tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 16, 2015 7:00pm-12:01am EST
>> supposed to bring enough for everybody. what's the rule around here? >> didn't ask for anything to bo made nor would give anything to be made. at least the way i recall it. i did well enough to try and travel and be a part of this. i'd like to make one last comment. perhaps i'm going to yield myself a minute, but in particular, the issue you brought up, if not amendment, i so much appreciate because i think two parts of this. number one, i was in argentina let's say two years ago and i watched our ambassador lecture the argentinians about job growth and job creation and what they needed to do from our standpoint department. meanwhile, our what was happening here in the united states was in my opinion, directly in opposition to what
we were telling, chastising other people. secondly, i believe that currently, there's a system that exists that is on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and that is that the appropriators, when they become aware of something that may be exactly what the gentleman and mr. mcgovern was talking about, it would be a very difficult issue we should properly make sure that this country knew we were not going to find. come back through the congress, too, and i think we do the right thing. the appropriators have another foreign account mrs. granger has the ability to withhold match up and i think instead of an official going forward and holding these governments accountable on their own, i think it should come from the people who gave the money. not the people that represent the money, so, i want to be a part of working with you. if you get to that point, also.
is there anything further from any member of this committee for this panel? seeing done, i want to thank you all three of you. thank you for your time today. see mr. meadows, tell him we didn't get whatever he sent and we're back to it. this now -- yeah. this now closes the hearing portion of hr 2029, the omnibus and tax expenders bill that has been before the committee this evening. the chair will be able to receive a motion from north carolina. the vice chairman committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move the committee grant a rule providing consideration of the senate amendment to hr 2029 veterans affairs and related agencies appripriations act 2016. the rule makes an order of motion offered by the chair of
the committee on appropriations designate the house concur with two house amendments. amendment number one consisting of rules print. committee print. 114-39. modified by the amendment, printed in the rules committee report and amendment number 2, consisting of the tect of rules committee print, 114-40. the rule provides one hour of debate. number one, equally divided control by the chair and ranking minority member by the committee. the rule provides one hour debate on amendment number 2, equally divided control with the chair and ranking minority member, the committee on ways and means. the motion and provides it the senate amendment and the motion shall be considered. the rule provides a question shall be divided between the two house amendments. no further division of the question is in order. the rule provides that either portion of the question may be subject to postponement as
though underclause of rule 20 and should be considered in the order specified by the chair. it provides 5b shall not apply to the motion. section four of the rule prov e provides that if only house amendment number two is adopted, the nature of the substitute to the senate amendment to hr 2029. section 5 provided that the chair of the committee may insert the congressional record at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 114th congress. such material as he may deem explanatory of the senate amend. section six provides that on any legislature day of the first session of the 114th congress, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved and the chair may at any time, declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section seven provides that on any legislature day of the
second session of the 114th congress, before january 5, 2016, the speaker may dispension with organization allege is lative business and the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned. the day and time to be announced be the chair. section 8 of the rule provides that the speak er may appoint members to perform the duties of chair for the duration of the period addressed. section nine of the rule p provides that each day during the period aaddressed by sections 6 and 7 of the resolution shall shot constitute calendar days of the war powers resolution. section ten provides that each day during the period addressed by section 6 and 7 of the resolution shall not constitute a day for the purpose of the clause 7 of rule 13. section 11 of the rule provides
that it shall be in order at any time during the legislatetive day for the speaker to entertain motion that the house has spend the rules or the speaker shall consult with the minority leerd or designate on the designation of any matter and consideration purr tuesday night to this section. finally, section 12 requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee against any resolution. thank you very much. preeappreciate the motion. we're now, you've now heard the -- is there an amendment in discussion to that? massachusetts. >> i move the committee make an order and give the necessary waivers for an amendment, the
cybersecurity act of to 20 15. >> thank you very much. discussion. vote now amendment, those in favor say aye. opposed, no. >> miss fox, no, mr. cole, mr. cole, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. burgess, no. mr. styvers, no. mr. collins, no. mr. burns. burn, no. mr. newhouse. no. mrs. slaughter. >> yes. >> aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. chairman. no. >> motion's not afwreeed to. seeing the vote will now be on the motion for the north carolina. those say aye, opposed, no.
ayes have it. the gentleman from -- oh. >> do you seek a role call? >> do you seek a role call? >> yes, i do. >> ayes have it. clerk will report. >> mrs. foxx. aye. mr. cole, aye. woodall, aye. mr. burgess, aye. mr. burn. aye. mr. newhouse. aye. miss slaughter, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. hastings, mr. chairman, aye. >> report the total. >> the motion is agreed to accordingly, i want to thank the
committee, the white house, the house and the senate have spent a good bit of time to prepare what i believe is a process that we will end this big issue appropriately, so that we continue the funding of government so it's done in a responsible way and i want to thank all the members for their time today. i want to thank the staff and we'll do a first chair. i want to thank cspan for being here tonight as i know your listeners are interested in what's going on. this ends the committee hearing. for all the member, we will have mr. cole who will represent the committee tonight to file the rule and to represent us tomorrow, good luck, sir. mr. mcgovern will represent the democrats. i don't know, i assume we'll see each other again, but merry christmas each and every one of you. this ends the committee hearing for today. sterpsterman.
the house rules committee finishing up work on the 2016 federal spending bill. the house is expecked pechted s take up this as well as the bill containing tax breaks arvids and businesses tomorrow and the omnibus on friday. more on that now from a capitol hill reporter. >> the headline says it all. house to vote friday on spending bill. the author of that is scott long senior taf writer with the hill. how did it come together? who are some of the key lead er involved in putting it together? >> on the house side, the new speaker, paul ryan, really delegated the responsibility to the lead proep rater, hal rogers of kentucky.
he was negotiating with his democratic counterparts for weeks and weeks, really. starting with leading these list bing sessions, trying to get buy in very early from the rank and file membership. and then about two weeks ago, when they had pored through a number of writers, thousands of writers and really whittled that list down, rogers and the democratic counterpart, kicked it up to the leadership level where it was expected that paul ryan and the other congressional leaders would really close the deal. it took a little bit longer than we expected, but it looks like they are going to get it down by friday. >> at the speaker's news conference following the gop conference meeting, you asked him the question, about what a successful vote looks like. it won't say what a successful
republican vote looks like as members will vote how they want to vote, but how does this, what are you hearing about how the conference, the gop conference will vote and what are you likewise hearing about democrats? >> well, we are hearing a little bit of opposition from nancy pelosi and some of the other democrats coming out of their meeting this morning. you know, they are concerned about one provision specifically, the provision that lifts the 40-year ban on crude oil exports. another provision that they had hoped would be in the package was a provision helping puerto rico as it deals with its debt crisis. so, we are hearing some grumblings, actually, from both sides, but it hasn't been as pronounced as perhaps previous
and last minute spending packages. at least on the republican side, paul ryan has been reaching out to members starting really from the moment we took the speaker's gavel, trying to get rank and file, holding these listening sessions. i asked him what a successful vote would like like. he wouldn't say specific numbers, but some lawmakers are saying that they could get over 100 votes for the omnibus bill, which would be better than some past bills. one lawmaker even predicted they get a majority of the majority, which would be roughly 124 votes. that would be a very strong vote for speaker ryan. >> now, the house took a vote. short-term measure, so they could finish up this work on the so-called omnibus. they'll vote on that on friday
and thursday, they're taking up this package of expiring tax cuts. tax cuts. tell us a bit more about what's in that bill. >> well, speaker ryan actually points it to the tax extenders package as a big win for republicans. this would extend a number of tax breaks for businesses, corporations, individuals, even farmers. you know, in fact, make many of those tax breaks permanent. i think the total would be roughly $650 billion over ten years. that's a significant amount of change. so, republicans are very happy about you know, about this package. in fact, most of them probably will support it in the house. less so, less sport from democrats who have complained as recently as this morning that these tax breaks tend to favor
corporations more than they favor working class families. >> given paul ryan has used his interview yesterday and his thus conference today with reporters to talk about what's ahead in 2016 in returning to regular order, how important is a victory on this tax package and spending bill for what's ahead in 2016? >> yeah, i think paul ryan in fact many other leaders in the capitol see this as an opportunity to hit the reset button. really, an appropriations process that would broken down in the past. if you remember, harry reid had begun filibustering republican bills that had been sent over from the house. over concerns about levels. what ryan said today is he has
been holding repeated talks with reed over these past few days, they are on the same page in a very general sense. they want to get back to regular order. i think with the two-year budget deal in place that speaker john boehner sfruk with president obama and other negotiators. that really has allowed congress to pivot into 2016. >> staff writer at the hill.com and you can follow his reporting on twitter. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> monday on cspan's landmark
cases, we'll look at the case on one of the most devicive issues to come before the support. abortion. >> it was decided in january 1973. it -- is a case that is controversial, that is constantly under skutny. and there is a question i suppose whether it ever will cease to be under scrutiny. >> wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but unable to, norma mccorvey agreed to be the plaintiff in a 1970 case that challenged that law. requesting she remain anonymous, the lawsuit listed her as jane roe and the defendant was henry
wade. while she had the baby and put it up for adoption, her case made it to the supreme court. >> jane doe had guarded the position seeking an abortion, but had been refused care because of a tex law. she filed suit on behalf of herself and all those women who have in the past and that present time or in the future, would seek termination of a pregnancy. >> we'll discus the court's decision, its impact, then and now. with our guest, clark forsythe, senior council with americans for life and abusive discretion and melissa murray, professor at the university of california berkeley law school and former law clerk for sonia sotomayor, prior to her appointment to the supreme court. that's live monday night at 9:00 eastern on cspan, cspan 3 and cspan radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy
of the landmark cases companion book. 8.59 plus shipping at cspan.org slash landmark cases. jeh johnson talked about a revision to the current national terror alert system dined to inform the public of potential threats. this is 30 minutes. >> morning, efrk. . >> particularly over the last period of weeks following the terrorist attack in paris on november 13th and the terrorist attack in san bernardino, the
27bd, state and local law enforcement and homeland security officials have been on a heightened state of readiness to protect our homeland. people are anxious know. they should know and need to know what their government is doing to protect their homeland. first, as the president explained, on monday. tat pentagon. we're engaged in a bombing campaign against the islamic state. in iraq and syria. to take the fight directly to that terrorist organization. this has included training and equipping ground forces in iraq and syria. two, law enforcement, the fbi, does an excellent job virtually every day of detecting, investigating, interdicting and prosecuting and preventing
terrorist threats to our homeland. arrests are made on a regular basis. three. aviation security. since last year, we've enhanced aviation security at my direction. at last point of depar chu, airports overseas with flights directly to the united states. i'm pleased that other nations have followed with near identical enhancements to aviation security. in july, i gave the new admin stater of tsa, a ten-point plan for improve iing aviation secur and airport screening. dmesically. that plan is being implemented on schedule. earlier this year, tsa and i issued guidance with regard to airport security. more guidance on airport security is forthcoming.
in response to the crash of metro jet 9268, i directed further aviation security at certain airports in that region. with respect to items brought on aircraft. and an inspection and evaluation of airports in that renal. four, with regard to potential travel and immigration, to the united states, of those who may be suspected of terrorism, last year and again this year, i directed a series of security enhancements to our so-called visa waiver program. i'm pleased that congress is also involved in this effort to strengthen our ability to enhance the security of our visa waiver program. we routinely deny boarding and travel to those with potential
terrorist connections. into this country. at the state department and at the department of homeland security, we have in place now a multilayered, thorough process for vetting refugees for refugees for resettlement in this country. this is particularly true with regard to iraqi and syrian refugees. the process the multilayered, thorough and takes on average 18 to 24 months to complete for every single refugee. this includes consulting databases and agencies in the law enforcement and intelligence community. as you heard the other night, the president has directed the state department and the department of homeland security to also conduct a review of the k1 visa process. visas for fiances, which we are
doing. under my leadership as secretary, we in fact began to consult social media for bechts and we will be doing more of this. any reports of partial reports to the county tear are simply false. five, since last year, we enhanced services. six, we continue with information with state and local law enforcement around this country with regard to what we are seeing at the federal and international level. director comey and i routinely do this and will be doing this later this week in a communication with law enforcement nationwide. we continue to share information with the private stakeholders
such as business organizations, sports organizations, the ncaa, the nba, the nfl, for the same purpose, to share what it is we seek. eight, as should be obvious to the public this holiday season in particular, there is a heightened security and law enforcement presence. at public events and public places across the country. law enforcement, national security, homeland security personnel are working overtime to protect the american public. we are building relationships in communities across this country. we are calling upon muslim communities and leader to in effect in you see something, say something. isil. muslim communities across this
country. we are building bridges with muslim communities, enkournging them to work with us and working with them. these are just some of the things we are doing to protect the homeland. finally, ten. public awareness. public vigilance and public participation are important to our homeland security. this is what brings me here today. an informed public about our homeland security efforts and what we see can help. in 2002, we went to the color bars. everyone remembers the color bars. severe, high, elevated, guarded, low. one of the issues with the color bars is there was little public commentary to go with them. and there's a certain deescalation factor here.
once you elevate, it's difficult to deescalate. in 2011, we did away with the color bars. and created the national terrorism advisory system. the national terrorism advisory system has two levels to it. an elevated alert and an imminent alert. this system has never been deployed. it depends upon for an elevated alert, a credible terrorist threat. can which in the implementing guidelines means something very specific. an imminent alert warns of a credible, specific, impending terrorist threat. against the united states. this in my judgment, does not work in the current threat environment because it depends upon a specific, credible, terrorist threat to something in the homeland. this system has never been
deployed. it's time we change the system. trz this is what we are doing in announcing today. we are creating an intermediate level to the system that includes an intask bulletin, which describes general developments or trends regarding threats of terrorism. we do this in public speeches, in public statements, for law enforcement with joint intelligence bulletins. we do this on a periodic basis. there are news leaks, anonymous sources from national security and law enforcement, we want the put in one place for the public to see what we are seeing concerning the homeland and what we are doing about it and what the public can do about it. so, today, we are creating this new, intermediate level to the ntas system called an ntas
bulletin. this is a template for an elevated ntas alert, which we have never useded. in the four-year history of this system. this is an elevated alert, which again, depends upon a credible, specific threat. this is the template for a bulletin. which we are announcing today. general information for the public and the current threat environment, what we see, additional details, what your government is doing about it and how the public can help. with today's announcement, we are also issuing an actual ntas bulletin. the duration for this bulletin and these bulletins should have a duration. will be six months. to june 16th, 2016. from today. and in summary, what we are informing the public today in
this bulletin, which will be issued today, is the following. we're in a few phase in the global terrorist threat, which has implications on the homeland. particularly with the rising use by terrorists of the internet to inspire and recruit. we are concerned about the self-radicalized actors who could strike with little or no notice. recent attacks and attempted attacks internationally and in the homeland warrant increased security. as well as increased public vigilance and apawareness. though, we know of no intelligence that is both specific and credible at this time, a plot by terrorist organizations to attack the homeland, the reality is terrorists inspired individuals have conducted orb attempted to conduct attacks in the united states this year. dhs is especially concerned that
terrorist inspired individuals and home grown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places. as we saw in the recent attacks in san bernardino and paris, terrorists will consider a diverse and wide selection of targets or attacks. in the current environment, dhs is concerned about threats and violence directed at particular communities and individuals across the country based on perceived religion, ethnicity or nationality. dhs and the fbi are providing additional guidance to state and local partners on increased security measures. the public should expect an increased presence of law enforcement across communities in the weeks ahead.
more stringent security should be anticipated at ooents. heavy police presence, additional searches on pbags an the use of screening technologies. the fbi's investigating potential terrorism activities associated with this broad threat throughout the united states. federal, state and local authorities are coordinating numerous law enforcement actions and community outreach to address this evolving threat. how you can help. community leaders, co-worker, friends and family can help by recognizing signs of potential radicalization to violence. for more information, visit nsi.ncirc.gov. report threats or suspicious activity to the fbi or your local authorities. contact information for fbi field offices can be found at
fbi.govcontact-usfield. stay informed. the u.s. government will provide additional information about any emerging threat as additional information is identified. and not necessarily on a six month timeline. the public is encouraged to listen to law enforcement and public safety officials. finally, we urge the public to continue to travel, attend public events and freely associate with others, but remain vigilant and aware of surroundings while doing so, particularly during this holiday season. this is the bulletin we'll be issuing today. we want the public to have this. it will be on the dh website. we want the public to be aware. we also want the public to be aware of all the things that those of us in homeland security, law enforcement, national security are doing on their behalf.
questions. mr. green. >> secretary johnson, what's the process for issuing these bulletins? who will they be issued to and what about concerns about too much information for people to digest. >> well, this bulletin is one page. and i just read almost all of it to you. it's important that we give the public concise, but accurate information to the full extent we can. that is not classified or law enforcement sensitive. because we believe that an informed public is good for public safety and homeland security, so, this will be on our website. it won't just be there for day. those in the public have consulted on an ongoing basis about how they can help and stay informed. this is part of our mission in momentland security in my view. yes, ma'am. >> hi. given the attack in san
bernardino and the other threats that you've outlined, is isis operating in the united states? >> there are a number of investigations by the fbi of potential plots, those who may be involved in plotting or planning terrorist acts. and as i've said, the new environment that we are in includes not only the potential for terrorist directed, but terrorist inspired attacks and as the fbi director and i have said many times, what we are concerned about here in the homeland are copy cat like attacks. and those who are self-radical sized and may be inspired to commit terrorist attacks and regrettably, we have seen that in recent months and recent weeks, so that is the focus of our homeland security efforts. >> thank you. just to be clear, was there ever any rule that prohibited immigration agents from screening social media on these
fiance visas and second, congressman mccall said the dni provided evidence that isis was trying to infiltrate the refugee stream. do you believe that's credible and do you believe it's successful? >> two questions, two answers. first, part of my time as secretary, we had policies in place regarding -- which in my judgment, particularly in this current environment, we're too restrictive and so, we began to consult social media with regard to certain benefits. certain immigration benefits. began that earlier this year. very early this year. and i think we need to do more of this. there is open source, there's also a private and there are
postings, and also communications involving u.s. persons, so, there are some legal limits to what we can do. but it's also worth emphasizing that when we do the vetting, for a lot of immigration benefits, we do consult immigration, intelligence community databases and law enforcement databases. but consulting social media is something that since i've been secretary, i believe that we need to do and we have begun that. with regard to your second question, we do have to be concerned about the possibility that a terrorist organization may seek to exploit our refugee resettlement process. that is true of this country. that is true of every other country that accepts refugees. that is why we have in place a very thorough multilayered process for evaluation of refugees, i think it's worth
emphasizes that burden of proof is is always on the refugee. the applicant in this country and in the absence of information, we put that on hold or we deny it. but this is something that we also continuely evaluate. we've provided additional enhancements with regard to those refugees from iraq and syria and are going to continue to evaluate more as necessary. >> must there so-called secret is policy in 2014 that prevented agents from screening tashfeen malik's social media before she entered the united states? >> that would not be accurate and it is also the case, you have to also bear in mind that i can't, i'm not going to comment on an open investigation. i'm going to leave that to the fbi, but as i'm sure you've seen, there have been a number of public reports that whatever
postings she did, whatever communications she had, she did so under an alias. we have in place the ability to screen by consulting the intelligence community, but consulting law enforcement consistent with law. and we do that when we believe that circumstances warrant and we're going to continue to do that. >> mr. secretary. >> yes, ma'am. right back here. >> can you walk through how agencies will work together, building a bulletin. >> this involves a process of con tulting the fbi and a number of agencies and law enforcement and national security. but my goal here with these is to be able to issue these promptly. if we see a new environment, we're not necessarily dpoik wait until june 16th to issue at one of these. if we think the environment has
changed, but my goal is that we have an agile process. and so, we issue one of these say on a day's note. if we believe circumstances have warranted. in the past, october 2014 for example, after the attack in ottawa, i issued a public statement about the things we are doing. to protect the homeland. how the public can help and what we are seeing. that was the public statement. on a sporadic basis. i think we need to constitutionalize that process in this current environment and that's what we're doing here today with this new level of bulletin that does not depend upon a specific, credible threat. pierre. >> what was the moment when you realize ld that the old system wasn't quite working the way it should in the hours an days of the paris attack, we heard
officials -- >> some months ago. some months ago and there have been periods over the last 12, 13 months, where we've considered using that prior ntas system, but wabecause of the guidelines, i didn't think we had quite reach ed the bar. but that we needed something. the way the guidelines were written, i thought we're not quite right and a little constraining in the current environment, and so, some months ago, we decided we needed a new level that provides the public with information about what we are seeing. a lot of which is self-evidence. but what the government is seeing that we share with the public, not on a sporadic basis, not through news leaks of communications with law enforcement so the public has this. >> you can see how the public would be concerned where officials were saying in the
aftermath of the paris attacks, no specific credible threat, then san bernardino happened. can you see why people are anxious and concerned because the government seemed to be allaying fears, but then the attack happened. >> that is, pierre, that's a good observation. and in my view, it highlights the new environment we are in. which includes the very real prospect of terrorist inspired attacks that can happen with little or no notice. so, we were relying upon a model for how we inform the public that does not accurately take account of the current environment. which is why in the judgment of a lot of us, it's important to create this new level of information for the public to say to the public, there's a real prospect of terrorist inspired attacks, this is what we are doing about it.
this is what you should do about it in the public. yes, in the back. >> mr. secretary, you mentioned some months ago, you considered raising the or at least activating the system. the fbi director has talked about this period around july, the july 4th holiday. is that the period you're referring to? >> i would say earlier in the year than that. we've been consulting with the agency, with the national security community on this and -- we reached the point where we could not only roll out the new system, but a new bulletin today. okay. one more question. yes, ma'am. >> two things, sorry. get in two questions for the last question. one is yesterday as you know, we had very different situations in los angeles and new york with the school districts here and so the public does get a lot of mixed messages. how would this system if anything, change that? would it still be a situation where you're getting different
messages from local officials than federal and my second question is a recent poll showed the confidence of the american public in the government's ability to stop terrorism is at a low since 9/11. what do you have to say about that? >> two things. first, this new level of ntas provides a common baseline for what the national security homeland security people at the federal level are seeing and what we assess to be the case. a common baseline for people in los angeles, new york, chicago and every place else. so, it's informative in that respect. we have a common baseline for what we are seeing that's not done sporadically. number two, very often in homeland security and in national security, good news is no news. and it's important as i said in
my opening remarks in my view, to continue to remind the public that every day, somebody is is working hard to prevent this happens on an every day basis. prevent b somebody from traveling or boarding who has a potential terrorist or troublesome affiliation. it happens every day. every day, there's somebody denied boarding on an aircraft with a prohibited item. every day, there's somebody denied entry to our country. every day, there's than interdiction of illegal narcotics, of weapons. a discovery of something on the border. to protect our homeland. public doesn't always hear about that. every day, there's a terrorist plot that is being investigated. and on a routine bases, there are arrests being made. for those who are being prosecuted for material support or something else under our federal laws and so, one of my
goals certainly, is to note for the public all the things that we are doing on their behalf. and to say to the public, you can help, too. we are in a new environment. we're in a new environment where terrorist inspired attacks are things that can happen with little or no notice and there's a way to address that. it's a whole of government approach that involves the military, law enforcement, heightened security, heightened presence in law enforcement around the country. it involves building bridges to communities that are being targeted by terrorist organizations. imploring them. if you see something, say something. it is always the case in my view, almost always the case, that if someone self-radicalized, there's someone close to that person in their family who saw the signs
and so, by building bridges to community leaders, families, religious leaders and others, we can encourage people to come forward. and so, this is a multifaceted homeland security response to a new environment, which includes public awareness and vigilance, which is what we're doing here today. okay, thanks a lot, everybody. >> thank you. american history tv every weekend on cspan 3. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, louisiana state university history professor, andrew burrsteen on the enlightenment era in the united states.
emphasis was scientific reasoning and morals that shaped that generation. >> he starts out in 1727 by1727 establishing the young men's improvement club. these were about improving their community, about individual morals. they would read books and share ideas. and these were young men like himself who were not born to l wealth, but who believed it was possible to rely on yourself, study, and get ahead in society. and sunday morning at 10:00 on "road to the white house rewin rewind," we look at george bush's tour of a pumpkin festival. later at 4:00 on "real america" the 195 army film titled "why
nato" on reasons why the north american treaty organization was formed. >> in december 1950, the north atlantic council decided to give to general eisenhower sufficient authority to equip, organize, and train a nato force for the defense of europe. the task before him was unprecedented. though each of the nato countries w countries would see to their own forces, the supreme commander would be responsible for their coordination into a single force. > for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. all persons having business before the honorable the supreme
court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> monday on c-span's "landmark cases," we'll look at the case on one of the most divisive issues to come before the supreme court, abortion. >> roe v wade was decided in january 1973. it is a case that is controversial that is constantly under scrutiny and there is a question, i suppose, whether it will ever cease to be under scrutiny. >> wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but unable to because of a texas state law banning abortion. she agreed to be the manufacturer plaintiff in a 1970 case that challenged
the law. the lawsuit listed her as jane roe and the defendant was dallas county district attorney henry wade. while she had the baby and put it up for adoption, her case made it all the way to the supreme court. >> jane roe had gone to several dallas physicians seeking an abortion, but had been refused care because of a texas law. she filed the suit on behalf of all women who would seek termination of a pregnancy. >> our guest clark forsythe, senior counsel with americans united for life. the inside story of roe v. wade. and melissa murray.
that's live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book. it's available for 8.95, plus shipping on c-span.com/landmarkcases. next week is author's week on the washington journal with a featured nonfiction author monday through friday in a one-hour conversation with you. starting monday, december 21st, at 9:00 a.m. eastern, jeff smith on "mr. smith goes to prison," what my year behind bars taught me about america's prison crisis crisis." john whitehead on his book "the
battle of the american people." at 8:30 a.m. eastern on thursday, december 24th, matthew green joins us to talk about "underdog politics." friday, december 25th, at 8:30, craig shirley discusses his book "last act, the final years and emerging legacy of ronald reagan." be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" during authors week. coming up on c-span 3, u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon talks about some of the biggest challenges the united nations has faced this year. then a house panel looks at u.s.-pakistan relations. after that, british prime
minister david cameron criticized donald trump. later, national security agency director admiral michael rogers talks about reorganizing the nsa. on the next "washington journal," bill danvers of the center for american progress looks at a new terror warning system and how it differs from previous systems that once included color-coded threat levels. dave brat discusses the newly unveiled $1.1 trillion budget deal and a measure that extends tax provisions set to expire at the end of the year. plus your phone calls, facebook posts, and tweets. u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon held his year end news conference and talked about combatting terrorism, the syrian refugee crisis.
from new york, this is 55 minutes. >> good afternoon. good morning, rather. the secretary general will make some opening remarks and then he will gladly take your questions. sir? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. bonjour, madames and monseur. i thank you for all your friendship and cooperation and your hard work during the last one year. we are wrapping up a pivotal year in which the united nations marked its 70th anniversary and took landmark steps to advance sustainable development and climate change agreement. the paris agreement on climate change is a sign of hope in troubled times.
it is a triumph for multilateralism that shows the united nations delivering results the world desperately needs. president francois hollande showed inspiring leadership, including by refusing to be deterred by the terrorist attacks of november 13th. i thank all the government leaders, people, and civil society leaders who made this achievement possible. the paris agreement surpassed the expectations. world leaders recognized that we could and must do better than setting for the lowest common denominator, so they reached higher. the paris agreement give us plan
"a" for the planet, "a" for ambition. since my first day in office nine years ago in 2007, i have pushed for this agreement. now i have pressed world leaders again to translate promise into practice. we must also follow through on the tones of 2015. the 2030 agenda for sustainable development is our overarching guide crystallized in 17 goals to end poverty and build a peaceful society. the ideas of the action agenda that appeared in july is our blueprint for development, investing in development to overt crises down the road.
the framework on suggested risk reduction agreed in march points the way toward resilience. taken together, these have set the stage for a future that leaves no one behind. ladies and gentlemen, this year we have seen refugees and displaced people. as we enter 2016, the world needs to aim for a dual global compact on immigration mobility. demonizing and scapegoating these people based on their religion, ethnicity, or country of origin has no place in the 21st century. the united nations has just asked for $420 billion to meet next year's humanitarian needs,
five times the level of one decade ago. owners have been exceedingly generous, but we enter 2016 with a funding gap of more than $20 billion, the largest ever. the world humanitarian summit meeting in may 2016 in istanbul will be a critical moment to address systemic funding problems and agree on concrete steps to better prepare for and respond to crises. the world must invest more political energy in preventing and ending conflict and in addressing violations of human rights. ladies and gentlemen, this week efforts to resolve conflict through diplomacy are front and center.
in libya, the parties are close to a desperate agreement that would help the country move beyond prolonged crises. in yemen, talks began yesterday in switzerland towards a lasting cease-fire and the resumption of political transition. civilians have borne the brunt of the conflict, and we must be doing everything to end the bloodshed and ease their plight. on syria, the international community has actively re-engaged in pushing for a political settlement. the international syrian support group will meet in new york on friday, december 18th followed by a meeting of the security council. syria is an open sore in the middle east and on the wider world. we're pressing for a nationwide
cease-fire and for the start of negotiations in january on a political transition, and we must not relent. countering the threat posed by daesh and boca haram and al shabaab and other terrorist groups is crucial. next month, i'll present to the member states of the united nations a plan of action on preventing violent extremism. many of today's conflicts and often unfortunately the response to them have provided the breeding ground for the spread of terrorism and violent extremism. i am alarmed by the escalating violence. what we have seen over the past few days is chilling. the country is on the brink of a civil war that risks engulfing
the entire region. i have asked my special adviser to go to the region before the end of this week to speak to the african union, the countries in the region, and of course the government of brundy. an increasing political dialogue is needed urgently. we must do all we can to prevent mass violence and act decisively should they erupt. in south sudan the united nations peacekeeping operations continues to shelter more than 185,000 civilians. a major advance in our protection efforts, but that is not the prominent solution and many more remain internally displaced and under threat of violence. i urge the parties to establish the transitional institutions
before the end of january. ladies and gentlemen, these are daunting situations. i take heart from the political progress and smooth transfers of power over the past year, including in sri lanka and nigeria. i am encouraged by progress in the negotiations on cyprus. a solution to decades of division is within reach. in the americas, cl -- in myanm the community is cooperating for
a stable transition. continued efforts are needed to begin an inclusive dialogue that brings marginalized ethnic groups into the process. the united nations and i personally have supported the process for several years. we will continue to do so. ladies and gentlemen, the year 2015 has brought both breakthrough and horror. the united nations continues to strengthen itself. despite the ups and downs from peace processes to climate talks, we cannot afford to let up. too much is at stake. billions of people depend on us to keep pressing ahead. i did not lose faith during the years of ups and downs of
climate negotiations. i continue to believe in the united nations and in our staff many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice. i continue to have faith in the ability of the world's people to come together for the common good. with that spirit, we can make 2016 a year of accomplishment and truly build a life of dignity with all other peoples. i thank you. >> thank you. before we go, limit yourself to one question for the sake of time as a courtesy to your colleagues and avoid statements and go straight to questions for all of you would be great. >> is it working? >> okay. >> mr. secretary general, thank you for this opportunity and thanks again to you and madame
ban for attending the award monday night. my colleague and i are wishing your family peace and a happy new year. for 2016, we're asking if the excellent practice of having you in this room for 30 minutes once a month can be reinstated. finally my question on north korea. a few weeks ago, there was news that you were ready to land for a historic visit. could you please tell us what the situation is? thank you. >> i have consistently told you i'm ready to provide my role as secretary general whatever it
may take for peace and stability and reconciliation on the korean peninsula. that conviction is unchanged. it's still under discussions with the authorities of dprk. i sense your hope that we'll be able to find a mutually convenient date as soon as possible, and this is what i can tell you at this time. recently there have been some encouraging development of situations between the two parts of korea, including the union of separated families. unfortunately, these high-level talks between the two koreas have not yielded much expected results, but we should not be
frustra frustrated. i sincerely hope the parties will continue to engage in talks so they can first of all expand the political space through dialogue and exchanges and cooperation so that they can first of all build reconciliation between the two parties. i am ready to provide any service as the secretary general and as one of the citizens coming from korea. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, secretary general. given the escalation that you've spoken about in barundi, including the attacks that led to almost 100 deaths last friday and a security diplomat who has described the situation as the country that is going to hell, would you concede that your recommendation of a re-enforced team to back your special
adviser is perhaps not an adequate response to the evolving situation on the ground? >> first of all, as i said i'm extremely concerned about the continuing violence, the violence between government armed forces and unknown armed elements. these are very chilling, and i have asked, as i said, my security adviser to go to the region to engage in dialogue. even during the climate change negotiations, i have been reaching out in the region. i've been constantly speaking to the leaders. i sense your hope that first of all government of barundi will engage in dialogue to address
this issue. i'm asking again the african union and the east african community and facilitators are present that continue to render their political leadership to facilitate some dialogue. my adviser will continuously engage himself. at this time, i appeal to all nation stakeholders to uphold the rule of law, human rights. and i urge authorities to help create the conditions for a credible and inclusive dialogue. those are preconditions for political dialogue. as for the options of which i recommended to the security council, of course there are different options. at this time, i'm encouraged
that the aleader of the region has met my adviser and is continuously available for consultation. i'm going to discuss this method again this afternoon with the security council members. we will take necessary actions as we observe and watch this situation, how it evolves. depending upon the evolution of the situation, we may have to level up our presence and activities. >> thank you. >> yes, mr. secretary general. could you kindly explain to us the cease-fire arrangement and what do you have in mind given the area where daesh controls to have civilians there, what are you going to do about the
collateral damage of so many civilians and the foreign fighters, for example, iran's militias in syria, are they going to be part of that cease-fire? and the same with the regime. where do you stand on whether bashar al assad should stay or go and if he goes, when? >> you've been following all this situation. i'm looking forward to international civilian support group meeting in new york on friday. i and my special envoy will participate. i'm also looking forward to meeting many ministers who will be participating on the margins of this meeting. what is important at this time as was agreed through vienna one
and two process, it's important that we should have a nationwide cease-fire as soon as possible. of course, there are certain areas controlled more by isis, but as much as we can, we should expand this area to be covered by a cease-fire as as soon as possible. several demonstrators will engage in intra-syrian talks as soon as possible. then we can have some political -- expand the political space. it is absolutely necessary. first of all, we should have this cease-fire, nationwide cease-fire. that will help not only the political process, the united
nations and other humanitarian agencies to deliver humanitarian assistance to many, many people who desperately in need of such help. there are 13 million people, at least 13 million people and 4 million refugees that are in need of desperate humanitarian assistance. >> can you answer the question of iran? >> second question. this issue has been discussed many times in the past. basically in principle, it's up to the syrian people who should make a decision about the future of president assad, but at the same time i also believe that it is unacceptable that the whole syrian crisis and solution to this crisis has to be depending
upon just a question of fate of one man. that's not acceptable, but that's why people have been discussing this matter all the times. but i leave it to the parties concerned to discuss this in parallel, trying to find out the political space while delivering humanitarian assistance. in transition, in the course of transition, some countries are now expressing there may be some role or need for president assad to stay a limited month, but that will have to be decided later. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you still have one year in your
term as secretary general, and your legacy is going to be connected somehow to the failures of the international community in syria. and you have said repeatedly that assad has lost legitimacy. can you say it one more time? and you tell us what role can iran play in solving the situation in syria and lebanon and in the region. thank you. >> the continuing civilian crisis during the last five years has created a lot of troubles and unexpected issues as we have seen. it has affected a lot of situations in neighboring countries, including lebanon. another issue is the spread of
terrorism and isil. this leg of governance and tragedy and despair among the people has made the perfect breeding ground for extremists and terrorists to set their roots there. therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we first address this political issues that are root causes, how to address root causes, and we have to take military actions to counter extremism and terrorism. so our challenges have become much more difficult, wider space
of our -- our challenges have become much wider. that's why it is crucially important that we bring as early as possible this end of this crisis. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary general. you talked in the beginning about the need for a new global compact to address the issue of migration, refugees, and basically intolerance against religious ethnic minorities. could you tell us what this compact would look like, what role the united nations is going to play, who it should involve, and what it should say and do? >> this massive flaw of migrants and refugees into europe and in
other areas in asia and elsewhere have surfaced as more than regional issues. it has become a global issue. i appreciate the european union, particularly leaders who have been engaging to find out some more structured framework to address this issue. there is some very serious individuals among the countries of concern. that is why i believe that it has become a global issue and that's why the united nations should address this issue in close consultation with the member state. this year in september, september 30th, i convened a high-level meeting here, but i have proposed to the member
summit level conference on syria, particularly to address the refugee issues and terror support. of course, we can discuss some other issues too, including migration. this conference is co-sponsored by united kingdom, kuwait, and germany and united nations. we have already extended invitations cosigned by the leaders of these four countries and myself. in march in switzerland i have asked the high commissioner for refuge
refugees, the dually appointed high commissioner, to convene a high-level meeting to discuss resettlement process. in may, we have world issue humanitarian summit meeting in istanbul and turkey. i think we can also discuss this as a part of this humanitarian support. then in september we are going to have this summit meeting on migration issues. i understand that president of general assembly also has an idea of convening his initiative sometime in july a high-level meeting on migration issues. so there will be a continuing commitment and continuing consultation in the international community to address this issue at the global level. >> thank you.
james? >> you used the word as soon as possible a short time ago about the cease-fire and the face to face talks. the stated communique said january. does that seem a bit too ambitious? going forward on the time frame, how long do you think transition should be and if there is a need for elections at the end of the transition, would the u.n. organize them? >> vienna two conference has issued their own agreement saying that we will try to have in nationwide cease-fire in january. we have an 18-month timeline to have political transition. some people may think that this may be too ambitious, but one needs to be ambitious. we do not have much time to
lose, to waste even a single minute. therefore it is absolutely necessary that we have the highest level possible ambition, and i think we have do all what we can. >> since you are entering your final year as secretary general and there's already a race to inherit your position, will you address first of all rumors or reports that you plan to run for president of south korea? >> speak a little louder. >> will you address reports that you're planning to run for president of south korea and also will you pledge for planning purposes for those who would be your successor that you will serve out the remainder of your term? >> i think you are not the first
one to have asked that question. i have been repeatedly stating during last couple of years as secretary general of the united nations i have a full agenda. i remain for full term. until the very last day of next year, i will focus all my time and energy to my job as secretary general. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if you could speak a little louder. >> yes. thank you, secretary general. >> yesterday the president of the general assembly and president of the security
council have sent letter to the member state to present the candidate for the next -- for your successor, for the next secretary general. can you tell us your thought on the unprecedented procedure? could you tell us your thought on this unprecedented procedure to choose the next secretary general and also if you have any message to the candidates? >> i have seen that letter, and it has -- it was expected in there because member state have been actively discussing this issue, how to make selection process of my successor more transparent, more transparent. i think it is good initiative as far as i believe.
and i think there is widely shared consensus that this is a good initiative. i'd like to see with this letter i hope member state will expedite the process to select the next secretary general as soon as possible on a very transparent manner. that's my wish, my wish. >> carol? >> mr. secretary general, tomorrow the u.n. is going to be releasing the report that you asked concerning allegations of sexual abuse in central african republic and you've spoken very forcefully about the need to clean up peacekeeping and misconduct by peacekeepers. i'm just wondering if you feel
over the months that you've made progress following your repeated appeals for changes on this. >> i'm looking forward to me meeting the judge who will hand over her findings as a chair of this panel of inquiry commission. after having received it, i'll take necessary action, including making it public, but more importantly we will review the contents of this report and take necessary action to make it much more clear lly committed that a the u.n. staff, whether in the headquarters or in the field,
must be much more committed to protect and respect the human rights, including preventing sexual violence. >> thank you. mr. secretary general, i want to raise afghanistan an issue that was missing on your opening statement. you have been a strong advocate and supporter of a peace reconciliation process, but this process made a promising beginning this july, but has collapsed and situation in afghanistan has sharply deteriora deteriorated. on top of this, the united states has resumed fighting the taliban according to "the new york times." in this situation, what are your
thoughts how this process can be resolved and how can you help? >> the people in afghanistan have suffered too long time, many decades. the peace and stability have been always instable, and many countries have involved and tried to support stability and peace in afghanistan. with dual leadership and the president, i have been taking note he's been engaging with the leaders in the region, particularly with pakistan. i sense your hope the whole international community support and commitment to support afghanistan, the people and the government, so they're able to
maintain peace and stability through their own domestic reconciliation and plans. and also there's many international conferences that have been held, for example compact, which have been providing international and social support. at this time, it is important to have good cooperation with the neighboring countries, particularly in addressing this terrorism and extremist attacks against afghanistan. at the united nations, it will continue to play an important role. >> mr. secretary general, thank you. on syria, the issue of terrorism has been on the agenda of pretty
much every country dealing with syria. for example, some countries deal with moderates claiming they're terrorists, but there's the threat of isis. have you spoken to the sides, the russians and americans, about choosing the terrorists instead of opposition and uniting their forces in the fight against terrorism? have you spoken to them? what do you recommend to them? thank you. >> countering terrorism and extremism has surfaced and emerged as one of the top serious, most serious, issues of which we have to deal with. i really appreciate many countries participating in coalitions. their role is very important. at the same time, i have been
asking them to observe strictly the international humanitarian and international human rights laws to protect, not to harm civilian casualties. in other aspects we have to also address the root causes enhancing, improving good governance of the leaders of the concerned countries and listen very seriously to the voices and aspirations of their own people through inclusive dialogue. there are some countries who are electing such capacities. therefore united nations through this counterterrorism center is really trying to provide capacity building support as much as we can, and that is why
i'm trying to present as soon as possible during the month of january a comprehensive plan of action to countering extremism and terrorism. when it comes to in syria, there are many armed groups. there are many armed groups. i understand that through this process of vienna they're trying to define exactly -- find out who are the terrorist groups, who are the armed groups. i understand that jordanian government has been mandated to take this mission. this issue will be a continuing subject now, and i also appreciate that saudi arabia has convened a meeting last week
among syrian armed groups. i sincerely hope there will be some unity among the parties concerned so that we can more effectively address this challenge of countering terrorism. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary general. you mentioned about the middle east and saudi arabia. just two days ago, there was an alliance formed between 34 countries between the arab and islamic world in saudi arabia. what's your view of this new coalition forming and how effective is it going to be in addressing holistically the causes and the counterterrorism measures that need to be implemented on the ground and do
you see it as duplication for existing coalitions led by the united states or can it be merged together at one point? >> i read that report that saudi arabia has initiated to form a muslim country-led coalition. as you know, this coalition led by western countries, including russia, they have been operating -- the military operations to fight against this terrorism. i sense your hope that when there is a coalition formed, i think they should very closely coordinate with other countries who are already participating in the coalition. as i again said, it is very important when they stage
military operations. there should be extreme care and efforts not to harm any civilian population and civilian facilities, and this is a fundamental principle of international rights and humanitarian law. >> thank you, mr. secretary general. i was wondering why in your introductory remarks you did not mention palestine and the conflict there. an average of two palestinians are killed a day. today the israeli government announced building 800 new settlement units and gaza is under siege for the last eight years. gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe, and yet you didn't find the time in your introductory remarks to mention what's going on there. why is that? thank you.
>> i'm very concerned that we have not seen much progress, even deterioration of the situation in the middle east. as you may remember, i was in the region during october to discuss this matter with israeli and palestinian leaders. it's important that even though this situation might be very much challenging, the leaders should show their high level of commitment and ambition, political ambition, to address all these pending issues. i think a six, seven-decade long issues to bring at least a small sense of hope to people who have been suffering. when it comes to a settlement, i have been repeatedly
consistently made united nations position that it is illegal in acco accordance with international law. >> thank you, secretary general. on the fight against isis, there was some hope that this common enemy could unite the countries. also provide some grounds for progress in syria, but now there seems to be some disagreements, some more disagreements between turkey on one side, russia and iraq on the other side. how could you personally push for these countries to unite and for more coordination between the states fighting isis? thank you. >> again, i have been urging the parties concerned, countries concerned involved in this process to first of all
coordinate among themselves and try to respect the human rights and humanitarian law. about the providing some support to different groups, you can find answer from my consistent position that there should be very close coordination and cooperation among the parties concerned. and often, we have seen some conflict unfortunately between and among the countries who are working for the same purpose. there should be unity of purpose and collaboration. if and when there is any division of positions between and among the countries who are
engaging in counterterrorism, counterextrem counter-extremism, i think they should show their commitment to deescalate tensions among themselves and be united. i've also been urging the syrian armed groups throughout many such different armed groups who are working for one purpose, one purpose. when you are divided, when you have division of positions, then it will be more difficult to achieve the cause. >> sorry. in the back. iranian news. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. secretary general. as you mentioned, the world is dealing with several crises at
the time. i was wondering if you see any link between all these crises and the entailing consequences such as refugee crisis and terrorism. and if so, do you think that there is a possibility of finding a solution for one of these crises without regarding the others? thank you. >> i think you have raised a huge, big questions. having served as the secretary general during the last nine years, one lesson or observation which i have drawn is that in this world nothing is operating in isolation. so everything is tightly interconnected, whether it is migration or terrorism or peace
and development and human rights. i think they all work very tigh connected. so we can find some causes of certain issues which are tightly connected. one root cause would be abject poverty, lack of good governa e governance. when there is complete despair among the people, when there is a complete disregard by the leaders on the wishes and aspirations of the people, then people try to find other ways, other ways to address their own difficulties and concerns and sufferings. nobody wants to suffer for any reason, whether it is poverty,
disease, or abuse of authorities or abuse of powers. that's why i've been always asking that good governance and inclusive dialogue and addressing abject poverty, those are the answers. when we can find answe-- we can the answers when we trace back the root causes. one or two three factors have driven them to flee, to migrate, or to become radical or to become very radical forces. therefore, we have to address all this in sink -- sync and
coordination. i think the leaders have provided a good sense of promise and hope. sustainable development goals, 17 goals, and climate change agreement. if we implement these sustainable development goals, including climate change, i think we can expect that most of the people will be able to live in a much better, much more stable situation and much more prosperity. that's what united nations is aiming to achieve, and we have laid good foundations this year. the year 2015, i believe, will
be recorded as one of the most important historic years in the history of the united nations where we have laid out all good foundations. >> thank you, mr. secretary general. tomorrow, the u.n. security council takes up terrorist financing. and the draft resolution, which will have the finance ministers attending, calls on your office, on the secretary general, to provide a report in 30 days. and in particular, to define and report on recruitment of isil and the sources of terrorist financing. how does your office expect to do that, to speak with intelligence agencies? and do you believe that will unite countries in trying to tap down on terrorist financing? thank you. >> i'm very much encouraged by the fact that the security
council is going to take landmark decision in preventing financial foes to terrorists and extremists. this is a very important sign of demonstrating their leadership and unity in addressing terrorists and extremists. unfortunately, they have been receiving a lot of funds without much difficulty, particularly islamic state. they have -- according to reports, they have a lot of money available there and they pay for their own people controlled under their influence. it's very important that we have to do whatever required to cut
off this source of financial support to these people. i think that is one way, one of the ways, in effectively addressing and i'm looking forward to my own participation tomorrow. >> one last brief question from joe. >> yes, thank you. sir, what are your views on iran's testing or ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons. and, in particular, do such actions give you concern as to iran's good-faith going forward and come plying with the jcpoa? >> iran has made the very good agreement. and therefore, i would suspect that the iranian government will
continue with agreement and in accordance with all relevant resolutions. i think that is the best way for iran, first of all, to they have a setout. and i'm sure based on this agreement, they're going to get to work the iran yan government. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> the house oversight committee will investigate the screening process for foreign nationals entering the u.s. the complete look at whether the current vetting process is vulnerable to terrorists wanting to enter the country.
watch thursday live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. and later in the day, jack lliu will be joined with ambassador to the u.n., san man that powell. >> the reagan narrative was he was a lightweight, b actor, which is what gerald ford said about him in 1976. he's turning prematurely orange. and even with all the successings of his administration, all the historians have consistently rated reagan low. i believe out of ied logical bias. >> sunday night, historian craig shirley discusses his book, "last act". a look at ronald reagan's life. >> i like to write about ronald
>> this hearing will come to order. there is a vote in progress. so my intention here is to begin the hearing. and then we will suspend for the duration of the votes and allow the other members of the committee to come forward. >> so this committee has repeatedly urged pakistan to take meaningful action against key islamist terrorist groups. unfortunately, pakistan which is now home to the world's fastest-growing nuclear weapons program, has remained a fout of radical islamist fault.
it was no surprise that one of the san bernardino attackers studied at a particularly fundamentalist message. after more than a decade, pakistan was to be a key ally in combatting islamist militancy, becoming a leading recipient of u.s. aid in the nearly 15 years since. its northwestern frontier has maintained a safe hichb supporting what it krsz to be good islamist groups. these kbood groups destabilize afghanistan and threaten neighboring india while the government is simultaneously
opposes what it considers the bad islamist groups. teach intolerant, hate-filled rhetoric that inspires the foot soldiers. i've made three trips to islamabad. pakistan must do the work to register schools and close those creating new generations of radicals. and those are the schools that are being funded with gulf state money. and they need to be closed. meanwhile, pakistan's nuclear arsenal is on a track to be the third largest. it's addition in rekroent years is even more troubling. this is a country that spends a fifth of its budget to long range, f-16s, but under 2 1/2
mnt on education. u.s. policy has essentially stood still. security assistance, cash and arms has continued to flow under the occasional temporary delays. being held because of inadequate efforts, the state department is currently seeking more arms for islamabad. pakistan itself has been devastated by terrorism with over 2,000 of its soldiers killed, thousands and thousands of its citizens killed in terrorist attacks. today, we recognize the year anniversary of a horrific attack on a school that killed over a hundred children. we want a strong partnership with the country. but a new policy is long overdue. one option as ranking member angle and i proposed earlier this year, would be to target those officials who maintain relationships with designated
terrorist groups with travel and financial sanctions. this would make it clear, the u.s. and pakistan cannot have a true strategic partnership until pakistan security services cuts ties with terrorist organizations. recently senior u.s. officials including national security advisor susan rice and deputy secretary of state tony blinken have traveled to islamabad reportedly to press on the pakistani government. we look forward to hearing from our witnesses today whether there is reason for hope or if our policy is stuck in the same rut. i now will turn to mr. ted poe of texas and then mr. dana rohrabacher of california for their opening statements. mr. poe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my concern specifically is with our relationship with pakistan.
the united states has given pakistan $30 billion since 9/11. i think pakistan is a benedict arnold ally to the united states. even going back to may the 2nd, 2011, when there was the raid on -- in pakistan on osama bin laden, we didn't tell the pakistanis we were coming because, frankly, they would snitch us off and osama bin laden would have left. and the near confrontation that took place between the u.s. and pakistan after the raid, pakistan scrambled two u.s. made f-16s and were headed to the area where the raid took place and a possible confrontation with two u.s. made jets against american helicopters at the raid didn't happen, but it could have happened. pilots that presumably were trained the year before in 2010 in tucson, arizona, and i think
we need to be very concerned about providing armaments for pakistan who seems to play all the sides. and i'll yield back, mr. chairman. >> okay. and i now yield time to mr. dana rohrabacher of california. when i was elected 28 years ago, i think most people considered me pakistan's best friend in the house of representatives. and let me just say that i -- over the years, i have been deeply disappointed that those people who i considered to be my friends were betraying the trust of the united states and were committing acts that were only
the acts that an enemy would commit even though we continued to have a facade of friendship. we've given 30 billion, $30 billion since 9/11 to pakistan, yet we realize that since 9/11 yet we still see -- there's all -- ample evidence that pakistan is still deeply involved with various terrorist networks including supporting the taliban in afghanistan and radicals who kill americans. we've been, frankly, our relationship with pakistan has been a disgrace. we have a government that gave
safe haven to osama bin laden, the murderer of 3,000 americans, 3,000 americans slaughtered in front of us. i don't think anybody believes that the high level people of the pakistan government didn't know about that. they continue to hold a doctor just to rub it in our face that they -- the type of relationship they have with us. and to their own people, they're slaughtering people and others who are being brutally opressed by a click in their government. the click that runs that country is treating us like suckers and they should because we are. we're acting foolish. we are very foolish giving people money who have continually to involve themselves in activity that's harmful to the united states of america is not going to win their friendship. so mr. chairman, i hope that we face facts and if the pakistan
government wants to be our friend, they can be our friend, but they have not been. and they need to change that if we are to continue to have -- on the relationship that we've had. i would like to at this point submit for the record a number of articles showing that again pakistan continues to support various terrorist operations as well as their relationship with china at the expense of their own people, and i submit that for the record at this point. >> without objection. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> we have four votes on the floor so we will recess the hearing and return for witness testimony and questions after those four votes. we appreciate it patience of our witness and those in attendance. and for now, we stand in recess.
the committee is in order. please hold for an opening statement and then we'll introduce the ambassador and then he'll make a statement. >> i will keep it on the charts for the ambassador. in the region, we look at india, we looked at pakistan, the relationship. it's incredibly important, particularly as the changing
mission is rural pakistan and india and stabilized in the regions and conflicts and is important. it's an honor to welcome all of you. express his sorrow for not being here, mr. ambassador, but he is leading the charge on the house floor on four bills from our committee. that's why he's not here and why mr. engle is not here either. we're now pleased to be joined by ambassador richard olson. ambassador olson is the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan, immediately prior to this appointment, ambassador
olson served as the u.s. ambassador to pakistan, but he has served in many capacities all over the world since joining the state department in 1982. ambassador olson has been recognized several times for his service, including being awarded the presidential distinguished service award. thank you for being with us, mr. ambassador. without objection, the witness's full prepared statement will be made a part of the record, and members will have five calendar days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous material for the record. ambassador olson, please summarize your remarks. >> madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current state of the united states' bilateral relationship with pakistan. i'm honored to testify in front
of you for the first time in my capacity as u.s. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. after having served as your ambassador in pakistan and previously at our embassy in kabul. i'm humbled and privileged to be in this new role at such a critical time for the u.s. relationship with both pakistan and afghanistan. it's clear to me that despite many challenges, pakistan will be continue to be an important partner for the united states for the foreseeable future, particularly in light of our enduring presence in afghanistan. while we do not always see eye to eye on every issue, our relationship with pakistan is vital to the national security of the united states. most importantly, we have the opportunity to continue working with pakistan today on counterterrorism issues along
with strategic stability, economic growth, and democratic governance to help shape a future in which pakistan is more stable, increasingly prosperous, and plays a constructive role in the region. pakistan is a complex place. and it is important not to overlook the significant progress made in the last few years. in 2013, pakistan completed its first democratic transition from one elected civilian government to another. during the past two years, we can point to progress, however imperfect, made across the economic and security sectors.
representative for afghanistan and pakistan. after having served as your ambassador in pakistan and pakistanis that these organizations threaten pakistan, the region, and the pan apleaa of our national security interests, and they must be addressed rigorously. we have also asked pakistan to do all that it can to help recover u.s. citizen hostages held on pakistani territory.
we continue to press for greater cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan, both to stabilize the common border region and to build a constructive relationship necessary for regional stability. it's also critical pakistan improve relations with its other neighbor, india. recent high level talks between indian and pakistani officials and the announcement of the resumption of a formal dialogue is welcome. we hope the dialogue will be used to reduce tensions and increase ties between the two nations. naturally, as pakistan seeks to combat violent extremism and pursue counterinsurgency and counterterrorism objections, we continue to encourage and support pakistan to strengthen the rule of law, civil liberties, respect for human rights, accountability, and freedom of speech. which we firmly believe are vital to lasting peace and security. our civilian assistance programs help make progress towards these economic and governance ends and democracy, and it is essentially they are sustained at current levels. with that, i would like to conclude my statement. madam chair, and i'm available
for your questions and comments. >> thank you so much, mr. ambassador. last month, i led a congressional delegation trip to afghanistan and was joined by my friend and colleague from this committee, dr. yoho. while obviously, this hearing is on the future of u.s.-pakistan relations, we all know that we can't really address the future of our bilateral relationship without also discussing afghanistan. when our delegation met with president ghani, he told us he has reached out his hand to pakistan only to be rebuffed. we all know that in order for pakistan, for afghanistan to be stable and secure, pakistan will have to play a key role there. some argue that pakistan's ultimate goal is to use afghanistan as a sort of strategic depth against india, and that pakistan prefers an insecure afghanistan and is using its proxies and ties to
insurgent groups to exert control in afghanistan. i wanted to hear your perspective on that. in fact, in its report to congress and the progress towards security and stability in afghanistan, the dod openly stated that pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of influence in afghanistan and to counter india's superior military. do you know if it's true that ghani is being rebuffed by pakistan? and what is pakistan's strategic objective with regard to afghanistan? and then i wanted to ask about the terrorist safe havens inside pakistan's borders. thank you, mr. ambassador. >> thank you, madam chair. with regard to president ghani, as i mentioned in my opening statement, he did travel to the heart of asia conference last week, and of course, we have applauded president ghani's outreach to pakistan, which has
been one of the notable characteristics of his time in office. and we believe that pakistan has been wanting to reciprocate this outreach. pakistan has taken several steps that are important in this regard. the first is that they hosted the murray talks with the taliban in july between the government of afghanistan and the taliban. the first time that the taliban had sat down with the government of afghanistan. and at the heart of asia conference last week, they reaffirmed, president shareef reaffirmed his support for the sovereignty of afghanistan, the territorial integrity of afghanistan, the legitimacy of its government, and its constitution. all of which were, i think, important points for president ghani. so, we will continue to work with pakistan to encourage them to bring the taliban to the table, to resume a peace and
reconciliation process that is led by the afghans and owned by the afghans. >> so although the countries have had a rocky relationship, you believe that with a new government there will be brighter days ahead and the level of cooperation will be higher, and that there will be more trust and partnerships evolving from this? >> yes, ma'am. we think there are, of course, many challenges in the afghanistan and pakistan relationship. but we think that the interest of a stable and peaceful
afghanistan are best served by having a positive relationship with pakistan, which i think is a strategic vision of both president ghani and prime minister shareef. >> thank you, we hope so. what is pakistan doing to help eliminate the terrorist safe havens inside of its borders? we hear so much about that. and i believe that the u.s. isn't effectively using our leverage in afghanistan to convince the pakistanis to do more with us and our afghan partners on the counterterrorism front, to work with them rather than against the afghan government and against its security forces. we have a pending military package before us on this committee, and i believe we need to use that as leverage. have we made progress in getting buy-in from pakistan on our counterterrorism efforts in afghanistan in eliminating terrorist safe havens inside pakistan?
and why should congress approve arms sales to pakistan when our own defense department is telling us that pakistan is openly working against our objectives when it comes to afghanistan safe havens and counterterrorism? >> thank you, madam chair. with regard to pakistan's own counterterrorism operations, in june of 2014, pakistan launched operations against militant strongholds in north waziristan. tribal agency. this is something that the united states has wanted for a number of years because there were a number of groups located in north waziristan that threatened u.s., afghanistan, as well as others. during the course of this operation, over the course of more than a year and a half, the pakistanis have lost nearly 500 troops, 488, it was just announced. at the same time, they have carried out counterterrorism operations throughout the
settled areas of pakistan, that is to say the non-tribal areas, the rest of pakistan. and despite the terrible incident at the army school a year ago, there has been less blow-back than might have been expected from the terrorists. as i said at the outset in my statement, most of the action has been -- we think there is more that can be done in terms of targeting groups that don't just target the pakistan internally, but are threats to their neighbors. we continue to have an active dialogue with them. i had a very active dialogue during my three years in pakistan on the question of the haqqanis and also the question. although they have taken steps. >> i will leave the other questions to another member. we're going to move on to dr. bera. >> thank you, madam chair. as the indian american and the only indian american member of
congress, you know, the stability of the region is incredibly important to me. it's one that we have spent a lot of time thinking about. and very much interconnected when you think about india, you know, pakistan, and afghanistan. again, it is not easy. on the counterterrorism side, i think post-mumbai in 2008, india demonstrated incredible restraint in its approach to pakistan. pakistan, as ambassador olson, you mentioned, it is the one-year anniversary of the horrific school shooting. the fact that i would have expected pakistan to have a much more robust crackdown on the terrorist threats on the haqqani network and others. from our perspective, from the perspective of the indians, there's almost this side-by-side
relationship in pakistan with some of these terrorist networks that, you know, almost symbiotic. they live side-by-side. from your perspective, what are the steps that pakistan's government, its military, needs to do to reduce the terrorist threats? again, in some ways, it's almost as though they allow these networks to exist in pakistan to destabilize the region or to
have this constant threat on india. >> thank you, congressman. i agree with you that there has -- there continues to be challenges in this area. it's important to note that pakistan has really had a shift over the course of the last year and a half. they have suffered enormously from terrorism, over 2,000 soldiers or service members killed and many thousands of individual pakistani citizens have died as a result of terrorist outrages. and the government has a stated commitment, articulated both by the prime minister and army chief to go after all terrorists without distinction. and we believe there is more that can be done with regard to groups and the taliban, including the haqqani network. that's a very active element of our dialogue. i think it's safe to say we have almost no meeting with the appropriate officials in which
those topics are not raised in very, very vigorous, very vigorous terms. i think it is safe to say that the attacks that the clearing of north waziristan has resulted in disruption, if not elimination of the haqqani network's operational ability. they have banned lashkar-e-taiba, but there is work to be done in this area. >> it does still appear from my perspective there's this co-existence that, you know, that they tolerate some of these terrorist networks. you know, looking at kind of projecting out, as india undergoes this dramatic growth in its economy and gdp, i do worry that pakistan seems to be stagnating. and as you see the ways of life
change in these two countries that have a tense relationship, you know, it does worry me a little bit that pakistan doesn't seem to be developing its economy, doesn't seem to be building those institutions that would create stability. and in many ways, the civilian institutions you would want to create a more stable pakistan, those investments certainly aren't occurring. i know we have over the years tried to create schools, tried to create civilian institutions that would create some stability. from your perspective, ambassador olson, where should the united states focus? i would say i'm critical that
much our focus has been on military sales, which i don't think stabilize the region. in fact, i think they destabilize the region. if we were to focus on civilian institutions, where would you suggest that we place our focus? >> well, thank you, congressman. first of all, let me just say a quick word, since you began talking about india, about the recent upturn in relations between india and pakistan, which i think is quite significant. as you know, the national security advisers met in bangkok and then foreign minister suarez attended the heart of asia conference and extended a hand of friendship to pakistan, and that was very well received. they have agreed to launch a comprehensive dialogue which will, i think, hopefully improve the relationship. one of the emphases we have placed in our assistant programs
is to build regional connectivity. the relaunch of a comprehensive dialogue will hopefully exactly as you say lead to the possibility of increased trade, for instance, between india and pakistan, which we think would be beneficial to both sides, and particularly help pakistan. it could do more, frankly, in some ways than our assistance programs to raise the level of prosperity. >> thank you. judge poe is recognized. >> i thank the chair, thank you, ambassador. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i want to be very specific about what i'm concerned about. that is the sale of american fighter jets to pakistan or the giving of american fighter jets to pakistan through military aid, that mill tear aid is then used in the united states to buy those jets. i use the example of osama bin laden, pakistanis, the military
hid him out, in my opinion. united states didn't tell pakistan we're going after him because they would have moved him. we sent helicopters over there, the raid was successful. pakistan scrambles two american-made f-16s to intercept the helicopters. americans were able to get away. and there could have been a confrontation. how ironic that would have been. american-made jets used by pakistan in a confrontation with american-made helicopters in a raid against osama bin laden. now, we're again in the issue of more military aid to pakistan. i understand that there's $660 million in aid going to pakistan, proposed. some of that's going to be military aid. supposedly, the eight fighter jets, f-16s, america makes the best fighter jets in the world. is in this package, and it's supposed to be used for humanitarian aid. now, i don't know how an f-16
with all of its hardware on there for combat can be used for humanitarian aid. if they were buying c-130s, which i used to be in a squadron of c-130s back in texas, i could see those being used for humanitarian aid. f-16s, it's not really humanitarian aid they're built for or used for. are we going to be in the same situation with the sale of fighter jets for humanitarian aid where we were in the raid with osama bin laden that these jets will be used for other purposes? i don't trust pakistan. maybe you do. i don't. we had the former ambassador of pakistan, mr. haqqani here, and testified before my subcommittee, and says that pakistan still ends up supporting terrorists. do they support them in any way? does pakistan support terrorist groups in any way? not just a little, not just much, but do they support them? are they free from doing that
now, mr. ambassador? >> thank you, judge poe. with regard to pakistan does have a fleet of f-16s, and they have been developing a precision strike capability with those f-16s, which they have used to considerable effect. in north waziristan and in the tribal areas, generally. this is within a framework of our security assistance to pakistan, which has six objectives, basically centered around counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. it's our belief that the f-16s have been used very effectively. the precision strike capability to take out terrorist targets, including safe havens that
threaten our forces in afghanistan. >> reclaiming my time. my question -- >> yes. >> very specific. does the pakistan military, the government, do they still give a safe haven or support directly or indirectly terrorist groups? i mean, they may go after some terrorist groups, but do they still give them a safe haven or a pass? whatever word you want to use. or are they after all of the terrorist groups? do we have any assurance one way or the other? >> well, congressman, with regard to these groups, we have had a very active dialogue with them where we have pressed them repeatedly to take action against those groups that have a
presence on pakistani soil. including the haqqani network and the taliban in general. they have their operations in north waziristan have had a disruptive effect. they, for instance, uncovered arms caches that belonged to the haqqanis and were associated with the haqqani mosque. i have been there and seen some of the results of these efforts. but we do believe that there is more that can be done. and that we continue to press them very hard on that matter. >> thank you, judge poe. ms. kelly of illinois is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. when you consider the future of u.s.-pakistan relations, what do you see as the key aims and drivers of our pakistan policy? >> thank you very much, congresswoman. we believe that the best way forward with pakistan is continued engagement, developing pakistan's civilian economy. its ability to be a stable and
prosperous region, country. it's a country that faces many challenges, some of which we have already identified. it faces challenges from terrorism, from violent extremism. it faces a large demographic challenge as the youth bulge comes into what should be their most productive years. we believe it's in our interest to continue engagement with pakistan so that pakistan is able to effectively harness the youth having them be educated and prepared for the job market. so that pakistan plays a more constructive role in the region as a whole. >> where do you think our policies have been most successful? and in looking back, if there was something you could change, what would that be? >> well, we -- i think that our assistance programs over the past five years, our civilian assistance programs have made a
real impact on the life of ordinary pakistanis. we have, through the so-called luger berman authorization, added -- it has been focused on five areas -- energy, economic growth, stabilization, health, and education. some of the accomplishments that we can point to include adding 1750 mega watts to pakistan's electricity grid. electricity is a huge problem for ordinary pakistanis. we have added 1,000 kilometers of roads. many of those in the western part of the country, connecting to afghanistan, so that there's greater regional connectivity and farmers can get produce to market. committed over $250 million to returning refugees from the north waziristan operation to their homes. we have extensive exchange programs. we bring many pakistanis to the united states for study, which we think will shape their future attitudes to the united states. we have the largest, most extensively funded full-bright program in the world, and we have funded schools and funded 15,000 domestic scholarships and 23 u.s.-pakistan university partnerships. in health, i would just say that we have launched a hospital and rehabilitated a major ob/gyn center at a medical center in karachi, so we're addressing and focusing on maternal health care, which is a very important
issue in terms of the overall health of the population. >> then something you think should be altered? what would that be? >> well, i think that it's important for us to continue engagement with pakistan. despite the challenges of the relationship, which are many, we believe that it is in our international interest not to -- not to allow pakistan to become disengaged from us. and i think we can draw on the lessons of history there, especially the period in the 1990s and late 1980s when we did somewhat disengage from the region, and we paid, i think, a significant price as a country for that at the beginning of the last decade. and i think that with all the challenges of the relationship, i think it's most important for the u.s. to be engaged and to still build a partnership with pakistan. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. kelly. we have extensive exchange programs. we bring many pakistanis to the united states for study, which we think will shape their future attitudes to the united states. we have the largest, most extensively funded full-bright
program in the world, and we have funded schools and funded 15,000 domestic scholarships and 23 u.s.-pakistan university partnerships. in health, i would just say that we have launched a hospital and rehabilitated a major ob/gyn center at a medical center in karachi, so we're addressing and focusing on maternal health care, which is a very important issue in terms of the overall health of the population. >> then something you think should be altered? what would that be? >> well, i think that it's important for us to continue engagement with pakistan. despite the challenges of the relationship, which are many, we believe that it is in our international interest not to -- not to allow pakistan to become disengaged from us. and i think we can draw on the lessons of history there, especially the period in the 1990s and late 1980s when we did
somewhat disengage from the region, and we paid, i think, a significant price as a country for that at the beginning of the last decade. and i think that with all the challenges of the relationship, i think it's most important for the u.s. to be engaged and to still build a partnership with pakistan. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. kelly. now we will move to mr. rohrabacher of california. >> thank you very much. mr. ambassador, you got a mighty tough job. and we have to respect you for that, and thank you for trying to do your best. unfortunately, what i'm about to say does not reflect on your commitment but on the feasibility of you succeeding in what you're trying to do. the fact is that pakistan has from its very beginning been plagued with corruption and oppression by its own government. the brutality and corruption in
pakistan was so bad that early on in 1971, the people of bangladesh couldn't take it anymore, and their uprising was, of course, answered not by trying to reform their government but instead by brutal suppression, which led to the independence of bangladesh. we see similar -- feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but i see similar type of sentiments in a situation rising with the people of balochistan. there's now these f-16s that judge was talking about. those f-16s and the military
equipment that we are providing pakistan are being used against their own people, just like they did against the people over there in bangladesh. so am i mistaken in that we are using weapons that are provided that they are using weapons provided by us against their own people in balochistan and elsewhere? >> first of all, thank you, congressman, very much for your support. and your kind words. i appreciate it greatly. let me say, with regard to corruption, there have been as part of the national action plan that pakistan adopted after the horrific attack on the army school, there is an element of improving governance and going after corruption. and that has been particularly notable lately in some of the operations that have taken place in karachi.
there has been an anti-corruption element to the government's action there. >> you know, mr. ambassador, this is about the third time that over the last 25 years that i have heard this. it's always, they're now moving forward with anti-corruption drive. and i'll -- you know, i'll just -- i won't count on it, but if it happens, i will be very happy about that. and the american people will rejoice with the people of pakistan that the crooks finally got displaced in islamabad. the isi has been and the judge made his point, and i think that your answer suggests what's really going on. the isi is still engaged in terrorism for as a strategy for what they believe is going to defend their country or give their country leverage. and we saw that in attacks on
india and attacks, and the efforts, of course, supporting the taliban, et cetera. until that changes, until the people of balochistan, for example, don't have to suffer with this, where their people are being grabbed and then bodies are dumped in large numbers, this is a travesty. for the united states to provide weapons to a government like in islamabad, which is then used against them, but even worse, pakistan and these people who run that country, their approach to the united states. the judge was right. if we were thwarted in trying to bring to justice osama bin laden, it would have been because the pakistanis were using american jets to shoot our people down. we calculated on that. that was not out of the realm of possibility. and the fact that that is the reality of it, and we end up giving them billions of dollars
of military equipment, no wonder they don't respect us. one last thing. dr. fritte, we know now osama bin laden was given safe haven in that country, the man who slaughtered 3,000 americans, was given safe haven. the one guy who helped us make sure we could bring that monster to justice is now lingering in a dungeon in pakistan. this is their answer to us. this is what -- that's a message to the people of the united states. they are thumbing their nose at us and taking our money, and they are saying, here's the guy. yeah, we'll tell those americans, the guy who helped bring osama bin laden to justice. we're just going to throw him in that dungeon and that's the message to the american people.
it's time for us to quit taking that and stand up for truth. and if we do, and justice, we'll be siding with the pakistani people and not their corrupt brutal government. >> thank you, mr. rohrabacher. mr. higgins of new york. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. ambassador, a few minutes ago, you spoke of the hopeful signs of the relationship between pakistan and india. i want to focus on the more troubling signs of the relationship with india, but also with that of the united states. pakistan, let's be truthful about this, plays a double game. there are military partner, but they're the protector and the patron of our enemies. this has been going on for 15 years. since 2002, united states aid to pakistan economic and military,
has averaged about $2 billion a year. pakistan's annual defense budget is only about $5 billion a year. so we, the united states, finances a major portion of their economic and defense military budget. yet, by every measure, terrorism has become worse in both afghanistan and pakistan. in 2010, the most generous u.s. aid package to pakistan of $4.5 billion, $4.5 billion, and the united states suffered the highest level of casualties in afghanistan, almost 500 soldiers. also, pakistan is involved in an arms race against what it believes is its existential threat with india. in fact, according to the carnegie endowment for international peace. pakistan could have 350 nuclear warheads in the next decade becoming the world's third biggest nuclear power, outpacing india, france, china, and the united kingdom. there is no positive sign of any
improved relations with india because pakistan justifies its nuclear proliferation as a deterrent against aggression from the outside. so the united states has to get tougher with pakistan. we have to call them out on this double game that they have been playing, not this year, not last year, not five years, but for the past 15 years. i can appreciate, and you in your capacity must try to, i guess, deal with these issues as diplomatically as possible, but when you really look at the cold, hard facts, when you really look at the cold, hard facts, pakistan is not an ally to the united states. they have facilitated, they have encouraged, they have been a protector of the very enemies. so there's these two conversations going on. there's one when the americans are in the room. and the other conversation when we're not in the room.
the one that is most detrimental to us, the american people, our american soldiers, is the one that's going on when we're not in the room. i would ask you to comment. >> thank you, congressman. and i wanted to say that we do share your concern, particularly about the development of pakistan's nuclear arsenal. we're concerned both by the pace and the scope of pakistan's nuclear and missile program. including its pursuit of short range nuclear systems. we are concerned that a conventional conflict in south
asia could escalate to include nuclear use as well as the increased security challenges that accompany growing stockpiles. i can tell you, sir, that we have had a very active dialogue at the highest levels with the pakistanis in which we have made clear the nature of our very specific concerns. >> mr. ambassador, with all due respect, we have heard this for the past 15 years. you know, here's my concern. and i apologize for cutting you off, but i only have a -- i have a minute. if pakistan falls apart or if islamic extremists take over, it's a nightmare scenario for us. it's a big country. but 180 million people. it has a lot of islamic extremists and it has nuclear weapons. and to have islamic extremists with nuclear weapons is a primary goal, a primary goal of
anything else but actually sell nuclear weapons to the sunni states with money, particularly, and i won't name them, but i think we all know who they are, that this proliferation would start on a scale that would just change the whole calculus of the region? >> thank you, congressman. and thank you for flagging the role pakistan had with other forms of support for our operations in afghanistan. i would say with regard to nuclear weapons, first of all, i want to assure you that we do agree that nuclear security is a key issue. we have confidence in the capabilities of the security forces, the pakistani security forces, to control and secure their nuclear weapons. we want to make sure that that continues to be the case. with regard to proliferation concerns, pakistan has made an effort over the past few years,
and we have worked very closely with them to tighten export controls and to make sure that they are not in a position of proliferating nuclear materials. this has involved a clean-up from a previous situation that existed a decade ago. our assessment is that they have made considerable progress in this area. >> thank you. switching gears a little bit. just like everybody on this committee, i'm afraid that there's one agency in pakistan that i think the vast majority of us are afraid of, and that's because of their past history. and that's isi. and their corruption, their agenda, and everything else. and more than that, the amount of influence that they have on the pakistani government in
terms of -- i can go on and on, but just in terms of certain decisions. can you give me any warm and fuzzy feeling about an organization that i think most of us are very, very nervous decisions. can you give me any warm and fuzzy feeling about an organization that i think most of us are very, very nervous about? i'm from san bernardino. i'm worried about the madrassas, again, one of the terrorists came from there. i just -- that more than anything else in terms of one of the power factors in pakistan, i am very, very, very nervous and cynical about. thank you. >> yes, thank you very much, congressman. and let me just mention a couple of things on isi. first of all, we do have a very
robust engagement with isi. i met with the isi chief regularly during my tenure in pakistan. made the points that i described earlier about terrorism directly. to him. isi does have a role to play with regard to afghan reconciliation, and we think that the role that pakistan at large played in bringing the taliban to the table last summer was quite important. and they need to do that again in our view following up on the positive statements out of the heart of asia conference. >> thank you very much. i know they're going to cut me off, but thank you for answering my question. >> thank you, mr. cook. thank you, mr. ambassador. ms. gabbard of hawaii. >> thank you, madam chair. following up on my colleague mr. cook's questions, the concern here is you are talking about robust engagement with
isi. but there has been evidence time and time again of their direct and indirect connections with the haqqani network. in 2011, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen called the haqqani network a veritable arm of the isi. so as you're having these discussions, you talked a lot about how more must be done. discussions are taking place. but i'm wondering what action, what change in u.s. policy has occurred that would actually bring about a consequential shift? >> well, we continue to press at every point for action on the haqqanis. we have done this at the highest levels of our government. >> has there been any change in the aid packages or the funding we're providing? >> well, as you know, congresswoman, there was a
decrement of $300 million from the coalition support funds. i believe under last year's national defense authorization act. i would have to refer you to the department of defense for how that is being implemented. the $300 million was subject to a certification of cooperation from the haqqanis. i would have to refer you to the department of defense on that. >> i think the concern is that to say there are serious doubts is an understatement on pakistan's credibility when we talk about fighting these islamic extremist elements, terrorist elements, and even with nuclear cooperation. i think one of the greatest concerns as we look at how closely connected the haqqani network and others are to
pakistan is the safety of the nuclear weapons that they have in preventing misuse. you've just said that you have confidence in the pakistani security forces. but when you have these insider frets, when you have the hakani network being an arm of the isi, how can you have confidence that they wouldn't in any case gain access to nuclear weapons or traffic them or get them into the wrong hands? >> well, i think that pakistan has taken a lot of steps over the last years to tighten up its control of nuclear security. they're well aware of their responsibilities with regard to protecting. and i think that they have specifically taken into account
the insider threat as well. >> can you speak with some specificity? >> ma'am, honestly, candidly, i would not be able to address these issuance in any -- in this forum. but in another forum it might be possible to do so. >> can you speak specifically to what pakistan, the government, has done to crack down on the hakani network, these other terrorist elements that have been and are directly linked to them? >> yes, ma'am. the launching of operations in north waziristan in june of 2014 was something that the united states had actually wanted to see for quite some time. north waziristan is where many of these militants including the hakani network were based, in mirinshaw, which was completely cleared, including the hakani network facilities. armaments, tunnels, bunkers were
uncovered, destroyed, and arms caches taken away, including 160 tons of precursors for improvised explosive devices. this has had an impact not only on the pakistani taliban but also on the hakani network, as well as al qaeda who had some presence there as well. pakistanis have cooperated with us in taking down al qaeda cells, including adnan gentleman jinah who was wanted for his plotting against the new york city subway. so there has been quite a bit of counterterrorism cooperation
between isi and the pakistan government writ large, and the united states. and we believe that's been to our national interest. >> thank you. my time has expired, but i think as we look at u.s. policy towards pakistan, this is something that we need to carefully consider. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair recognizes himself. mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. i had the privilege of traveling to islamabad and then south waziristan. we couldn't go to the north because it was too dangerous. so we understand and appreciate the difficulty of your position and the tenuous circumstances of the relationship with pakistan. that having been said, do we as a department of state, as the united states government, have time-related series of metrics
to determine success or failure of our relationship and the money that the american taxpayer is spending regarding that relationship? can you tell me of any? >> mr. chair, thanks very much. and let me say it's a greatly pleasure to see you again after seeing you in islamabad. for the assistance parameters, that of course is the responsibility of our colleagues in usaid, by and large. and they do have an extensive program of metrics and tracking their development. >> let me cut to -- i don't mean to cut you off, but i'm trying to get to the terror situation, which is what we're really concerned about. we know we spend billions of dollars on military assistance, on humanitarian assistance. but what we're really getting to is this relationship why pakistan seems to be kind of
walking the line, somewhere between terrorism and somewhere between the support of the united states government. and with all due respect, as long as we allow them to continue to walk the line, they're going to continue to walk the line, because it's in their interests to do that. and i'll give you some of my metrics. are there any metrics regarding terrorism that are time-related, where american people can see some value out of the billions of dollars spent? >> i think there has been a shift in pakistan. during the time i was there, the three years that i was there, i definitely saw a shift in the public discourse on the terrorism issue. i think there is now a very broad consensus in pakistani politics that it is necessary to go after these extremist groups. there was a period i think of doubt about the efficacy of going after the pakistani taliban. and that ended with the
operation in north waziristan in june of 2014. there was a broad consensus, and it was certainly reinforced by the horrific incident a year ago at the peshawar army school. >> do you know what the price tag is of the m-16? >> mr. chair, as a matter of policy we do not discuss prospective arms sales until they have been -- >> all right. we know it's not cheap. let me just give you some of my metrics because my point is short here. in pakistan, you've got the al qaeda, the afghan taliban, the hakani network, the t.t.p. and l.e.t. operating, all terrorist organizations. over the past 14, 15 years, the american people have spent $13 billion on our relationship with pakistan. meanwhile a poll last year found only 14% of pakistanis expressed a positive view of the united states.
pakistan seems neither particularly democratic nor tolerant regarding religious -- regarding their governance or their religious tolerance. and then you look at -- you know, we talk about this individual, mr. afridi, who allegedly helped the united states get the number one terrorist on our list, and meanwhile the backdrop is that this terrorist organization, just one, for instance, the l.e.t., been active in pakistan, afghanistan, and kashmir since the 1990s, and pakistan funded the group, the isi agency, helped establish the organization's military structure, and almost all l.e.t. members are pakistani madrasa students.
ten l.e.t. members conducted a coordinated terrorist attack on targets in mumbai, india, killing 160 people including four americans. in december 2008, pakistan arrested zaki raman, whatever his last name is, the l.e.t. leader who organized the mumbai attacks. they arrested him. however in april of 2015 this guy was released from jail on a $2300 bond, and there's been no trial scheduled for this guy. meanwhile, the doctor, the good doctor afridi remains in a jail. and we're going to sell or make a deal with pakistan for f-16s, and we've got neighbors that are much better allies. we understand the tenuous circumstance, but when are we going to equate our relationship, our financial relationship with results about terrorism? do you see that happening any time? quantifiable results where the american people can seep the value of this relationship. sir. >> if i could respond to a couple of points, mr. chair. first, on dr. afridi, we fully
agree with you that he has been unjustly imprisoned, and we've communicated this at the highest level. >> but why don't we tie it to their actions? why don't we tie it to his release, tie it to the sale of these weapons systems? who is negotiating these deals on our behalf? >> mr. chair, we believe that -- and again, i can't talk about the details of a prospective notification, but let me say that we believe that the f-16s that we have already sold to pakistan or provided under security assistance have been used to advance our national interests. they have been used against terrorists in north waziristan and the tribal areas. the precision strike capability of the f-16s, and our programs
are focused on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. >> mr. ambassador, i appreciate it. i understand the value of the weapons system and what it can do. we appreciate that. we understand that. we are very frustrated that for the american people's involvement, we don't see a whole lot coming on the other side of the ledger. but that's my personal perception. with that, my time has expired. i would like to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. loewenthal. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to deal with my own concerns, like congressman higgins and cook and others, i am troubled about the reports of pakistan's development of what i consider destabilizing tactical nuclear weapons at a faster rate than most other countries, if not than any other country. i really want to understand again a little bit more clearly your assessment of pakistan's progress in cooperating with the international community on nuclear proliferation concerns.
and also, the second part of that question has to do with recent media reports suggesting that our administration is considering some kind of nuclear arrangement with pakistan. i'm not really clear what is a nuclear arrangement. and if we are considering, is pakistan really a trustworthy partner, again, in that? again, like other members, the nuclear proliferation concerns are very troubling. >> thank you, congressman. and we share your concern about the scope and pace of pakistan's nuclear program. we do have an active dialogue on nonproliferation issues.
we have a security -- >> has pakistan increased the rate of the production of tactical nuclear weapons? >> we continue to have concerns about the scope and pace, sir. i think that's probably all i can say in this particular venue. but i did want to address one other issue that you raised. i can assure you, despite some press reports to the contrary, that we are not negotiating a one, two, three, agreement, a so-called one, two, three agreement, a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with pakistan. >> in any way? are we setting any preconditions or any conditions? this goes back to -- about -- or talking to pakistan about the reduction of its nuclear weapons? >> we've had a very candid
discussion with the pakistanis about some of the concerns that we have, including about shorter range nuclear systems. and pakistan has been prepared to engage with us in those discussions. >> and i gather over since for the last 60 years we've provided over $75 billion in assistance, primarily in military and economic assistance to pakistan, going back to the question asked by the chair, is any of our assistance that you know tied to changes in pakistan's behavior? >> there are some very specific metrics and conditions that we use in all of our assistance programs. i mean, specific to the nature of the program, particularly,
and civilian assistance. with regard to security assistance, what we have done is negotiated a framework with the pakistanis in which our security assistance is focused on the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions. and i think it's also particularly worth noting that two additional provisions, we obviously -- all of our assistance is subject to the leahy amendment. and we have a very vigorous leahy process. that addresses the question of human rights. and in addition to that, we have very stringent end use monitoring requirements on the pakistanis, especially with regard to high technology security assistance. and i can say that we are very strict on those, and the results have been satisfactory. >> what does that mean, the
results have been satisfactory? >> that we believe that the end use monitoring systems have been effective. >> thank you. and i yield back. >> the chairman thanks the gentleman from california. the gentleman recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ambassador, appreciate it. i was fortunate to go over to afghanistan with chairman ros-lehtinen. we had an informative trip. we've given $30 billion since 2001 to pakistan. when you look through the list here, there's at least five terrorist networks that we know that are operating in the fata area, along with isis is in that area. and we've heard over and over again, that is a no man's land, there is no rule. and in order to get peace in that area, there can't be the threat of terrorism. and as pakistan -- is their goal to get rid of terrorism?
how serious are they? because i'm not seeing it. >> sir, thank you. we have agreed for many years that the threat from the tribal areas was significant. in that regard -- >> how serious is pakistan about bringing this to an end? it's like my mom, i told her i wanted to play piano but i wasn't real serious about it and never learned how to play it. if you're serious about it, you'll do it. if not, you're not going to do it. with $30 billion of taxpayer money going into that area, and we rewarded pakistan by selling the initial f-16s as them helping us after 9/11, and then we suspended them because we've seen them complicit, working against us in afghanistan, but yet we hear they want to have
peace in that area, they want to have talks and have the concurrent resolutions and talks with india. but if you're not willing to stand up and stomp out terrorism, you're not real serious about it. just yes or no, am i right or wrong about that? >> congressman, pakistan has launched operations in north waziristan, reasserting their authority. >> we did sorties against isis a year and a half ago, but they weren't really meaningful. we were doing five to ten, maybe, a month. if you're serious, you go in and annihilate that. >> they have completely cleared the city of mirinshah, which was the headquarters of the hakani network and the taliban. i've been to downtown mirinshah, there is no one there. they cleared the city and cleared all of the networks. they've taken 488 casualties, deaths among soldiers just in operation zarbiaz. i think their commitment is serious to fighting terrorism.
but the concern that we have, sir, and i have flagged this, is that we think that more needs to be done against the hakani network and some of the groups that threaten pakistan's neighbors, not justly the ones that threaten them internally. >> and if you look at the react attack in california, tashfeen malik studied at an all women's islamic religious school in pakistan. it's still working against us, still creating terrorism. the debate largely borders on these f-16s, efforts by congress to place conditional requirements upon aid to pakistan due to the country's support for terror have consistently been waived by the
administration, which argues that the assistance is essential to build pakistan's counterterrorism capabilities. in particular, what specific considerations have pakistan made to u.s. objectives? what can you say that i can go back to the people i represent and say, no, this is a good thing because it's going to give us peace down the road? we've said this for 30 years and we're not seeing it, in fact we're going backwards. what benefits have these f-16s done? and i have a follow up question if you -- >> yes, sir. they've used the f-16s for precision strikes. they're a regular feature of their operations and we believe they've been effective in taking out terrorists that are of concern to us as well as to them.
>> the administration has no real idea what policies pakistan will be pursuing against militants in the tribal area, when any new aircraft will be delivered, each of which will generally take three years to produce and deliver. would you recommend selling them more airplanes with the results we've gotten so far? and the $30 billion, because you read off an impressive list of schools, education, fulbright scholarships. i'm not seeing the return on investment here to bring this to an end. you know where we are in america with american sentiment, they want this to end. >> sir, with regard to the f-16s, let me say that we believe they have been a very effective instrument of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. as i've said, out of respect for
congressional prerogatives, we do not discuss prospective sales until they've been formally notified. >> yet they protected osama bin laden all those years. there's no way they didn't know about that. nobody can convince me of anything different. so yeah, they're effective over here, hitting a beehive, they're treating a tumor, a malignant metastatic tumor over here, but the main tumor is over here, and we need to go after the main root cause of our problems brick support any sales of those. thank you. >> thank you. on november 18th, anwar lagari, the brother of the sindh activist who is a chief advocate here in washington, lagardi, was killed. there is an ongoing investigation. i want to thank you and the state department for the counsel general's focus on this. and it raises the bigger issue as to whether there are forces in pakistan that are simply hostile to any region of the
country other than punjab. what percentage of the general officers of the military are punjabi? i don't know if you have that available. >> i do not have that available, congressman. and we can take that back and see if we have that information. i can tell you anecdotally from my personal experience, it's a high proportion but it's not an exclusive proportion. >> okay. zero based budgeting. most people i represent feel that the roughly 2 billion we give pakistan could be better spent in the san fernando valley. if we're not willing to talk about simply a zero figure for aid to pakistan, we have no
leverage. the doctor who helped us get osama bin laden will be rotting in prison. do we have a plan, as one of several options, to go to zero, and what would we expect the pakistani response to be? is it considered an act of war to fail to give another country money? >> well, sir, we believe that engagement with pakistan is in our national -- >> other countries don't give them money and they still talk. i'm not saying we close our embassy. are you saying that the pakistanis would refuse to talk to us? does every other have to give them money like a party gift to have a conversation? >> we think our assistance programs, whether we're talking about the civilian or military, have actually done a lot to improve the conditions. in the case of civilians, the
lives of ordinary pakistanis. and pakistan is facing an enormous demographic challenge. it has a youth bulge. the youth are about to come into the most productive years of their lives, either they'll have jobs or not have jobs. >> i know we do some good for pakistanis. if we spent that money in india and congo, we would do an equal amount of good. what is the pakistani response if we simply say, zero? >> well, i really can't say what the government of pakistan would -- >> so we're spending $2 billion, much of it military, and if we eliminated the military aid, it's clear that the pakistani military does some good, it's also clear that the pakistani military does some harm. have we discussed with the
pakistanis that perhaps congress would specify zero particularly if we don't see some changes in policy, specifically the release of the doctor that helped us get osama bin laden? have you talked to the pakistanis that there is sentiment in the congress to go to zero? >> i will be happy to convey that sentiment, congressman. i think that's a point that we can we can make. the administration's position is that we believe that the assistance programs that we have are in our national interest. it's in our national interest to have pakistan be stable and prosperous rather than the alternative. and it is in our national interests to have pakistan conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations in the western part of the
country -- >> do we have assurance that the money we give them is not used for oppression and terrorism rather than prosperity and counterterrorism? money is fungible. they may be confronting the hakani network or not. or they may be funding the organizations that killed people in mumbai. how do we know of which those two activities our money is funding? >> well, sir, we're very careful about how we spend our money and what we spend it on. with regard to the military assistance, it's subjected to a very intensive leahy amendment vetting process. and there is no question that we continue to raise these issues that you flag, the question of the hakanis, the need to do more on the hakanis, with the pakistani government on every indication.
>> unless they think you're willing under some circumstances to recommend zero to the united states congress, you will not achieve our objectives. and the biggest weather vane is the physician that helped us get osama bin laden. for us to ignore that they were harboring him in one of their safest and most military towns and then say we should ignore the fact that they have that doctor in prison, it begs the question of whether the aid we give them is warranted. i yield back. >> thank you. i'm going to return to the points that i made in my opening statement. i was absent for a while. we had three bills debated on the house floor that our committee put out, including the
legislation authored by myself and elliott engel on targeting hezbollah, with several other co-sponsors like mr. sherman that we'll be voting on this afternoon. but if i could return to some of the points i made, i observed with the observation about the schools in pakistan. there are 600 of these specifically that i'm concerned with that over the years we have tried to convince the government to shutter, to shut them down. they're funded primarily by the gulf states, by individuals, by families in the gulf states, who make these charitable contributions, as they're called, but the problem is that the graduates out of these schools basically have a foundation in radical ideology. so we have the national action plan that has been set up by the government. i asked the congressional research service about that particular plan, and they say nearly one year later, there remains limited evidence that
the government's national action plan has brought major policy changes. so i wanted to ask you about that, ask you, ambassador, about your dialogue with the government, about shutting these down so that we shut down the foundation from which this radicalization is occurring. many of those young people that come out of that experience will go on to become clerics, either in pakistan or elsewhere, and they will continue to expand on this radical jihadist ideology that comes out of the gulf states and is being taught. >> mr. chairman, let me say that we share your concern about the madrases. we think it's a serious issue. we thought it was significant that it was for the first time addressed as an issue nationally in the national action plan that
was put out last year. our understanding is that the government is in the process of putting together greater -- a greater regulatory framework for the madrases. it is presently mapping -- >> but this isn't rocket science. we're not talking about all madrases. we're talking about the diobindi schools. as the "dawn" editorial, the newspaper "dawn" said, there is little doubt that there still exists across pakistan religious centers that continue to spew hate, and unless that infrastructure of hate is shut down, pakistan will never win its struggle for internal peace. that's the issue. we have the list of the 600 schools. i've made three trips, as i've indicated, to try to convince
the government to shut those down. we've had little success in convincing families in the gulf states not to send their money there or convincing those governments in the gulf states not to fund this. it's a phenomenon that frankly, it's so frustrating, because what we see is the failure of the government, time and time again, to address issues that are in that government's own best interests. and this to me, given the knowledge about what goes on in those 600 schools, is the most obvious and vexing problems that is right in front of us. what do people in the government say about that issue? >> well, i have had some discussions about this, mr. chairman.
and i agree that there is a huge challenge with the madrases. the reason, in a way, that they exist and have become popular in pakistan, if that's the word, is because they do provide a free education. and this has to do with the fact -- >> we're talking past each other. i'm not talking about all the madrases. >> right. >> that provide a free education. i'm talking about the 600 that you and i know are in this particular line of ideological radicalization. and on that issue, clearly, given the amount of money that is spent towards education in the budget, which is about 2.4% that actually goes towards education, i understand. i mean, this is one of the debates here in terms of f-16s and other military hardware, is wouldn't pakistan be better served addressing this issue of should go to the down these 600 schools, and if they do it, you know, funding public education there for individuals, for families, as an alternative for
their sons to go to those schools in this case, instead of the lads going to schools where you and i suspect the final outcome is going to be like a lot of others that were radicalized in those diobindi schools. >> i would agree with that analysis, mr. chairman. we think that what has to be done is there has to be further reform of the public education system. the public education system is not delivering in pakistan. and it has to be a viable alternative for parents who otherwise have no choice but to send their children to schools that are free and indeed where not only are they free but food is provided. so there's a real draw factor in all of this. we also think that it's important that the government of pakistan, and we're working
with -- in this area, in the countering violent extremism area, to try and reform the curriculum so that at least in the religiously-oriented skills, there are marketable skills, standardized curricula, and there are attempts to address a more modern perspective. >> my time has expired. but without -- i'm going to ask unanimous consent that representative sheila jackson-lee be next in terms of asking any questions. she's not on the committee but she wanted to participate today. without objection, i will go to representative sheila jackson-lee from texas. >> it is much appreciated, along with the ranking member, thank you so very much. i chair the congressional pakistan caucus with my colleague and have done so for more than a decade. so thank you very much for your presence here.
i'm going to go pointedly to a question dealing with an american doctor some years back, in 2014 dr. kamar out of chicago, i believe, who came on a mission to serve, and of course he had a different religious background. and i'm just wondering, did we ever solve his killing, was there any response to that very tragic incident? from chicago, i believe. >> yes. congresswoman, it's a pleasure to see you again. >> thank you very much. >> i'm afraid i do not have any details on that particular case. if i can get back to you with a response, i will do so. of course we continue to have
concern about the, in general, the treatment of religious minorities in pakistan. and it's a key area of our engagement. >> so let me just follow up. you just said "key area." i think it's an important issue and i'm just wondering, how are we pursuing this whole issue of religious tolerance? >> i think that there have been some developments over time in pakistan that give us a little bit of space. we're trying to advance this. one of them was certainly the decision by the supreme court under justice jalani in june of 2014 to extend greater protection to religious minorities. we, you know, think that that's a positive step that needs to be followed up on with the government. we have an ongoing dialogue about the rights of religious minorities. and we have, as a particular
concern about blasphemy laws, not just in pakistan but everywhere in the world, because of the possibility of their being subject to abuse. and that has been the case in certain instances in pakistan. we think it's within the context of having, you know, concerns about the framework, the legal framework in which pakistan conducts antiblasphemy laws. we think it is positive that the case of asiabibi has moved to the supreme court. and we will continue to press the government of pakistan for proper treatment of religious minorities. >> let me thank you. and first of all, let me say it's very good to see you, and thank you for your service both in afghanistan and pakistan.
i'm probably going to focus on pakistan, and then maybe a slight question within the time frame that i have left. i know that you've answered the question about dr. afridi and his status. the president sharif was here, i questioned him. it seemed as if he was trying to suggest there are other issues. do you have any update, you may have given it already in other testimony. let me get that quickly. let me follow up with my other question, which is, when the prime minister was here, there was certainly an impression given, pakistan, that he was attempting to continue to build on democratic principles, focus on economic development, education, issues that we would be concerned about. and certainly existence, if you will, with india. so i'm wondering what your assessment is. if you would start with the status of the doctor, and then lastly, if you could give me just a little bit about
afghanistan. i'm concerned in terms of whether or not the frontier land or the areas are even embraced by the central government, whether or not we actually have a functioning, tranquil, growing government in afghanistan. >> thank you, congresswoman. with regard to dr. afridi, we do believe there is no reason for his continued detention. we've been assured by the pakistanis that he is in good health. but we continue to press his case, absolutely, at the highest levels of our government and seek his release. >> and you see no other accounts or charges? it's been represented to me there are some other charges. you see no reason for him to continue to be incarcerated?
>> well, we just believe inherently that he should not be in a position of detention for helping out in the capture, the osama bin laden raid. so that has been our position from the outset. >> and you continue, at the united nations level and other levels, to try to secure his release? >> yes. we continue to work every avenue that's open to us and continue to press hard on it, yes, ma'am. >> thank you. and the other questions. >> with regard to afghanistan, the government actually does face some challenges. it's not surprising. but on the other hand, the government of national unity has held together for over a year. the government of national unity, any government of national unity, coalition government anywhere, there are challenges associated with it. when i was in kabul last week, i got a sense of renewed determination from the government to improve its
governance, particularly after the security challenges that it has faced over the last year. it has drawn lessons learned from the experiences of the past year and is making more government appointments. and there is a particular provincial focus to the government's reform efforts right now. >> if the chairman would be kind enough, if you could just under prime minister sharif who came to the united states, do you see the country moving toward more democratic principles, economic development? you're in and out of the country. do we have a line or a measuring stick that moves pakistan with all of its population, all of its desire for education, to a level where you're empowering the many young people that are there in the country? >> yes. congresswoman, thank you.
there was an important transition in pakistan, as you know, in june of 2013, when the first civilian elected government took over from a civilian elected government. the first successful civilian transition in pakistan's 65-year history at that point. and i think that after facing some domestic political challenges, the government of prime minister nawaz sharif has i think largely settled those political issues. and i think the political situation is stable. and the government has indeed focused on several key areas, stabilizing the economy. pakistan was seniors the coffers were quite empty at the time
nawaz's government took over, and there was the potential at that point of a balance of payments crisis. pakistan is now on an imf program. it's been through eight tranches. that's longer than any previous imf program in history. there are still some important structural reforms that need to be taken especially in the energy sector. on the other hand, they have moved to diversify their energy supply. they are importing liquefied natural gas with a company from houston helping out in that process, which we are very happy to try to promote successfully. and they have also focused on infrastructure. the prime minister has also committed to increasing the proportion of spending on education. and in that regard i think it's worth noting that the prime minutes's daughter signed on
with the first lady's initiative during the prime minister's visit. in that regard pakistan has expressed its seriousness about addressing issues of education, particularly for adolescent girls. and we encourage them to continue to spend -- to increase their funding on education. >> thank you for your service, and thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member, for your courtesies. i yield back. >> thank you. we now go to mr. elliott engel of new york. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and ambassador olson, it's good to see you. we had a good meeting yesterday in my office. i was just debating a bill on the house floor and also the new york delegation, so i apologizing for missing the first part of the hearing. we discussed many of the issues, and i'm delighted with your
appointment. this week -- what i'm going to do is make a statement and then ask you to comment on it. this week we marked five years since the passing of ambassador holbrook, who was our first special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. and we still feel his loss. he left a remarkable legacy. and his final effort was laying the ground work for resolving the long conflict in afghanistan and pakistan. and i hope we're able to take advantage of that work. as he mentioned before, ambassador olson, i'm confident with your previous experience in both afghanistan and pakistan, this important task is in the right hands. when president obama took office, i was encouraged by the bipartisan commitment to support our military forces, diplomats, and development workers in afghanistan, and to renew our partnership with the civilian leadership of pakistan. this focus on pakistan was
reflected in the kerry-lugar-berman passed by congress in 2009. but that authorization recently expired. and now is a good time to take stock of the status of the u.s.-pakistan relationship. we're used to hearing some bad news about pakistan. but the pakistani people have achieved some noteworthy accomplishments in recent years. pakistan has seen its first peaceful transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another. i think this was an historic moment for the country. thanks to collaboration with our own usaid, today pakistan has added 1750 megawatts of electricity to its energy grid, nearly a thousand new or refurbished schools, and newly trained teachers. let me commend our development experts for their hard work in a very challenging environment. on the security side, we've seen much more modest progress. terrorist groups based in pakistan continue to suppose serious threat to americans, pakistanis, and our partners throughout the asian world. also there is a permissive
environment that allows extremist ideology to spread. the results, terrorist attacks in afghanistan, pakistan, and india, and here in the united states. the hardest hit has been the pakistani people. terrorism inside pakistan has killed more than 50,000 people since 2003. that's 50,000 people. a year ago today, terrorists affiliated with the pakistani taliban, also known as ttp, massacred more than 140 teachers and students at the army public school in peshawar. absolutely horrific. after years of prodding and far too many lives lost, the pakistani government final took action against ttp. i had high hopes for those efforts. i was also hopeful and pakistan's parliament took a leading role in establishing a national action plan to comprehensively attack
terrorism. pakistan's government decided it would no longer differentiate between good and bad terrorists. that suggested a real change in pakistan's approach, a positive change to addressing terrorism in the country. but yet again, we've seen little evidence that the government of pakistan has followed through on these commitments. and so some violent groups continue to operate in pakistan with impunity, including the hakani network, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of americans in afghanistan, and l.e.t., the group responsible for the 2008 mumbai attacks which also cost american lives. there are some in pakistan who believe they can manage these groups, yet l.e.t. terrorists end up fighting our troops in afghanistan and hakani network terrorists have pledged allegiance to al qaeda. it's clear pakistan is a long way from solving these problems. i hope we can focus on a few key areas. first of all, what is it going to take for pakistan to stop
differentiating between good and bad terrorists and start treating all terrorists as bad and all terrorists as the threat that they are? does our own policy effectively convey to pakistan that the harm from these relationships outweigh any perceived benefit? next, i'm curious about how pakistani acquiescence in or support for terrorist groups is affecting its neighbors. can afghanistan stabilize while pakistan continues to host groups at the hakani network? can pakistan and india have a normal relationship when pakistan continues to support l.e.t.? and lastly, i'm concerned about the messages we're sending when we continue to provide pakistan security assistance despite the fact pakistan's ongoing relationships with the hakani network and l.e.t. we need to be clear about pakistan's counterterrorism efforts. now, i believe in the
u.s.-pakistan alliance. i believe that the united states and pakistan should be allies and continue to work together. but i think the question about terrorism is a very important question. and it really has not been satisfactorily, in my opinion, met by the pakistani government. i hope we can see a strategy for pakistan from usaid so we can maximize the remaining foreign assistance to both countries. in my view we need to include incentives and encourage pakistan to make much needed energy sector and tax reforms. we all want to see a peaceful, stable, and prosperous pakistan that is an integrated part of a larger, more connected, central and south asia. this simply cannot happen with the continued instability that exists in pakistan and afghanistan. so i'm wondering, ambassador, if you could answer some of these questions i made, if you've already done it then we can do it in writing afterwards, but if
you can answer it, i would be grateful. thank you. and i wish you good luck. as i said before, i think you're the right man for the job. >> well, thank you, thank you very much, ranking member engel. that means a great deal to me, that i enjoy your confidence. and thank you for your support. you started by mentioning it's five years since the death of richard holbrook. i was actually in his outer office waiting to see him on the day that he collapsed. and i think all of us who are working on this account greatly miss him to this day. i'm well aware that i'm filling very big shoes. and thank you for your very comprehensive and balanced statement. let me say that with regard to particularly the issue of terrorism, we appreciate that the statements that pakistan has made at the level of the prime minister and the army chief of not differentiating between good and bad terrorists, we think there is still work to be done in this area. we think that pakistan has moved
decisively against terrorists that threaten pakistan internally but still needs to devote attention to those that represent a threat to their neighbors. you asked about particularly the effect on afghanistan. i would just note that we had a very constructive week last week with the heart of asia conference which president ghani attended, in which pakistan committed to uphold the legitimacy and sovereignty of the afghan government and its constitution, which was important for the afghan side. and they committed to renewing and reinvigorating a peace process. pakistan did host talks at murray between the taliban and the afghan government, the first such talks, last summer in july. i think we are all agreed that
it is important to get a political settlement process going with a sense of urgency. and we look to pakistan to help to bring the taliban to the table. at the same time, we continue to raise our concerns about the threat that specifically the hakani network represent to us and our forces and our embassy and civilians in afghanistan, as well as the taliban more generally. and finally, we certainly have the same view with regard to l.e.t. and the need to not just ban l.e.t. but to take action with regard to prosecuting the perpetrators of mumbai. >> thank you. i look forward to continuing to
work with you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i believe mr. higgins had an additional question or two. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i just keep going back to the double game that's being played by pakistan. and, you know, you had said that pakistan expressed a seriousness in addressing the education needs of its country. pakistan spends 3% of its budget on education. 3%. it spends 3% of its budget on infrastructure. according to the world economic forum, countries that spend less than 15% on education, healthcare, and infrastructure, are countries that are very susceptible to collapse.
so when pakistan says or expresses a seriousness in addressing its educational needs, one only needs to look at the amount of budgetary resource it's addressing for that need. additionally, pakistan i think inflates the amount it spends on counterterrorism operations so it can receive more money, particularly from us. and as has been stated here throughout this hearing, some $30 billion over the past 15 years has been spent, both military and economic development aid for pakistan, according to u.s. military officials, the legitimate costs are only about 30%. so my question is, where is the rest of that money going? and it's very, very significant. and i suspect for nefarious purposes. you know, and are we winning the hearts and minds of pakistanis, given the extraordinary aid that we've provided?
well, i would refer you to the pew research center, which says that the majority of pakistanis view the united states as the enemy. the majority say that u.s. or impact at all. and pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. so i think by any measure, when you look at the extraordinary aid that we have provided, at the very least, we have not used that aid package as a basis from which to force very, very reasonable reforms. with respect to helping in the pakistanis help their own people, because if you're not making a commitment to education. if you're not making a commitment to health care. if you're not building the roads and bridges of your community, why are we? you know, we spend 70, $87 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan, spend
$73 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq. roads and bridges they blow up to kill our people. so, you know, i think if anything, you know, we look at this exercise today, this hearing as underscoring, i think, the urgency better utilizing the leverage that we have with pakistan, so to ensure that not only that money is more wisely spent, but we, you know, the benefactors of, of huge amounts of foreign aid to pakistan aren't viewed by the vast majority of the pakistani people as the enemy. and the money that we give them as inaaffeffective.
>> we agree to be investing more ini its health and people. and we support prime minister nawauz's stated commitment to devoting 4% to education, 4% of joe didn't. a -- gdp. and it does have to happen. pakistan does face a huge number of challenges right now, huge security challenges. and we could have a very long discussion about how that happened, and i think, you know, there are, there are domestic, there's certainly large domestic factors at play. and i think pakistan is
attempting to turn this security situation around. but that does consume, i think, a significant amount of their budget in doing so. on the question of hearts and minds. and views of americans, it's not, it's not a, it's not a happy story. and i agree with you. on the other hand, it is something that is somewhat improving. the numbers have gradually improved. on pakistan's perception, pakistani's perceptions of americans. i can tell you from personal experience that i think there's less of an impression now amongst the political elite that the united states is playing some kind of nefarious role with regards to pakistani politics. we are seen as not intervening in pakistani politics, and that's because we haven't.
we've been very careful not to do that. so i think that this is something that's not going to change overnight. but the trends are all be it mode. they' they a -- modest. they're in a positive direction, and i think we need to keep working at that. >> well, ambassador, i'm going to yield time to mr. bradsher n brad cherman from california. >> winning over the people of pakistan is one of the most important things we can do. voice of america spends a lot of money around the world. i hope that you would be an advocate for making sure that we have a robust program, not just in verdu, but in the other
languages. please do not be fooled by thinking some people have a working knowledge of verdu. you're in the marketing business. people in my town spend billions of dollars marketing to people in spanish to people who prefer to listen in spanish. they don't say, well, we're going to test those people and see what is their working knowledge. you reach people in the language they want to listen in. and the fact that we're talking about $2 billion a year and we're not spending $1 million a year to reach people in the sin di language, i'm counting on you. i want to second many of the, just about everything mr. higgins said. i was an advocate in my first five minutes or devil's advocate for zero base in pakistan,
that's obviously not what we're going to do. i hope you will assure the pakistanis that if there was ever a vote on the floor of the house that says that not one penny could be spent before the doctor and his family were safe here, we would be stampeding to say yes, and that would be a danger to some of our colleagues. as to -- yes, there would be a stampede. those voting first would be stampeded by those trying to be first. focusing on that aid, obviously, schools are important, usid dedicated more than $155 million to building and improving schools in sind. in a 2014 inspeck tor general report, the program found that it was not realizing goals that no schools had been built, that there was little improvement in
early grade reading. that was the report in 2014. has anything been done to make sure that education aid is more effectively spent? and if you don't have that information, you can respond for the record. >> thank you very much, congressman sherman. let me say with regard to sindi. i hope you're aware that our consulate general in karachi has started putting out all of its social media work in sin di, and it's received a very positive reaction. so facebook -- >> that idea may have come from congress. go on. >> we're happy to implement it. and i will take back the message on voice of meshlg. i don't have specific detailed information on the schools in sind, but they're being built.
they're going up. but i will have to get you a detailed status report. >> i look forward to that. i'd also like to explore with usaid that a good chunk of our aid should go in the form of providing free textbooks. that would allow us to ensure that the content of those textbooks while not possibly passing a politically correct test in san fernando valley, but that they would reflect our philosophy. who are you going to sell the textbooks if you steal it? everybody got them free. we ought to have free textbooks. finally, what would it take to get pakistan to be a status quo power? that is to say generally
accepting a cache mere situation. is there any change in the level of local autonomy that india could provide? is there, i realize everybody wants to get a nobel prize for solving the israeli/palestinian question. there might be a prize if it for you. is there anything that they could calm down, live, agree to live for a decade or so without kashimir being at the top of the list? >> i am aware that the ambassador has to appear open the senate side. >> oh, that's not important. [ laughter ] >> regardless of our feelings on this, he might interpret it differently, so maybe that is a
longer discussion that we might have, either in writing or sit down with him and -- >> we were supposed to meet in my office. they closed every school in my district. i look forward to meeting with you. >> all right. thank you. and just in closing, i did want to bring up the remarks that mr. engle made about your predecessor, ambassador olson in your job. ambassador richard holbrook. he was a personal friend to myself and eliot engel, and i know certainly from the day that he began engaging with this committee, i remember the date and peace accords and the work he did on bosnia and kosovo with eliot engel and others with those of us here. we, we counted him as someone who had very wise counsel on a lot of issues. i can't help but feel that the stress of the job may have had
something to do with his heart giving out. we wish you, ambassador, well in your, in your responsibilities here. and we appreciate your time and patience today. i know that you're on your way to the senate, so i'll just say what you've heard is some deep concerns from both sides of the aisle here today, about the direction, this issue about getting more money into public education in pakistan. it's clear to us that this has got to be a priority. members are frustrated. you've got a difficult job, but you've got the full backing from us to weigh in forcefully. with the responsibilities you have in your position. so, with that said, we thank you again, and we stand adjourned.
$1.1 trillion deal. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> all persoms having business before the supreme court -- >> monday, we'll look at the case on one of the most divisive issues to come before the supreme court, abortion. >> roe v. wade was decided in january 1973. there is a question i suppose
whether it will ever cease to be under scrutiny. >> wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but unable to because of a state law, a worker agreed to be the plaintiff in the 1970 case. she wanted to be anonymous. and the defendant was dallas county henry wade. while she had the baby and put it up for adoption, her case made it all the way to the supreme court. >> jane roe, had gone to several physicians seeking an abortion, but had been refused care because of the texas law. she filed suit on behalf of herself and all those women who have in the past at that present time or in the future would seek termination of a pregnancy. >> we'll discuss the court's decision in roe v. wade with
clarke forsyth. and melissa murray, professary at the university of california, berkley law school, and law clerk for sonya sotomayor. that's monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio, and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. it's available for $8.95 at c-span.org/landmark cases. british prime minister david cameron was critical of donald trump on the floor of the house of commons. mr. cameron also talked about the paris climate change agreement and syrian refugees coming to the u.k. this is prime minister cameron's final session of the year, taking questions from members of
parliament. >> order. questions to the prime minister! mr. richard graham. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm sure the whole house will joan me in wishing major tim peek well. we all watched his exciting takeoff yesterday, and as the first britain to visit the space station, i'm proud that we undertook that. i shall have further such meetings later today. >> richard graham. >> i welcome today's fall in unemployment. mr. speaker, stalking is a horrible crime.
dr. anston, was harassed for several years by a stalker who slashed her tires, hacked her water pipe, cut off her gas supply and put fire items in her letter box. she and her family suffered dreadfully. mr. speaker, my honorable friend has raised sentencing guidelines with the justice secretary. would my prime minister today give his support for greater flexibility and longer sentencing where it is clear that a stalker is a real menace? >> well, first of all, let me say how much i agree with my honorable friend. stalking is a dreadful crime. that is why we've introduced two new stalking offenses during this parliament. i'll certainly make sure that our honorable member has his meeting with the justice secretary. i can't comment on the individual case without looking at it in more detail, but we are taking the action necessary and will continue to do so. on unemployment, i'm sure the whole house will want to welcome
that there are 500,000 more people at work in our country in the last year alone. we've had wages growing above inflation every month for a year. and the claim at count is at the lowest level since 1975. i'm sure this will have a welcome right across the house. >> thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. could i start by wishing you, all members of the house and all staff here and major tim peeke, who's not on the planet at this time [ laughter ] a very, a very happy christmas and a peaceful new year. [ laughter ] thank you, mr. speaker. the, mr. speaker, the number of
days that patients are being kept in hospital because there is nowhere safe to discharge them to is doubled since the prime minister took office. on the fourth of november, i asked him if he could guarantee there'd be no winter crisis no the nhs this winter. he didn't answer then. i wonder if he'd be able to help us with an answer today. >> well, first of all, let me join the ripe old gentleman, i want a full, happy christmas for the ripe old gentleman and everyone in the house. he asked specifically about the nhs. and let me answer. the average stay in hospital has actually fallen from five and a half days to five days. and one of the reasons for that is that we kept our promises on the nhs. we put an extra 12 million in the last parliament and we'll be putting 19 billion pounds in this parliament.
>> just for the record, i did say happy christmas. maybe the prime minister waechbts listening at the time. if he's so happy, mr. speaker, about the national health service, could he explain, then, why he's decided to cancel the publication of nhs performance data this wednesday? and there was a time when the prime minister was all in favor of transparency, and it's not that long ago. in fact, it was 2011 when he said, and i quote, information is power. it lets people hold the powerful to account, give being them the tools they need to take on politicians and bureaucrats. is it because the number of people have been kept waiting on trolleys in a&e has gone up more than fourfold, that he doesn't want to publish these statistics? >> well, first of all, the data that he quoted in his first question was not published
before this government came to office. that's right! and let me quote him some data about the nhs. let he jume just take an arm da today compared with five years ago when i became prime minister. on an average day, there are 4,400 more operations. 21,000 more outpatient appointments. yes, they are challenges in a&e, but 2,100 more people seen within four hours today than five years ago. and there is more data published in our nhs than there ever was under labor. >> mr. speaker, there are huge pressures on the nhs, and they are largely due to the pressures on the adult social care system, which is under enormous stress at the moment, it indeed has been huge cuts in adult social care because of cuts in local government funding. simon stevens has called for a
radical upgrade in public health. so would the prime minister agree with me that cutting these services is a false economy? >> we're increasing the money that's able to go into social care by having the it 2% pre-set on the council tax so local councils can spend more. but i notice that the ripe old gentleman the mentions simon stevens. our nhs plan is simon stevens' plan. they got together and wrote their plan. they asked us for 8 billion pounds. they asked for the money up front. we committed to that plan, unlike labor at the last election, and we funded it up front, and that's why we see a bigger, better, nhs, but none of this would be possible, including the action on social care that we're taking with the better care fund, none of this would be possible without the growing economy that we have and the more jobs we've created. >> mr. speaker, the problem is
to do with adult social care. this morning, the nhs confederation said on bbc radio 4, and i quote, cuts to social care and public health will continue to pile more pressure on hospital and will worsen deficits in the acute sector. what was announced in the social care in the autumn statement falls well short of what's needed. the health foundation estimates a funding shortfall of 6 billion will be in place by 2020. how is the government planning to meet that shortfall? >> well, i'm glad the ripe old gentleman listens. he might well be on it one of these days. that would be a bit of transparency, a bit of sunlight would be very welcome. if he wants to swap, if he wants to swap quotations, this is what the chairman of the local government association says. the local government association has long called for further flexibility in the setting of
council tax and today's announcement will go some way to allowing a number of councils to raise the money needed. 1.5 billion more, increase in the better care fund announced today is good news. it's this government that funded the nhs, they didn't. it's this government that set up the better care fund. they opposed it. it's this government that has the strong and growing economy. and i note, question four and still not welcome for the unemployment figures. >> mr. speaker, the issue of adult social care and cuts in local government spending are very much the responsibility of central government. can he confirm that nhs trusts are forecasting a deficit of 2.2 billion this year? and indeed, i understand and the prime minister has part of the oxford anti-austerity movement would be concerned about this, that his own local health care trust is predicting a 1.7 million deficit.
there is a problem of nhs funding. has he forgotten the simple maxim that prevention is cheaper and better than cure? >> yes. >> how can he possibly complain about nhs funding when his party didn't commit to fund the stevens plan? that we are spending 19 billion pounds more on the nhs, money that wouldn't have been available if we'd listened to the labor party. now he says that social care is a responsibility of government. everything is a responsibility of government, but in fact, it is local councils that decide how much to spend on social care. and with the better care fund, they have more to spend. but i challenge him again. how do we pay for the nhs, we pay for it by more growth, more jobs, more people having a livelihood. is he going to welcome that at christmas time? or doesn't he care about the reduction in unemployment? >> mr. speaker, i have a
question from abby. ab abby, abby wants to train to be a midwife, and she says, i'm 28 years old. this year i left my successful career to go back into university to retrain as a midwife. i already have a debt of 25,000 for my first degree. well over half of my co-horizontals have studied. we have put off many things by the lack of financial support, with a debt. will my friend have a word with the chancellor sitting next to him to reduce the cuts so that we do get people like abby training to be midwives, which will help all of us in the future? >> well, first of all, i want
abby to train as a midwife, and i can guarantee that the funding will be there for her training, because there are thousands more midwives operating in the nhs today than when i became prime minister. now he mentions the question of nurse bursryes. two out of three people who want to become nurses can't do that because of the constraints on the system, and our new system will mean many more doctors, many more nurses. already we've got 10,000 more doctors in the nhs since i became of prime minister, and 4,500 more nurses. unemployment is coming down. you can fill up a tank of gas at less than a pound a liter. wages are going up. britain is getting stronger as we go into christmas because our economy is getting stronger too.
>> yesterday colleagues from all sides of the house formed a mule party group for the armed services covenant which aims to fulfill the commitment to service personnel and their families. will the prime minister joan me in praising the incredible dedication of the armed forces and their families, at this festive time when many are separated from their loved ones. >> i thank my honorable friend for her question. she's absolutely right as all of us get ready hopefully to spend time with our families this christmas. there will be many in our brave armed services who won't be able to do that because they'll be serving abroad or at home. so we should wish them the very best as christmas comes. in terms of the military covenant, it is one of the things i'm proudest of in the last five years is putting that into law and every year adding to the military covenant, giving
veterans priority for health care, increasing funding for veterans mental health services. every year we've made progress on the armed forces covenant, and every year that i'm standing on this box we'll continue to do so. >> mr. robertson! >> thank you very much. the prime minister will meet shortly with the heads of state of the european union. will he heed the advice of former prime minister john major and stop flirting with leaving the european union which would be in his words very dangerous and against our national interests in. >> what i will be doing is getting the best deal for britain and what we should be doing. this government was the first to cut the eu budget. it was the first to veto a treaty, the first to bring back substantial powers to britain. we've got a great record on europe, and we'll get a good deal fort british people. >> angus robertson! >> we were reminded there was a
very strong majority within scotland to remain in the european union and the prime minister has failed -- i know his side doesn't like to hear it. but the prime minister has failed to give any guarantees that scotland won't be forced out of the eu by the rest of the u.k. does he have any idea of the consequences of taking scotland out of the eu against the wishes of voters in scotland? >> this is a united kingdom, and this is a united kingdom issue. and what i would say to him, what i would say to him is, why is he so frightened of listening to the people and holding this historic referendum. passed through both of these houses of parliament in the last week. i say, get a good deal for britain, and then trust the people! >> thank you, speaker. the prime minister's visited an area and i'm sure like me saw the service personnel and their
families well as they carried out operations during the christmas party. given that the united kingdom is now conducting airstrikes over syria and iraq, why is our country still not at the highest level of threat? >> well, first of all, let me joan my honorable friend in praising those who work round the clock to keep us safe in our country and are doing such vital work. as he will note, the threat level is set in this country, not by politicians, but by the joint terrorism attachment center, jtac. they currently set it at severe, which is the second highest level. soy can confirm what i said to the house on the 26th of november, the u.k. is already in the top tier of countries that daesh is targeting. that was confirmed. the threat level is severe, which means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. that's been the case since august. the highest level is critical, which means that you believe an attack is imminent, but were we
were to go to that level, it would be for jtac to decide. >> i'm proud to represent a constituency that boasts seven synagogues, four mosquing, over 35 churches and two temples. however, donald trump reiterated that one of these communities wouldn't be allowed into america simply because of their religion, seemingly because of how divisive this is. in our country, we have legislation that stops people from entering the country who are deemed not to be conducive to public good. that's the prime minister agree that the law should be applied equally to everyone? or should we be making exceptions for billionaire politicians? >> first of all, let me join the honorable lady in being proud of representing a country, which i think, has some claim to say we are one of the most successful, multi-racial, multi-faith,
multi-ethnic countries anywhere in the world. there's more to do to fight opposition. i believe it is right to exclude people when they are going encourage extremism. i happen to disagree with donald trump. i think his comments are divisive, stupid and wrong. and if he did come to this country, it would unite us all against him. >> thank you, mr. speaker. by the time the house next meets, many people will have started their resolutions. for many, that would be to give up smoking. given that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than tobacco, and how often the population is unaware of that fact, would the prime minister join me in highlighting the role that e-cig rhetting can play in helping people to give up smoking for good. >> lots of people find different
ways of doing it, and clearly for some people, e-cigarettes are successful. i do think we need to be guided by the experts. we should look at the report from public health england, but it is promising that over 1 million people have used e-cigarettes to help them stop smoking or replaced them with e-cigarettes completely. >> during the referendum, the prime minister pledged to deliver carbon capture at peter head. on the eve of the paris climate talks he pulled the plug. can i ask the prime minister what he sees as the greatest betrayal, that of scotland, his manifesto or that of the entire planet? >> the greatest success is the paris climate change talks, and i want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the secretary of state who is one of the key negotiators who helped deliver
this global goal, which is so much better than what happened at copenhagen and better even that happened at kyoto. let me answer directly on carbon capture storage. you have to make tough decisions about technology that works and technology that isn't working. and we are spending the money on innovation, on energy storage being on small nuclear row actors, on other things that will make a difference. the government has to choose, and we made the right choice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this friday suddenly sees the closure of britain's last deep coal mine. will my ripe old friend, the prime minister join me in thanking the hins of workers who will be working their last shift this friday and also praise the thousands of workers whose bravery and hard graft over the last 50 years has helped warm
our homes, power factory and keep our lights on? >> very happy to join him in thanking people who've worked so hard at that mine and elsewhere, and obviously a difficult time. the government has put nearly 18 million pounds to assure that the workers receive the same packages a the miners that recently closed folseby. can i tell you something? you're shouting. can i just tell them something? this is, this is the official policy of the labor party, just, we must take action to keep fossil fuels in the ground, right? isn't that their policy? right? they've los got a policy, by the way, of reopening coal mines. so presumably what they're going to do is deg a big hole in the sground and sit there and do nothing. what a metaphor for his party.
[ shouting ] >> alison fewless. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister promised during the election campaign that he would not restrict our benefits to two children. since then, he's not only reneged on that but as a result brought in the rape clause for women in order for women to receive child benefitting. since july i've asked a number of times to a number of his ministers and nobody has been able to tell me how this will work. will he now drop the two-child policy and the rape clause? >> there in is no question of someone who is raped and has a child of losing the tax benefits. no question at all. but is it right for future claimants on universal credit to get payments for their first two
children? i think it is. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is my right honorable friend aware that thanks to the police budget, 108 more police officers are being recruited to protect the people of hampshire. and while there is more to do in tackling crime in more rural areas, would he agree with me that this is an important step in prioritizing the front line and that the home office has made real progress in making our police more effective, more efficient and more resilient? >> i'm delighted in joining my honorable friend to say this was the right decision. by the end of the spending settlement, it is an increase of 900 million pounds by cash terms by 20 20. but you cannot fund the nhs, the police, unless you have a growing economy, with more jobs, people paying their taxes and making sure you're a strong and
stable economy. and that is what's happening in britain today. >> in his farewell speech, the outgoing director of the british museum said the british museum is perhaps the noblest dream that parliament has ever dreamt. they decided to make a place where the collection would be under one roof and available to every person, right or foreign, where all inquiring will be outside political control. does the prime minister agree that the partnership, the workings of the british museum, with such things of birmingham arts galleries is important, but that will not happen unless our museums and galleries continue to be funned properly? well, first of all, let me join the honorable lady in paying tribute not only to the british museum which is an absolute gem in the british crown but to neil mcgregor.
she, given her heritage will be amused that when they put on that brilliant exhibit about germany, the next thing i know they've poached neil mcgregor. it's going to be very vital. i'm happy to see that happen. but i do want to see the british museum complete all of its partnerships, not just across the united kingdom but also internationally, and she would have seen that in the autumn statement the british museum got a funding settlement with which they were rightly very pleased. >> according to oxford, the u.k. has donated a generous 229% of its fascia of aid in support of syrian refugees, the highest percentage of the g-8, yet worldwide, only 44% of what is needed by those refugees has been donated.
do you agree that it is critical that other countries step up to the plate as the u.k. as more than done. >> first of all, can i say how much i agree with my honorable friend. britain is doing its duty in terms of funding refugees and rev joe camps. we're going to hold this conference in february bringing the world together to make sure there's more funding in future. and that's going to be vital. in terms of the numbers of refugees that we've resettled, i promised that we would resettle 1,000 by christmas. and i can say we've met our commitment. the charters that have arrived mean that over than 1,000 have been settled. another flight is arriving today. i want to thank all the local authorities and all those who've worked so hard, including my honorable friend who has led this process so ably. i said britain would do its
duty, and with these thousand, we've made a very good start. >> douglas carswell. >> three years ago, the prime minister couldn't have been even clearer, his eu determination would be returning control over social and employment law. is he still seeking that? >> well, i always find it hard to satisfy the honorable gentleman, because of course he joined the conservative party when we weren't committed to a referendum, and he left the conservative party after we committed to a referendum. so i'm not surprised he's giving his new boss as much trouble as he used to give me. but with that, i wish them both a very festive christmas. >> oliver tillden. >> thank you. >> the triumphant "star wars" began its life in our constituency. and it continued to produce hits
like "the king's speech." >> order! the old gentleman's going on about "star wars," and i want to hear it! >> will the prime minister joan me in pledging support for our thriving british film industry which makes such a valuable social, cultural contribution across the united kingdom. >> i think my honorable raises an important point, because this is not only excite being for children and quite a lot of parents are being looking forward to this film, but this is a film being made in britain with many british actors, showing the strength of the british film industry, and i would say this, but also backed by the british government and british taxpayers with the excellent row souresources that provide. i know that he will never join the dark side. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
despite the ongoing efforts of the scottish task force, my constituents are starting to receive redundancy notices. given the urgency of the situation, will the prime minister put pressure on the eu now to reach a quicker decision on permitting the eii compensation scheme, and if this permission is granted, will he also commit to implement the scheme as soon as possible to provide much-needed breathing space for our steel sector and to give some hope for my constituents this christmas? >> i think the honorable lady's absolutely right to raise this. we working as hard as we can in europe to try to get the energy-intention sieve industry's plan cleared. and i can confirm to her as soon as it is cleared the money will be available for the british steel-making companies.
we expect this to be in place no later than april 2017, but it should be much sooner, and we were working around the clock to get that done. >> mr. speaker, the tragic stabbing last week has shocked local residents. i'm sure the whole house will want to joan me in sending the condolences of the father of two who was killed in the attack and honor the bravery of those who overpowered the attacker with no thought of risk to themselves. but in the light of this attack, does the prime minister agree that it is team for the government and retailers to work harder to make it more difficult for offenders to get hold of weapons in the first place? >> i was very shocked by what happened in abington. and my heart goes out though those who have suffered. she's right to ask the question about offensive weapons and how available they are. and i'm happy to look at that. i think with that attack and the
leighton attack, although unrelated, it is right to look at the resources our police have in terms of the equipment they have. there's a very different usage pattern for tasers across the country, and i think this is something that the metro police and i are discussing. >> thank you very much. prime minister, there's nothing i believe more passionately in than in the union, and yet, with scottish nationalism, english votes for english laws. even the creation of numerous other measures that may threaten the union, what is the prime minister's vision for that union and for holding the four countries together? and would he please come and speak to the union all party group at some stage in the future, but even more importantly, would he hope with the campaign throughout the union, because we're better together? >> like the honorable gentleman, i'm passionate about our united kingdom, and i believe we can make it stronger by accepting that it is a partnership of
nations, and a partnership of nations where we should treat each other with respect. i don't listen to the s&p. they don't want a partnership, they want a separation. but one of the things that other countries are quite jealous of, is that we've demonstrated that you can have multiple identities. you can be pride of being a brit, a hindu and scott, welsh and british. we've sofrld most of the problems that the rest of the world is grappling with, and that's why we should keep our united kingdom together. >> as we approach the festival marking the boirs of jesus -- >> hold, there was notably eccentric gesticulation taking place from you, mr. mcneill, but you should desist. calm yourself, man, go and celebrate if you must, but we must hear the honorable
gentleman. and he will be heard. >> as we approach the festival marking the birs th of jesus chri christ, may i invite support to millions of christians around the world who are suffering persecution, and remind the british people that we are a country fashioned by our christian heritage, and it is that heritage, which has resulted in our giving refuge to so man eve other faiths over so many centuries, but we will not tolerate those who abuse our freedom to try to inflict their alien and violent fashions upon us, particularly in the name of islam. >> first of all, let me join him in saying that we should do everything we can to defend and protect the rights of christians to practice their faith the world over, and that is an important part of our foreign policy. and let me commend also, justin
willoughb willoughby, and yes, britain is a christian country. we understand the place of faith in our national life. it makes us a more tolerant nation and better able to accommodate other faith groups in our country. and that's why, as i said earlier in this session, i think we should be proud of the fact that this is one of the most successful, multi-ethnic countries in the world, and that is not in conflict with our status as a predominantly christian country, but one of the reasons we've done it. >> prime minister, i know the prime minister's aware of the flooding that's taking place in my constituency and the damage to the town. i've had a call from my constituent this morning to say insurance companies are refusing to pay or help my constituents until they have paid the excess in pull. does he agree with me this is absolutely outrageous?
some of these excesses are up to 10,000 pounds, and what can be done to make sure they fulfill their obligations to my constituents. >> first of all, the minute stir of government policy, has had meetings with the insurance companies to make sure that this sort of practice doesn't happen. that's the first point of the second thing is that we have announced putting money into the community funds that will form hardship funds to help people potentially who don't have insurance and the third and fightal thing is the establishment of flood lee, that makes sure that everybody is able to get insurance. we are putting it in place. >> order! the house oversight committee will investigate the screening process for foreign nationaling entering the u.s. the committee will look at the current vetting process is vulnerable to terrorists wanting
to enter the country. and later in the day, treasury secretary jack lew will talk about combating isis and other terrorist groups. he'll be joined by samantha power. live coverage at 3:00 eastern, also here on c-span 3. next week is authors week on the washington journal, with a featured non-fiction author monday through friday in a one-hour conversation with you. starting monday, december 21, at 9:00 eastern. former missouri state senator jeff smith on mr. smith goes to prison. what my year behind bars taught me about america's prison crisis. tuesday, december 22nd at 8:30. constitutional attorney john whitehead on his book battle field america, the war on the american people. university of law professor, is
our guest on wednesday, december 23rd at 8:00 eastern, talking about her book how the other half banks. the threat to democracy. at 8:30 eastern on thursday december 24th. political sklar matthew green joins us to talk about underdog politics. the minority party in the u.s. house of representatives. and friday, december 25th, also at 8:30, craig shirley discusses his book, "last act", the final years and emerging leg sieve ronald reagan. be sure to watch authors week starting december 21st. admiral michael rogers spoke about his first year and a half as national security director and the head of u.s. cyber command.
good evening, everyone. it's great seeing all of you. good evening. thank you for joining us tonight. it's incredibly fortunate to have admiral meike rogers, commander of the central security service as our guest of honor tonight. admiral rogers, thank you for being with us tonight. [ applause ] we have become all too aware of the threats facing our nation and its allies in recent weeks,
so i want to express my appreciate to admiral rog earns and his staff for finding time to speak to us tonight and a special thanks for the good work nsa does in protecting our nation. [ applause ] admiral rogers, welcome. it's an honor to host you this evening. briefly, i'd like to thank the sponsors who have made this dinner possible. northrup grun om. thank you. this is not only our last deinnr of 2015 but it is my last as president and the last for mr.
n negro ponte. having twice served on the national security council to include as deputy national security adviser, also as deputy secretary of state and as our nation's first director of national intelligence. i could go on and on. but i'll stop here. john's leadership has been instrumental to membership growth the past three years. and we owe him a debt of gratitude for guiding us through this period ever of prosperity. thank you, ambassador negra ponte. in we allow government and education to work better and in
concert with our national security efforts. it has made it a special run for ambassador negra ponte and myself. this is when those ale es come together. it makes all the difference. i'm proud of the work insa has done to promote cross-sector work and innovation. and i know insa will continue to promote these efforts in 2016. please, ambassador, negra ponte. [ applause ] >> thank you, joe. good evening, everybody. the feelings and sentiments are
reciprocated, joe, about you. when i agreed to take on the position of chairman of insa, i was told that my first challenge would be to find a new president of the organization. and my first and only choice for the job was joe who i'd come to know over the years. i think we first played tennis in burma about 40 years ago or something like that. i don't know what you were doing out there, joe. but in any case, it was a great choice, and it's been a delight to work with you. as joe mentioned, both of us are coming to the end of our term here at insa, and i just want to say that i'm very thankful to joe's leadership and the staff that he's worked with. i think they've done a terrific job. i'd also like to say that i really think the events of
recent months have reminded us, as if we needed any reminder, that the issues of national defense and national security are as important if not more important than they ever have been. to have an effective global strategy you have to have a strong economy. you have to have strong diplomacy and strong alliances and friendships around the world. but none of that's really going to work unless you have effective national defense. so i'm concerned, as i think quite a few people are, at what i perceive to have been a bit of a degradation of our defense capabilities in recent years. i hope that under the next leadership of this country that we'll see a resurgence and renewal of attention to some of the pressing defense issues that
we face. and of course, an interfwral part of our defense capability is intelligence. and we have an intelligence community which has no equal or peer in the entire world, who is a source of pride for me to have worked with 17 different agencies thirough the time thati helped set up the dni, and of course support for that institution of our intelligence community has simply got to continue going forward. and that, of course, brings me to insa, which i think, in a way, symbolizes all of the different elements that i've just mentioned. the importance of our economic base. the technological and industrial base that many of you here
represent. our prowess in the field of collecting intelligence and analyzing complicated data. again, you all are an integral part of that. so i really want to say that i feel that one of the satisfactions of having been chairman of insa during these past three years has been the knowledge of the direct contribution that you here seated in this room tonight and the companies and the organizations that you represent have been making this invaluable contribution to our national security. so i'm very thankful for that, and i'm very proud to have been associated with that effort, and i look forward to being able to help in any way that i can in the future. now it's my pleasure to
introduce admiral michael rogers. he's a familiar face to many of you. now well into his second year as director of the nsa, commander of u.s. cyber command and chief of the central security service. i got to say, i never quite understood what the central security service part, part was about. but anyway, i take their word for it. admiral rogers is an incredible public servant, leading a civilian and military workforce of more than 40,000 in its mission to protect our nation from threats, both in the physical world and in cyberspace. he's also been an important advocate for the essential work of the intelligence community and the ic's commitment to civil liberties. as he said this last fall, security and privacy are not trade offs to be balanced.
imperatives, and nsa supports both. he has shared this message with the american people at events across the country, including intelligence and national security summits, co-hosted by insa. admiral rogers is a 33-year navy veteran, a graduate of auburn universit [cheers and applause] >> i hear the voices of general burgess out there, who entered the navy as an rotc graduate in 1981, as a surface warfare officer, and who was redesignated in 1986 to krip toll ji. it enabled admiral rogers to arrive at u.s. cyber command and nsa and prepared to lead us in
this next era of cyber warfare. his resume reflects extensive joint command experience, and identifies him as a distinguished graduate of the national war college. please join me in welcoming to the podium, admiral rogers. [ applause ] >> how's everybody doing tonight? well, i have to tell you, based on the size of the crowd, you thought a different mike rogers was going to be speaking to you tonight. you've got the wrong guy. first, to insa, thank you for doing this. i am a big believer in insa's fundamental premise of the power of partnerships, between the government, the public and
academia. i'm a big believer of that, that's why when joe calls and says, hey, mike, would you being willing to do this, it's the least i can do. if you are currently an employee of the national security agency or you ever have been one, can you stand up for me, because you are the ones that i want to thank. [ applause ] you know, i say that because i'm a very fortunate individual. i get to work in a mission that i think matters to the nation. i've been very blessed to have been given a responsibility, and i work with men and women that i really respect and. energized by every day when i go to work. and you get the opportunity to meet some of them tonight. and a lot of times,s a the director, as an admiral, mike rogers gets a lot of attention,
but quite frankly, the men and women and the thousands of others that they represent, they're the ones that really should get the attention. what i thought i'd do, it's funny, it's hard to believe, but i last spoke to insa in a form like this, 14 months ago. i don't know why, but for some reason, literally, i sat up in my bid this morning about 03 and thought to myself, man, what has happened in 14 months. and anybody who knows me, i normally don't write anything to myself. i speak off the top of my head. but i wrote some notes to myself. so, since i've last spoken to you, what has happened in the world around us, and how has that tended to shape nsa, its folk, and how nsa compliments and supports a much broader intelligence team across the ic. in the last 14 months we've had major terrorist events in
sydney, austria, copenhagen, paris, san bernardino, multiple times, and counter terrorism continues to be a major focus for the national intelligence agency and the ic at large. it's a challenging mission for us, because quite frankly, i would tell you, it is one of the targets that has evolved the most. this is an adaptive set of opponents that work hard to forestall our capabilities. so it's a great professional challenge for us. at the same time, when i spoke to you last in august of 2014, isil had not yet transitioned into iraq. and look at what that has done over the course of the last 14 months. look at how isil has spread in a much broader way, and the foot print broader than the syria
that it started. it's not by chance that yesterday the president was at the pentagon talking to the department about counter isil strategy. we continue to focus as intelligence professionals. we need to accelerate, accelerate, put more pressure, apply more pressure. so i'd be the first to admit this is not an insignificant challenge for us. at the same time, when i last saw you in august of '14, we had the russians in ukraine in crimea, but the idea that the russians were going to go into syria, i think if you'd asked most of us in august of 2014, is that going to happen, we'd probably say nah, wide' pe'd pu as unlikely. how's that played out for us?
cyber in the last 14 months has been sony, isil, it's a problem set that has been difficult and it just keeps getting more difficult. and that is not going to change in the near term, because the very technical foundations that we are building as a society, the internet of things, the way we are increasingly becoming dependent in our personal lives, our professional lives in the execution of whatever mission it is that you're fulfilling in life, private sector, military, whatever, cyber is so foundational to our ability to execute what all of us do personally and privately. this is only going to get tougher before it gets better. we've committed to extend the presence in afghanistan at current levels for another additional year. so as the director of nsa i think to myself, what do we do to make sure we're positioned for success to make sure that the indications of warning and the kinds of insights that we need in afghanistan, that we
continue to generate those. we've reached a major agreement with the iranians. so i'm asking myself, how do we generate the insights to help policymakers to determine whether it's being complied with, whether or not we can believe that they will move ahead as they've indicated. north korea continues to be a wildcard. the challenges in the last 14 months, like i said, literally, and i normally have no problem sleeping. but i literally woke up to myself this morning and said i can't believe when i step back and think about it, what has happened in the world around us in the last 14 months, and that rate of change, the thing that strikes me is high rate of change. simultaneo simultaneousness of crisis. my memory is we had a much smaller number of crises happening simultaneously. and they were much shorter in