tv Hearing on Foreign Assistance and Violent Extremism CSPAN April 18, 2016 8:00pm-10:26pm EDT
[ hearing concluded ] coming up next, u2 lead singer bono and deputy secretary of state antony blinken talk about combatting violent extremism. they think the u.s. needs to boost aid to foreign nations to combat the poverty and poor living conditions that have led people to radicalize and carry out violent attacks in europe. the hearing committee is just over 2:20.
this is what it is like to be chopped liver. [ laughter ] >> the subcommittee will come to order. our hearing today is on the causes and consequences of violent extremism in the role of foreign assistance. i would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, deputy secretary of state, antony blinken, bono, from u 26, former allied commander in europe james jones and president of the jones group international. and kelly clements, deputy united nations committee member for refugees. i'll make a short opening statement and let senator leahy do the same and we'll have a second round. number one, this was a good day for photographers. i hope you got a good shot, there. i've just gotten back from my
30-something trip to the region. i had the pleasure of being in turkey with bono and egypt. and each person here is tasked in their own way of trying to inform the congress in making policy decisions to deal with what i think is a crisis that you either pay now or you pay later. to the american people, we cannot ignore this. the goal is for people to stay at home and not come here, not go to europe, but stay in syria. you name the country, they don't have to leave. the reality is the average refugee has been displaced from their home for 17 years. in turkey, we met people in a camp, preschoolers that were four years old. most of them were born in the camp. i could not tell them when they would get to go home. if the war in it syria ended tomorrow, it would be a nightmare to reconcile syria, but that day, i hope, is coming and we'll have to deal with that problem. the idea of humanitarian
assistance is absolutely necessary because some of these people are without food and water and shelter. it is in our national security international and i think general jones will tell us to get ahead of this problem before it turns into the jihadist army of the future. but the humanitarian air has to be looked at in terms of reality. there is an op ed piece today by bono in the new york times that i would recommend you read it. but it talks about the dilemma of humanitarian air in developmental assistance. when you realize that most of the kids and their parents are not going back home any time soon, what kind of skillset should they possess to make them viable human beings in the country where they are going to live for a while? and if they ever do go back to their home what, do they bring back? every day that goes by that a kid is not educated in one of the camps and most of them are not in camps, they are in the
cities of the country that they've been displaced to. in turkey, the government of turkey has been extraordinary payment and making payments, and free health care, our friends in jordan are completely overrun. in lebanon there are more syrian children than lebanese children. to think that will not affect us is naive. to think there is no solutions -- well that is just yong. to think it is easy, is just crazy. so here is the deal. i'm going to work with senator leahy and the members of this committee to put together an emergency relieve package and if you don't think this is a emergency, i welcome the contest, i welcome the debate. this is 1% of the federal budget and in the cost of world events it is tremendously under siege and i don't want to take money away from pet far or money away
from malaria or the peace corp. i'm not going to take money away from embassy security. so what do we do? we have to recognize we have an emergency on our hand and come up with a long-term strategy and it has to be world-driven, not united states-driven. in the op ed piece i referenced bono suggested that now is the time to think big. i could not agree more. we know in the past that radicalized populations were turned around. germany and japan were radicalized. the marshal plan did work. out of that effort we have two stable democracies that are allies. the difference is the war is still going on and we don't have an occupation force. radical islam is spreading its wings all over the mideast and throughout africa and the question for this committee, the country and the world, is how do
you destroy radical islamic extremist and other radical ideologies. general jones will tell us about the limitations of military power. mr. blinken will tell us about the limitations of diplomacy and mr. bono will talk about the possibilities of the private sector joining with the government to give people hope that have none now. i'm pretty hawkish fella but i've learned a long time ago, about 30 trips ago, you are not going to win this war by killing terrorists. it is a small schoolhouse educating a poor young girl that, will do more damage to the radical islamic extremist than any bomb you could drop on their head. we have schoolhouses here at home in domestic repair and we have $19 trillion in debt and i'm sorry the world is not more convenient in terms of back here at home.
i do not ignore south carolina when i say we need to spend money over there. i tell people back home, either we invest over there, or they're coming here. 9/11 is becoming a distant memory, but not for me. the money this country spent just on the money side after the attacks of september 11th, 2001 is north of a trillion dollars. the two wars of afghanistan and iraq is about a trillion and a half. we could argue about how we spent the money, should we have spent the money but we are where we are. now i'm not here, tony, to argue with you about syrian policy i'm here to find a way to go forward to use what is called soft power to supplement a military strategy. and i would conclude with this. to our ngo community, you could do just as many good as any battalion of soldiers because without your assistance on the ground trying to give people hope nothing will ever change. to take the land from the enemy is one thing.
to hold it is another. that is where we come in. for a fraction of what we spent in the past, if we do it widely through a worldwide effort, i think we could turn this around before it is too late. if we do nothing, i know exactly what is going to happen. some of our friends are going to fall. and the people in these camps today are going to be our enemies. so you have two choices when it comes to these young people. get involved in their lives now, or fight them later. i choose to get involved in their lives now. and let them do the fighting later. because without their help, we will never win this war. so i want to thank each member of the panel that has come to share with you -- share with us your vision of how to move forward. to this subcommittee, i think we have a great opportunity with a modest amount of money to make a huge difference. i intend to do that. but i cannot do it without your
buy--in, without your support and without your advice. times are tough at home. but when you go to -- when you go to the refugee camps and you visit the mideast, you know it could be worse. senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the fact that you're holding this hearing. i also appreciate the four witnesses. they each bring unique perspectives on challenges. i once introduced bono at an event and said that there are millions of people who never know your name, never be able to purchase your music or go to one of your shows. all they know is their life is better because of the work you've done. and you haven't stopped since that time. you've focused the world's attention on poverty in africa. the very tangible ways we could dramatically improve the lives of millions of people.
and your children are able there to be with you because i know they share strongly in your great commitment. general jones is one of the most distinguished public serve aban know. i know him from way back when -- i think he was a major, long before he became four-store, before his commandant, long before he was our head of nato. he has this long and distinguished career. but i've also heard general jones say so many times, as important as military force is, it is no substitute for diplomacy and development. and the general has been concerned about africa and where we are long before this hearing.
and general, i admire you for that. and deputy high commissioner clements is no stranger to us here. she's worked on refugee issues at the state department, the united nations for i think over 25 years, if i'm correct. it seems that every time we've had you here, you've been involved. and i appreciate it. and then i could take a list of 40 issues, and secretary blinken is involved in every one of the 40, with expertise on those issues. that has been helpful not only to those of us here in the senate, but i know from president and others, it has been helpful to them. we look at the horrific crimes committed by groups like isil and boko haram. now we can, as chairman, you've said and others have, limit the
territory control of of these areas by use of force but we'll not defeat terrible ideas by bombs. and i think our foreign aid programs can't substitute for government policies and strategies in places like the middle east and north africa, which must promote stability and opportunity. they have to protect fundamental freedoms. if they don't, then they don't have a real counter to terrorist recruitment and those policies and strategies in that area are often lacking. now, we've supported wide range of programs to address these issues and these threats, include economic and social development and so on. but spending more money is not going to do it. we have to do better. we have to know the underlying causes. so that is why i want to hear from everybody here. i have an article written
general zinni and the letter to the appropriations committed signed by 14 former colleagues including friston dashel and i ask for those to be part of the record. and while i will also do this on the floor, i would ask that the op ed piece that bono wrote in today's new york time be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> because they talk about the development of diplomacy and how we need that to combat terrorism. so it's -- i mention these things because you have a republican and a democrat from different political backgrounds and we have worked together on these issues for years and years. i was almost going to say way back to when i had hair but you weren't born then. >> well i'm catching up with you on the hair part.
>> but the thing is, give us the idea of what to do and we'll try to do it. >> thank you very much, senator leahy. general jones, when it comes to what to do, you're a military man and made a distinguished career and could you tell us why you support this economic assistance, foreign assistance in general from a military point of view? >> mr. chairman, thank you and members of the committee, senator leahy, thank you very much for this invitation to testify today. i commend your leadership on a matter of great importance to our interest in the future of the human enterprise. i'm very honored to be here with our fellow witnesses who devoted much of their lives to the cause of human development, peace and stability. secretary blinken and i go back a long way to his days in the senator foreign relations committee and the national security council and i would like to publicly recognize the
tremendous work he's doing over at the state department. from personal observation, there is no more passionate thoughtful and informed and effective advocate for development in security than bono. may many live peaceful lives because of tis work and the efforts of this committee. and i thank you for that and congratulate you bono. you have my full statement mr. chairman and with your permission i'll summarize briefly. during my military service, our national security was defined by the struggle against communism and the soviet military threat. security was expressed in the calculation of trip strength and weapons county and nuclear throwaway. today's threats are more diverse and more complex than those we face in the bipolar world we left behind in the 20th century. they include the likes of cancerous terrorists and criminal enterprise, failing states and conflict triggering massive refugee flows, grave natural resource threats and the
ongoing battle for hearts and minds between the forces of maternity and those of hate and intolerance. these challenges are synergistic and extreme. and yet so are the importants created by positive trends in the march of human advancement. but if our future is to be defined by our opportunities rather than the threats it demands, then i stress demands, far deeper conception and understanding of national and international security, one less reliant on reaction, and far more focused on anticipation and even prevention, one that centers on disarming the root causes and major multiplies of conflict and instability and one that in the long run is much less costly than what we practice today. viewed through that lens, what comes in a sharp focus in my view, is that the premier strategic threat to global security and to our own is not any single country or ideology or any single weapon. it is human need.
the unsatisfied demands for life basics, including food, energy, water, dignity, and a better future for masses living on the edge. and as i understand it, the purpose of this it hearing is to examine the causes and consequences of violent extremism. for many extremist leaders, the attraction to islam is born from selfish power. others find their attraction in depraved request for belonging and for multitudes the simple motivation is sus continuance, fear and co ergs, but what is clear is that bank on leveraging human want and desperation for their own purposes, they seek to exploit human misery in the pursuit of scale. a scale, that scale and with increasing access to sophisticated weaponry, violent extremism as a great a threat to global prosperity, including our own, as any state power.
i have long felt that the united states and united nations have a deep moral obligation and self-interest to end the plague of isis, boko haram and their ilk. defeating this threat has a military element associated with it. but defeating radicalism strategically requires a far broughter tool kit and that is where we are in our like-minded allies and collective foreign assistance play the most crucial role. u.s. foreign assistance has produced great achievements over the last century to alleviate extreme poverty and respond to natural disasters and human emergencies. the return on investment in global influence and national security is enormous. the key now is investing our resources more wisely to leverage the full spectrum of u.s. and allies capability to defeat violent extremism and what gives it oxygen in the most vulnerable places on earth. it seems to me we must realign
our strategy to face today's threats the same day we calibrated to defeat the dark isms with organization such as the 1947 national security act and the 1986 goldwater nickels legislation. we need global development and a counter extremism campaign that is as sophisticated and passionate and resourced as any fight we have taken on in our history and designed and resourced as if the future depends on it because it does. i would submit that such a framework must be guided by four principles. one, the battle plan must recognize that stability in the 21st century is a complex eco-system. and integrated symphony of security, government and good governance rootsed in the rule of law. our foreign engagement and assistance programs should be sin thesed to cooperate the threeco efficients in concert. and two, we must integrate the
public and private sector. you could not substitute for economic growth and employment fueled by private-sector investment. three, many t must recognize -- it must recognize that the threats of lack of education, food and energy and water and secure to stability. lack of access to these resources is a major driver of poverty, conflict and extremism. that means everything we do, our diplomacy, practices and innovations must be promoting wise stewardship requires to sustain human well being. and four it must engage the whole interagency and the whole of society and our alliances to deliver security development and governance assistance that changes people's lives. in essence, these are the pillars of a refugee and state failure prevention strategy. they are the arsenal that will cause the lasting defeat of radicalism, maintain u.s. influence in a needy world and
assure the trial um of of our principals and values. in this century as it was in the last, it will require american leadership at its best. we can and we must and i believe we will rise to the extreme challenge as the opportunities in a young and hopeful century. with your approval, mr. chairman, i would like to submit three documents for the committee's consideration. one is an article from the atlantic council task ahead publication on modernizing global engagement. the second brief is a relevant ngo initiative on the topic and the third is a recently -- a recent speech i gave on water security. please except my deepest appreciation to the committee and my fellow witnesses for devotion for the cause of global security development and security. it is the mission of our time and it is a cause for the ages. thank you, sir. >> thank you, general. and i will recognize senator purdue is here. he was on our last trip to thank
you for coming, senator, purdue. mr. blinken. >> mr. chairman, as a want to be musician, i could only dream of one day opening for bono. so thank you and thank you to the ranking member for making that dream come true. it is not the verizon center, but i'll take it. [ laughter ] >> and thank you, more seriously, for having all of us here today. i would like to focus on my comments to counter violent extremism but i welcome any questions on the administration's response to what is a global refugee crisis. a little over a year ago i travelled to paff is shortly after the charlie hebdo attacks. our ambassador convened faith leaders and activists from across the city working to bring people closer together in the wake of the attack. one of them was an extraordinary woman, latiffa, a french moroccan muslim mother with a son named imad, he was a member
of the french army. he was stationed in 2012 near toulouse and there he was murdered alongside three brothers in harm arms, three children by a radicalized 23-year-old from france. soon after that, latiffa, his mother, traveled there to talked to those who knew her son's murderer. first as a shy boy who loved soccer or football and later as someone who racked up 15 charges for petty crimes and spent a year in jail for assault where he was radicalized. when latiffa returned home she started the youth association for peace. working in france at-risk community to promote inner faith dialogue and help families steer their children away from a path of violence, the path that resulted in her son's death. while it shows our capacity to find greater understanding even in the midst of tragedy, her son's death shows us extremism in the modern world and how hard
we resolve to defeat it. the united states has mobilized countries around the world to disrupt and defeat terrorist groups and individuals who threaten our security starting with daesh and al qaeda and including boko haram and others. and our strategy is making significant progress as detailed in my written statement which i submitted for the record. but even as we advance our record to defeat daesh in the front lines, we must stop the recruitment, the radicalization and the mobilization of people, especially young people, to engage in violent terrorist activities. since the president hosted a growing international cve movement through our diplomatic engagement and foreign assistance. we will power retooled counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism to try to lead this effort. the bureau will promote a more
strategic approach to counter violent skreexism and alongside engagement. in fc-17, the president budget requests that we build upon and expand are current cve efforts. we seek $186.7 million toward counter violent extremism. that includes $59 million for cve as a portion of the overall counter-terrorism partnership fund. the request also includes $21.5 million for the new global engagement center to try to counter daesh's narrative. additionally we've invested in programs to make communities more resilient against extremism. the resources would enable us to expand partnerships with national and local governments, and civil society and community leaders, the private sector and key countries to address the drivers of violent extremism which i'm happy to address when we get to questions. and these resources would allow us to implement effectively the first ever joint u.s. aid department strategy on preventing and countering violent extremism governed by
five core priorities and quickly they are first, to engage and amplify locally credible voices that could expose the true nature of violent extremism and the denial of human dignity. second, to increase support for innovative region country-based and mathematic research on the drivers of violent extremism and effective responses. third, to work more closely with our partners at the national and local levels around the world to actually adopt more affective poll tys to prevent the spread of violent extremism. fourth, to strengthen diplomatic efforts and local partnerships to address the political and social economic factors that put communities at risk in the first place and the general has alluded to some of those. and fifth and finally to strengthen the capability of our partners to prevent radicalization in prisons and reintergrated back into society wherever possible.
at the heart of our strategy is the principals for an unprecedented era of prosperity since world war ii. good governance and plural six and human rights and dignity. that commitment expends to those who flee violence around the world. when it comes to the refugee crisis more generally, our first priority is to safeguard the american people. but at the same time, we must and we will continue to provide refuge to the vulnerable which is a bedrock of our country for centuries. over the last several months we've heard hateful rhetoric in all corners of the world, including the united states, that has had demonized those fleeing persecution and violence and terrorism. our ultimate success is determined by our ability to hold fast to the values tra the terrorists oppose, our capacity for wisdom and campus. i returned to paris a month ago and met again with the same group i saw after the charlie
hebdo attacks. latiffa wasn't there and the reason was because she was in washington where secretary kerry announced her as one of the 2016 international women of courage award members. mr. chairman, members of the committee, many of you in this room have been vital leaders in counter extremism, through the foreign assistance appropriations. your leadership is helping to ensure that in their very aktss of terror, the violent terrorists are precipitating exactly what they hope to destroy, a world a little bit more closely bound together in defensive dignity, justice and peace. thank you very much. >> bono. >> um, right. thank you mr. chairman. thank you ranking member lea hea hee. thanks members of the committee. my name is bono and i'm the
founder of the "one" campaign and i've be told not to filibuster and i'm going to read this because that makes it faster. i've just returned from africa and the middle east where i was joined by the senator. and i visited kenya and jordan and with the team turkey and egypt. this visit revealed one fact and two fictions. the fact is that aid could no longer be seen as charity. a nice thing to do when we could afford it. if there is one thing i would like you to take away from this testimony, it is that aid in 2016 is not charity. it is national security. and when it is structured properly, with a hard focus on fighting corruption and proving governance to quality for that aid, it could be the best bull wart we have against the violent extremism gaining traction in
the laughant and the expelled. and what was revealed was number one this refugee problem is temporary. the typical crisis that creates refugees lasts 25 years. on our trip, senator graham and i heard the term permanent-tem porpary solution thrown around but without the irony that phrase requires. the second fiction is that it is a middle eastern problem. refugees are flowing from all over the world, especially africa, actually. of the top ten countries that hosting refugees today, five of them are african. in europe, the problem has moved from practical to existential. in 1989 the war that divided europe came down. a remarkable moment. who could imagine in 2016 another set of walls being built up. this time made of mesh and razor wire, but walls nevertheless.
members of the subcommittee, let me soberly suggest to you that the integration of europe, the very idea of european unity is at risk here. europe is america's most important ally since the second world war. are we not your most important ally in the fight against violent extremism. this should really matter to you. i know it does. put simply, as we europeans have learned, if the middle east watches fire, the flames jump any border controls and if africa fails, europe cannot succe succeed. it is not rocket science, it is math. here are the numbers. by 2050, the africa population will double to twice that of china. 40% of the world's youth will be african which excites me because i have a sense of who they are and want to be. of the one campaign, 7 million
members, 3 million are african. we have a sense of their potential as an engine of growth that can roar. but we also fear that if the young people of africa are misled and marginalized their anger could be channeled not to hope, but to hate. and choices start when we fast track our friendship or inviet new enemies. i know that you in this room believe deeply that freedom is more powerful than fear, that hope is more contagious than hate and i know you'll agree with when he when i say that sometimes hope needs a bit of help. well this is one of those times. you see, to defeat bad ideas, you need better ideas. but the good news is we have them. unch have great ideas on how humanitarian support could be provided better and help with jobs. they notice the mood of a camp changes if there is a class built for kids and despair in
the faces of workers not allowed access to the labor market. but i have to say to you, the international community, though it means well, is having a lot of meetings about the crisis and it is issuing a record number of press release but it is not cutting checks. as of last month, as you can say to here, the u.n. humanitarian response plans for 2016 had only received 9% of the funding they require. 9%. and grants are handed out annually, which is kind of on a hand-to-mouth basis with no predictability which makes it impossible for the agencies to plan, which is madness. it is absolute madness. another idea that i heard that might be of serious interest to this committee is to prioritize the support of the country's along the sahal and lavant are
not yet in crisis. this sounds counter intuitive. but the people i met, especially the military, said it is critical that these countries not only survive but that they thrive. imagine if the chaos that ripped through syria were to engulf egypt or, god forbid, nigeria. these are jieg antic countries. this is not melodrama. we know that people running from war will risk the most treacherous, doctors and teachers tieing children to their chest as they tie themselves to tin cans on the mediterranean sea for the promise of a better life. when you think of a exodus on that big of a scale you realize we better have some big ideas to meat the challenge. and we do. and i'm really encouraged to sit here and hear them come from a bipartisan committee. these countries need aid, but it is not just aid. commerce is urgent here.
new trade agreements are critical. concessional loans from the world bank are essential. dr. jim kim and the world bank are being innovative and so is gale smith who runs usaid. you should be proud. anti-corruption in our office and around the campaign will tell you that the reforms necessary to quality for the loans can be as important as the loans themself. the africa development bank has been out in front. the president understands that corruption kills more people than it aids tb and malaria combined so tackling corruption has to be part of this package. in fact, he was also one of the first leaders to call for a modern marshal plan as a partnership for progress. so what -- what might that mean? well, the marshall plan, as america knows, was the first time the world witnesses development and security on a grand scale. the marshall plan was an idea
big enough to meet the moment in history. it was an idea as big as the sacrifice americans made in the fight for freedom. and idea that shows america could win the war and the peace, as lindsey graham keeps reminding us, an idea big enough to change the world. an idea like the idea of america itself. you see, the peaceful europe that i gratefully grew up in, the one so under threat right now was born of the marshall plan. histories's greatest example of national generosity is national security which is what i'm talking about today. and i'm not alone. trade and development and security, that is what jim jones is talking about today and he's not alone. senator grain, not alone when he spoke to the washington post yesterday and the same thing. finance ministers of german, not known for his wild pronouncement, has announced this. king abdullah of jordan the
same, king abdullah is worth thinking about. because he is a leader who is also a military man. it is not a coincidence that he is a military man. because i think, i'm sure, military leaders, the great ones, know the cost of failure will ultimately be born by them, by the men and women they lead into battle and will have to face as they come home. this is a new century. these are new threats. this is politically very hard. i hope i understand the challenges, i hope i understand the pressures you face as leaders. but in truth i probably don't. but i'll tell you what i do understand. i understand that america is not ready to give up on its greatness and i'm not either. that is what got america to the moon, that is the spirit that brought mankind back to earth when you fought the largest health disaster, hiv/aids and
some on this committee thought aids couldn't be solved and since 1992 we have 9 million people that owe their lives to the u.s. taxpayer. if you are a u.s. taxpayer you are an aids activist. think about that. i'm here today to testify to the united states senate that i've seen the impossible made possible right here in these halls and we need that leadership again in this moment of great jeopardy. it is who you are, it is your essence and your calling. and when you serve history, you serve the people of america. and when you write history, we all live it. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, ranking member. members of the subcommittee. on behalf of the hi high commissioner and the u.n. refugee agency i'm pleased to speak before you on the global
refugee crisis and especially to bat clean-up for four heros. on a personal note, it is also a particular thrill to testify today with bono whose advocacy on the behalf of the world's poore poorest his early music helped to shape my high school years. and you have my testimony on record. and i will summarize as well. world attention has never been greater but displacement has been growing in recent years and of the 60 million uprooted people, some 20 million have crossed international border and are therefore refugees and the remaining $40 million are displaced within their own borders internally displaced persons. if the uprooted formed a single country, it would be the world's 24th largest. last year more than 42,000 people fled their homes every single day. and at the same time, the number of refugees who were able to
return home was at its lowest level in three decades. new conflicts emerged and the existing ones drag on with no solutions in sight. the hume and financial resources of unhcr and our partners are stretched like never before in order to response to new crises while continuing to adequately attend to those displaced for many years. it is important to note and in fact clarify that while refugee camps are a favored visual image for the media, most refugees are not in camps. rather, an estimated 63% of refugees globally and 90% of syrians do not live in camps. they live in towns and villages. mr. chairman, the humanitarian system at large is faced with a critical humanitarian and financial dilemma. the funds available for humanitarian aid are not keeping up with the rapidly expanding needs. unhcr continues to make very difficult choices.
our programs in africa for example are at a breaking point with only 35% of needs being met last year. beyond the funding challenges, we are witnessing today an unprecedented attack on the ability of uprooted individuals and families to find protection from harm. in some cases, particularly in industrialized countries, this attack takes the form of policies that prevent or discourage asylum seekers from accessing protection. in other cases we see closure of borders, making it nearly impossible for persons fleeing persecution and violence to find safety in neighboring countries. i was in serbia last month when the massa doania and other borders closed ending the route north leaving thousands trapped in countries unclear of their futures. not since the period preceding world war ii have we witnessed such popular rejection of the notion of protecting refugees. within this climate, it is all the more essential to ensure nondiscriminatory access to quality asylum and protection while taking legitimate steps to
ensure their own security, countries should not slam their borders shut to those who are themselves the victims of violence, persecution and often terrorism. and who have no other means of finding safety. as recent events have shown, such efforts could have the unintended consequence of supporting the business of smugglers and human traffickers. in contrast, efforts to identify quickly those persons in need of international protection, to address their needs are not only in line with international law, but also with the finest of humanitarian traditions. this approach recognizes that effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing goals. we look to the united states to uphold the long standing leadership role in international refugee protection, consistent with theoy deals on which this country was founded by continuing the example of welcoming those who are amongst the most persecuted and the most vulnerable in the world today. but amongst the challenges there
are hope. this week in washington, we'll support efforts by the world bank and partners to develop resources for countries hosting large number of refugees and in many cases are geographically on the front lines of the collective security. last week a gathering of donors and agencies agreed through the wilton park principals through a series of steps of countries hosting large numbers of refugees including the development of inno vative financing instructions. another effort in the un high level panel on humanitarian financing to agree on implementing actions of what we call the grand bargain. to improve the way humanitarian aid is mobilized and delivered, including hopefully multi-year plans. at the same time, unhcr is working with governments and other partners to find new and creative avenues for refugees to find temporary and permanent legal protection. we call on glosts to --
governments to flee legally and without putting themselves in harm's way. as i conclude my statement today. i leave you with three main messages. first, the traditional responses to force displacement including humanitarian aid and re-settlement need to be reinforced and complemented with alternatives that could be pursued now. in the absence of political solutions, we need robust humanitarian and development responses, particularly in refugee-hosting countries that are currently buckling under the strain. second, the current attacks on the refugee protection system fueled in part by an unjustified link between refugees and terrorists are often failed to recognize that refugees are the victims and not the perpetrators of violence and extremism. national security goals are in no way at odds with refugee protection and unhcr stands ready to help governments develop protection sensitive border management policies. and finally u.s. leadership. it is critical to maintaining global refugee protection.
americans care deeply about refugees. and the u.s. government translates this compassion into strong diplomatic and moral and financial engagement that enables the humanitarian community to care for millions of uprooted people in need. mr. chairman and members of the sub-committee, i will end with a thought from one of the many passionate unhcr team members working on the front lines on the islands of greece. she was commenting on a refugee who perished fleeing to europe and her sentiments reinforced the need for action. she said, she escaped bombs, she carried mountains and yet she died at europe's feet. let us carry her along the way. thank you for holding this hearing and for your ongoing interest in tackling fundamental issues and we stand ready to assist in any way possible. thank you. >> thank you all very, very much. general jones, i just returned from turkey, they are no longer
taking refugees from syria. are you aware of that? >> yes, sir, i am. >> mr. blankin, is jordan taking refugees from syria. >> as a practical matter, very few. >> what about alabama anon. >> it slowed down. they put requirements that as a practical matter make it difficult for people to get in. >> so the people in syria are trapped. there is no place to go. general jones what, is going to happen inside of syria with this dynamic military, people trapped with no place to go? >>. >> i don't have the crystal ball on that. i would say that nothing good is going to happen. i think the -- the humanitarian catastrophe that -- that the syrian situation port ends is one of the great unanswered questions in terms of the solution of our time. we -- we collectively with the
united states are providing the leadership, i think. i have to do a lot more to solve this problem. >> is it fair to say mr. blinken that jordan can't take any more refugees and turkey as you saw firsthand, mr. chairman, is extraordinary and if you equate it, for example, to the united states, if you look at lebanon, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population is now a syrian refugee, as if we took 50 million, 60 million people in the space of a few short years. the burden on their systems, on their infrastructure, on their economies is as you've seen dramatic so the challenge i think for us is to devise ways to help them in effect help refugees because the two problems that we have are that we are in effect pursues humanitarian emergency solutions to the refugee crisis on the one hand and development on the other. these two things need to come together because as you said, and as others have said, these countries are going to be facing these challenges for a long time.
we have to find ways to create what amounts to a win/win solution. that is the host communiti have to benefit along with the refugees. that's where we need to put our focus. >> bono, from your point of view, the whole marshall concept is to deal with that reality. people are in jordan, they're in lebanon, they're in turkey. many of them going to be there a long time. the whole approach is to leverage better outcomes and not help people with food, shelter, water and clothing but also deal with the reality you want to make these human beings assets where possible. what did you learn on this trip? what was the takeaway for you? >> singer should understand microphones. i think the egypt piece really disturbed me because i just saw the scale of this country and
it's vast, it's extraordinary, very sophisticated country, and you could feel trouble brewing and mechanisms that were put into place to -- to clamp down on islamists and jihadis were now clamping down on just anyone who criticized human rights people, christian ngos, numbers of people disappearing going up. and you could see, it's almost a mechanism going on its own momentum. and that worried me and i -- it was just way above my pay grade to figure out how you would turn people back. but i noticed that president sisi was very, very concerned about the economy, as he should be because it's on the slide. and i thought, well, you know, is there a way that we can make, you know, trade agreements and things like that conditional on
reform and human rights and things like that that would help him turn his country back from a precipice which we need him to do. >> excuse me. one thing we're not talking about is writing a check and walking away. >> to. >> we're talking about if you do "a" you can get a better deal trade-wise and "a" will counter extremism. if you do "b" you can get loans at a lower rate. that's the whole concept. i want the panel to see if you agree with this, that we're not just throwing money at a problem, we're trying to get better outcomes using some resources. is that the whole theory of the case here? >> yeah, i think it is. it's leverage. and i really think, you know, you can't underestimate the trade piece, can't underestimate the concessional loans piece and the effect of tackling corruption because as people have to reform to get those concessional loans they'll do
the painful work of reforming. it's only the stick and carrot we have. >> mrs. clements, what percentage of refugee assistance comes from the american taxpayer in terms of worldwide assistance? >> about 35% of our budget was supported last year by the united states government. >> you're asking us for more. are you going to ask other people for more? >> we are absolutely doing that. not only governments, obviously there are traditional ones that have been very generous. also private sector. unfortunately, thanks to the europe crisis i'm afraid, we rose $300 million from private sector supporters, but that helps to fund critical life-saving protection and assistance requirements for our agency and the many partners that we support and saves a whole lot of lives in the process. >> for the committee's information, i'm sure the members know this, this year we're going to be 30% below the
fy '16 number for international disaster assistance. we got problems here at home, but these numbers are real. what would it mean to you if we enact these cuts? >> it would be quite, nearly impossible for us to meet immediate needs. it's very difficult for us now. we were half funded last year. 50%. the united states does a tremendous amount to support. $1.3 billion last year. we need a lot more support because we got about $7 billion in requirements in 2016, alone. >> what if we restored the money with the condition that other people have to match what we do? >> it's hard to place conditions, mr. chairman, on support in saving lives so we could caution against that on humanitarian life-saving assistance. obviously pushing governments and others to give more absolutely needs to be on the table. >> okay. senator leahy?
>> thank you. mr. chairman. and i referenced bono earlier, your op-ed piece, and i read it and reread it, and the needs, emergency needs of syria and other refugees, countries in the middle east, north africa, i think a country like jordan which is so heavily saturated with refugees and you wonder what this does in the long-term effect on any country. there's no question we need money but we can't seem to pass emergency funding in this country to deal with the zika virus, which is spreading through our own country. or do some of the things we need here. i say this not because i'm opposed to foreign aid, you know my record very well in that regard.
these countries you talked to in europe, do they act as though they're willing to spend more money? i listened to what miss clements said and i know -- >> yes. in short, senator. europe hasn't mobilized at the level it needs to, but i think that's about to change. i mean, what i was trying to do, and i don't know if i can do it just by reading, is to dramatize the situation. i'm talking about an existential threat to europe the likes of which we haven't seen since the beginning of the '40s. and really and truly we're seeing in hungary and poland the movement to the right, it's kind of hyper nationalization, localization in
response to globalization, i guess. we're talking -- the uk is voting on leaving europe. this is unthinkable stuff. and you should be very nervous in america about it. and we see the leadership of chancellor merkel. i think she's an extraordinary leader on this crisis, and, but you see, she faces criticism in her own party. what the german people have shown the way here -- actually they've become the very heart of europe. that's brilliant. i think she deserves a peace prize or something like that. she's -- she's done extraordinary things. she's the -- there is gathering momentum. i spoke with david cameron about -- about gathering around stopping the refugee crisis. he's finding it very difficult politically to take in more refugees. i think that's a mistake for the uk.
i think all countries need to take in more refugees. my pink friends back here will back me up on that. is that right? and -- >> and i would hope there's a realization in those countries that millions, maybe tens of millions of these refugees, no matter what happens, are never going to go back home and that's going to have -- i mean, i think we have to do more than just money. we got to have the ability to work with these countries to help them absorb the refugees that are there and make a life worth living. we can't have just -- none of us have suggested refugee camps, they're going to be absorbed in there so you're going to have to invest in economies, you're going to invest in the institutions, educational, medical, everything else. >> but you don't want this to spread. that's really what i -- that's why i think we're all gathered here is there's -- it's so
complex to try and solve syria's problems. they had no help with the refugees. we just need to get them financed. but i'm asking this committee, what will we be asking you to finance if this spreads? if this chaos that's going along the region, and, you know, particularly which i understand a bit about because i spent a lot of time in africa, you see this phenomenon of three extremes. extreme ideology, extreme poverty and extreme climates. it's a parched earth. it's a geological phenomenon. it goes all the way to afghanistan if you want to look at it as a geological phenomenon. those three extremes make one unholy trinity of an enemy and our foreign policy needs to face in that direction. i know john kerry is. i know senator kerry is, but it's even bigger than you think.
so whilst we sit here and talk about, you know, getting cuts and where are we going to pay for it and god knows i'm in awe of you lawmakers, worked with dick durbin, worked with so many of you on, you know, on making the impossible possible. i don't know how you do it. but if you don't do it now, it's going to cost a lot more later. i do know that. >> but you're also going to have to deal with the people that are there. we have -- you talked about egypt. i'd like to ask secretary blinken, do you think the leadership, president el sisi and leadership are going to allow dissent, are they going to release political prisoners? i mean, some, nobody even knows where they are. is that going to change? i mean, we could -- we already have a lot of money in the pipeline for them. we could add more money, but are they going to change in any way?
>> it's a huge challenge, mr. ranking member. first, face acute security problems, real security problems including in sinai in terrorism, they're real, we need to be helping them. on the other hand, what we know very well is in the absence of creating space in their society for people to express their views to associate freely and to come together, they are going to sow the seeds of long-term instability. and even if it works in the short run, it's not likely to work in the long run so they have a profound self-interest in coming to the realization that creating space and opening up is actually the best path to dealing in a sustainable way with the challenges that they face. so we're works on that with them. we're deeply engaged in trying to move them in that direction, but i have to tell you, we're deeply concerned with the direction that we've seen egypt take if closing down that space, putting people in jail for expressing their views, civil
society being cracked down upon including many of the partners that we have in trying to implement some of the programs in egypt. >> always bring more questions. i'm agreeing with all you're saying, i just -- i am worried how -- so many times repression when the country is led to greater extremism which creates even more problems. so thank you for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. we'll work together on this. >> senator mccall. >> i heard you had to go, so we're going to -- >> is that okay? thank you very much, mr. chairman. yes, i'm going to an intelligence committee hearing exactly on violent extremism, exactly in the area we're talking about. i want to thank you for organizing this hearing, all the men and women at this table who devoted their lives to making the world a better place. it's particularly important, mr.
chairman, you also held this in the month of april. it was in april 2014 that 200 girls in nigeria going to school were kidnapped by boko haram. those girls have never been found. many of them are probably dead and some probably wished they were dead. and when i look at what we're talks about here, i am looking at the impact of really women and children, particularly children. according to you, commissioner clements, globally women and children continue to comprise 80% of the uprooted. with more than half being children. uprooted. what an incredible, incredible world. and we see what's happening to children around the world. not only in the region being discussed today, but i believe children are on the move and
they will constitute a tremendous threat in the future unless we show them humanity, compassion, and a way forward. right now, a little girl is shot in her head or a teenage girl because she wanted to go to school and read. she wins the nobel prize for it but she continues to talk about one book, one teacher, one kid. girls are being recruited in sexual slavery in the most despicable things. boys are being recruited as child soldiers and into gangs. they're moving not only in africa, but they're moving in central america. the gangs, the murder rates, et cetera. so unless we focus on the children, i believe we are going to ride the wind in the future. you've said, mr. blinken, that the perception of discrimination will turn somebody against you. we all remember who helped us or who helped our mother and father. we also remember who didn't help
us and didn't help our mother and father. so let me tell you where i'm getting because it is central america and so how are we going to really focus on this? because i would say right now the children of the world feel that they're hated. that they're rejected. that they're pushed aside. their mother and father is either being deported or they see the agony of their father who bribed his way to get to europe or the desperation of the mother trying to find bread for them. what are they going to think about? oh, coombaya? isn't the west great? don't we want to go for democratic principles and constitutional reform? we are sowing the seeds of hate in the seeds of desperation. so, mr. blinken, i'm saying to you, and then also to the high commissioner, what can we do to help? my own ngos in baltimore, say we have to advance the money before we get reimbursed.
money often goes to the u.n., i love the u.n., but it often is trickled town so, one, not only are we talking about new money here today, we're talking about money being used smartly. so, number one, are we really going to focus on the children? number two, are we going to get money out to the ngos who are truly the ones there where the money in donor countries where they are? >> thank you, senator. and i very much share your concern. we're at risk of creating a lost generation of children. we know what that means. first it means at the very least they will not have the skills and knowledge they need to become productive members of society, even the society that they become refugees in, or if they're able to return home. even worse -- that's the best-case scenario. even worse, we know that absent those skills, absent having an
education, they are much likely to become prey to crime, to violence, to early marriage, to sexual exploitation and, indeed, to extremism and terrorism. so what can we do about it? just focusing on the syria crisis, which is generating so much of the attention, although as you rightly point out, this is a global crisis and as kelly pointed out, it's truly global in nature. first, what can we do inside of syria, itself, to take away the drivers pushing people out? of course the number one driver is violence. there, of course, ending the civil war is job number one. secretary kerry is working on that eight days a week. as we know, it's incredibly difficult. even as we do that, working on cessation of hostilities, sustaining that. working on getting more humanitarian assistance in, that takes away some of the drivers. once people get to turkey, lebanon, jordan -- >> don't do that. i know all the concentric circles and so on. that's the problem. we end up going in circles. that's the big picture. right now, let's go to what i asked.
right now, there are these children either trying to get across the water with little life -- maybe a life vest on. they're in a raft. do they have a lifeline? what are you focusing to get the aid out while we're working on big-picture solutions? >> i would say very specifically, senator, the reason i mentioned circles, when you get to the countries of first asylum, turkey, lebanon, jordan, we know what is making people take that risky journey, put their lives in the hands of smugglers, on the high seas, jeopardize their lives. it's an absence of access to school and education for the kids and it's a lack of access to employment, to jobs for the parents. so a big focus of our effort is working with those three countries in particular to try and open up both access to schools and access to jobs. working closely with unhcr, unicef with that. partly it's a question of
resources, partly it's a question of the compacts we're talking about. for example, on the jobs front, it's awful hard if you're a politician in one of these countries so say, i'm going to give a job to a refugee even though you, my fellow citizen, don't have one. so we're looking for innovative solution r solutions to do that. the europeans are looking at creating greater access to their markets for products produced in special enterprise zones where refugees are employed. we're pushing these countries to give jobs to people in specific sectors where they're not competing with the local citizens. on the education front, we've been doubling and tripling our efforts in a number of way. one, we've been building schools, been building classrooms so there's capacity to actually educate these kids alongside the locals. we've been working to support double and triple shifts for teachers so they can educate syrian refugee kids in the evening, even as they education local children during the day. and we're working on things in the informal education sphere so that while people are not yet in a formal program, they can still be learning and get a credit. our government is working with all of those governments to get accreditation for informed
learning and doing this in partnership with unhcr, with unicef, and other organizations. >> my time's up. >> maybe very briefly on -- >> may miss clements also answer part? >> absolutely. >> very briefly, senator, on your question related to the issues related to education in particular, maybe just to note, because we talked in the last round of questions significantly about money, it isn't just about money. it's about policy changes we actually need from governments to make it possible for refugees to work, make it possible for freedom of movement, and make it possible for kids to be in school. whether or not those are national systems or even the ability for ngos and international organizations to provide reinforced assistance for education, you put your finger on it in terms of that being the key from our perspective. on the issues related to central america, thank you very much for raising it, it's a great concern to us, too. we see a looming refugee crisis on the horizon very much so with regard to unaccompanied children, with regard to women on the run.
these are issues that are of great concern and in terms of our ability to be able to support, we think we need a regional approach in terms of sharing responsibility. we need to increase reception capacity, we need to increase direct assistance to people very much in need. we also need the cooperation of those governments to help us do that. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator boozman? >> thankou, mr. chairman. general jones, in your testimony, you talk about the importance of public/private partnerships to advance our foreign policy priorities. this is certainly an issue that many of us have also extensively raised. not just for -- the logistic and technical expertise the private sector brings. i think the u.s. government has gotten better at creating these partnerships. i often hear from businesses, particularly small businesses, it can be incredibly difficult to partner with the government.
have you heard similar concerns, are there any particular recommendations you could offer that would accelerate and streamline the partnership process? >> thank you, senator. i think the american private sector is still the private sector that's one of the most admired around the world, and one of the ones that has really, frankly, almost since the marshall plan has had to develop itself on its own and i think the time is here for increased public and private sector partnership as an instrument of our foreign policy almost. i still do a fair amount of traveling around the world and i'm asked in developing countries, where are you? we have the chinese here, but where are the american companies? many times the answer is we can't operate here because --
because of corruption and so on and so forth. but i really believe that there are three pillars to our 21st century engagement. one is certainly security. and i think organizations like nato could do a lot more than they're doing. although i give them credit for their presence in afghanistan. the -- 25 years ago this year i participated in operation provide comfort in northern iraq which was a refugee operation. a humanitarian operation rescuing almost a million kurds from a human stampede caused by saddam hussein. and from that came the region that we now call kurdistan, but it was security. it was followed by economic development and also, thanks to the international organization's rule of law. those three things, it seems to me, are important. on the refugee problem, if you think the middle east is interesting now and a challenge,
you have the entire african continent that is ready to explode one way or the other. there will be 16 national elections in africa this year. most polls show that young africans are not looking to stay in africa. they want to go somewhere else because they don't believe they have any future. so that should motivate our european friends to join with us in this partnership. lastly, i'd just like to make a point that on threats that there is an established, growing nexus between organized crime and terrorism. organized crime and terrorism have figured out ways to cooperate together. you have extreme rise in illegal drugs, illegal traffic and illegal cigarettes. trafficking people. trafficking arms. and there's an unholy alliance there that provides the funding for much of the terrorist challenges that we face today. i do think, to answer your question, i do think a closer
working relationship on the foreign policy level between the public and the private sector can show the power of the american economic engine and stimulate recovery and avoid future conflict in many of these countries. >> you mentioned just now the presence of china in africa. bono mentioned it, i think earlier, as he was speaking. talk to us a little bit about that. talk to us about -- you had a good article in the atlantic council's task ahead. talk to us a little bit about their motives. talk to us if that's good for governance, all those kinds of things. >> yes, sir. the chinese, up until 1990, the united states was the number one trading nation on the african continent and we surrendered that, around the closing years in the last century. to china. china makes it very easy.
in many countries. they show up with not only a lot of money, but they show up with their own workforce. it's actually had an effect that i think is in africa is beginning to dawn on some of these countries that when the chinese actually engage in big projects, they do them but they do them with their own colonies of workers. for example, in algeria, they tied up a prison ship full of chinese prisoners to work on projects in algeria. the american way, the international way -- the european and american way -- and american companies do this regularly in africa, don't get much credit for it. at least the united states doesn't. the countries do. in addition to working in the region, they do things that are helpful.
electrifying villages, building roads, providing schools. and there's many, many examples of individual american companies on the continent of africa doing great things. sometimes with ngos, sometimes not. but mostly apart from our government. and what i'd like to see is i'd like to see a closer -- i'd like to see the united states get credit for that. these are american companies doing good things. but in order to do that, i think we need, you know, the secretary of commerce who's doing -- has done great work, i admire her greatly, but we need more of that connection around the national security council table to figure out how do we do that? how do we project that? we did the marshall plan once. it would be very hard to do today. something like that has to happen and it has to happen not only on a national scale but an international scale.
as i said, if the europeans aren't concerned, solve the syrian refugee problem, there's another one, another tsunami of refugees coming right behind it if we don't prevent it. >> thank you. bono, i want to thank you. you know, one of the great problems that we have is that there's lots of people throughout the world but there's not much constituency for them. you know, lots of people verbalize this and that, but as far as the constituency, we have that problem in our country and we're-- yeah, we're tremendously benevolent and are certainly doing our share, but i'm always impressed with your young people that come from arkansas or wherever i visit with them. they're knowledgeable, they're passionate just like you are and it really does make a difference. and so that's a big deal. so, thank you very much. >> yeah. thank you. the -- i'm stunned as well, and people say that america is ready to sort of close in on itself, but america becomes america when it looks outward. you know, when you're a continent behaving like an
island, you're not america. it's not who you are. i think waking up across the nation, actually, in these very cantankerous times politically, there is people actually think, well, this is one thing we can agree on, and that's why i'm proud of the one campaign. in fact, one of the reasons i got interested in this refugee crisis is because all the great work that's been done by a lot of people on this committee, a lot of people in america, in the fight against extreme poverty over the last ten years could be undone. we worked together, senator durbin, we worked on debt cancelation, with senator leahy, we worked -- with lindsey graham. i mean, i've got to know -- david perdue, there's senator perdue. we were traveling around. i'm thinking, who's the republican, who's the democrat? and of course they're talking on other subjects, very easy to find that. but on this stuff, this is like
the one thing you all agree on. and it brings out the best in you. i'm sure of that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, all, very much for being here today and for testifying. i certainly agree with all of the comments about the importance of aid. it is about our security and the impact of what's happening in europe affecting us in the united states because we do have trans-atlantic alliance that has been absolutely critical to world order. we had a hearing this morning in the foreign relations committee on isis and international terrorism. and one of the conclusions that i drew listening to the testimony and our witnesses generally agreed with this is that we've been good in the united states when it comes to military efforts. so we were successful in afghanistan in throwing out the
taliban initially. we were successful in iraq and our military efforts. we've been working to try and take back territory from isil that has been successful. but we have been -- and we've been successful in efforts to support refugees and camps and to make sure that aid gets there. but we've been less successful when it comes to governance, what many people call nation building. economic and social implications and the ability to improve governance in countries that are failing. i would like to ask if you all agree with that and the extent to which you see the need to address that as being critical to countering violent extremism and, therefore, how do we do better with what we've been doing in the past? because so far we haven't been as successful if those areas as
i think we need to be if we're going to address the concerns that we're all talking about today in terms of countering violent extremism. and i don't know, i see you blinking -- you're nodding, mr. blinken. would you like to respond to that first? you can blink, too. >> i'm the nods, he's the blink. >> no, i think you're right on the mark, senator. this -- the challenge of actually moving from -- the case of say, iraq, or syria, from liberating territory to then stabilizing it, but then not just stabilizing it, helping people rebuild. then not just rebuilding, actually finding a sustainable political accommodation. that's where the challenge really comes in. i think you have to look at each country in its particulars, but unless we're ability to get at some of these underlying issues even when we succeed, as we
always do, militarily it won't be sustainable, so that is very much part of the challenge. what we're trying to focus on, for example, in dealing with programs to counter violence extremism, working with national governments, with local governments, with community leaders, with municipalities, bringing, for example, mayors together to talk about how they're dealing with the challenge in their own communities. we're taking these programs, we're also trying to apply metrics and evaluation to them to figure out what actually works and what doesn't and when it doesn't work to change it. let me give you one quick example. we just stood up the global engagement center, which is our effort to -- >> i want to ask you about that. >> so maybe just to jump into that. one of the critical pieces of the effort against daesh is to counter the narrative that's attracting young people to its cause. and we were not satisfied with the effort that we had -- that we had going.
we brought in a team of experts, technology experts, from silicon valley and other places, a so-called sprint team in the jargon of silicon valley. they spent a month with us and looked at what we were doing and made recommendations and as a result of the recommendations, we reformed what we were doing and that led to the global engagement center. in a nutshell, what we're doing less now is direct messaging in the voice of united states because we found that wasn't so effective. we weren't the best messenger in this space. what we are doing, instead, is trying to identify, elevate, and build the capacity of local, credible voices. second, instead of playing this whack-a-mole game where they'd put something up on social media, we'd immediately try to counter it. we've worked on doing it much more thematically, so, for example, very successfully, we found the testimonies of defectors from isil or from daesh and put those together in
a way that's incredibly effective. what it says to people, what you think you're signing up for is not the reality and they have much more credibility saying than saying it ourselves. so in many ways we stood up this effort. it was based on trial and error but based on figuring out what works, what doesn't work and we're determined to do that across the board. >> can i add something to that which is a little bizarre, just coming from -- from observing this culture and how elusive maleness is. we forget how elusive maleness it is in a world where materialism decides your -- if you have no access to material things, you exaggerate your manliness. i think we have to think about men and think about that. and it's funny, you're going -- don't laugh, but i think comedy should be deployed because if you look at national socialism and daesh and isil, this is the
same thing. we've seen this before. we've seen this before. very vain, they've got all the signs up there. really, it's a show business. and the first people that -- that adolf hitler threw out of germany were the dataists and surrealists. you speak violence, you speak their language, but you laugh at them when they're goose stepping down the street and it takes away their power. so i'm suggesting that the senate send in amy schumer and chris rock and sacha baron cohen. thank you. >> actually that's not the first time i've heard experts on how do we counter violent extremism talk about that. >> i'm actually serious. not a bad thing. >> no, and it is one of the things i know we're looking at but it also speaks to the importance of empowering women
around the world and focusing on human rights for women and children and making sure that they -- we have the same focus on what's happening with them in particularly countries that where we're seeing violent extremism the most are countries where women have not historically been empowered and it makes it even more -- a critical need for foreign policy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> wanted to -- >> senator shaheen, if i could just add a little bit to that. generally the practice that we followed over there, many, many years, has been one of reacting to bad things. i would -- i would suggest that in the years ahead being proactive has a skill set all to itself in terms of what you could do.
first of all, for example, on the security measure, if you -- you can't do everything everywhere, but let's -- let's suggest a failing state in africa the size of nigeria, for example, and what that would cause. or a failing state like the congo or pick any other large country. so the question is, if you're worried about it now, isn't it cheaper and more effective to engage now proactively to fix what needs to be fixed? whether it's security, whether it's -- and by security i don't mean -- i don't mean american forces or nato forces going in to fight a war. i mean to go in and help people learn how to defend themselves and in some cases you can stitch together entire regions of several countries that would benefit from that kind of training. and while you're doing that, you
can encourage the private sector to go in and start showing people how the lives are better in a capitalist system, a free market system, that education, distance learning, all of these things. so the problem is that we tend to do one very well and in the case of afghanistan and iraq, there was no real plan to nation build, and i think that's the missing link. if you're going to do one, be prepared to do, you know, the other things that have to be there, but it's much cheaper to be proactive than to be reactive. that i'm very sure. >> you know, i totally agree with that. i think we haven't yet, however, aligned the priorities in our spending in a way that supports that. look at how much we spend for humanitarian aid, for usaid, for diplomatic efforts and compare that to what we're spending on the military side and, you know, there's a huge disparity and so we've got to begin to realign
our priorities so that we're focusing more on prevention than we are on reacting to the situation. >> we have the benefit of unified -- unified geographic commanders in most of the major regions of the world and i think that with a little bit of tweaking in the right direction, that is not just security but economic development, rule of law, that i think you have forward bases already in regions, and i think that would be a good way to engage proactively to prevent future conflicts. >> thank you. thank you -- >> senator daines? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a great panel today. thank you for being here. americans are the most generous people in the world when it comes to humanitarian aid and contributing to relief efforts that span the globe. at the same time, this panel today, my fellow colleagues, are weighing how best to contribute government resources for the needs are overwhelming.
how do we counter terrorism -- how do we provide humanitarian relief, how can we be most effective on behalf of the american taxpayer? i'm going to start with general jones, first of all. i want to tell you, thank you for your service to our country. as a son of a marine, myself, i got raised right. thanks for what you've done for our nation. i want to begin with a question for you, general. this past weekend in the philippines, at least 18 filipino soldiers were killed fighting with an isis linked organization in the southern part of the country. clearly indicative the threat the islamic state and terrorist groups posed not only to the middle east but the asian pacific and the entire world. the u.s. special forces use strict operations doctrine by embedding with local forces and builds strong partnerships as they battle these terrorist organizations on a special task force with the philippines following 9/11. we're starting to see the u.s. take this approach in operation inherent resolve.
my question for you, somebody who has a lot of experience, do you feel this tactic is an effective way to counter violent extremism? >> the critical ingredient, i think, that you need to have is that wherever we engage that the people of that country and the government of that particular country have to want what we're offering. i think imposing what our values are and what our goals are is the wrong road to tradition usually. so, you know, in the philippines where i've spent quite a few years, the problem has been with us for a long time and the three or four extremist groups that exist there. what worries me is that if i understand it correctly, there's an effort at appeasement of this
violent extremiist groups, and personally i'm opposed to that because that just gives them an accurate point from which they will expand their base of operations. so i'm a little bit removed. a lot of it depends on the will of the people. >> secretary blinken, notwithstanding national disasters and unforeseeable contingencies, the goal of foreign aid is to assist countries and get them to attain humanitarian conditions in which aid is no longer required. as you look at your longer term goals, as you look at the investment we make in aid, what are measurable benchmarks that
might indicate if a country is effectively utilizing u.s. assistance to improve governance, combat terrorism, and what, if any country, you can maybe pull out that can be viewed as a model of success? sorry. >> briefly on the previous question, i agree with general jones on the point he made, and we're trying to work with, by and through partners to build their capacity but with them along the way. you're exactly right that ultimately success for the foreign assistance business is to get out of that business. we want countries to actually get on their own feet to be able to be effective and to provide for their own citizens and, indeed, ideally we'd like to channel as much as possible to the private sector. and have it work that way. but in the near term, as we look at these programs, what we are trying to do is develop clear measures and metrics of effectiveness. and just to give you one example, in the violent
extremism space, trying to counter that, on the one hand, it's a little tough to measure how many people didn't become radicalized. in a way that's unknowable. but what we are trying to do is, first of all, have some consistency across the programs, second, we're making sure that we have third parties come in and evaluate what we're doing to see if the goals of the particular programs are actually being met. and in particular, we're trying to look at when we provide assistance or we transfer knowledge to a recipient, how are they actually uses that? and is it making a difference? >> senator blinken, if you look at the landscape, which country, if you had to kind of stack rank -- i realize perfection is never going to be attainable, but certainly there's better outcomes than others. what country stands out perhaps as a model that says this has been a model of success? >> i think you have to look at different particular areas. obviously there are countries in
the past beneficiaries of our assistance in one form or another that are now leading countries around the world. few you go no further than south korea, for example. >> that's a good example. >> but in the present -- in the present day, i think it varies very much program to program, sector to sector. it would be hard to rank order i think countries across the board. we've seen, for example, jordan use some of the assistance we provided effectively to start to make important macroeconomic changes. that's the kind of thing we're looking for. we've seen other countries that have not made those kind of changes. >> in the time of -- bono, a question, talk about the syrian humanitarian crisis earlier and this potential lost generation of children as refugee camps turn into long durations, perhaps even much of a lifetime. from your perspective, what would you say is the most effective way if you were to tell this committee where we can invest american taxpayer dollars to ensure that we don't lose a generation of these syrian children? >> in short, listen to miss
kelly clements. i think they're doing a spectacular job. i'm glad to hear you think about that and i -- because, you know, i've witnessed, i've talked to those families. you get to know them. you go in, of course, they're refugees, you come out, you got to know them. syrians, i will tell you, though, are particularly industrious. i would never underestimate them. they're definitely worth the investment. i was lucky, fortunate to be a friend of steve jobs. there's a syrian. he was a son of a syrian migrant, and, you know, he had that industriousness. and as a funny story, in the camp, there was the dutch people were giving 600 bicycles out to the camp and within, i think within minutes, they had set up a bicycle repair shop to deal
with the bikes and when the bikes arrived, they had the delivery service for pizza before they had the pizza place. so these are the best people in the world. they're extraordinary people. and they'd be so moved to hear you talk about them today. >> thank you. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman graham, and thank you for the chance to have this hearing and to work with you on this important issue. to general jones, great to see you again. i think our last conversation was in rwanda, and i'm pleased to see you continuing to pursue the same line of analysis that deputy secretary blinken, thank you for your decades of service to our nation at the highest levels, and, bono, great to be with you again, and deputy commissioner clements and thank you for your pointed and constructive proposals. one of my own hardest days as a senator was at a refugee camp in jordan, seeing both the enormous challenges and the real potential of a refugee camp filled with thousands of syrians of all ages and backgrounds and a mentor, to me, tony lake, who now runs unicef, who was a
-- general, in your written testimony you have a call to arms. i quote, we need a global development plan that is as sophisticated, serious and passionate as any in our history designed and resourced as if the future depends on it because it does. >> that's right. >> with the sometime remaining i would be grateful if each of you were to speak to if congress
were to embark on a large scale plan for foreign assistance that combined all of these elements, real investment in human development alongside humanitarian relief, partnership with our allies in a sustained way to prevent fragile states from becoming failed states, what would it look like? what conditions would you put on our aid? how would you decide which countries would come into that attention of care and those out of it. how would we tell the american people how long the goals would last and what our goals are? general, i would wonder what role u.n. peacekeeping plays and bono, i'd wonder what mass culture plays and deputy secretary blinken, how far down the road are we in delivering and deputy commissioner, of course, how you see the plight and role of refugees being at the center of this. think big and tell us how you
would think about it. i'll try to be very brief. i am of the opinion that in order to deal with the challenges and threats that face us and man kind really, that we have to approach it a little bit differently. when i was national security advisor we had to work on the more whole less stick groups to deal with debts. energy security, food security, water security, of course, the general definition of century that we had worked on. in the world we face today, people have choices and people know a lot more and people in the disadvantaged developing countries have access to information that shows them that
they don't have to live like this. and the battle is on between extremist ideologies who say the reason you're not doing better is because of these guys and generally they point to us. i'm very optimistic if we can put together a strategic concept for how each administration deals with these kinds of problems more holistically to include the private sector and the public sector working together, to advance the idea that america doesn't have to do this alone. what we -- what we can do, i think better than anybody, is certainly provide assets and resources but also provide an organizing principle around which other countries would follow. and the north atlantic treaty organization is a good example,
i think, of an international organization of 28 countries that has a fantastic history but what is its future? and if we can't -- if we can't lead that organization into the 21st century by being proactive, strategic in our thinking which saves money in the long term, then i think we have a difficult time. so leadership -- u.s. leadership, i think, and organizing principles to do these things, to bring international public and private sectors together. to help countries that are on the fringe of going one way or the other in terms of democracy, and whose people know exactly what they're missing and will not hesitate to move by tens of thousands across the mediterranean from africa to europe if they don't see hope for the culture. so it's agriculture, it's food, it's water, it's physical
security, but it has to be -- and it's using organizations like the u.n., obviously, ngos. we have to find the table where everybody can sit together and plan this. it's not as expensive as it looks. what's expensive is when you have to go through another iraq or afghanistan or libya without a complete tool kit that says, okay, you defeated -- we got security, now what? >> thank you. >> the now what is what's been missing. >> thank you, general. mr. chairman, may other members of the panel respond or -- >> sure. >> i'm beyond my time. >> secretary blinken, briefly if you might, what countries are in, what countries are out? >> first i'd very much describe what general jones said. second, in terms of the countries that are in, the countries that are out, we have to do an assessment which countries are most at risk, which countries matter in terms of our own interests and
security, and which ones are willing to be partners and to make the changes necessary. conditions you mentioned. we want to make sure that, in fact, what we're trying to do is really leverage our assistance in different ways. first, leverage it so that the countries in question that receive it actually make the changes that we think are the right ones to make in terms of having sustainable outcomes in the areas general jones just talked about. second, leverage our assistance get other countries to put in as well and one of the things we're trying to do, for example, on the refugee crisis, president obama convened a summit meeting on the margins of the u.n. general assembly. one of the goals of the summit meeting is to increase the assistance provided around the world by 30% to the global refugee crisis so to take part in the summit, to be at the table is to do more so we can do that, too. third, i think even as we're thinking about assistance and designing such a program, we also just have to be looking at innovative solution that are not
necessarily driven by money, so, for example, we were talking earlier in the refugee crisis, we need to be doing things like ending this divide between the way we provide humanitarian assistance and do development aid. these things need to be married together in the way we budget, think about problems and the way we invest in them. second, we were talking about providing concessional loans to middle income countries that don't qualify for them but could use them. the jordans and lebanons. third, creating free enterprise zones. if countries participate, the products get preferential treatment and the people may be refugees. ideas are what we can use. >> tremendous job. bono, you've done enormous work. how would we do the same in the
unique challenge? >> i am going home having not been asked that question. to hear you debating sem tore gram as one of the great things, an extraordinarily place on the globe and hear your passion on these subjects. i'm not sure exactly what the marshall plan looks like. i liked that three tiered approach. i can speak better about this. i know it better than the event that you all wish to go. africa is really rich not just in its resources but in its people. it's extraordinary. and i think it would be an amazing partner for us going forward. i just think for trade, for commerce. remember, the marshall plan did
great for the u.s. he's thinking about -- at the time people are saying, we can't afford it, we can't afford it. the '50s and and finding corruption, tackling corruption. the africans are leading this. but you make it easier when you make these packages conditional on that kind of fund. that's what they want. finance ministers say to me all the time on debt cancellation that you know, the really key piece of that, bono, was having our debts canceled. we had to reform. i think it's a fantastic thing to arrive in the region, these difficult regions. you can advise them to reform or say, look, here is what happens when you do. here is the club.
you want to be in this club? because it's a great club. that's the way i'm seeing it. just to end, just to say, we need an america that is strong, like the general describes, but also an america that is smart. you are strong and smart when you talk like this. i'm just amazed. i'm actually gobsmacked listening to you all today. i'm sort of having to pinch myself. i'm going, wow, people really get this thing and they're talking about, you know, asking the american people to go further. and that hurts you politically. but that's real leadership, isn't it, when you do the right thing and it costs you? >> thank you. >> it's really easy to come after these three gentlemen because obviously, the concepts are inspirational, but also very concrete.
just a couple things to add. we talk about this arc of crisis from southwest asia, middle east through the horn of africa and the lake chad basin. in terms of that being the stretch of where people are being disrooted, that is where to focus on a so-called marshall plan redux. second, don't forget the political. it's tremendously important. we're talking a lot about humanitarian development. we're talking about failed states, governance issues and so on. obviously, all that's important. if we can get the -- when we do have those crises solved, it would make a tremendous difference. syria, iraq, and somalia. those three crises alone are responsible for almost half of the uprooted people we were talking about earlier. that needs to be part of the overall equation. i couldn't agree more in terms of marrying the humanitarian development approaches in a real concrete way. we have a moment now that we haven't had in decades in terms of political attention. including of this subcommittee. thank you. >> i would like to thank senator
leahy and senator graham for your tremendous leadership of the subcommittee and the entire panel for what you have done to raise our eyes to challenge us to confront this moment of opportunity and difficulty for millions around the world. thank you. >> senator? >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i appreciate your testimony very much. and general jones and bono, it's great to connect with you all again. senator coons led a delegation and we were able to meet in rwanda and to be in the field discussing the challenges is a wonderful complement to being here in washington, d.c. and discussing the challenges. he mercy corps is an organization headquartered in my home state of oregon. and i connected with them about what they would recommend in terms of countering violent extremism. and i'll just share with you all the points we made. they said in siloed single sector program and support multisector multiyear programs to create systems within which youth can thrive. second, target the most vulnerable youth.
be vigilant about ensuring you don't simply reach privileged youth in urban centers. third, shape the future cv-e countering violent extremist strategies through an it railtive social analysis of the factors that drive you to support violence. and fourth increase investments in two track governance programs to connect youth voices with meaningful reforms on issues of corruption, predatory justice systems and exclusive governance structures. i just wanted to mention those and see if you all would find those things to fit with your own experience or if you'd like to take issue with them. anyone. yes. thank you. >> thank you. maybe i can just start, this time in terms of obviously mercy corps's a tremendous partner of unhcr and others and does tremendous work around the world. one thing to mention, it's the issue of integration. nothing can be more powerful in
terms of averting radicalization and preventing violent extremism is to having hosts and refugees side by side and friends, neighbors, et cetera. i have to say in terms of the u.s. being a leader on refugee resettlement, one of the reasons it has been successful historically, we see the same thing in the north in canada, there's a real integration. in terms of preventing that extremism, welcoming people into the community is the first and strongest step. thanks. >> thank you. anyone else? yes. deputy secretary blinken. >> i think the points mercy corps makes are on the money and in fact consistent with the way we're looking at the problem. in particular, i think exactly as they said, the multisector programming is important. we have to have these inner connects and that's what we are trying to do. for example, in trying to bring together what we are doing on counterterrorism with what we're doing on countering violent extremism, that is, what we're
doing before the problem becomes a problem and then what we're doing afterward, we can actually create much greater coordination of efforts. so for example, if you're training a law enforcement organization to deal with terrorism but you're also helping it understand what the drivers are of terrorism, it may be able to be more effective in getting at the problem before it starts. bringing these things together is vitally important. second, i think they're exactly right about targeting the most vulnerable. and indeed we're trying to think about our assistance programs and the work that we're doing focused on the communities most susceptible to creating or having people in their midst become radicalized. and it goes as far as our exchange programs, for example, to make sure that people we're bringing over represent those communities and benefit from the work that we're doing. then, exactly right as well, we need to be elevating their
voices, not so much ours, but their voices because ultimately, the most effective messengers, people who have the most credibility are people who are speaking to their own. so that fits in very much with what we're trying to do. >> thank you. i was particularly struck with the emphasis on the rigorous iterative analysis because we have to continuously test different strategies and see what's working and what's working in one part of the world may be very different than what's working elsewhere. bono, i join my colleagues and thank you so much for the work of the one campaign and the red. my daughter is enjoying interning with your organization and is moved by the mission as so many americans are. you mentioned a number of things i want to particularly stress. first, aid is not charity, it is national security. so often i have asked my colleagues, if we had another dollar, would we do more security in the world through these type of programs than
we do through procuring another weapon, if you will? and i think that the balance still is too much on the weapon and force side and not enough on this side. and certainly that ties in with the notion that i think the way you put it was it's more cost effective to invest in stability today than to address crises lat later. you also noted that it's important to connect, if you will, humanitarian aid and development efforts. and i think that's an immediate short-term and longer-term strategy. would you like to just expand on that perhaps? >> yeah, sure. just on the military piece. the extraordinary thing about general jones is ten years ago he was talking about the reimagining of the military.
i went to the atlantic. is that what it's called? the big military gathering. yeah, atlantic council. and there were all these ph.d.s standing up and they're all generals. and i was like, they're so cerebral and so philosophical. and you realize that the military's ahead of the politicians on this one. they really understand what has to be done. i'm amazed by that. in an asymmetrical conflict you just can't use the old strategies. and there is new weapons needed. and sometimes those weapons are education. you know, fighting disease. and it's really cheap. and i remember with the aids stuff that we did, i remember remember telling president bush, paint those anti-retroviral drugs red, white, and blue, mr. president because they're the best advertisement for america we'll ever see.
he was laughing. except now when he arrives in africa everyone's applauding the dude. america polls very well. it's amazing. so then on the long term versus the short term, the humanitarian aid and the long term develop, they are coming together now. you can't care about development and poverty and not care about conflict because 50% of the core poor come out of fragile, conflict-prone areas. i'm learning from kelly and she's learning from other people smarter than me. but it is coming together. it used to be two separate silos. i'm glad it's coming together. it wasn't your question, but because we were in rwanda together, i think rwanda is an example of a country that came
out of conflict that took our investment in aid and actually has done quite an incredible job. i know it's frustrating for some of us that president kigali went for a third term. he's absolutely convicted and his security of his country was right, he was doing it for the security of his country. but aside from that, he's doing a spectacular job and he is an example i think of how to do this right. >> one of the things that tremendously struck me there was the government's emphasis on no longer talking and identifying as tribal entities but as rwandans. yet it's a fragile moment still. and one of the concerns he expressed was that campaigns will cause people to immediately either directly or indirectly reach back out to their tribal roots and the memories are so
painful. it's a situation we are a hard time fully comprehending, given what passed in rwanda. i'll just close with noting i appreciate the emphasis on corruption. there's been mention of the global anti-corruption summit in london and that the u.s. will back an ambitious set of proposals. i would love to hear more about it, but i am out of time. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, chairman, for this hearing and thank you for your suggestion on the marshall plan. at the risk of ruining your political reputation, i respect it very much. >> just keep it to yourself. >> thanks to this panel. history tells us that world war ii was a learning experience for the united states. we were not open to refugees. we turned them away. the refugees from europe. refugees, jewish refugees coming in trying to escape the holocaust. after the war, we tried to change that policy and point in a new direction.
for the most part, we have done it. now, we are faced with the humanitarian crisis of our time, the refugee crisis of our time, coming out of syria and afghanistan and so many other places. bono, i can remember the first time we sat down to talk was about hiv/aids. and i remember my first reaction, the reaction of most to this issue in this crisis was fear. what does this mean? am i going to die? how many people are going to die? is there any way to stop it? the reaction to the refugee crisis, fear. how many people are coming? are they going to threaten us? it's not unusual for us to face new challenges with the first reaction in fear. i hope that we have, we certainly have grown out of it when it comes to hiv/aids. we are more knowledgeable and thoughtful and know what we can achieve. will we get back on the right track when it comes to refugees? we have to get beyond this pause thinking around here and get
back to the reality of a lot of deserving people. i was on the island of lesbos, and i saw them coming in on these leaky rubber plastic boats with little babies with water wings we thut put on them with wading pools. that's all they had to protect them as they came across the straits. and i thought how desperate these people must be to risk their lives and the lives of their children to bring only what they can carry. and i guess my question comes down to this. it's more of a general question. i think the genuine concern in europe and other places is about the uncertainty of when this is going to end. is there going to be an end to this flow of refugees? is there a finite number in terms of absorbing into germany and sweden? how many? the uncertainty of that is certainly understandable because as you have said, speaking of your experience in africa, this is not confined to the middle
east. and, i remember when an ambassador from italy told us, syrians rank third in the country sending refugees into italy. two first are coming out of africa. so my question to you is this. if this humanitarian crisis is not abnormal but the new normal in our world, where people are living longer because of public health, surviving, where we see as you ticked it off the extreme ideology, extreme poverty, extreme climate, can we engage our friends of the world of like mind to make investments to allow these people to stay in place rather than to strike out in desperation to find some refuge, some opportunity? >> yeah, it's a giant challenge. it's kind of a very american one. and i think if you get your best
and brightest focused on it, you know, as i'm listening to you today, you can see that we're going to get somewhere. in the private sector, there's mark zuckerberg trying to bring access to the internet. to people who can't afford it. i have had conversation with larry page at google. elon musk. lots of people. your tech people. they are determined. incredible parts of your society, bill gates. we can do anything in the one campaign or indeed red with bill and melinda gates. warren buffett. it's the whole country that is showing the way, not just the public sector, it's the private sector. it's going to do it. you can do it. strangely enough, they have done studies on bringing the internet to developing countries and it's transformative. that's one thing.
electricity. you know, your innovations in solar. it's incredible. the president has an initiative to bring power to africa. it's really good. these are transformative. the only thing i worry about and i'm really guilty of this, is i'm great at raising the alarm. and there's a serious crisis. and we really need to attend to it. but i don't want to drag down the vision of this as away from what it could be. because it could be your greatest chapter. you were talking about china, ceding influence to china. in 50 years' time, i will tell you this, in 50 years' time if the united states walks away from the continent of africa, i'm speaking about, and just cedes all that influence to china, it will be seen as the worst foreign policy mistake of the start of the 21st century.
it's that big. and why would you? these are people, they love you. they want -- they're entrepreneurs. they're smart. they're coming to your universities. and great that china's competing with that too. and i hope to see china -- i'd like to see -- i think president xi, one thing about him is he's very, very big on tackling corruption both in china and now to see that in africa. and if he starts to tackle corruption in africa, it would be transformative. i'm not sure he's watching c-span at the minute. but i'd love to have that conversation. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for this hearing. thank you all. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much. just to wrap it up, a couple observations, we are trying to be proactive. the whole goal of this hearing is to focus on the problem. it's going to get worse if somebody doesn't deal with it now. it's better to invest now or you're going to pay later. losing jordan would be -- i don't think that's going to
happen. but we've got to get a grip on this refugee crisis. it's not just providing food, shelter and clothing. it's finding a way to integrate them into the countries over there so they don't come here. it is designed to undercut radical extremism, which is a hopeful life versus a glorious death. ten years ago when you first tackled the aids crisis, no one could have imagined in their wildest dreams how successful it has been and we have a ways to go. but i can tell you, mother to child aids transmission has been reduced by 75%. there are five countries inside the 20 yard line that can be self-sufficient when it comes to dealing with aids. south africa leading the charge. millions of people alive today because what we did ten years ago. to the american people, if i thought there was a way to do this differently, i would choose it. i don't want soldiers to go over there unless they have to go. and i can't find a way, general jones, to provide security over
there without some of us being there helping in that endeavor. i cannot find a way in my own mind to deal with countering violent extremism without some kind of international plan which we'll be a part to change the economies of these reasons to give people hope. the more education a child has, the better off we'll do. i'll end on a positive note. after 37 visits to iraq and afghanistan, i can assure the american people that they're not buying what these crazy people are selling. they don't want to go down that road. they don't want to turn their daughters over to isil. they being the mothers and fathers. i can promise you, you are safer here when we're helping people over there. and this whole concept of coming up with a marshall plan for the 21st century, call it what you like, is long overdue. we spent a lot of money. the most important thing we've done is spend 6,000 plus lives. and thousands of people have had their lives disrupted, legs blown off, traumatic brain injury.
i can go on and on and on. i would like to make the next ten years more successful. the only way i know to do that is to have something outside the military solution that complements security once you achieve it. because once you achieve security you will lose it if we do not do the things we talked about. thank you all. and senator leahy, if you want to say anything, we'll wrap it up. >> no. at the risk of damaging your career back home, i agree with you. all four of the people here are people we've known for a long, long time. >> you made an enormous difference today. you will look back on this hearing, i hope, and say that's when it began to change. senator graham and i, we have to bring members of both parties together to vote for this bill the way the public is, why are we giving 25% of our budget for nato. of course it's a fraction of 1%.
and the return, you know, pay for it now or pay many, many, many, many times more later on. what you've given us is a lot of ammunition to work with both republicans and democrats i think. >> thank you. yes, sir. i ask that the testimony submitted by today's witnesses as well as u.s.a.i.d., the united states institute of peace be included in the record. any questions for the record can be submitted until friday april the 15th. the hearing is adjourned.
>> -- and we were at the senate, that would really help. >> i'll tell my nephew and niece i saw you. i saw bono. >> thank you for your kindness and being so kind to the amateur. no, really good. >> you were great. >> how do you speak like that? >> how do you sing like that? >> can i take a picture with my two ladies here? >> oh, yes, please. >> you're an angel. >> yes, you are.
>> oh, i remember that. i remember. >> and then we saw you in new york. we ran into you in new york and i had my angel -- yes. >> come on in. >> you'll never get those pictures back. thank you. >> just want you to see something. that's how i actually look. >> how are you doing, though? you're doing okay? >> nobody in the band seems to notice. >> these are my two sons. >> thank you so much. >> right behind you. >> bono. >> god bless you. >> great to see you again. >> how are you? >> always a pleasure. how are you, sir? >> miss seeing you. >> yeah. well, you've got great people around you. wonderful job. >> you know, what's great is when the eloquence of the
movement is not just but it's actually correct, thought through brilliance. but people need to hear it, don't you think? people need to hear a general speak of how development is now part of security. he's the one who brought that. that's part of his very legacy now. it's great. much better than coming from a rock star. >> turkish -- [ inaudible ] >> the turkish people -- [ inaudible ] it's created pressure, i'm sure,
for jobs. i know you're looking at allowing for mobility so people have a real life. you know, there's a phrase, they call it second exile. where you know, people are not just exiled from the countries they're running from but then they can't move when they're in a host country. and it feels like a second exile. i think turkey deserves more support in that. but if the turkish people can really embrace the refugees the way we're reading and hearing about, then they deserve to be saluted. and there's other stuff in the area of human rights i'm not happy about in turkey. and the stuff i don't understand. in some areas syrian refugees are being turned back. but that should not take away from the turkish people leading the world in their embrace of refugees. so thank you. >> thank you. >> i've got to go.
>> it was perfect. thank you. i promise. >> thank you. >> oh, my goodness. >> good to see you again. >> as an orthopedic surgeon i think about you every day almost. you're an orthopedic wonder. >> he wants to send you a bill. >> no, you know what i think, i sometimes think that it's coming back to me. another two months of taking it
to the 18-month period when nerves grow back. >> yeah. >> so maybe i'll get some reprieve. but nobody in the band seems to mind. [ laughter ] >> that's what happens when you have good partners. you can make up for it. >> do you hear these guys when they speak? they're unbelievable. >> well, i see what you do when you write. you were terrific this morning. >> i'm a writer. i'm not really a speaker. but i'm a writer. >> your writing was masterful this morning. >> you can read well, which is hard to do. >> i like when they have the pictures. i like the pictures. >> it's hard for me to read a speech. i'm not very good at that. >> how do you do that? it's amazing. >> not my skill set. anyway, i've got to run. take care. god bless you. well done. i'll call you soon. >> for the other boy, do you mind just signing shawn -- >> tim, how did we do?
>> i think we've got at least the first -- >> shawn -- >> we got to first. we'll take care of the rest. >> shawn. s-e-a-n. and it's just don't give up. he's been hospitalized for a year. he has seizures every day. he was a star athlete. these are the two -- >> oh, this is the same guy. >> no. this is his brother. two boys. they were poisoned a year ago. you've met their mother. >> how do you get poisoned like that? >> it was a pesticide. it's a banned pesticide. >> whilst they were there. >> whilst they were there. and while they were asleep at night. they went into a coma. they've been hospitalized for a year. >> where was this? >> in the virgin islands. >> wow. >> yeah. >> and their mother met bono a year ago, and it was the one -- about nine months ago. the one good night she's had all
year. god bless you. thank you. >> very good. see you all. >> thanks, bono. >> did i do okay in. >> you did well. very well. >> excellent. >> keep writing. >> yes. well, today the u.s. supreme court is hearing oral argument about the obama administration's immigration policy. the case stems from a texas court's injunction against the president's executive orders to allow some undocumented immigrants to stay in the u.s. a group of 26 states led by texas contend that the president overstepped his authority. but the administration wants the injunction lifted. we'll air today's oral argument friday night starting at 8:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span. and as president obama prepares to deliver his final speech at the annual white house correspondents dinner, c-span
takes a look back at some of his previous dinner routines. the program also includes remarks by senior white house correspondent steve to machlt of mcclatchy news. here's a preview. >> no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the donald. and that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter. like did we fake the moon landing. [ laughter ] what really happened in roswell? and where are biggie and tupac? [ applause ] all kidding aside, obviously we all know about your credentials