if you give me the time to sit down with you and get to the specifics at some point in the near future. >> we'll make sure you get briefed. >> thanks. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you issue mr. -- thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam secretary. earlier you testified that
congress' appropriated about 400,000 deportations. is that based on the $23,000 number you based the cost after arrests, removal, and deportation? >> i'd have to check. >> so -- >> it's a commonly used number. it's been the same for several year, and it is the number referred to in the appropriations bill. >> so the appropriations bill has 400,000 -- >> in some of the supporting materials -- >> because usually it's the actual dollar amount. >> right. it's the materials provided to the committee. >> o.k. because i'm trying, earlier it was talked about the discrepancy between the ice number and the number you have used in testimony where you are saying it's $23,000-$30,000 per actual person deported, and basically said it's 12,500, and i appreciate you're getting the information, but you said off the top of your ahead that might
be the ice one doesn't include the amount into trials; right? >> it may not include the justice department factors in there, and i just have to look into that. >> what i say to make it clear or make a clear understanding is that last week with when you testified by the senate you stated the number was 23,000 to 30,000, and that was for what dhs has and that excluded the department of justice. is the 23,000 to 30,000 with the department or justice or not? >> i'll get back to you. i want to be clear on that because you all want to make some points with those numbers. you need the accurate numbers. >> yeah. we want to figure out where the cost break down is and i would also, if you could, kind of -- if that number came from internal computations with the break down in the costs, and is
that actually from internal computations or external sources? >> i'll find out from you. it could be a number of sources, internal, omb, appropriations committee -- a lot of people have input of what's appropriated there. >> that number jumped out at me when it was stated, and we called over and they said that number came from the center of american progress, a liberal think tank pushing the high costs of deportations, and i hope that dhs is more reliant on their actual internal numbers rather than relying on an external think tank. if you could get clarifiation on that as well. >> well, i think your point, and it's important for this committee in particular the judiciary committee. the system crosses federal agencies, and indeed, it crosses branches of government, and one of the things because we've never addressed comprehensively immigration in the congress what
gets lost in there is what the total cost of the system is gets divided between different appropriation subcommittees, gets divided, you know, some here what doj gets, what we get, ect., one of the things i think that's beneficial is to look at the system as a whole. >> well, i appreciate that, but i think the other thing we're looking at is that as the administration officials and you as well said you don't have the resources to be able to actively pursue deportation just because the money's not there. you said that there's only 400,000 people you can -- >> i understand the point. >> i'm just saying the break down of costs ensures we are doing this in an efficient mannerment i think that that's extraordinary important, especially in these tough budgetary times. >> indeed. >> and switching topics, and this has nothing to do with any specific state law, but as we look at federal government and
federal budget restraints and the problems that the federal government is having to live within its means, and we don't have the resources as some have said to actually enforce our immigration laws, they are making it more difficult, if statesment to actually act as force multipliers, shouldn't we be looking to them and embrace that to enforce the immigration laws? >> well, i think it's important to recognize that what's involved with the country. that's a federal responsibility. >> absolutely. >> the way we do it now is through secure community, and as you heard in earlier conversation from some of the members, we've been criticized by some communities that don't want to participate in secure communities, but i believe it's an essential tool moving forward to help us direct prosecution
resources. >> okay, great, thank you, madam secretary, i yield back. >> the gentleman from -- [inaudible] mr. deutch. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for the fruitful exchange. i'm familiar with the tier status of urban security initiatives for purposes of receiving funding. i'm concerned with the application of the department's formula to the miami part of florida. it em compasses monroe counties including the distribute i remit. the miami has more than 5.6 residents living throughout the counties population with the highest level of density and diversity, more than 100 municipalities, four international airports, large convention cementers, major sporting events, and other critical water infrastructure, and it's home to agriculture, banking, health care, and major
industries. the u.s. coast gaitered operations and station miami beach, the national access point center for the americas, turkey point nuclear power plant, and the narnl hurricane center are located in miami. it covers more than 300 miles of coastline, extensive coastline that's porous and a risk for drugs and arms trafficking and other threats, and they dock here and the port of miami. both of which are located in the miami, and port everglades is the home port of more ships than any other ports in the world transports many in and out of the united states. in addition, it is a gait away to south america and central america for business tours and international trade of millions of people and commerce cross the borders in ports of the in fact, the port of miementsdz, madam
secretary, imports and exports cargo annually to more than 100 countries and 250 ports around the world, and florida is the 12th leading con taper point in the nation for more than 150 ports in 70 different countries. the port is primary source and distribution center for refined petroleum products for all of south florida securing the energy requirements ranging from propane and diesel and jet fuel. despite being major centers of tourism activity, the area inexplicably does not qualify for funding from the department of homeland security's current funding formula. because they do not qualify, it will have its funding for the upcoming year reduced cut almost in half reduced to almost $17
billion down to $9 billion. the formula is limited to border crossings, and this does not include the more than 300 miles of coastline, and several crew imports located within the area. several questions. shouldn't these air and water entry points the u.s. be considered as crossings by the department in its formula? it's my understanding that the secretary of homeland security has the discretion to expand the number of that are included in tier one funding. in fact, there has been expansion recently. currently, 11 are eligible for tier one funding, and so for the reasons that i laid out, for the safety and security of the millions of americans who live and do business in and visit south florida, i urge you in the strongest possible terms that you expand the tier one funding to include miami, and i welcome
any response now or following this committee meeting. >> well, two points. one is the reduction in tier one identification was in part a reaction to congress' reduction, and the question presented to us and to me initial elements as you described, coastline, nuclear reactors, critical infrastructure, economic impact are all taken into account. as a result, when we made the
decision to cut back and then to identify tier one and tier two, there was a clear stand point between the top ten and 11 was io identical, so top 10 and those below it. we can consider that decision. >> but the decision to expand tier one is a decision made by your office. >> that's correct. >> and they have been expanded in the past -- >> when there was money. >> i understand, but i also understand the decision congress makes about funding, but it's the decision of the department of homeland security to keep the funding the same and slash dramatically the funding. >> i think the reason representative is because these evaluation of risk and consequence did not put miami
into the tier one stay -- status. >> i urge you to reanalyze the risk and consequences involved in the decision. i yield back. thank you. >> the time expired. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, back in february, we were on the phone on another important issue, but it had to come to the premature end or come to an end because you had to attend a moral service. do you remember that conversation? >> i don't remember the conversation, but i do remember the murder. >> i won't forget it because it was sort of just to the point in which fast and furious obviously was becoming a major issue both with senator grassley and with my committee next door. since that time, we've done a lot of work, and i want to run
through questions that concerned me that fall within your lane. you repeatedly said this is an atf operation. out of concern for the investigative process and prosecutions ongoing, we've avoided interviewing lane france. do you know lane? >> i do not. >> do you know he works for you? he's an agent part of fast and furious? >> i know there was a field agent assigned to the task force, and this is what i learned in wake of your investigation, assigned to a task force in the wake of the two ice matters that were resolved by the ausa to be within the context of atf. >> well, it's our judgment that he likely was very aware there was gun walking going on, had that information. the question is when you assign somebody like that, do you have a flow of information back to
your department so that somebody in your department could have, should have, or would have known about the operation? >> representative, we have hundreds of operations, and thousands of agencies on a daily basis, so to my knowledge, the fact that an agent was assigned somewhere about some matter would not necessarily come to -- even to ice headquarters. >> i'll make an assumption here that it's a fire and forget. you gun the people over there -- >> sorry? >> fire and forget, like the missile that you just send off and it looks for heat, and if it hits something, so be it, even if it's a friendly aircraft. >> i don't think -- >> let's go through this. you testified in december you were aware of a fast and furious. >> i said after the death of agent terry, yes. >> and the details you were
aware of after the investigation began putting the details out. >> i became aware as i testified here after the committees of agent terry, and i knew some of the details and the name fast and furious, certainly no later than march. >> okay, you testified here today that you have not talked to holder about this. >> that is correct. >> he testified here that he knew about it a few weeks before the interview they had in may here before this committee, and 245 he basically heard about it in the newspaper, so you have two dead agents that worked for you, one north of the border, one south of the border, and in the case of brine terry, he was gunned down and it's been months. you're telling me you were not doing it because of an ig investigation. let's go through a few questions here. >> well -- >> no, no -- >> wait just a minute.
>> let me finish my question -- >> wait a second. >> madam secretary, let me finish my question. >> go ahead, but -- >> we can have the record read back. >> it's the insinuation, but go ahead and ask the question. >> you said you were not having further investigation except you became aware of this in december, the ig investigation began in february. for three months, you had a dead border patrol agent, and there was no ig investigation. what did you do between december and february to find out about fast and furious since a -- and we have the documents. we can get you the unredacted documents from other parts of government, you -- people on the ground knew they were fast and furious weapons found at the scene within hours. it was not something that wasn't known. it was known at the time. homeland security employee is gunned down, two weapons found
at the scene part of fast and furious, agents on the ground know it's fast and furious before brian terry was led to rest. three months go by, and today you told us about an ig investigation. the question is, first of all, do you have an ig, and are you going to have your ig look into what happens when you gunned agents, and they are aware of gun running or gun walking and do nothing? is that appropriate for you to have your ig investigate? yes or no, please. >> well, that -- i think that question merits a lengthier response, and i'll give it to you -- >> i look guard to it in writing. when terry was gunned down, you knew, in fact, he was gunned down, people on the ground knew it, and three months went by. what did you do between december and feb to find out the details about his loss of life and
aren't you outraged here today that if you were not informed that you were not informed that weapons allowed to walk into drug hands killed one of your agents and for three months kept it from you? >> i think your insinuation that -- >> ma'am, please answer the question. please don't talk in terms of insinuation. >> can i have the opportunity to answer? >> madam secretary, if you would try to answer the question, and then if you'd like to elaborate, the chair will give you the time. >> well, let me make a suggestion if i might because the representative's combining 5 lot of things. if he gives me the questions, i'll be happy to respond in writing. >> the one question i want an answer to is you were aware terry had been gunned down. people on the ground at that time knew it was fast and furious weapons. that was december.
between december and feb what did you do to conditions surrounding his death, one, and aren't you here today furious that the justice department, not atf, the justice department with held from you the knowledge of fast and furious this time including one in which you had an agent dead? >> you think we should all be outraged at the death, and i think the first thing is to recognize who actually killed him, and that our number one priority was to make sure the shooters were found. some had gone back into mexico, and that the fbi was in charge of that investigation. several somedays is quickly as i could get to arizona after his death, i met with the fbi, their agents in clarnlg. i met with the asua going to conduct that investigation, and that was my number one concern, that those responsible for the shooting death of agent terry
were brought to justice, and that's what i was being kept apprised of. i'd be happy to answer other questions in writing. >> we'll be glad to follow-up in writing. >> time expired. ms. sanchez? >> thank you. madam secretary, we appreciate your presence before the committee, and there's a broad range of question that people asked. >> i noticed that. >> you're asked to be an expert on each and every one of them and know information at the tip of your fingertips, which i know is not always possible. earlier, we appreciate the effort flunls. you mentioned the secure communityings program, and it's principally that program i want to discuss with you. studies at the warren institute show 93% of those identified through secure communities were latino of 2010, and given the scope of secure comawnts -- communities, that number seems
high to me and hard to explain by saying it's mathematical variance. many of my constituents for example look at that number and conclude the secure communities program may be inadd vert tonightly law enforcement officials to racial profile. i'm not suggesting this is conscious activity on behalf of law enforcement, but that number troubles me. i'm wondering if, perhaps you have a way to explain the 9 #% figure -- 93% figure, and what steps dhs has taken or could possibly take to address concerns raised. >> and, again, we get into the number thing, and look at the period evaluated and the sample and all of that, but i think more fundamentally, what we have done is through our civil rights and civil liberties unit
establish monitoring of the numbers as we now have enough communities 245 are in the program -- that are in the program, that you start to get a substantial number, to monitor those number and see if they are out of kilter with criminal prosecutions generally in an area, and if statistically there was significant variances that have the ability to go in and look at files of that nature to see what underlies the numbers, and this is a transparent process. we do not intend to keep the numbers secret. they will be put or posted when they become available with appropriate explanation. >> okay, but can you understand the concern that folks might he hesitate to cooperate with local law enforcement if this perception, you know, backed by the initial figures lead people
to suspect that certain communities are, in fact, being racially profiled? >> i can understand that concern. we want to understand how police departments conduct their relationship with the local community and how you use neighborhood policing in the right way with respect to secure communities, and there's best practices developed that are being shared, so i understand the concern, and what i'm suggesting is we need to continue to watch it, to watch the numbers that do it in a statistically valid way to be able to make those numbers transparent, and then to work with and share best practices among all the jurisdictions now using the program. >> okay. following up on that, when u.s. citizens or legal residents are there, how long are they
detained for? >> well, under the new form, they cannot be detained longer than 48 hours. >> and during that process, what information are they given? are they allowed to contact com or families during that process? >> there's a new detainer form that's available in spannish and other languages as well with all numbers to call with information. we can get you a copy. >> that'd be helpful of the the concern is if citizens are arrested under this or taken into custody i should say under this program that they be able to communicate with family -- >> they are not arrested andrew secure communities. secure communities comes into play after arrest and a booking, and what secure communities is is a data sharing agreement between us and the fbi to check fink l printses not just against
criminal data bases by it's not like there's a secure communities task force arrests people after the booking process. >> i understand. i misspoke, but my concern being there could be a legal permanent residence for citizens that are caught up in this, and not having the opportunity to contact family or counsel to -- >> the reason is if one of the things we run them through, and if there's an ident match and shows they are lpr's or citizens, we stop there and nothing else happens. >> there's never an instance in which a citizen could be accidently deported because -- of a program -- >> we deal with so many, and
what i'm suggested -- >> but it's happenedded in the past. >> there have been instances in the past, but under this program, once a match is made, and the match reveals this person is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, that's it, it's done. we don't put any detaper on that individual. the local authority can hold them whatever criminal law they violated, but no detainer is put on them. >> the time expired #. mr. king? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. and since you seemed fuzzy, let me make sure you leave here understanding, he was a featured speaker at the try butte to the -- tribute of the great islamic leaders this 2004. he had the counterextremism
working group. you promoted him, and from your own website, secretary napolitano swears in members, you swore him in, and according to your testimony here today, that's where he got the security clearance. he has written glowingly of cut b on who bin laden relied heavier for his barberrism justification. he wrote against the trial and conviction of the holy holylands of terrorism, and he's still remained this this homeland security advisory counsel, and now he has accessed a week ago the state and local intelligence community data base. he took documents that said for official use only and shot them
out with national media. it appears not only as our security being compromise, a secure system, but he's using it to help his friend politically, the president. i'm got one question, and it's not a got-you question. there's nothing confusing about it. before you came in here today, were you given information about him using the state and local intelligence committee -- the community data base and taking information he down loaded and shopping it to the media? >> no. >> if you or your staff advised anybody else you were briefed last night, they would be wrong; is that correct? >> yes. >> nawng. thank you, mr. chairman king.
i yield back. >> thank you, i reclaim my time, and thank you for your time, madam secretary. just caught my attention when they responded to the gentleman from texas, and in discussion about prosecution discretion and referenced article two of the constitution. can you expand on that a lilgt -- a little bit? >> article two, section three says the executive branch shall take care to faithfully execute the laws of the united states, and when you read the u.s. supreme court authorities interpreting that, and the league specific to immigration, that's put into analysis in how you exercise -- >> thank you. i expected that was the response, but i wanted to make
the point that the constitution doesn't say so. you can't make references to those cases, and i'm not going to take issue with that, but says he takes care the laws are faithfully executed. in the president's oath, by extension, that oath applies to his officers that also take that oath. would that not be correct? >> that's true. >> okay. i wanted to clarify that. it's not so much an issue, but it's this that when we see the litigation coming forward against alabama, arizona, and it looks like my state that wants to pass immigration laws, the executive branch litigates that through the courts. if they are successful, is holder is successful in scrubbing the laws from the states, that leaves the federal government with the exclusive authority to enforce immigration law, does it not? >> well, again, as i referenced
several times when we have partnerships like secure communities, thatting helps focus -- >> let me restate the question. >> if the attorney general is successful on these laws rather than the secure communities component of this or the 287g component of this, there would be no latitude for states to pass immigration laws they enforce at their discretion. >> no latitude for states to pass law that change federal immigration policy. >> i don't think that -- i disagree with that, but rather than dig into that and burn up the time, i'll make the point that it looks to me that the administration ask going down the path of shutting down all state legislation on immigration regardless of whether it goes beyond the mirroring of the federal law which is what arizona was designed to do, and that in the end it takes away the authority of the states to
do that, to do immigration enforcement. i'll take you also to other data that judge poe addressed and that is 34.5% of foreign nationals occupying the jails in the border states. are you familiar with a gao study that is march 2011 criminal alien statistics and addresses -- okay. i have it in my hand. i'll reference it. in it, there's data data showing we have 25,000 arrests of criminal aliens for homicide. now, that covers some years, i will admit, but i'll put that up against the losses that we have had on the southern border. 25,064 arrests for homicides generally means one grave, and those are americans that are killed at the hands of criminal aliens, and so when i heard your reference to the 34,000 and that's all you have to work with
and you have to use discretion in order to utilize bids to the best of your ability, what i don't remember hearing, and i've been here nine years is the request from administration first to look at all the assets deployed on the southern border, not just your department obviously. i'll suggest that ranges in the area of dplr -- $12 billion across the border, about $6 million a mile, i have yet to hear anybody put the assets together and make the ask, how many prison beds, how many prosecutors, how many judges, how do you get 100% enforcement to save some of the 25,000 lives? have you put together any kind ever prepare to rearrange assets to bring 100% enforcement rather than letting snug leers go because we don't have the prosecutors or having to do if it is something you are reluctant to do this amnesty. have you put that package
together? >> well, i'm going to take this into two bites. one, under our policies, somebody who is accused of homicide would be detained and would be a priority case, and we would have created room on the master docketed to move the case through, and we get the case after the person served his sentence -- >> but they might be -- >> secondly, it's important for this committee to look at it the entire immigration system from where we get investigation to prosecution to incarceration and then potentially and then to the removal and each one of those crosses different federal agencies, so we have a comprehensive southwest border strategy we use with ice and cbp, some degree cis. we moves resources down to the border, moves detention bids to the border and more resources at the southwest border than ever existed before, but that's not
to say that the congress in its own organization doesn't have the ability to look at it overall. >> what is the sum total of the assets and what do you ask of the congress to get 1 00% enforcement? >> the time expired, but answer that question, and we'll move on. >> i -- i -- i think the best way to answer it is to say we believe with the asks we have made for particularly for cbp at the border and the movement of resources to the border, that from the dhs perspective, we have been able to greatly improve and secure that border. >> time of the gentleman expire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, welcome. the u.s. border patrol agents that are employees of the department of homeland security and under your jurisdiction have
tough, tough jobs. they are out there in the middle of the night trying to track down illegal ail aliens and tracking weapons, and they are sometimes wounded and sometimes killed. i wondered if you could comment on a court decision that came down in the case of the prosecution of one of your agents, a jesus diaz jr. sentenced to two years in prison that's described as inproperly lifting the arms of a handcuffed 15-year-old drug smuggling suspect who was -- that's a common technique used by law enforcement to force people to the ground to control them is to lift their arms to force them down on to the ground if they
are struggling or attempting to escape and so on. this prosecution apparently took place at the be of the mexican government and conducted by the same u.s. attorney's office that prosecuted two agents, not under your watch, but under the previous administration for having shot at another drug smuggler. they were subsequently granted a pardon or had sentences commuted by president bush. you may loll the two agents. are you familiar with this case involving jesus diaz? >> i'm not familiar with that decision. i can, agree, however with your beginning statements that the border patrol agents have difficult jobs under difficult circumstances, and they do, it's a 24/7 job.
>> this case has been pending for a few years now, and that seems like a serious sanction, two years in prison, both your inspector generals' office and the office of professional responsibility at ice cleared this agent of any wrong discoing, but nonetheless, he was subsequently prosecuted. the law enforcement officers add advocate's counsel and organization that looks out for the interest of people doing these dangerous jobs says that this was a totally improper prosecution of this individual, and you're not at all familiar with this? >> i'm not. >> would you look into this and report back to the committee and let us know your thoughts about this prosecution of one of your agents? >> i'd be happy to review the decision. >> i'd appreciate that. let me ask you this, if you're not familiar with this, how often do you meet with attorney general holder?
>> oh, it varies. not that often really in the context of things. >> do you think it would be helpful in lite of the fast and furious debacle and in light of prosecutions like this one that that department of the government ought to be informing your department on a more regular basis of what they are undertaking so you can be better informed and be outspoken in representing the interest of your agents and the responsibilities of your department? >> well, sir, i think i'm outspoken in the interest of my agents, and i think there's lots -- >> if you're not informed and don't know about fast and furious and you're not informed, how can you be effective? >> you know, what is the question? >> the question is shouldn't you
have closer communication with the other principle law enforcement agency of the federal government so that you can know what's going on when your agents are being endangered by they allowing weapons to walk, they are prosecuted by their u.s. attorney -- if pressure was on our government by the mexican government to do this prosecution of one of your agents, don't you think you or somebody in your department should have been informed by that either by the secretary of state or the attorney general or somebody involved in this kind of cross border politics where drug smugglers here for the second or third time, i'm aware of a prosecution of a deputy in texas as well for attempting to stop drug smugglers, and yet the people getting prosecuted are not the smugglers in these cases, but the people trying to enforce the law. >> well, as i said earlier, i think my number one interest when we had a dead agent, agent
terry, was to get the shooters, get those who killed him. some of whom had fled into mexico. >> i think that's a lot laudable goal, madam secretary, but it's too late. the fact of the matter is there needs to be better communication so somebody can say, woah, this is a crazy idea, giving guns to drug smugglers that come back to be used by other agents? >> representative, it will be, and i think this committee has to avoid a rush to judgment here, but it seems to me that there will be less pes learned -- lessens learned from this, and there very well may be changes in the field as a result of this. the question you asked me, however, was how much i met with attorney general holder, and i was saying in the context of things given his schedule, my
schedule, the myriad responsibilities we each have, not that frequently. >> i hope that you will make an effort -- if i might have the leeway to ask one more question -- >> without objection. >> you indicated you'll investigate the matter with regard to jesus diaz jr., one of your agents now facing two years in prison, if the prosecution in this case, if the conviction is not overturned on appeal, will you recommend to president obama that he parredden agent diaz -- pardon agent diaz as your inspector general found and the office of professional responsibility found that there was no wrong doing on his part, if you find that to be, indeed the case, will you recommend to the president he protect your agent? >> you know, i don't play what ifs. i'll review the case and get back to you. >> thank you. >> the time expired, and for the record you made the commitment
you'd review this officer's prosecution, and i would -- >> i said i would review the decision. >> the decision, you would review the decision. further would you make a commitment to this committee that you would respond in writing to mr. goodlatte and also to the committee your assessment of the review? >> we will get back to the committee, yes, sir. ..
so i do have total respect for those individuals. you raised an issue concerning the case which i think -- within what is it 60 days -- >> six months. >> they would be released if nothing is done. does that just pertain from the country or if they have committed a crime? >> i think it is a process removal case. >> so if there is a crime committed by an individual who is here illegally -- >> they still serve their sentence. >> do you see a problem with that time period whereby you may not in conjunction with the u.s. attorney's office have the time to get the prosecution completed
>> i have to be guided by the supreme court when it says you have to move you have to move. you have to take the time line they said. >> you stated earlier congress needed to act more so when it comes to immigration. can you explain to me what should congress be doing pursuant to enforcement? >> one of the areas where i think congress should look at enforcement is in terms of employers. right now it's important to get in a felony case against employers, the fines are too low to be as a deterrent, the employers are the magnet for much of the illegal immigration that goes on so that i think is an area that deserves examination. >> i prosecuted one of those cases as a u.s. attorney and we did send hundreds of illegals back but want to ask the
employers i would like to see more of that because a i ask a question and if you would care to share it with me do you support total amnesty? >> no. >> you stated earlier -- and i don't play gotcha so i'm just paraphrasing -- we ask prosecutors have slight differences in variations on our discussion on why we prosecute a case and why we do not prosecute other cases. do you agree with me that there's just not a strict line to fall on? >> that's accurate. >> i want to go back to the factors for considering a prosecutorial discretion, and give me your input, give me your feeling on something like this when there's a list of them and i haven't seen a list like this in the prosecutor% to other crimes at least federal and i taught the manuals on my desk
and memorize them by any stretch of the imagination gone through them do you have any problems i'm just going to rattle off three or four and you heard one of these, when a person as a u.s. citizen or private residence from a child with the person is the primary caretaker with mental or physical disability minor or seriously ill relative whether the person or the person's spouse is pregnant or nursing and finally whether the person or the person's spouse suffers from severe mental or physical illness i am not familiar with any other federal crime code that applies such strict parameters before enforcing the law. >> here's what we are doing and i think what the director morton is doing is saying look we want to prioritize those who are
criminals, those two are fugitives, those who are repeat violators, those capturing a board to the kuhl border, those who raise the national security interest and so in terms of planning our operations and where we want to put our manpower and the like, those are the things that affect the public safety in our community. and by deploying secure communities among other things we are seeing the composition of the numbers deported change and the competition is changing to reflect we are reporting more criminals than ever before. now with respect to others who don't fit in those priorities they are not given amnesty but they are are some factors to take into consideration and i think the memo is an effort to elucidate some of those factors. >> so you don't see this as a strict guideline? you are looking at this as a prosecutor because he or she is qualified to put in that responsible position they do
have the discretion we speak with the lawyers who handle these matters and treat them like a usa who have discretion to the given number of factors just as they would in any of the kind of criminal case. >> as was stated by the commissioner who participated in this this is an invitation to violate or ignore the law. >> it is to enforce what the smart and effective way. >> i will get through these quickly a trustee was a law enforcement colleague as i said before i believe we have something in common as being prosecuted going to keep politics out when it comes to enforcing immigration lawyers we have to keep the political arena very far from us particularly
when it comes to immigration. >> one of the things the insinuation of politics has been made by others and i would remind the committee, and i have the testimony when i testified in the senate in the spring of 09 not long after i had become the secretary of homeland security, i said specifically we were going to focus on criminal aliens and we were going to prioritize within the immigration universe and there was no question at that time as to whether there was proper or not and that's really -- we've done what i said we would do two years ago. >> do i have a couple minutes -- >> would you please make a . >> we have two more witnesses. >> i would never criticize you on a political aspect i know how tough a job is let's switch gears a moment and talk about
fema for a second. we had quite a disaster in pennsylvania where i'm from, the tenth congressional district. many communities were destroyed and people lost their homes. one of the questions i raised on homeland security is do you feel that fema has two or is there some way that we in congress could give fema the authority to step into a state when fema feels is necessary even before a governor asks for that help? >> well, in reality that's what happens because one of the things we've been successful but in terms of disaster management is when we see a disaster coming, hurricane flooding and a weather system like and i mean is to deploy resources and pre-declared disaster before the disaster hits. it allows us to put the maximum target.
>> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman is expired. at this point i'm going to yield myself five minutes in the sequence that the chairman have listed a first of all apologize coming in a little late starting at the national security things or i would have been here and i want to associate myself with a couple of things to my good friend from pennsylvania diluted to. you have a tough job. we all recognize that, and there's some very tough issues we are all dealing with, and i don't want to make your job more complicated, and i think when i finish here you will accept the fact that i have not done that. when i walked in, leggitt friend and colleague was talking about the number of precious dollars we have to do the jobs we have to deal with. as the chairman of the
immigration subcommittee of this committee i've been working on immigration issues for 25 years, and it seems to me that there's some issues that still boggles my mind how we are dealing with them. one of them is the issue and there's not a simple the answer to it. it can be spun in many ways but at that time when we have the millions and millions of people unemployed, if the president of the united states would put out in order to put on hold approximately 300,000 deportation, people in the actual deportation process and there's been millions and millions of dollars prosecuting -- >> that's not exactly what happened but go ahead. >> for the sake of brevity here i will let you have some time
and set the record straight. however many there are we will set aside for a second. are you aware of the earned income tax credit program? these are where individual earn money but not quite enough money to pay any income tax and they are eligible for a tax refund even though they paid no taxes. are you also aware that last year there were 2.3 million people illegal in this country this is for the obama treasury department's rickards, 2.3 million people the legal working in this country that received over $4 billion in tax refunds and this is what over illegal immigrants were
receiving in tax refunds after paying no taxes over the past five years. >> i'm not going to ask you to respond to that. however, you may or may not know the answer to this and if you don't i would like to see if you could get me the answer. of the 300,000 or whatever the magic number is of people that are in the process of being deported, how many of those have received in in these tax refunds, and also, of those that have received tax refunds, how many have any form of a criminal record? >> first of all i don't know the answer of the top of my head as you might anticipate, but the case by case review of the case is ongoing is designed to make sure that we are moving priority cases through the detained dhaka
it to the removal from the country. those that have a criminal record are those that fit within the priority categories. what we are trying to do is -- crimber the docket is setting cases of 2014 and 2015. >> i know some of the cases that have been pending for five or six years with just one extension or continuance after another, some arbor turley and capriciously to my opinion with the hopes that one day amnesty will solve all these problems and the cases will disappear. >> i think what we are trying to do is read prioritize the case in the systems of the most serious ones go first. >> this gets back to the issue of what constitutes criminal, and this prioritization is important. is three drug driving arrests
considered criminal, is it robbery, is it an assault, is it a burglary? how does that -- may be you can give a written assessment of how these priorities work because some time when someone has been arrested at three drunk driving arrests and on the fourth time they kill somebody we have case after case after case where they are still living and they've been under the deportation process. >> i agree with you read those canned cases are the ones we want to put into detention had removed. >> i would be happy to describe to you level one, two, three how that works. secure to send it to the kennedy in writing? >> i think we provide a briefing to the staff already but we will get you something. >> if you would for my benefit and the community's benefit send me an assessment. it might take a little time to get these together. of the number of people that have received income tax for of
least four plus billion dollars in the last year, how many of those individuals have actually had a criminal record? to be a criminal record is being put in jail for drug driving. >> with my stuff for the treasury report submitted to look at it would be helpful. >> we would be happy to get that to the appropriate person on the staff. i appreciate the job your doing. don't always agree with everything you are doing the buying interest and it's complicated and i hope we can work together for the sake of the country. >> indeed. >> madame secretary -- >> i'm sorry i didn't mean to slander you. >> madame secretary of want to continue if you don't mind with of the discussion of what some people call at the ministry of amnesty and i realize you cut the prosecutorial discretion and
its rival called prosecutorial discretion. we talked about the fact you have the limited resources but the reality is that a prosecutor has limited resources so that doesn't justify bad policies to happen to be bad policies. i want to come back on some of the items in the memo and kind of elaborate on what he was talking about a little it. do you know of any situation where the violation of law, a prosecutor would be correct in a discriminating by prosecuting more people who were uneducated or have less education than those who had more education? >> educational attainment in and of itself is as an isolated factor is not a prosecutorial issue in that sense.
>> you talked about we should be prosecuting more employers perhaps i think. is that a fair representation? >> we are auditing more and finding more. that's correct. >> with the situation where a prosecutor would ever be justified discriminating against employers who have less education by prosecuting them more than by those that had more education? >> the things we look at our employers who are intentionally and repeatedly violating -- >> that's not my question to the estimate it's an impossible question to answer. >> one of the criteria you have in your discretion is to that person's pursuing education and the united states. so effectively with those people who couldn't afford to pursue that education who might be undereducated or less educated
you are having a discrimination against them. >> i would disagree and that's why -- >> it's important to look at factors altogether. you have one of your criteria person would therefore be a situation where someone who violated the law you'd think a prosecutor could prosecute more individuals who were on married or in same-sex marriages and therefore didn't have a spell store was pregnant is there every situation there would be justified? >> i think that discussion memo speaks for itself and it lists the categories or things that can be taken into context by trained agents and trained attorneys looking at -- >> i'm simply asking is there any other law to which you would allow a prosecutor to say if you have a pregnant spells we are
going to be less likely to prosecute you than if you don't have a pregnant spouse. >> i think in being a former u.s. attorney and attorney general with county attorneys and district attorneys there are always situations where he main situations are taken into account. >> madam secretary, are you telling me that if you have an employer that you want to go after that you think a prosecutor should be able to prosecute those individuals who were unmarried or perhaps do not have spouses are pregnant more than those that have a pregnant pause? >> madame secretary with all due respect, these are the policies you have written were approved from your department and what you have said is a prosecutor can discriminate in favor of people that have more education when you're talking about whether you're going to prosecute them for being here illegally but there is no crime anywhere you would just say the prosecutor saying if we are
going to prosecute people with less education more than we do with a large kitchen so it's a bad policy. there's no situation where you began unclear and say if you have a pregnant spells we are not going to prosecute you for violating the immigration law least less than we prosecute somebody who might not have a pregnant spouse and then when you look the situation on somebody that has a spouse that has an illness there is no situation you can suggest to me where in the agency in the country have said y'all to be able to have prosecutorial discretion on the would be this violated the law in case they have a spouse with an illness. give the knicks in what you can of other situations where prosecutorial discretion is there. >> prosecutorial discretion as always there. there are always factors taken into account and if i may finish i think the way that you've deposited the question is
determined to reach a particular result and i just cannot answer it the way you deposited it. >> in all due respect you just don't want to answer the question because they are the policies he wrote so when going to ask is the way this day chairman did. will you give me in writing a single situation where in the agency in this country has given to their prosecutors and situation where they said just the the use prosecutorial discretion and they use one of these criteria. either one, you should prosecute if somebody has an education or feel you should prosecute them less if they are a spouse gets pregnant or you should prosecute them less if they have a spouse that is ill. you can't say that year. i understand. the reason they don't know is the song to the cut because it doesn't exist. if you would tell me in writing where it exists around the country and if it doesn't and you ought to look at your
city. on book tv on c-span to the university of tennessee's body farm is four acres of decomposing human remains. also a look at alex haley and his life in knoxville. how he felt in love with the city during a visit. and on american history tv on c-span3 a visit to the sequoia birthplace museum. the director explains how an indian silversmith successfully created a system of writing for the cherokee language. and is knoxville a true southern city? saturday at 11 a.m. and sunday at 6 p.m. eastern. watch throughout the weekend on booktv and american history tv in knoxville, tennessee.
>> from the texas book festival last weekend. >> president calderón strategy as one of kingston strategies going after the head of the snake. chop off the head and the rest of the snake dies. that's been the idea. unfortunately, the reality has been different. >> almost all the other founding fathers were thinking of those colonies on the eastern seaboard, jefferson is already dreaming of his empire for liberty that will go all the way may be to the mississippi, maybe of the missouri, and even to those great harbors on the pacific, san diego, monterey and san francisco. >> i cover the military and cia after that in the years before and after 9/11, and as a reporter i had seen things grow up around me that i wasn't sure what they were. people i don't for a long time disappeared into worlds that didn't exist before or they have new titles for agencies that i'd
never heard of. after 10 years of working, you sort of say what is going on? >> i finally decided to call it the ripple effect which was a chapter title, because i realized every time we use water it sets off a ripple effect. a series of consequences that most of us are unaware of. >> watch every event from booktv's coverage last weekend of the texas book the texas book festival online at the c-span video library. watch what you want when you want. >> former pakistani president pervez musharraf talks about relations between his country and the u.s. he also discusses pakistan's neighbor, afghanistan. the former president stepped down in 2008 and plans to run for the post in 2013. he spoke at the carnegie endowment for international peace.
>> i think it's worthwhile, because few countries have been as important to each other as the u.s. and pakistan have been since the early 1950s. and yet as anyone who reads a paper or watches the news knows the importance of u.s.-pakistan relations does not make it satisfactory to either country. nor does the importance mean the two governments trust each other. in washington defeating is that the relationship in the pass was broken because pakistan pursued interests and activities that it never contrary to u.s. interests, within the nuclear program in the '80s, and that washington would have to pull back. in pakistan itself increasingly the united states is a fair weather friend and it has abandoned pakistan before and it will again. we see a similar tension here
today in the relationship, discourse between the two, a concern that the interests are contrite enough that there will be yet another separation. there are a number of elements of mutual frustration but began the point of mutual importance remains. therefore it's worthwhile to try to explore ways of building shared purposes and understanding, even if mutual trust is a little too much to expect now. there are few people better qualified to address these issues, and former president pervez musharraf. pervez musharraf served as the pakistan army for more than 40 years driving to its highest position, the chief of staff. from the position he took power in pakistan in 1999, and became president in 2001. he continued as president until 2008. he's a civilian today, and
keenly will decision to address the future of u.s.-pakistan relations. president musharraf has been squeezed on the front and in congress. today he has to go back to the hill, but he has said that he will spend the assigned time here to make some remarks, and then we will take questions your so with that let me ask you to welcome general musharraf. [applause] >> first of all, my profound apologies for being late. i was held back up the hill. may i express my gratitude to
george perkovich and the carnegie endowment for international peace for having invited me and giving me this opportunity to speak. without much ado i would like to get to the subject, and i will speak about our region, and about pakistan. and within that i must cover the united states pakistan relations, which have achieved some kind of criticality at this moment. talking of this issue i would like to start with relating a little bit of history from 1979 anwar because sometimes our members are short and we forget what has happened in the region. so that would be the case for what we ought to be doing and what we have now. i will take on the period of 1979-89, first of all. it was 1979 when soviet union invaded afghanistan and occupy
pakistan. and this created violation of u.s. policy, which was and containment of soviet expansion of also created -- it has soviet union was trying to get to the warm waters of the indian ocean through pakistan. so, therefore, there was a collusion of u.s. and pakistan interest and, therefore, we thought of assisting and fighting against the soviet union. we decided to launch a jihad. jihad is a holy war. when i say we, the united states and also pakistan decided to launch jihad, a holy war, for the reason of attracting martín, holy warriors from muslim world. and may i say we succeeded in drawing about 25-30,000
extending from morocco to indonesia. and not only that we recruited, trained, armed taliban from the tribal regions of pakistan. this country's new for 10 long years the holy war and pakistan assistance for the people of afghanistan. to point i want to highlight here because the a significant. number one,. [inaudible] this war against the jihad against soviet union was spearheaded by militant groups. this is the one point we need to understand. the second point is that when the soviet union occupied
afghanistan, a year before, they deposed the king. afghanistan was held together through an arrangement, a national covenant, national agreement between all the ethnic groups. to live together, stay together. under their sovereignty of the king. but when soviet union deposed the king, afghanistan together with the longer there. so when we're talking political solution we're talking of creating another national covenant's. it will hold the country together which obviously implies the representation of all the ethnic groups, the major ethnic groups. i will talk more about that later. that this went from 79-89.
then comes the period of 89-2001. i generally call this a period of disaster. a period of disaster because united states somehow decided to change course and abandon the place. they abandon that place of afghanistan without any rehabilitation, resettlement of the 25,000 refugees armed to the teeth and knowing only to fight. this was unfortunate, and also maybe a shift of policy of pakistan being put under sanctions. we remember pakistan as -- denied all military assistance to pakistan. and also a policy toward war tilted towards india, a relationship developing with india. this was policy shift, unfortunately. and also may i say with this policy shift, follow this policy
shift, abandonment. mujahideen, 25,000, 30,000 mujahideen. more or less became al qaeda. osama bin laden, shaikh mohammad are all project these of the mujahideen. they become al qaeda now. and out of the, in 1996, taliban emerged. now, why from 89 to 96 in afghanistan, about 10 ethnic groups all were fighting among themselves, the country, and destroyed the country. total anarchy. but in 1996, it became taliban. this country -- [inaudible] a total ravaging of the country, destruction of the country. as far as pakistan is concerned,
another element started. freedom struggle in kashmir. its impact on pakistan was that there were dozens of mujahideen groups which sprang up from society inside pakistan, volunteers preparing, wanting pashtun to fight indian army. so, therefore, in effect, these elements, really it was introduced by us from 79-89, then having abandoned the place by united states, it is viewed in a different form of all fighting each other, ethnic group, al qaeda emerge, and freedom struggle, really from the east, from the west of pakistan to the east of pakistan, pakistan became a
victim of religion militants. so, therefore, my deduction, ladies and gentlemen, pakistan is not perfect trained of terrorism. until 1979 we were only in situation, all that happened within pakistan is that we became a victim of circumstances in the region. then comes 9/11, ladies and gentlemen. now, after 9/11 there was obviously the attack year. it was most terrible and obvious attack by united states and afghanistan. my pakistan join the coalition. now, i was on the scene thing. i took a decision in pakistan's own interest. more than u.s. interest. pakistan's own interest was that i realize, i knew that pakistan is a moderate country. pakistan wants to be a
progressive, enlightened, moderate country. and the talibanization and taliban culture, understanding of islam is not for pakistan. therefore, quite clearly we could not, would not like to be on the taliban say. and, therefore, we join the coalition. now, here i want to highlight a few blunders. the first blunder i gave was 1989 when the united states abandoned afghanistan without resettlement of the pashtuns, of the mujahideen. the second blunder was in 1996 when taliban emerged and pakistan was only country which recognized taliban. and at this moment i remember back in 2000, march 2000 when the president came to pakistan. he was persuading me not to deal with taliban. and i told him at that time that
i was just a different strategy, that we all recognize taliban and the world should open mission in afghanistan and let us then moderate them from within. certainly i am not with the idea, but confronting them or not recognizing them it is better to recognize and and moderate them from within. not doing that was the second blunder. had we done that maybe we could saved the statute, or even some of bin laden issue. if they were hundred missions, threatening to quit afghanistan if they did not agree to moderation. so that was the second blunder. the third blunder after 9/11, i would like to highlight that coalition attack in afghanistan, and with northern alliance, the taliban and al qaeda were
defeated. they ran helter-skelter into pakistan, into the mountains and cities of pakistan. there was a vacuum in afghanistan, a political vacuum. here was a situation where the military had delivered. military of united states delivered victory to you. but this military victory had to be converted into a political victory. and political victory, meaning that a proportional, ethnically proportional, balanced, legitimate government to be placed in kabul. now, this was the time when, from a position of strength, we could have done that your when we say ethnically balanced, proportional government, we had the pashtuns on board. it had to be pashtun dominated because pashtun have always ruled afghanistan. and 50% of afghanistan is
pashtun. so while all taliban were pashtun, i coined a term that all pashtun are not taliban. so we must win away pashtuns, taliban and get them a dominant position in government in kabul. this was not done. to date, it has not been done. to date, comment position of governance in afghanistan is by tajiks and a section of does each which are called panjshiris, who are 8% of afghanistan. i personally feel that this window of opportunity that i'm talking of persisted from 2002 to early 2004, for two long years. taliban, al qaeda were dismantled. they were disorganized. they are command structure was totally broken. they were in pakistan, and we are acting against them successfully. all the people, al qaeda people,
from number three downward, all of them were apprehended in pakistan. all those who see in guantanamo or anywhere are all, actually, by isi in pakistan. all, i repeat. not one has been caught in afghanistan by anyone else. so this was done very successfully in pakistan, but then when al qaeda went down, taliban resurgence started in 2004. it started because pashtun were not taken on board, and this military success was not converted into a political success. their resurgence started in 2004, and they resurgence carries on even now, unfortunately. so this was the third blunder, where we could have utilized this two-year window of opportunity and we failed. and now after 2011 we're trying to talk to taliban now.
now, taliban is not a monolith by the way. so when we talk to taliban, i don't know which taliban is anyone talking to mullah omar is taliban, haqqani is a taliban commander. gulbuddin hekmatyar is taliban. ttp of pakistan is taliban. which taliban are we talking to is not very clear. so, therefore, we are in a complex situation. now, what is the complexity now? it is al qaeda in afghanistan. there is taliban resurgence, and dominant position is taliban now. in pakistan also there are some al qaeda, but mainly taliban, pakistani taliban to go across invite in afghanistan also, and also harbor afghan taliban. the third issue, as far as
pakistan is concerned, they try to spend -- spread of their talibanization into several districts of pakistan. the fourth issue is that there are mujahideen within pakistan, the groups which initially were oriented towards fighting indian army in kashmir, that they have developed a nexus with taliban. the fifth issued is that there is extremism within our society in certain areas. they are rising because they are developing a nexus with the taliban. so this is the complexity of the situation in pakistan which we have to deal with. and each element, whether it is al qaeda, who are foreigners, the military actually is the only solution, talibans pakistan, military, political, socioeconomic requirement. expansion of taliban trying to spread obscurantist talibanization, force is the only requirement.
mujahideen, orientation towards kashmir, doubt involved with talibans, resolution of kashmir dispute and also political action is the requirement. extremism in our society, a long-term strategy of education, of enlightenment, of the economic welfare is the issue, poverty alleviation. so this is the complexity of problems pakistan faces. but i would be remiss if i did not point out what is there in india. there is mujahideen activity in kashmir, but there is a rise in the extremism in muslim youth in india. and that is what indians should realize themselves. the last bombing attacks in bombay, the finding in india is that they have been by local mujahideen, so there are local mujahideen in india. what is the reason? whether the reason is unequal treatment of the muslims, or the
sense of alienation, or whatever, it is for indian government to find out and rectify because there a tendency to develop a nexus of all these people with extremists in pakistan and all that. then as if this is not enough, ladies and gentlemen, there is an eti am, easter can stamp islamic movement, in china. many of them have come into our tribal agencies in afghanistan. this is not enough. there is aqim in al qaeda, al qaeda in arab peninsula is yemen and somalia. the al-shabaab in somalia, all trying to have underground nexus. now, this is the complexity of the situation. i don't want to predict a doomsday scenario here, but certainly this is the complexity and we must understand the anti-complexity of the
situation. now within this, pakistan-united states relations are terrible. they are the lowest ebb. it's the most unfortunate thing because i fear it is unfortunate because we have to have commonality of thought and action if we want to defeat terrorism and extremism, if you going to combat terrorism and extremism. now one thing that want to highlight here, with full conviction, that one is, one has to look at the strategic planning in pakistan. what is pakistan's policy? what is pakistan's overall strategy and direction as far as terrorism and extremism is concerned, or taliban and al qaeda are concerned? certainly it cannot be pro-taliban, pro-al qaeda. why can't it be? because pakistan's army has suffered over 3000 dead, because the same isi, the much-maligned
isi, have suffered about 350 operatives dead, killed through suicide bombings. by whom? by talibans, by al qaeda, the same enemy. and this much-maligned isi, may i also point out that this is the same isi which have saved many lives around the world by unearthing lot of plots. the major one which isi unearthed was in 2005 when 10 airliners were, on transatlantic flight were to be bombed. and it was isi which unearthed it. and this issue of the containment of liquid now, that the rules that the airlines follow that you cannot have three milliliters or something, three liters more liquid in your
handcarried is because of that. because they're going to blow them up with liquid explosives. who did this? isi did it. so why i want to highlight is, isi is much-maligned today. that they are the rogue element. so, therefore, is a possible that strategically, they are pro-talibans, those who are killing us? 35,000 civilians have died. this doesn't stand to logic. however, i would like to clarify been what the hell is happening? [laughter] so we must understand there is a problem at the tactical, the modality, at handling of the situation, at the deal with situations. there may be a misunderstanding, there may be a difference of opinion, that any when he tries to convert this tactical mishandling and difference of opinion to reflect or to cast
aspiration that isi and army, at the top level, by design, are facilitating, abetting, encouraging, and army may be the haqqani group to go across and killed tran eight soldiers and bombed u.s. embassy, i think is diverged from reality, ladies and gentlemen. so i'm very sad, may i say, that admiral mullen came year, i believe, and made certain remarks. now, when admiral of admiral mullen stature says that haqqani group is an extension of isi, he means that the dg isi, therefore the army is against united states, is abetting with the haqqani group, is what the
taliban. that means pakistan is the enemy. pakistan is not the friend. pakistan is not the coalition member. we have to be very, very discreet, very understanding, very accurate in this understanding. i think it is totally against the interests of united states and pakistan and the region and also the world because it violates this, what i say as the unity of thought and action against taliban, al qaeda and terrorists. now, i would like to bring out why this has happened and what we can do to maybe bridge this problem. from united states point of view, i would like to admit pakistan needs to clarify to elements what you're casting very negative aspirations --
aspirations in leading to this trust and confidence deficit. number one, why was osama bin laden in pakistan where he got killed. the issue there was their complicity or negligence? i will be prepared to answer questions, so with problem of limitation of time, i would only like to say that with all my on his conviction, it is a case of terrible negligence which i to be investigated and punished. but it is not a case of complicity. the second issue, but the onus of proving this to united states, which is, it's a very difficult thing to prove because nobody believes, but we have to still prove because i know it to be truth that it is not a case of complicity. the second issue is the roche
haqqani, a group which is in north waziristan. why is the army not acting there? now, again the onus of clarifying lies to pakistan. they must do it. and i would like to admit that they are not doing a good job of both these. they must prove to the world and the united states, is there a problem? do they have a different strategy, as far as siraj haqqani is concerned? is there a problem that the army is overstretched? is there a problem that this any is too strong and we will hold back later? they have to clarify why. but i would be remiss if i did not point out that there are some areas where united states
should also understand pakistan sensitivity and also give comfort, i would say, the pakistan. number one is, united states has decided to leave in 2014, leave afghanistan. if even i was a leader there, i would have come in, interacted, you analyze, you gave me an analysis, what do you see when you leave afghanistan? are leaving a stable afghanistan or an unstable afghanistan? because based on that, i in pakistan will have to take my own countermeasures. this is very important. if we leave afghanistan in an unstable condition, or not a fully stable condition, when i say fully stable, fully stable militarily and politically, then i presume there are two possibilities. this is my personal analysis. either afghanistan go back to
1989 when all ethnic groups were fighting against each other, or he goes back in 1996 when it was taliban, pashtun taliban on one side and uzbek, tajik, and northern alliance on the other side. in both cases, pakistan has to fend for itself. and it is a different strategy required to deal with each, because its direct influence, impact, negative impact, adverse impact will be on pakistan. so any leader in pakistan must think of securing pakistan's interest. so i think it's for united states to sit down with pakistan and discuss these issues very seriously. and element which clarification, and i know there are lots of indians, maybe saving your -- [laughter]
unfortunately, yes, indeed. is a good friend of mine. and i, may i say, my bluntness doesn't mean that i'm very unpopular in india. i'm reasonably popular in india. >> you were born in india. >> yes, i was. >> you have indian blood, like me. [laughter] >> well that is why i say india and pakistan must have peace. i'm a strong, very strong believer we must have peace. now, india is trying to create anti-pakistan-afghanistan. this is most unfortunate, and i'm not saying this because i have some indo-centric and i am anti-india. i know this to intelligence. i know this to be a fact. today, and just to give you one proof, today in afghanistan, afghanistan diplomats, the intelligence people, the
security people, the army men go, i'll go to india for training. i, in my time was facing backwards offering to president karzai to send into pakistan all our training institutions open, free of cost. not one to date has come to pakistan. now, they go there, they come back, they get indoctrinated against pakistan. and may i say, over the years since our independence, afghanistan always has been anti-pakistan because soviet union and india have very close relation in afghanistan. and the intelligence agency, kgb, raw and khad of afghanistan have always been in cooperation and talking since the 1950s. so we must not allow this to continue because then one must not grudge if pakistan orders
isi to take countermeasures to protect its own interests. so i think this needs a rapprochement certainly between india and pakistan and rapprochement also between the two intelligence organizations, the raw and isi of pakistan. because they have been on a confrontational course all through since the 1950s, harming each other. so this is, i would say and if i'm also allowed, one rather minor but still the coming very significant, wind leadership from the united states or anywhere says pakistan has not been enough, we need to do more. now, this has become almost so annoying to a common man in pakistan. we have suffered 35,000 dead, 3000 soldiers killed, 350 isi people killed, generals killed,
generals children's killed. what more should pakistan do? we are doing our best. we are the first victims of terrorism and extremism. at least don't keep saying that we need to do more. yes, we need to do together. we must counter these, all these problems. having said that, lastly, let me come to a little bit on pakistan itself. today pakistan is suffering. there's a dysfunctional government, the rise of terrorism and extremism, a rise of law and order situation in karachi, which is the economic hub. there's an economic collapse in pakistan. there's political turmoil and also floods, et cetera. so pakistan is in terrible shape. my dismay is that pakistan has all the resources and all the potential to stand on its own feet, and i say this is my dismay because in the eighth
year that i govern, all the socioeconomic factors were going up, even if we see our strategic location in the center, with west asia and gulf on the west, landlocked central asian republics, afghanistan, yearning to reach out to the sea in our north, east china -- with china to our northeast, india, south asia to our east. we provide the connectivity for all trade and energy activity in the region. no energy, no trade within this region is possible without pakistan's involvement. that is the strength of our strategic location. the other issue is that we are a country which is self-sufficient in water, self-sufficient in food, self-sufficient in energy. we have hydroelectricity, much
more than our total requirement, don't -- double our total requirement. we have mastered nuclear technology. we have tremendous energy through coal, through gas, alternate source. the only thing we lack maybe is oil. so we have to switch. tremendous amount of natural resources. so what is the problem? we are economically self sustainable. the proof of it is that when i came into it in 1999, we were a failed are a defaulted state. but in 2006, pakistan was declared one of the n-11, next 11 economically vibrant country of the world. after the break for, brazil, russia, india, china, the bric for, you are doing exceptionally
well. pakistan was one of the n-11, next 11 country of the world. so how did this happen? it i had a magic wand or something? i did not. it was the potential and the resources of pakistan where in we've utilize our own resources, our own potential to control the budget imbalance, the budget deficit, the fiscal deficit, the balance of payment deficit which was controlled by increasing our earnings, reducing expenditures. the problems the united states is facing. and may i say that the debt to gdp ratio, which was 103%, was reduced to 52%. that was how we turned the economy a round. i don't want to get into the details, but the per capita income rose from $430 to over $1000 in six years. so how, so what is the problem again? why is it that the same country, the same people, the same
resources, in 1990 were a failed country, in 2006-seven, we are n-11 year and now we're going down, heading towards disaster again. the answer lies that there is a leadership vacuum. it is the leadership. it is the governance which fails pakistan. and governance, government and leaders are thrown up through the political system, through the elections. it is here that we fail. no government elected through elections in a democratic way has ever done good governance for pakistan. and when i say good governance, really the responsibility of every leader. welfare of the people, development of the state. these are the two things that i believe any leader in any
government has to do, otherwise the people reject them. that is the problem of pakistan. no good leadership, not doing welfare of the people and the development of the state. so, therefore, the problem is going up right leadership through the political process. and now we are heading towards another election in 2013, a year and a half away. if at all we don't bring about a political change, breaking the political status quo, people of pakistan rejecting those who have been tried and tested and failed, we will continue on the path, downward slide. so we have to produce another political alternatives in pakistan which can deliver, which can understand the problems of pakistan, will have the courage to deal with these things and is august enough to
deal with pakistan's problems and determination. it is for this reason that i, while i'm very comfortable delivering lectures through harry walker agency, which looks after my interests, paying the very will also -- [laughter] not that i charge anything year, but i'm. [laughter] i am very comfortable for myself. but i have decided to join politics goes there is a bigger cause than self. and that is pakistan. and, therefore, i decided to rejoin politics. we have to create, i do myself my party, a third political alternative, or in combination with other like-minded people. we have to do that. so i'm going to try to do that. and that is why i've into politics and that is why i decided to go back to pakistan in march 2012. or earlier, if i'm to spring a
military surprise and deception and the earlier in 2012. so that is what i intend doing, whatever the -- because i believe it's better to try and fail rather than go down without trying. and for the sake of the country, i will take for the risks. that is all i have to say. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> we're going to take questions now. when i call on you, we will try to bring a microphone, and just please briefly say to you are. let's start with this lady here in the fifth row. and then we'll come over here. to get the mic to each of them. great, please. >> i am a tv reporter with voice of america, broadcasting to pakistan. my question is that a few days
ago on one of our shows, voa's shows, english language show, you said that democracy is a mindset and that you did a lot of things which were pro-democracy. my question is, why has your party not been able to attract support from pakistani public so far in this context? right. first of all, let me correct. i never said democracy is a mindset. i said leadership is a mindset. yes dictatorship, because they always call me a dictator because i was in uniform. i'm in in in uniform. but actually i believe dictator is a mindset. it's not address that you were. i believed always and i continue to believe democracy, in democracy. and many of the, most of the civilian government in pakistan are the biggest dictators. the people of pakistan know that they've been the biggest. so it's not a matter of whether
i'm in uniform or not. i did so much for democracy, i'm nurturing democracy. and democracy idea believe does not start and end at any elections and a political government. it starts from there. how you governed is the essence of democracy, and that is what i did, through empowerment of the people, empowerment of women, empowerment of minority's, freedom to the media. that is democracy and i did all that. so, therefore, i am a strong believer in democracy. coming to your next question, why do the people are not in support? i would be mad if i go back without people's support. i know how much support there is and how much there is not. i am keeping a pulse, and certainly there is support. do you know my support in 2007, march 2007, it was 78%. is it possible that in one you it did and there is no support at all? is always support.
when i resigned from my president ship, many, many people were crying and pakistan. the six cameramen who were filming me, or recording me, for they were crying right in front of me. and it was a great distraction because i was speaking at that time. so let me tell you that there is, that there is support for me. it is certainly support for me in pakistan. however, if i think, if imdb today that there is so much support that i'll win in the next election, i'd be too naïve. so im a site and a realistic person. i am a realist. but i must not office asked myself, i must not under assess myself also. so i tried to carry out my own self-assessment. there is support, and i'm now trying to build that support through organizing party, my party. i have already done that at the four provinces. we have gone down and we have organizing committees in 82 --
52 of the 124 districts of pakistan. and i've now call them to go down to 350 the seals of pakistan into the 6500 union councils of pakistan. in one year, the achievement that i have done internationally, in the united states, u.k., uae, canada, and internally in pakistan, i think nobody has done from scratch with a new party in place. so let me assure you i'm giving it a good try. i can never be sure that i'll develop that kind of support that i went alone, but i'll give it a good try. >> my name is judge hearing. i'm in documentary film maker. when you were elected president in 2013, would you take a new approach towards the problem, the festering problem in the vale of kashmir? we take a new strategy to try to resolve this with india. i'm referring now to the
activities of jaish-e-mohammed and last year it out of? we did make efforts to bring these two under control? >> thank you very much. thank you very much we save when you will get elected, which means you are sure i'm going to get elected. [laughter] >> thank you very much. well, on kashmir, yes, indeed, let me say that it was a passion with me to resolve disputes and bring india and pakistan closer. it was in my time that there was so much of interaction, people to people interaction, that when we had a cricket match between india and pakistan, in the hub of cricket in which was quite and the indy, the people of pakistan were cheering the indian team for the first time.
it was unique. it was because i was encouraging the indian team. i met him and i was then encouraging this interaction. now, the issue of kashmir it has to be results. over -- other than that, they can be signed yesterday. it just needs leadership position. .. >> so i don't have to reinvent the wheel, i'll do it again.
because i believe in peace. because it is to the advantage of india and pakistan. socioeconomic advantage of both the countries. now, when we talk of -- [inaudible] i had banned -- [inaudible] in my time. lash car e tyke baa is a great problem because they have great public sympathy. they need to be dealt with in a sensitive manner, but yes, indeed, we will pull the rug from under their feet. the dispute is over, what are you doing? pack up and go home. it's easier said than done. we need to handle them with care because when they are very well organized, public support, then we had the earthquake in 2005. their branch organization
called -- [inaudible] >> [inaudible conversations] >> was probably the best ngo and became popular in kashmir for the relief effort they had, they were so well organized. and we couldn't ban them. and there were a lot of people who were suggesting let's ban them and stop them there there. i said, if we do that and if, god forbid, one of the chinook helicopters which i call them the angels of mercy, if they shoot one of them down, no relief would be possible in that area without the american -- [inaudible] so let's go along with them. we have to handle these things with understanding and with care, and we would like to do that again. >> can i -- general, i would like to follow up on the kashmir question because you, there was a lot of roll made in the back channel with india during your time.
but what you said about, and others say about now the importance of afghanistan and the great concern that pakistan has about india's role in afghanistan, even if you then somehow formalize an agreement on kashmir, where would this afghan concern then fit in the overall organization? hasn't that gotten more important in a way be? >> yes. i presidentially am or have always -- personally am or have always been believing that interstate relations are more to do with interpersonal relations between leaders. and very proudly can i say why was there so much trust and confidence between the united states and confidence when i was there? that was because i had excellent communication and interpersonal relations with president bush and colin powell. day before yesterday i had
coffee with colin powell to his house, and we used to speak to each other very, very regularly. i could pick up the phone and talk to president bush, which i used to. this is the interpersonal relation. on pakistan/india, i developed very good interpersonal relation with both the prime ministers. may i also add without any reservation that i found both of them to be very good people, i found both of them very flexible, very sincere towards peace, and we were moving forward. now, with this relationship i am sure we can address all issues. what i said about afghanistan is certainly with full knowledge otherwise in an audience where there are indians, they think i would not have mentioned anything which was in doubt. i know that this is happening. so this is unfortunate, but if
two leadership have relations, i am sure we will be able to exact them to the common good of everyone. i think it is doable, but you need to address it, yes, indeed. but it needs all three to have developed an understanding, pakistan, afghanistan and india. >> this lady here, and then i've got to go back and forth, so there's -- right by -- yeah, there. go ahead. no, no, right here. >> nancy baer with the pack tanny spectator. my question today is about -- >> sharif. >> your friend. >> my good friend. [laughter] >> he was twice democratically elected. he was very pro-business, relaxing the business laws so that pakistan became very attractive to foreign investment which resulted in even more jobs for the people.
and even today he is one of the most popular, viable leaders and very loved by his people. so my question is, did it not concern you when you deposed him with no democratic process whatsoever that it would be viewed negatively by the international community? >> thank you very much. this is my favorite question. [laughter] let me tackle it. may i say, ma'am, your figures are totally distorted. 1999 i come on the scene. pakistan is a feared and defaulted state. do you know the -- [inaudible] in pakistan? $400 million. this is the investment coming to pakistan. and do you know where we took it? $8.4 billion. and do you know what our exports? stagnating. do you know our revenue
collection? revenue collection was at 480 billion rupees. do you know where we took it? one trillion rupees. so this is the performance. in joblessness, poverty do you know -- and the poverty was at 34%. we brought it to 17%. these figures are united nations figures. find out from united nations which is true. and you're talking about a person who did this? i'm amazed that you -- please, correct your figures. and don't believe me, go find out. on each. now, i am not saying anything. go and find out about industry. we had 2.9% -- [inaudible] only 5 or 600,000 mobile telephones. do you know what it is now? over 70%, and there are 50 million mobile it weres now. -- telephones now.
and do you know what people were doing because i was an army chief then? they were all coming to my office and telling me, when are you going to take over, when pakistan finishes? this is what they were telling me. so please understand what was happening in pakistan. and now coming to the second part that he's a very popular man. yes, indeed, let me admit that the man when he came back, men benazir came, she got assassinated, we had to get him back. he gained in popularity, yes, you're right to that extent. he had gone up in popularity. but then with the wonderful governance they are doing in punjab province, the biggest province where buildings only get two hours of electricity and there's total misgovernance in punjab, it is a sharp decline in his popularity. he has no base in the three smaller provinces, frontier and
balochistan. in south punjab he's almost out. so his base is not in central jab. so -- punjab. so i could talk for hours, he is not as popular as you think. >> thank you very much -- >> and also may i say -- [laughter] i call him a closet taliban. [laughter] he's an extremist. there are extremist groups in punjab who are now his political partners. so he will be a bigger disaster if he, god forbid, comes in governance. i'm very sure he will never. if he comes to govern in pakistan, bigger disaster than the present situation. >> and we will be happy to host a debate between you and him here in washington if you -- >> let me assure you, let me assure you he will never come. [laughter] i stand. you call him, i will sit here. >> [inaudible] >> wait, wait, wait.
wait. wait. all right, i'll call on you, but we're going to have -- it'll get -- call on this gentleman back here. >> good afternoon, sir. my name is reuben. i am with the american jewish committee, and we were privileged to give a donation of $50,000 in the pakistan earthquake and partner with the american association of pakistani origin to send 100,000 meals to the affected area. and in recent years we have reached out in the american community, tried to reach out to the pakistan-american community. >> which community are you talking about? >> >> the indian-american and pakistan-american communities. when you were foreign minister, i believe you met in ankara trying to open because, you know, india has traditional strong ties with the palestinian cause and now growing
relationships with israel. and the israelis saw pakistan as a bridge between israel and the jewish world and the us ram -- islamic world. you also attended -- >> is there a question? >> you attended a kosher dinner with jewish leaders in new york. would you reach out, see pakistan bring that bridge between israel and -- >> [inaudible] were you the one that i met a the american-jewish congress when i addressed that? >> [inaudible] >> okay. yes, indeed. now, i personally believe that we have to bring peace not only to the renal, but to the -- not only to the region, but to the whole world. and, therefore, i even started an idea which i proposed after oic summit in kuala lumpur which is a double answer.
one prong to be delivered by the muslim world, and for the west and united states solve political dispute which bedevil muslim world and also assist in the sob yo economic -- socioeconomic development of the muslim world. i personally believe we must have peace p. if we want to have peace, we have to resolve the palestinian/israeli dispute. this holds the key to al-qaeda and all the activity of hezbollah, hamas, andal maybe al-qaeda they are mainly politically indoctrinated or motivated people, those who carried out the 9/11. who were they? they were probably people who are antagonized at this israel/u.s. relation,
anti-palestinian attitudes around. as far as i'm concerned, as far as pakistan is concerned, i thought we need to have balanced relations, and i personally commented once that we need to review our relations with israel as we progress forward on the resolution of palestinian/israeli dispute. towards this end, i even came and addressed the american jewish congress. towards this end, i requested the turkish president to invite the foreign minister of israel to turkey, and i returned my foreign minister. they should meet. and if you could contribute to the palestinian side of dispute, resolution, i would like to play a role. and may i also inform this august gathering, in 2006 i initiated a different peace
process. and that was i thought that on one side in the muslim world united states on israeli side and dealing with peace maybe has become unacceptable to the muslim world. therefore, there's a requirement of maybe european union and mr. solana, the secretary general, who is held in certain esteem in pakistan in the muslim world to play a role on one side. and on the muslim side, i thought instead of arabs who have all been dealing and maybe they're feared to reach a conclusion, we include non-arab muslim players. and that, i thought, was turkey, pakistan, malaysia and indonesia. and i went around to do this, to develop this team or this group to deal with palestine/israel dispute. i thought this may be a different approach, and maybe
because israel would have more confidence in the four that i've spoken of. and muslim world will have more confidence on solana. many solana, and we could make some progress. but i think we have to think out of the box, and i am for peace as far as pakistan is concerned with all countries and trying to resolve all disputes. political disputes. >> we'll take two, two questions at a time because i know we're running out of time, if that's okay with you. and i've got this woman here -- >> i will take my time because i was late. so, therefore, i owe to them whatever question, whatever time you want to take. >> thank you. >> hello. suzanne kelly from cnn. can you tell me if you believe that pakistan is doing enough when it comes to working with the international community on securing it nuclear facilities, or should it be doing more? >> on the nuclear facility? if pakistan is what?
what did you say? >> working enough with the iaea on securing these facilities? or should they be more open? >> pakistan is very, very -- [inaudible] first of all, pakistan nuclear capability everyone must understand is a pride to every man in the street. number two, pakistan nuclear capability is in direct relation to the threat perception to the existential threat pakistan has always faced. so, therefore, we are nuclear. now, unfortunately in pakistan a perception has got created that united states or many other powers that be are for pakistan to be denuclearized.
that goes totally against pakistan interest, and the people of pakistan will never allow it. because it is unfair. and now coming as far as iaea and custodial control, what the world ought to be interested in, are they secure? yes, indeed. it is unfortunate for pakistan that there was proliferation by an important personality like dr. a.q. khan. that was most terrible. and we suffered -- [inaudible] but may i say after 2000 when i came on the scene, the first thing that i did was establish custodial controls, and be that we had a national command authority on top, we created an spd, strategic planning division headed by a general. ask we took away all the awe on autonomy from the science
organization, especially of finance and security. the two which were given to them, money used to be given to them and no questions asked, security was their own and, therefore, nobody was overseeing this proliferation was possible. and we took away this, too, proliferation is no more possible. and then while all these assets were held by the science organization at that time, i made, i took over those assets, and i created an army strategic force command. the strength of about 20,000 men of the army. it is a corps of the army with two divisions w a number of by grades, with a number of regiments who physically hold our assets. the development is by science organization, the holding is by the army. and the army has dispersed them and put them in places where nobody can access.
and may i also add that a lot of misperception is there that india and pakistan were on a confrontation course in 2002. the fingers on the button, nuclear button and all that. there's no finger on the button in india/pakistan context. it's not like warsaw. in our case, thank god, including india, our weapons are not -- [inaudible] in that the bomb is separate and the missile is separate. they were not mating. there is nothing like a -- [inaudible] like a war pact scenario where you react in seconds. that is not the case. so let me for this long answer let me, let me say that pakistan's nuclear capability is our existential requirement, it
is the pride of pakistan. we will go along with the world, certainly, on all safeguards as applicable to others of the world. do not, please, single out pakistan. it will not be acceptable to pakistan. >> general, may i ask a follow up which is if you're elected president, you would be a civilian leader in pakistan. but it's a nuclear program that's always been controlled by the army. so by what process would you then, for example, have a policy and make a decision to decide do you have enough material, do you have enough weapons, and as a civilian would you be able to have actual authority this that discussion? >> because i have commanded the army for 40 years, they can never forget that. i've fought wars with them, i've faced dangers with them, but that aside finish.
-- [laughter] it is not correct that the army controls everything. we have made the national command authority. the chairman is the president of pakistan. the prime minister is there. five important mysters are there. and four chiefs are there; army, navy, air force and chairman -- [inaudible] and the president. now, even if you see historically when we started this program, it was started probably after india exploded its first bomb in 974. -- 1974. because that made our military strategy, our military strategy throughout was a strategy of minimum defensive deterrence. quantified into army, navy, air force. but in 1974 when india exploded its bomb, this minimum defensive deterrence although in place in the conventional, became untenable in the unconventional. therefore, pakistan decided to go nuclear. >> well, it actually started in
the '72 after the war with bangladesh. >> after? >> in '72, january '72 after the '71 war is when the program started. >> the nuclear program was always there. >> right. >> but to go nuclear was after this a.q. khan enrichment of uranium started in 1976, '77 or '78, etc. now, at that time since secrecy was required, it was under the president of pakistan who happened to be also a military man. but when he died, it was a souvenir president who was overseeing, but then he used the army commander, army chief to assist him. so the course has been following a normal course, but army chief
is the boss of army strategic force command who holds them. but the development, etc., is very much under through the strategic planning division which is headed by our -- [inaudible] general. he's retired now, but it's overseen by the mca who, i think, i think this is the best practice we acquired from the whole, from the world, and that is what we have done. and i did this in 2000, by the way. i take credit for that. >> i know you did. thank you. this gentleman here and then sema back there. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] thank you, mr. president. i don't know how to address you, general? a great general or a great president. >> whatever name you give me, i remain the same. >> thank you, mr. president. i must say one thing, that some
think tanks including atlantic, some of the speakers were -- bashing you as economic progress took place and also peace between india and pakistan during your administration. my question is here that as far as afghanistan is concerned, afghanistan's president karzai always accused pakistan of sending terrorism or taliban, al-qaeda across the border into afghanistan, but now recently last week what he said was if war between pakistan and the u.s., then he or afghanistan will back up pakistan, not the united states after even getting all the billions of dollars and getting -- eliminating terrorism. and second, mr. president, as far as pakistan/u.s. relations are concerned, the survey in pakistan shows that number one enemy of pakistan according to
pakistanis is not india, but united states after getting all the billions of dollars. what can you make, mr. president, out of these things? and also one more thing, osama bin laden was found in your backyard, and you were the ruler that time. when you knew or not, sir. >> very good. thank you very much. [laughter] firstly, karzai's statement, first of all, let me thank him for the first time giving a pro-pakistan statement. but, however, the statement that he will support pakistan against the united states is most preposterous i would say. i find this idea itself very preposterous. how can they, i mean, is he utilizing some kind of war between the united states and pakistan? it's ridiculous and preposterous. so, therefore, i wouldn't like to even answer this. i find this a very, very strang
idea. who has propounded this idea and, god forbid, this can never happen. so why comment? and thank you very much, please, look after the taliban and al-qaeda. that is enough for -- [inaudible] pakistan will look after itself. the second issue was -- [laughter] >> about u.s. and india. >> you said about osama bin laden being found -- >> no, no. >> empathy against the united states, the enemy, yes. that is unfortunate. there is a dichotomy in pakistan, unfortunately, if you go to the massive level, yes, there's a great antipathy against the united states. which has developed since 1989. as i said, until 1989 we were strategic partners. everything was going through pakistan. there was no problem. so it is beyond 1989 that things
got bad. everything that happened, whether the abandonment, there was a sense of betrayal in the people of pakistan. do you know on 9/11 when i joined the coalition which was a difficult decision, the question that was asked from me everywhere that i went, what makes you think that we will again not be betrayed and ditched by united states? this is a question that they used to ask me. so this is the unfortunate reality of events and, therefore, and then india's very part stand approach on nuclear issue which i said is thecepstivity of the man in the street -- the sensitivity of the man in the street. partisan against pakistan and very pro-india. why pakistan has developed nuclear bomb? because of its existential threat. india has developed a nuclear bomb. i don't know whyment what for.
is there a threat from somebody, or is there an idea projecting your power in the region and in the world? so it's the approach is totally different. our nuclear is defensive, your nuclear is maybe offense i. offensive. now, yet pakistan is being told to control and stop its nuclear program. unfortunately, the people of pakistan have developed this awpt path think. but at the government level, may i say. at the leadership level, at the intellectual level, i think everyone understands the importance of pakistan/u.s. relations. pakistan/u.s. relations are very broad in context. not only is there military cooperation over terrorism and extremism, cooperation against that, but there's a great
socioeconomic element in that. our trade and investment interests are there. so everyone understands that pakistan and united states relation have to be strong. it is the masses who are more emotional i would say and sentimentsal that because of these event there's an antipathy which needs to be corrected, frankly. i personally believe it has to be corrected. it'll take time and good leadership. and your third -- there were three questions. >> osama bin laden, were you surprisedsome. >> yes. osama bin laden was in abbottabad. he was there for five years. first of all, i am not fully convinced that he was there for five years. unless there is some proof given for five years he was there? i'll relate a talk after something i will tell you. if he was there for five
years -- now, why i say there was no complicity, as far as i'm concerned i am 500% sure that i did not know. whether anyone believes it or not. so, therefore, i am clear that there were no complicity. and i am also clear that the army could not have hidden from me because i am from them, and they are from me. and if at all there was some misdoing at the top level, i am sure the second, third, fourth tier officers who are very much in touch with me, who have always been would have come and told me that this is not possible that army could do anything of what my policy was not, whether they were not following the policy. so there was no complicity, and i didn't know. frankly. >> president, thank you very much. we -- thank all of you for hanging in there. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
washington yesterday. this morning secretary of state hillary clinton will be on capitol hill talking about u.s. relations with pakistan and afghanistan. live coverage from the house foreign affairs committee begins at 10 eastern. up next on c-span2, sba add mer karen mills talks about small business loans. >> i don't want every story to be 1800 words. >> last month jill abramson became the first woman to hold the post of executive editor at "the new york times." she believes the times is more irreplaceable than ever but also envisions a few changes. >> there is a certain lack of discipline, sometimes a point is repeated too many times in a story or there are three quotes making the same point where one would do, and i'd like to see a variety of storylines.
>> she'll discuss her career, her new book and the future of the times sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> from the texas book festival last weekend -- >> president calderon's strategy is one of kings and strategy, going after the head of snake, you chop off the head of the snake, and the rest of the snake dies. and that's been the idea. unfortunately, the reality has been very different. >> while almost the other founding fathers are thinking primarily of those colonies on the eastern seaboard, jefferson is alreadyreaming of his empire for liberty that will go all the way maybe to the mississippi, maybe up the missouri and ease into those great harbors on the pacific, san diego, monterey and san francisco. >> so i had covered the military and the cia after that in the year before and after 9/11, and as a reporter on those beats i had seen things grow up around me that i wasn't sure what they were.
people i had known for a long time disappeared into worlds that department exist before, or they had no titles for agencies that i'd never heard of. and of after ten years of working in that realm, you sort of say, you know, what is going on? >> i finally, um, decided to call it the ripple effect which was a chapter title because i realized that every time we use water it sets off a ripple effect, a series of consequences that most of us are unaware of. >> watch every event from booktv's coverage last weekend of the texas book festival online at the c-span video library, archived and searchable. watch what you want, when you want. >> now, the head of the small business administration takes questions about the sba's loan programs. karen mills testified yesterday before the house small business committee. its chairman is sam graves of missouri. this part of the hearing is an hour, 25 minutes.
[background sounds] >> good afternoon. we'll call the hearing to order. today. the most important thing this committee can do is create an environment in which entrepreneurship is fostered, thereby producing jobs vital to the economic recovery. there are many aspects in creating this environment. today's hearing we're going to focus on one of those, and that's access to capital. the committee has heard on multiple occasions from small businesses they cannot get funs needed -- funds needed. at the same time, banks have testified before the committee saying they have the funds available to lend. the small business administration oversees a number of programs to bridge this apparent gap between the need and vail about of capital. sba shows volume has increased.
these efforts have been supplemented by promises from banks to raise lending to small businesses. it remains an open question whether these efforts are sufficient to provide the necessary funds for small businesses to expand and create jobs. sba programs operate with loan guarantees issued by the federal government. congress is determined that the risks to the taxpayers are outweighed by the benefits in providing the needed capital to small businesses. this committee has a responsibility to insure that the desire to get money into the hands of small businesses does not come at the expense of exercising due diligence when making a loan, especially when taxpayers are on the hook for the government's bad decisions. therefore, the committee needs to know that the sba and its partners are complying with the requirements of the small business act and not issuing loans with document deficiencies as the inspector general has recently found. ultimately, the committee needs to understand whether the programs are currently -- the programs currently constituted are enabling small businesses to create jobs. if not, the committee will need to examine legislative changes
to promote access to capital without unduly placing the taxpayer at risk. and with that, i'd yield to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the last year, our nation's economy has experienced steady private job sector creation, however, it has not been enough on the unemployment rate which remains stubbornly high at 9.1%. the reality is we will still have a long road ahead of us with millions of americans who are seeking work that cannot find it. front and center to any solution to this dilemma are small businesses. in every previous down turn, it has been small, innovative firms that have created the cutting edge products and services to lead us forward. in fact, more than half of the companies on the 2009 fortune 500 list were lawn p offed during a recession or bear market along with nearly 50% of the firms on the 2008 inc. list
of america's fastest growing companies. whether it is the silicon valley start-up or a main street mom and pop, it is clear that small businesses are our neigh's job creators. -- our nation's job creators. in order to continue to play this traditional job-creating role, it is essential that they are able to access capital. doing so provides the fuel for innovation and economic expansion across the spectrum of entrepreneurship. it enables unemployed individuals to start their own businesses, help domestically reover crepted companies to sell their goods in foreign markets and allows high-tech firms to informs in r&d. but small businesses face real challenges in the capital markets. while lending conditions and credit standards are easing, balance sheets have not recovered from the financial crisis and recent recession. this has left many without the assets to borrow against and with lower revenues than in
years past a. as a result, business owners now have fewer options to secure affordable financing. lending through the sba is always critical to filling this void. several provisions this committee crafted in the recovery act temporarily boosted sba-backed lending. raising guarantees and fees on sba loans and was key for the record-setting year the agency experienced with record 7a loan volume of nearly $20 billion, an increase of more than 50%. it is clear these policies worked. impressive growth in the sba program as well as more moderate growth in the 504 program confirmed the important role that this initiative plays in the capital markets. with this growth came other challenges in the portfolio. the average 7a loan grew by nearly 40% while there were percentage declines in smaller loans and those to start-ups.
smaller loans are especially important as an average it costs nearly $75,000 to launch a new enterprise. with an average 7a loan size of now $365,000, five times the cost of a start-up, we must make sure that the agency is not forsaking its rule solely to set records. during today's hearing i'm hopeful that we will not just tout past performs, but instead focus on how we can expand access to capital for all businesses, especially those at the earliest stage of the business cycle. start-ups, particularly those in the high growth sectors, remain central to our economic recovery, and it is critical that we expand their ability to secure financing. now is not the time to constrain access to capital and problems like those at sba are critical
to creating jobs. getting financing in the hands of would-be entrepreneurs has never been so important, and doing so is not just critical to reducing unemployment, but also to increasing tax revenue and decreasing our nation' debt. i know the next few months are critical in this regard, and i will be focusing on making sure small businesses are not dealt a bad hand when the committee makes its final -- supercommittee makes its final recommendation. on that note, i would like to thank the witnesses for taking their time to be here. i'm interested in hearing their thoughts on how best to meet the entrepreneurs' capital needs so they can create the jobs that we badly need. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as mentioned in my opening statement, our first witness today is the honorable karen mills who's the administrator of the small business administration. ms. mills has been with sba administrator since 2009 and is, obviously, no stranger to this committee. prior to joining the small business administration,
ms. mills was an investor in small businesses, so the struggles businesses have in obtaining capital are, obviously, very familiar to you. thank you very much for being here, and we appreciate you being here. >> thank you very much, chairman graves and ranking member velazquez and members of the committee. thank you for asking me to testify on access to capital for small business. for the first call year that just -- fiscal year that just closed, the sba hit an all-time record in its history. we supported over 30 billion in lending to 60,000 small businesses, and we wrought back 1200 lenders, mostly community banks and credit unions who had not made an sba loan since 2007. we also had a record year in our small business investment company program with nearly 2.6 billion in overall financings. this is a zero subsidy program that targets high-growth small businesses, the main driver of net new jobs. today sba's lppedding volume is
back at pre-recession levels. however, it is our agency's continued obligation to identify and fill gaps where the market is not working. this is particularly true for low-dollar loans and loans to businesses in underserved communities. and as i describe this effort, i want to be sure that the committee understands that all of the sba's programs and initiatives have been implemented in accordance with our authority as provided by this congress. so, first, low-dollar loans. under 150,000 have not come back. we found three root causes. they have a high cost of processing relative to their size, so banks often don't want to make them. to answer that, we streamlined and simplified paperwork on these loans to incentivize lenders to step up.
second, we need more points of access to get small loans to entrepreneurs in underserved markets. that's why we developed community advantage, to let community-based lenders with proven track records and historically low default rates to make 7a loans for the first time. third, when many of the large banks withdrew from lending during the recession and the credit crunch in october 2008, loans, small loans to small businesses were very hard hit. that's why we have secured $20 billion in additional commitments over the next three years from 13 of our largest banks, many of them will focus on underserved markets. i also want to be sure the committee fully understands the facts about loan performance and our subsidy costs. loan default rates now have deny to fall. they are not rising. and loans made in the past three
years are actually performing significantly better than in the cohorts of 2005, 2006, 2007. as i've testified before, we are also focused on lender oversight and the elimination of fraud, waste and abuse through a three-pronged approach. we look at up-front eligibility to make sure the loans are flowing to the intended recipients and continued monitoring and oversight of our lending partners. and finally, we enforce, we focus on enforcement efforts to pursue fraud and bad actors. my commitment is that we will continue to expand access to capital while protecting taxpayers' dollars as we embark on another critical year in sba lending. thank you very much. >> thank you, administrator mills. we'll turn to mr. coffman for opening questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
secretary mills, since the sba-backed loans are only a small percentage of overall small business lending, what steps are you taking to encourage, um, private small business lending? >> as you heard me say earlier, we have, um, as you describe on a good day, um, a small portion of the market may be 10% of the market. so the entire market, the conventional market for small business lending needs to also come back. we went out to our 13 largest lending partners, all the large banks which had not come back in force to sba lending, um, and other helping. they had come back to sba, but they had not shown enough numbers in conventional lending and asked for increased commitments and promised to work
with them to make sure ha they had access to the demand that we see out there. they have committed $20 billion of additional capital incremental to what they have done -- >> who's they again? >> there's 13 banks. so we can give you the list. it was public. you know, our primary partners, jpmorgan chase, um, wells fargo, u.s. bank corp., pnc, huntington bank, and the aggregate amount is $20 billion incremental small business lending over the next three years. >> thank you. secretary mills, do you have any of the analysis to determine what sba-backed lending would be without the reduced fees and higher guarantee? 75 to 85% guarantee still provides banks a way to mitigate risk. >> yes, we do have evidence. and, um, in a chart which was
attached to my testimony you can see, um, what happened. the actual 90% guarantees were, ended on december 31st last year. um, we had a big spike right before that happened, so we had a recovery dip, and then we came back, um, to a level that was significantly above, um, 2010 and also above 2008 levels. so it seems to be working. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> ranking member velazquez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam administrator, since -- [inaudible] rates typically rise during economic downturn, you might expect to see a rise in lending for, to such entrepreneurs. however, small dollar loans and loans to start-ups decline as a percentage of sba lending last
fiscal year. does this mean that the agency's shifting away from making these type of loans and focusing on larger loans? to more -- >> no -- >> -- established, mature companies? >> >> no. the agency believes as you do that there is a gap in small dollar loans. and, in fact, one of the real reasons for the high unemployment right now is that we are down about 100,000 new business starts. >> uh-huh. >> so we have been extremely concerned, as i know you have been, about the fact that the market did not come back. and that's why we came out with this three-pronged approach -- >> okay. >> -- to promote small -- >> i hear you. so why is it that last year sba spent nearly $70 million, 84% of your 7a loan subsidies on 7a loan of $1 million or more?
by contrast, subsidy for loans of 250,000 or less for which is the great need right now were just 1.9 million? does it seem fair that so much money goes to benefit fewer than one in ten of all borrowers? >> as i said, we are in complete agreement, um, with your analysis of this problem. in that there is a gap in small business lending. we have continued to focus on that, but the job is not nearly done. we are, um, we've made slight progress over the last year in the smaller loan sizes, but there is still a very, very large gap. to that -- >> what do you think it will take so that we can see more loans going to smaller or
start-up businesses? because that's where the need is. >> it will take -- >> if -- what. >> the -- banks coming back to that area, and what we have done is try to make it more cost effective for them to use an sba loan for a small loan, we've tried to bring together our large lending partners and get them to focus on it. we've tried to bring more points of access who make small loans like our community development financial institutions, give them access to swa lending -- sba lending. we will look at every possible program within our authority to do that. >> okay. okay, thank you. um, last week your agency issued final rules to permit the wholesale of refinancing of commercial real estate in the 504 loan program. with foreclosures expected to climb this year, how much will this new refinancing program contribute to the subsidy rate?
>> well, this new rate financing program has fee authority to pay for itself, so it lives separate from the subsidy rate. >> well, so you don't expect the refinancing initiative to contribute to this subsidy rate? >> no. >> no. um, that's what we heard before regarding the regular financing 504 program, and you came back, and for next year you will require nearly $90 million in subsidies. so what would you do or your agency will do if defaults on refinance 504 loans begin to exceed the fees charged to coffer those losses? -- to cover those losses? >> this program is authorized to charge additional fees, and we will charge the fees necessary -- >> i understand, but -- >> -- to take care of the
subsidy. >> it's the same situation that we have with the 504 regular program. and when you continue to charge those fees and increase those fees to cover for those losses, you could reach a point where you reach the maximum cap allowed by the law. so what would you do then? you-to come back here and ask -- you will have to come back here and ask for subsidies to cover those losses. >> the refinancing program ends a year from now. >> okayment -- okay. as you say that from a year from now that will end, the same situation we find with the funding for the 7a and 504, it
will expire in december. sba's loan approval have fallen back to levels not seen since the worst of the credit crunch. why is it that two years after the credit crisis began sba cannot find a long-term solution to providing meaningful levels of credit the -- to small firms? >> well, the facts as you've just stated them, i think, are not correct. if you look at the chart next to my testimony, um, you will see that even in the last three quarters we have rebounded to levels that are at 2008. >> half of all your lending last year occurred in the first quarter when the incentives from the stimulus package were in place. and that's the only reason lending was up as high as it was. so every month since those
provisions will expire, we have seen the lowest, um, number of loans that has been issued. >> well -- >> backed by the federal government. >> with respect, i believe, um, that the facts, those facts are not correct. >> it's not the amount, it's shot the amount of money -- it's not the amount of money lent, it's the amount of loan that have been made. >> the number of loans that we have right now is impacted, as you mentioned before, by the fact that the decline, the -- most of the loans are in the small level in the previous years. those have not come back. >> mr. tipton? scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thank you, ms. mills, for being here. appreciate your efforts in everything that you try and do to help small businesses in the country. just listening to some of your testimony, i'd like to get a little bit of clarification. you'd mentioned that in order to be able to get the banks to start making loans again you'd streamlined some paperwork. can you describe a little bit for us what were the actual cost savings to the bank as an incentive, the streamlining of that paperwork? >> i know we have that, but i don't have it here, so i'm happy to get back to you. >> you know, i think we'd like to hear that because we often hear government is simplifying things, and that rarely is actually the case. and in terms of trying to be able to create some cost savings because that is a real issue. you'd also mentioned nonperforming loans are dropping -- >> correct. >> -- right now. is that a result of an improving economy, or is that a result of people have simply gone bankrupt, and they're no longer
on the board? >> our loan portfolio is made up of cohorts that were, um, performing in, you know, that were made in 2005, 2006, 2007. >> right. >> many of those when you look at our delinquency rate failed in the recession. and, therefore, caused a peak about 1 months ago -- 14 months ago in august 2008, of our portfolio, our overall default rate peaked 14 months ago. >> uh-huh. >> and now it is improving slowly as those loans have passed through -- >> so the stabilization businesses, basically, went belly up? >> >> well, actually, the new i loans are defaulting. they're early. but they are defaulting at a much, much lower rate. >> uh-huh. >> measured by, from their or months from inception, then the loans from those previous cohorts. so we anticipate that this improvement will continue.
we also know that credit scores on our current portfolio of loan made in recent years are much stronger. >> okay. you'd mentioned that there is a commitment of $20 billion in commitments from the larger banks. how much of that's been loaned out? >> we made the announcement on this three or four weeks ago, so probably not very much yet, but it's coming. >> okay. you know, looking through your written testimony you seem to give a tip of the hat to the president in regards to the $467 stimulus and indicated that it was paid for. my concern is and a lot of our constituents' concerns that are small businesses is it's being paid for on the backs of businesses that are currently struggling in terms of increased tax rates. could you speak to that? >> we're talking about the, um, american jobs act. >> right. >> and, um, the american jobs act has received very strong
support from the small business community because it includes a payroll tax cut which they are very eager to get because it mean cash in their pocket right away. those, you know, as i understand it no specific paid-for yet has been decided because the bill is still in the hands of congress. but definitely small businesses are looking for that cash from the payroll tax cut in their pocket. >> do you think small businesses are going to be concerned about increased tax rates? i have a letter here from a gentleman named jim, a small construction company in pueblo, colorado. been a successful business, small business, and because of a lack of access to capital, he paid down his line of credit to zero, went back to the banks trying to get that line of credit reuped. he'd actually purchased a crusher. if you're familiar with construction, to be able to grind up rocks to put on the
roads, trying to grow his business and to be able to create jobs. but because of regulatory compliance the banks, they wanted to loan the money but could not loan the money. he had to line up his equipment, sell it off, call in 24 core employees, tell them that they no longer had a job. but under the's calculations right now, and it is some debate and we both need to probably pass on the message that the plan is not paid for, he would have been labeled as rich a couple of years ago. do you think it's counterintuitive and, in fact, counterproductive to be raising taxes on small businesses at this time? >> well, first of all, if you have, you know, another small business like this or, you know, he is still available, please, tell your small business opener in that situation -- owner in that situation to get on sba.gov and come into our district office because that's exactly the situation where we can help. and one of