tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 21, 2015 12:00am-7:01am EST
in the united states. iraqis conviction the doesn't mean anything to me, the paris attacker is not going to dead.victed because he is you can't use a conviction as a barometer for somebody being a threat. does anybody disagree that there have been failures in vetting? does anybody take the position that we have made no mistakes? >> chairman gowdy, i agree with you that in the history of the refugees that have come here, there have been a handful that have been a threat. fortunately, they have been before anything bad
happened. the two iraqis in kentucky was -- were the most shocking example. they had done bad things in iraq, lied to get into the country, and had our current system been in place, they would have been caught before they got here. that is why the system has been improved since that episode. you had said few things in life are risk-free, i heard the governor of washington state say you take a risk when you get out of bed in the morning, there are a lot of dangers in the world, absolutely, but i think the program we run does as much possible to reduce the risks of bringing refugees to this country. we have great confidence in it. we invite members to come out to the field and meet some of the people and sit through some of the briefings by leon steen that
i sat through -- leon's team that i set through. ms. richard, that is what hates -- that is what makes me hate waste, fraud, abuse, deception so much. when anyone engages in it, it impacts those that would never consider engaging in it, because it makes everyone stop and think. there is some risk. there is a great reality that if we get involved, something bad could happen. you have to balance the risk with the potentialities of something bad happening. when you do have people who abuse any system, believe it or not, there have been federal judges to undergo rigorous screening, including going back and talking to neighbors 25 years ago, and they still turn out -- we did wrong with them time to time. united states attorneys, serious fbi background checks with every
database. we still get it wrong. members of congress, believe it or not, we get it wrong from time to time. that is what i am trying -- we can't do it this morning, but you can't say there is no risk, and i appreciate the fact that nobody has tried to say that. we all agree that we are dealing with an enemy that affirmatively wants to do whatever bad thing they can do to us. as put thek it american people in a tough position, particularly given the fact that public safety and national security are critical functions of government. to in this by thinking you for coming to south carolina, and noting that the reason you had to come to south carolina was nothing you had done. othershatfield, i know -- and others in his line of work. you are exactly right. the community needs to be talked
to, not simply people who may be supportive. if you want to find out the truth, you have to talk to everybody, including those who may not support the program, so you can weigh the competing evidence. you should not have to have come to south carolina, quite frankly. it should have been done well before you and i ever met. i think a lot of information -- the sooner and more fully it is shared, the better people can make informed decisions. as i leave to explain to the majority leader why i missed the vote, this is what i encourage everyone to do. what i really wanted to do that towork going was get you walk the american people through every step of the vetting process. i really do like the director of , but i also would knowledge the fbi may be experts in this realm of data. do you have access to other realms?
again, you can draw whatever conclusions you want, it is none of my business -- but intel you have all the facts, you can't draw any conclusions. so if you or somebody else could lay out for the american people every single step, and every database you can access, and every question you can ask, and the training of the people doing the questioning -- folks are still going to come down on different sides of this issue, least theyre, but at will know they did it having access to every bit of information. want to thanko administration witnesses for agreeing to a single panel. unusual, buts given the circumstances, it was a necessity. i think all of our witnesses, and with that i am going to head to the floor, and we are adjourned. thank you. >> thank you, chairman.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the discussion on syrian refugees continues this weekend on "newsmakers." otherest also talks about issues before congress, including federal spending, which lawmakers must address before december 11 to avoid a potential shutdown.
at 2:00 a.m.erview and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> did i feel prepared? yes. first of all, i was not elected, so it did not make that much difference. i did know the difference between the vice president's wife and the president's wife is because the vice president's wife could say anything. nobody cares. say one thing as a president's wife, you make the news. that was a lesson i had to learn. announcer: during george h.w. bush's presidency, barbara bush used the office to promote literacy, raise awareness about aids, and prevent homelessness. she also made the history books the second first lady, besides abigail adams, but to become the wife and the mother of a president. arbor bush on c-span's original city -- original series --
"first ladies: influence an image." --m marshall washington martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. up next, froming washington journal, a discussion on the u.s. strategy against isis. that is followed by the president's special envoy to wither i sold, speaking reporters at today's state department briefing, and later, a meeting by the un security council, which approved a resolution to combat isis. >> our first guest is the director of the critical threats project, here to talk about current strategy against isis. good morning. remind folks briefly about your role in iraq, particularly in the search. do ahad the opportunity to
study of u.s. strategy in iraq in 2006, put out a report in december advocating change in strategy subsequently. -- strategy, that subsequently persuaded the president that there was an alternative to the strategy being suggested at the time. you wrote a recent piece taking a specific look at isis. do and do not in response to the paris attacks and a prayer rolls to the s urge and what can be applied to isis. guest: this is not a recommendation for another surge. this is about developing an appropriate strategy for the crisis that we have now. that is what we try to lay out in a brief format and we have done this in longer formats as well. it's what the core elements of a strategy against isis and for larger objectives in the region need to be. host: you start by saying that one of things that the initiation should do is take the
gloves off against isis in iraq and syria and going on to talk about engagement and the risk involved. can you expand on that? guest: i think it was very clear that the administration has adopted extremely restrictive us -- approach to the rules of engagement when u.s. aircraft are allowed to engage enemy targets. a a little -- result of that, lot of u.s. aircraft have come back without dropping bombs are so forth. iyone who knows me knows that am not a big airpower enthusiast. i do not think that you can win wars from the air, but we can do a lot more damage to this organization if we were prepared to accept some risk in terms of collateral damage. i think the administration -- all this is shifting and they are generally prepared to accept the risk. host: shifting how? can you expand on that? guest: there are a lot of rules and the ethics of collateral damage have been established. for the first six years of this
administration, we have operated on a reasonable understanding what kinds of risk and collateral damage they are willing to accept. you take every possible effort to ensure that it doesn't cause civilian deaths. attacking a legitimate target, it recognizes that may be inevitable and may happen. what we have seen here that is in syria and iraq, the a ministration has been unwilling to accept any risk. ofa result, there are a lot targets that could be attacked and should be attacked that would damage the organization, that should be attacked now because it would force the organization more on the defensive and force them to think about how to protect themselves and disrupt their operations more. that would give us a bit more time and opportunity to develop and evolve a more sophisticated strategy for dealing with them. host: here the numbers if you want to talk to our guest. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001,
and (202) 748-8002. you would say to put u.s. forces in iraq. can you expand on that? guest: there is a strong argument that the president and the secretary of state keeps repeating and that is putting thousands of troops on the ground in invading iraq. no one is advocating that. what we are talking about is expanding the special operations forces footprint that we have in iraq and moving our troops more forward and allowing them to function as air controllers, to call in airstrikes, to advise iraqi units in particular closer to the fight, which is how you are more effective as an advisor. my estimate is that you would probably require 10,000-50,000 groups on the desk troops on the ground total, most in support roles and emergency overwatch. we would be talking about 3000-4000 guys going forward.
the president keeps reassuring people as this this is a good thing that u.s. troops will not be involved in combat. host: why not? guest: we are either involved in this fight or not involved in this fight. there is a difference in saying that our troops should not carry the burden of this war because we do not think it is effective or saying that we are not going to put our kids and confident -- and conflict because this risk. if you are advising people, you have to go into con that with orm -- combat with them there is very little credibility. host: there's an op-ed taking a look at ground troops. leadership opposes putting ground troops in syria and they know it because the more andpation in iraq to isolate having just made a colossal mistake. why would we make it against? is his point fair?
guest: i do not think so. we have a very simplest view of the 2003 original sin argument. that is fundamentally where we say we should not have invaded. what we did was wrong and therefore anything that involves anything remotely like that is wrong and anyone who advocates that is wrong. the reality is that it's a lot more complicated than that could the invasion of 2003 was not handled well. time that ag at the lot of mistakes were made. we learned a lot of lessons. none of which is particularly appropriate here. no one is talking about sending 750,000 troops to invade these countries. the question is -- what are we trying to accomplish? i think we have to start imagining that we have some sort of time machine where we can go back to 2003 and redo this all over again. we are where we are. what do we need to do? -- we need toisis defeat isis and we need to defeat assad and we have a
variety of problems present -- posing a threat to us. 2000 and three was a disaster and we shouldn't do anything like that. it does not respond to the circumstance. host: what do you do with isis and syria? lot more's a complicated and i do not think the conditions are set for putting significant american boots on the ground into syria. in syria, the problem is that the president keeps saying sometimes the right thing about what we need to do in syria, which is that we need to get a sunni arab force with local force -- what i'm afraid he means is kurds. we need to have a sunni arab , which is true. the problem is that our policy -- refused to give to the arabs the one thing they most want -- support against assad. we are telling them that we can fight isis, but we refuse to
help the side. killing them and using chemical weapons. we have to reckon is that we have that the the business of helping the sunni arab opposition against assad. wet is the community bee most need to engage. host: our guest is frederick kagan. your piece is what we need to do and not do in response to paris. our first call is from charles in windsor, ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm surprised. all these republicans are calling up hopping mad about these terrorists. z andd huckabee and cru santorum and they all went to the sunshine meeting or whatever. this reverend jeffreys gets up advocating for executing gay people. host: what do you want to
address specifically to our guest here? caller: i am saying -- is this not terrorism when our candidates are acquiescing to this, saying this should be ok? host: ok, charles. let us go to alex. alex the next -- is next in maryland. caller: good morning kiss my question is -- do you support hillary clinton's current stance on the need for a broader approach in syria? do you think we need a united coalition front and not go in there alone like we did previously in iraq? guest: i do not support one candidate or another on the republican or democratic side. we did not go alone into iraq. we had a coalition in iraq. we never operated alone. we should have an alliance and we do have an alliance, in fact.
the issue that is being discussed now needs a bit more nuanced because the argument that some people are making is that we need to form a grand coalition with the russians. we need to have a coalition that ensures the russians and iranians engage in this problem. that is very problematic because the russians and iranians are in the business of supporting the regime and not in the business of fighting isis. as we track where closely where the russian and strikes have occurred, they are predominantly not against isis targets. they are against targets in the opposition, some of which we have been supporting, in direct support of the assad regime. secretary is imagining that he will do a magical deal with the russians whereby they get assad to go. that seems unlikely to me. even if it happens, we are over personalizing this conflict. this is not about getting one person to go. we need assad to go, but if assad and his deal is that his
regime amazing power in syria, and a lot of those folks are named assad because this is a family business he is running, you will not get peace and you will not get the sunni arabs on board. you will not bring any kind of order or security to syria. the war is want to continue to rage and expand. it will continue to radicalize populations across the globe. the problem is a very seductive argument now that says we need to form an alliance with the russians. it misses the point that what the russians are trying to do is antithetical to what is need to happen to establish security in syria. host: surely is up next. you are up next with our guest, frederick kagan. to use theould like scenario of bringing the syrians into our country. i want you to think now about a family that has a home and they have money and their family is protected. they look over and the distance
and they see these people over there and some of them are poor and this and that. so the man leaves his house. he goes over to take care of them. while he is taking care of them, they slip around the house and kill his family. this is a no-brainer. i was alive during world war ii. america was kept safe because we did not have people infiltrating our country. enough that i should not even really be worried about this, but i'm telling you -- we are going to lose america if we allow these people into this country, who we know our training children and women to be terrorists. host: mr. kagan? guest: america was kept safe during the second world war because we put 13.5 men and willing -- women into combat to
andat the forces of germany japan. i do not think we should be critically proud of the instance of rounding up the japanese-americans in this country could i think it did little to nothing to help secure this nation. i do not fully understand the enthusiasm with which people are picking what i think is an embarrassing moment in american history. this is a secondary issue. we are talking about whether to refugees.000 syrian personally, i think we should accept the refugees. arerefugees are people who fleeing terror. full isis put sleepers and among them? probably. isis is working on infiltrating anyway. unless you imagine that we are either going to close the whole border entirely or imagine that we are going to have an amazing transformation in the efficiency of our border security across the board, then keeping the syrian refugees out is not going to be an adequate protection.
in any purely defensive and domestic response to this will be inadequate. what is it that we need to be concerned about? are there muslims in america? yes. do they support isis? overwhelmingly no. do some of them do? probably. we just had a discussion about how we feel about having the government listens everybody's phone calls and invade everyone's privacy and all that. personally, i think that discussion went too far in the direction that the government should not do any of that. i very concerned about how you 's civilmerica liberties in the context of defeating the stretch. the more that we focus on law enforcement capabilities to defeat this threat, the more you're heading down the road for the state where the government has to listen to everything and follow everything. host: there's a debate about encryption technology being
used. guest: if you follow this argument to its logical conclusion, will you get the nsa full powers to listen everybody and go down that road? because all that creates folder abilities. i'm not comfortable with an absolutist answered that says, yes, we will give the government all the powers it needs to do this in a defensive faction. we have to accept some risk, but otherwise, we are not americans anymore. we need to keep them focus as we talk about this. host: steve is up next and he is from shelbyville, indiana. you are on with our guest. go ahead. morning, gentlemen. i really enjoy listening to you. .ou sound real intelligent the women are-- paying out the tribes to keep them at bay. i'm curious about that. guest: we did not pay off the tribes, but what we did was is
in, theynt our forces an work closely with the tribes. we persuaded them with thinking we were going to help them win and that is what they wanted. the tribes were willing to fight against al qaeda in iraq, but they do not want to lose to al qaeda in iraq. they were willing to reconcile with the iraqi government, but they do not want to be victims of the iraqi government. we told him that we would make sure we win against al qaeda in iraq. in the course of that, we did pay them salaries to help protect their areas and so forth, which was important. we do not rent tribes. that does not work very well actually. you have to establish a common interest aces with people. if you just go to an area and start handing out money, you're just engaging in a bidding process to see who hands out more money and that is not a good solution. money is important.
more important was the commitment that we gave to them come which unfortunately we subsequently violated, that we were going to help protect them, help them fight against al qaeda in iraq, and help mediate on their behalf with the government. host: from chattahoochee, florida, tommy. go ahead. you are on. --ler: i would like to know what is he a branch of expertise and why should we listen to you? [laughter] i'm a military strategist. you can look at my resume online. months on thel 18 ground in afghanistan, advising various military commanders and so forth. that -- let me put it to you this way. take a look at what i am arguing. i ama look at why am arguing it and being as transparent as i can possibly be, laying out what i think did
do not ask you to take my word for anything could you take a look at the arguments i've described in the fact that i put out and you come to the pollution of whether you think it is working or not. host: ron from pontiac, illinois. frederick kagan is on our show. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. kagan. at the risk of over some publication, i look at what is going on in syria as primarily a sunni-shiite issue, and i would be more concerned about iran having control of numerous capitals in the middle east than isis if i was to way it out. jordanent, the king of and a former cia assistant director are concerned about a world war iii scenario. at the risk of a world war iii scenario, is it possible for
turkey to enter the fray and overthrow assad and then we deal with isis? guest: you put your finger on a really important issue, which is this is a sectarian war. ,t's a sectarian war in syria iraq, and throughout the gulf, in fact. it is global. that is one of the principal wevers of the violence that see in the global radicalization that we have seen. the iranians are a major driver of that. the iranians are backing the most sectarian forces in syria and iraq and elsewhere and they are feeling the sector. the problem is -- and i appreciate the fact that the color is highlighting the broader implication of this sectarian conflict. when you have sunni populations or's shiite populations feeling they face a threat from
sectarian actors on the other side, and mobilizes them behind the fighting forces that they think will protect their communities. been a deliver strategy that al qaeda and iraq has relied on since 2004. , but a sunni group deliberately attacked the shiite population and retaliate commit atrocities immobilize them behind al qaeda in iraq. that is the strategy that they are pursuing also in europe now. to goad european governments into committing atrocities against the population in europe to help radicalize it. unfortunately, it works. this is a successful approach. i think the color highlights is super important fact that we need to recognize that the sunni-shiite sectarian war is a major threat to us and a challenge for our security in the iranians are playing a very maligned role in that war. it goes to the issue of the
grand coalition. can we line up with the iranians and the russians when they are lined up with assad and the sectarian forces on the shiite side? , but that iscare the side they are lined up on. all that will do is add fuel to the fire and read a lot of guys -- radicalize the comfort further. needost important thing we to do is reach out to the sunni arab population and say that they have an alternative to isis or al qaeda affiliates. host: if the u.s. should respond, they should not worry about the iranian response to our actions. can you expand on that? guest: i recognize that if we were to put more forces in iraq, forcesuite likely that would attack us. they said as much of it possibly would. what i recommend as a mitigation strategy is to literally be prepared for that and have forces in place and to make it clear to the iranians and all
parties in iraq that we will defend ourselves against them if they start shooting at the embassy and so forth. we have to recognize that that is a real possibility as we get into trying to do what i think we need to do in iraq. it is very easy to say why should we run that risk? the answer is that we are on a path toward complete failure. we have to decide whether we are actually comfortable saying we are going to subordinate our policy in the region toward iranians and put ourselves entirely under their control, so that if they do not like we are doing, they will threaten the embassy and we will start. that is subordination to a sectarian actor that is a problem. we do not want a war with iran and we do not want a war with iran and iraq. yet different hair -- we have to prepare ourselves for the conflict and the turk and essentially prevail. host: hello.
caller: good morning. i'm glad to hear you talk strategy about the iraq war and is war that president obama going. i think people need to understand that iranians are far seas. they are lined up with the russians because they are fighting a tribal war. drawisis wants to do is the world in a war that they believe in in biblical history. they believe that if the superpowers join on them, all the muslims in the world will come to their aid. president obama is absolutely right. you covert activity to fight terrorists with terrorists. let the covert activity people take care of it. let the special ops take care of crisis. do not bring goods on the ground so isis people can say, look at the world superpowers joining on us. muslims, rise up. help us fight.
they believe that jesus and god will rise up in that area in syria and help defend them against the world. is that youroblem asked the question of how many bits we need to have on the ground for isis to be able to make the argument that americans are attacking them? the answer is too. they have been making this argument consistently. this is already a premise of their propaganda that we are attacking them. this very little difference between having the current force level that we have and these are boots on the ground. i have been there and seen these guys. this whole boots on the ground thing has been bizarre. isis calls it the footless war in response to our continuing to say that we do not have boots on the ground. .hat gives them propaganda we have got something like 3000 pairs of boots on the ground already could if we have 10,000 pairs of boots on the ground instead of 3000 pairs, does that affect isis narrative? no, not in a meaningful way in
terms of them saying we are fighting americans. it would affect the narrative and another way. i want to highlight something. when of the interesting characteristics of sunni islam, even more than people generally, is that there is a believe in that community widespread that if you're doing well in the world, then a lot is smiling upon you. if you are doing badly in the world, all is not supporting it. that is why you see rapid bandwagon and rapid falling away for sunni movements. the problem we have right now is the isis narrative is that they are winning and it's a pretty accurate narrative. when you have a group in that community who is able to say we are winning, it is much easier for them to make the case that they actually do have divine support. the single most important thing that we can do from the standpoint of affecting the isis narrative is to make it clear that they are losing. make them start losing. make them start failing.
we don't have to get up and say that allah is drawing blessing from you. all we have to do is defeat them and that argument will reinforce itself within that community. people who are wavering will start to say, looks like they are not on the right path after all. host: this is not the first time you have been asked this question. if you are on twitter says, how do you fight against ideology? guest: it's a great question. with think back to the cold war. andought the cold war against communism. how did we do that? communism manifested itself and the existence of the soviet union and became identified with the soviet union to such a degree that when we actually defeat of the soviet union, communism was very probably discredited as an ideal. you will hardly find any state these days that identifies itself as communist despite lunatic north koreans and the chinese have even modify their position. case, the ideology of
the isis is pursuing has become very closely identified with isis and al qaeda. can we defeat the ideology per se? no. can we defeat these groups? yes. if we defeat these groups, it will damage the credibility of the ideology, both for the reasons i spoken earlier with the way the sunni community tends to view these things, but also because people do not abstract ideologies from the organizations that claim to represent them. i think -- can we kill this ideology? no. this is an ideology that has reemerged from the very earliest days of islam. the good news is that every time it has emerged in islam, it has been rejected. i am confident it will be ultimately rejected as well. the question is -- how rapidly and what cost -- at what cost? host: our guest is frederick kagan joining us. robert, good morning.
you're on with our guest on independent line. caller: good morning. i do not know if i'm looking at things like everybody else. is a deal that has been dealt with kind of wrong back at 911 with the wrong people. people should be taking care of their own problems. if all the superpowers in the world get together and isolate the middle east and take away the weapons that we gave them to kill us with, tell them, look, if you want to deal with the world, you're going to have to be civilized people. again that the people who are making the money off of these wars -- they're going to keep it going forever. it's like the refugees coming in over can now. we cannot afford to bring those people over here.
want themif people here, we are going to get them because the people making money off of it get the taxpayers money to do all this with. they will be getting their way. >> the muslim community is not the middle east. a problem, fundamental problem is ae muslim community problem everywhere. not a problem only in the middle east.
something where we can just contain this. even if it was feasible. what the caller was suggesting would require a much greater of military force and taking weapons away from people areas of many hundreds of troops.s of we need to recognize that this is already spread. something that can be contained. we need to stop actually using of containment as a framework for think being how to deal with this problem. this morninges 80 hostagesf mali released.been guest: it is connected in the sense that the groups -- i'm in the sure the groups have been involved in this -- obviously the french who went into
mali. sure there's a enthusiasm to pile on the isis attack. very well.doing anduse the french went in touristscattered the but didn't establish anything to the terror structures. this is a mistake we keep repeating over and over again. repeated this in libya as well where there's a significant in libyachise now wrong a million other things. because we conducted that a drive byike shooting. to recognize that it's a very seductive argument that and deal with the problem let the locals handle it. the problem is the locals can't a lot of these cases. unless you're prepared to provide assistance to forces able to establish some kind of governance, some some kindructure and
of security force, then all of theseains as a result of kinds of raids will be temporary. that's what we're seeing in mali. host: from killeen, texas, line.ican caller: into mention that the veterans that we -- these are a volunteer force that served in many wars including vietnam all up.way they volunteered to go and go to ourign soil and defend country and children and family. so the enemy would not come here. we don't put boots on the ground there. what do we want to do when the enemy is here? going to choose not to put boots on ground here in the united states when it gets rough here? people need to be staying there and defending their own
country. states need to develop the train of thought like they had in world war ii. need to get that train of thought that we are the way. nation that leads the we accomplish things gi going over there and fighting and defeating the enemy. we need to do. to change the strategy, change the people in the white house. congresspeople out of and the senate are afraid to stand up for the rights of our nation and quit using political corrective actions because votes. trying to gain think it's been very distressing to see how debate about how to react to paris has turned into argument about u.s. immigration policy. it is a classic example of have the argument that we won't off instead of --ing the arc that we argument that we need to be having.
accepting 30,000 refugees will not be determined threat. it's red meat to both sides of the political aisle. common problem. i think it goes to the point that the caller was making, we focused on our own we just dynamics that wrap everything into the conversations we're already having instead of really asking questionsthe hard about what's the problem here. what actually is the threat. approaches might be successful and what approaches aren't successful. we really need to start fighting that harder and stop just wrapping everything into the going to beat are vote getters and so forth. i'm here to tell you, i know for sure that any strategy put out against isis is not going to be getter. it is not. because if it's effective, it's going to be complicated. risky, going to involve doing things we don't
want to do. to involve making .ncomfortable arguments host: can we prepare them for theible attacks here in u.s.? guest: we have to look at our law enforcement forces. to ask ourselves how comfortably we are with various jurisdictions we've been put obligation. on the law enforcement. we as a nation have to find an betweenate balance protecting ourselves domestically and destroying our civil liberties. very tough balance and it's something we'll have to work on. it's not going to be the solution. that, i think we need to focus on thinking through the actual solutions. from -- jimmy from line.lvania, democrat's caller: i'm ashamed to say i'm a
democrat. you get all of these refugees in. who's going to feed them? you harry reid, the president democrats and some of the republicans don't like the refugee bill. up some ofng to give your pay to pay for these people get fed. are we going to take them fromth taxpayers here -- from the unitedrs here in states who are structuralling now to -- struggling now to make a living. the president said, i have a strategy. his own people that he talks to saying his strategy isn't working. all he's doing is to run his and drop it in the next person's lap. i don't think it's right. ever ran thiswe country the way he should have. he's a politician. that's all he wants to do. talk about politics and all that stuff. host: thanks. distressingnk it is that the president seem to unwilling to recognize that the
not working. hard.s i can't say that often enough. i'm not in the business of lampooning or ridiculing people. incredibly difficult. we went into iraq, we fought the iraq war. clearly made mistakes. you like in george bush. in january 2007, he got up and the strategy is failing and i'm adopting a new strategy. in that.o shame that's what you look to a leader to recognize a strategy that isn't working and you upognize that and you come with a new one. it should be evident that the pursuing int we're iraq and syria is not succeeding. i have a hard time understanding the president actually thinks it is succeeding, i love to know
definition of success is and why he thinks it looks good. but his determination to to defend this strategy and not to be little to i woulder it -- what suggest or something else. when you have something that's not working, recognize it that it's not working. say it's not working and come up new.something i think that's in many respects most worrisome part about the discussion. host: you authorization from congress to these things. does the authorization from the satisfy that? guest: i think the 9/11 authorization and the iraq war theide the president with authorizations that we requires to do what he's doing. one of those people i would stay between the constitutional powers of the executives and the war powers act, the president has the authority to do what it is he do.s to he makes war powers to congress.
congress can decide what it will do. i don't think this is an issue of authorization. i think this is an of strategy. thinks what he's doing is worrying. i think it isn't. i'm wrong. host: from tom from kentucky 0 the independent line. go line. caller: the generals and retired that are beginning to vent their frustrations with the obama policy. i have a question and i beg you time to state why i ask the question. is it possible that the congress could remove obama and charge and have himson tried before the supreme court and let these general officers come in and state the case against him? the reason i ask that question is, obama has a strategy to fail and europele east .nd the united states
he is trying to bring the country down and install father didhe way his in kenya. we need to get this man out of there a way to accomplish it? you. tost: i would never advocate impeach a president because i disapprove of his policy. call, texas a republican line roger, go ahead. caller: hello. the only reason -- i don't it that a man is can advocate the death of another and claim it's in the name of god? all it is the beast that no man against. that's all this boils down to.
thatope already declared this is world war iii. the beaste time of when the beast rises up, he will military power toond any man's ability resist. caller.ank you guest: i think that isis is a great evil in the world. i think it's appropriate to talk when you talking about groups like this. i don't think that it's beyond the capability of any man to resist. i think it's something that can be defeated. i think it's something that will be defeated. i think that it is something that must be defeated in order america to be secure and in order for the world to be secure. aboutng on how to go defeating it, how to succeed in essential.le is host: what does a victory look like then? guest: victory looks like a in these isis scattertions to
terrorist elements. of some kind of governance in iraq and syria. i'm not going to prejudge what that needs to be. is it representative government or is it in the border change. i don't know. what i know is that it can only work if the governance is population.d by the what we need to do is to help defeat in evil, while simultaneously peep -- region the people of the to determine what kind of governance structure they will be find legitimate so they can live in peace. question,sked a saying its partitioning syria in germany. guest: in a certain sense syria has been partition. the problem you have the west and you have isis stand in the
east. the issue isn't so much how to whether the or partition it. the issue is who's going to run it. right now none of the people parts of it are acceptable to us or the local population. important is the question exactly where the borders are drawn and more important is the we defeat the evil groups there. how do we get the iranians and russia out. host: i know it's not in your -- what faces the next president when it comes to this issue of isis? guest: the next president is likely to have a situation that is15 months worse than it now. isis is only part of the problem. is part iraq and syria of the problem. yemene isis in we have isis preference in europe and it will continue to spread. i think that on the current
trajectory, the next president be one of several ongoing wars that the next president is going to have to face. the next president is going to have to hit the ground running than an idea to solve a strategy how to get tter announcer: on the next washington journal, we discussed the vetting process for refugees entering the u.s. the causes ofat the european migrant crisis, and what the united states and united nations are doing to provide relief. head-onat, benjamin talks about france's efforts to defeat isis. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. all on washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
book tv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. our featured programs this weekend include the 32nd annual miami book fair, our life all day coverage starts saturday and sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, afterwards with neil ferguson on his book "kissinger." x i do get is what -- >> i think it is what made his publication distinct and standout. he is interviewed by karlan robbins, with the council on foreign relations. and sunday night at 8:00, former and author of the book "islamic state: the digital caliphate."
watch "book tv" all weekend, every weekend, on c-span2. a week after the deadly terrorist attacks in paris, the european union is taking action by tightening its screening of citizens traveling abroad. eu ministers met in brussels ways of discuss preventing future attacks. aside from agreeing to more stringent security along open borders, the eu also said it will introduce new gun-control measures and make an effort to share more intelligence. meanwhile, in today's briefing, the president's special envoy for the global coalition to , spoke i sold, --isil about countering the isis threat. we also heard from spokes -- state department john kirby who
spoke about today's deadly hotel attacks in mali. he also talked about syria and the palestinian conflict. this is just over an hour. likes good afternoon. happy friday. full house, this is great. brett mccurk will give you an update on operations against isil in iraq and syria. he will stick around to take a few questions, not many, and then i will get appear, and we -- will get up here, and we will go through the regular daily briefing. i know there are a lot of questions about what happened in mali today. i will be prepared on the back briefingd of brett's to deal with that, to take those questions, and whatever else is on your mind. with that, i will turn it over to mr. mccurk.
mr. mccurk: thanks for allowing me to take a few minutes here to update you on what we are doing against isil. i was with a lots of you in vienna and paris. i spent an extra day in paris. a real team coming out of those trips is not only our solidarity with the french, but our commitment across the entire globe to accelerate our efforts against this barbaric terrorist organization. what we are doing now, the steps we are taking, have really been building for the last year. if you go back to a year ago, the thought of putting real pressure on the heartland of
isil and its main connections between raqqa and mosul is something we wanted to do, but were not able to do -- taking back major ground and territory, finding out how they are financing themselves, and root out. that was not possible one year ago, six months ago, but is possible now. i think we have an opportunity now to really galvanize the entire coalition and intensify our pressure across the board. i would put it in two ways. one, make no mistake -- we are going to destroy the terrorist organization. and in two ways -- we will suffocate the core in iraq and syria, and we will suffocate the global networks. the global networks is something everyone is focused on now, and rightfully so. i said this before. we have never really seen anything like this before. 30,000 foreign fighters, these jihadi fighters coming from countries all over the world into syria and iraq.
depending on who is counting, there are different numbers, but it is almost double the number who went into afghanistan in the 1980's. these guys came from just a handful of countries. this is 100 countries all around the world. myself and general alan traveled to about 30 capitols, including north africa, europe, the gulf states, asia. you heard a common theme of what is driving these young men and women to join this fight in iraq and syria. it is this phony notion of a caliphate announced in summer of 2014. the core driving philosophy, if you really read it, is this expanding state that they claim to be trying to create. constantof flags and expansion. one of our core areas for suffocating the tour is
shrinking that area, and that is happening. i want to take about 10 minutes to go through what we are doing now. it is a combination of activities, economic, diplomatic, political, military, and talk about that, and also what we are doing with the global networks. but in suffocating the core, i think you have a general map to situate where you are. and you have heard a lot about these disparate pieces. when we look at every day, those of us working on it every day with the national security team, the white house, the pentagon, and the treasury department -- it is all part of a coherent whole. if you go around the map, or just go clockwise there has been , a lot of talk in turkey about this 90 kilometer area, the last area of the border that isil still controls with turkey. it is on the top left of the math. you hear about their mari line. 'sat is the extent of isil western advance.
they have tried now for a number of months to move further west. we have worked very hard with turks diplomatically, extremely close cooperation with turkey and groups on the ground to make mr. mccurk: we have significantly increased our presence most recently with f-15s. that came out of an agreement we negotiated with the turks going back 3-4 months ago. in our cooperation with turkey, politically, diplomatically, talking with the turks closely about how we will coordinate to do this, there are activities on the ground going on now with fighters on the mari line against isil. if you go to the east, what i
would say is number two -- you see the euphrates river, which one year or so ago, was entirely under controlled of isil, is entirely inhospitable to isil. that started in the town of kobani, we were down to just a few blocks and a few hundred fighters. we made a decision about a year ago to help them. they have expanded from there, a very significant defeat to isil, in which we took away their main border entry point. it is no longer and area in which they can do anything. expansion of fighters in this part of syria continues. if you go east of syria, my colleagues at the dod have talked about this, and our role has been trying to diplomatically get the forces on
the ground to work together to make this all work. it has been very difficult. over the last about 30 days, they have launched a series of operations against isil, and it has been quite successful taking that town and pushing south. that has been synchronized, to keep going clockwise, with what is happening in sinjar. the operation launched about two weeks ago. peshmerga retook the town of sinjar. lifeline for daesh between raqqa and mosul is a highway, and they have only been able to traverse it, only getting pressure from the air. they have not gotten pressure on the ground. now with the kurdish peshmerga
retaking sinjar, we have now cut the main highway. ongoing efforts will continue to constrict -- part of the suffocation -- we want to isolate them in raqqa, isolate them in mosul, and that will continue. if you go further, there is mosul. we have worked with the peshmerga diplomatically and with the government of iraq to set up a joint headquarters. make no mistake. that will take some time. there is a new governor. we have been working with him to recruit local fighters to restrict, put pressure, and suffocate. that is something that will continue. if you go south towards baghdad and the tigris river, it is important to remember in the summer of 2014, when isil was pouring down the tigris river valley and pressing on baghdad,
now the dynamic is completely opposite. historians will look at the fight for the oil refinery -- of course, we helped them there for 14 months. iraqi forces have secured the refinery. we think that is now the extent of isil's southern advance. the south, to create is very important because that is where everything came together. it was an extremely difficult situation at first, in terms of the retaking of tikrit. there were a lot of shiite involved in the beginning. it did not go particularly well. iraqi government came to us for help. they ultimately retook to create. -- tikrit. what is most important is, this of course is an iconic city, and working in a global coalition
with the united nations and government of iraq, set up a stabilization fund to get refugees back into the city of tikrit, and now about 75% of the population have returned. that is significant because in most areas in iraq and syria most of the population is not returning to their home refugees , are not returning to their homes. it is far from perfect, the embassy is working every day with the u.n. and government of iraq, and we are learning every day about what we can do better. i will loop around because one of the other areas is ramadi. ramadi fell about 90 days ago, and it was a significant setback. we know what isil wanted to do. they wanted to sweep east down the euphrates river and collapse the iraqi forces. we made an immediate decision, working with the iraqi government. we sent some of our special forces units to help the iraqis
regroup, reorganize, recruit local fighters, and begin to push back. they halted the isil advance entirely, and now they are moving on ramadi. my dod colleagues can talk about that in more detail. given what isil try to do, and where they are now, that is going the right way, although it is extremely, extremely difficult. iragi security forces have already suffered about 1200 casualties 200 dead. , they are fighting and dying to retake their country, and that is something we will very much help them do. two more things on this map. the euphrates river valley there. we have worked with the coalition at the al-assad airbase. i have been out there a number of times, ourselves, the danes.ians, we are there, not only working
with iraqi security forces, but tribal fighters. they have gone to actually expanding their presence and defeating isil, and doing ive operations. that is quite significant because we have worked closely with the iraqi government and pulled a number of measures together on the humanitarian and military side. the final point, just to finish the circle. that is where we believe their leaders are. we will do all we can to work with all the forces available, politically, diplomatically, to isolate and entrap isil there. that is all i will say about that now. i think that the fact just last week going after jihadi john -- we found him on the streets of raqqa and were able to conduct a precise target operation thanks
to the work that our colleagues do. that is going to continue. we have seen, as we continue to put pressure on isil, they make mistakes and do stupid things, and we will do all we can to intensify the pressure over the coming weeks. let me talk about outside the core and their networks. these are the foreign fighter flows, foreign fighter networks. we have done a lot over the last year. when we started the coalition, there was not much focus on this at all, quite frankly. we passed a chapter seven resolutions of that time. 22 countries are reinforcing the legal frameworks. most importantly, we have had 34 countries around the world who have arrested foreign fighters or broken up cell networks. what we want to do now is -- it is one thing to break up a pot
in one capital and another capital, it is another thing to work across our law-enforcement activities, and within the coalition to collapse and shock the networks. that is what we want to do. we need to work as a global information.are we have to connect the dots and shock these networks and collapse them. there is a role for every country to play in this regard. there is a role for turkey to play. there is also a role for what we call the source countries where people are coming into turkey and into syria . within the eu, they have had a debate for some time about .assenger name registries there is a debate between that hasnd security been happening for some time. we feel very strongly that we have to get those instruments in place.
we know how to do this. we are very focused on the homeland. we keep these records very carefully. it is something we need our coalition partners to assist with and we believe very capitals ton their do the same. i know that the eu is talking about this today in brussels. we feel strongly that now is the time to move forward on some of these very important protections. on top of this effort against isil is the ongoing conflict in syria. many of you were in the end, and this is a primary focus of hours. this is a primary focus in the core element of that communique is not only a timeline in which everyone has agreed upon but getting all those critical countries in the room, the permanent members of the security council, the saudis and iranians and everyone else. a key element in that communiqée is a concept of the cease-fire.
a strong recognition that we all need to focus on these terrorist groups. and the ongoing conflict between the regime and the opposition. can sometimes get in the way of that. that conflict will not wind down unless we have a process for a political transition. there is some convergence of views. i think the process in vienna has been effective. as we are focused on isis and suffocating the networks, we are focused intensively on the track because many of these things are linked. that is a broad overview of what we are trying to do. make no mistake, i just came from the white house. we just saw francois hollande the other day in paris. we stand with them. we are going to help them. they are moving the charles de gaulle into the eastern mediterranean. it will then be going into the gulf. we are helping with more intelligence sharing with the agreement we just signed with them. we are going to work with them and the entire coalition to suffocate these networks and destroy this terrorist
organization. it will take time. there are no shortcuts here. these guys grew out of the al qaeda enemy we knew very well. they are better manned and better funded and better resourced. they are better fighters. we are working with indigenous forces on the ground to fight on the ground. we feel very strongly that is the longer-term solution. we are putting u.s. special forces on the ground into syria. we are putting u.s. special forces on the ground in iraq. those are the types of things we will be looking to intensify in the coming weeks. >> we will start with a few questions here. >> you make a good case about shrinking the whole isis territory. parallel to that we have seen , that they are able to carry
out attacks in europe. they appear to have planted a bomb on a russian plane. several groups in africa have pledged allegiance to them. they have sprouted out as sympathizers in libya and nigeria. how does this fit into the broader global campaign against isis and jihadi style groups? mr. mccurk: one thing, it is not just focused on iraq and syria. we have to focus on iraq and syria because that is one of the main draws. suffocating the core is critical. parallel and just as intense and just as determined and just as decisive, we want to focus on the global networks. the global affiliates, it is more complicated. a lot of these groups have already been existing for some time. just because they put up an isil flag does not make it
more of a threat than it is already been. we have a whole process for this. we are looking at mentions between isis and the global affiliate. is there messaging coordination? that is why when we see that and we see a leader, we will not hesitate to take action. you just saw that last week where we targeted the head of isil in libya. this will continue. this is a global network. it is spread by modern technology and social networking. it is a challenge, something we have not seen before. that is why we have to do this, this is why we built a global coalition of 65 members. we need to coordinate better, share information more and do it faster. on monday at the state department we will be bringing , in all the ambassadors of the coalition and will address them in some detail about a plan going forward. we will be specific about additional resources we need from them. we expect that vice president
biden will come and address those ambassadors on monday. >> you began by talking about the 98 kilometer stretch of the syrian turkish border. why has it been so difficult to close that given that you have a functioning state to the north with an enormous a standing army? what is so difficult about undertaking and prosecuting that effort? mr. mccurk: it is a good question. it is a significant stretch of territory. within that area. isil has fortified itself in that. in that area, the town there is their ideological capital. it is where they believe
armageddon is going to begin. it is an area in which they collect foreign fighters and direct them across the battlefield. and there are areas in which they continue to funnel foreign fighters in. this is a heartland for them and they are fortified there. to find the forces on the ground to do the fighting is something that we are in the middle of conversation with the turks on. more importantly, our efforts that the turks will take on their side of the border. the turks have made clear to us that they are all in on this effort. they have been from the moment we opened the airbase agreement. one thing you can look at is that the turks are flying f-16s and doing bombing runs against isil in this area. it is a difficult geography, difficult terrain. i differed to my military colleagues in terms of how it will go.
we want to get it right, but it has already started. just look at what we are doing every single day in terms of airstrikes in this area. most importantly working with , the turks to coordinate to make sure we can get this right. that is a conversation from president obama and president erdogan. our vice chairman was on his way to turkey. much of our conversations here are focused on taking care of this last stretch of territory. >> thank you. about your political aid for the iragi kurds. some people, including the international crisis group, have that you have conditioned that aid on political reform. escalate intould more violence. do you set any conditions for the military aid you provide?
mr. mccurk: it is a good question. i spent a lot of time with the kurds over the last year. i was with all the political parties at a critical moment in the political process a few months ago. we are deeply engaged with all the kurdish parties. our message to them is clear. when the kurds are united, nothing can defeat them. we saw that in kobani. we came to the aid of the defenders of the town, that we also worked very aggressively diplomatically with turkey. i was there late one evening talking about getting supplies into there.
the turks opened a corridor. the kurds united against this threat and they don't a decisive blow to isis. we get concerned when we see the kurdish parties divided because this war is not over. the kurds are suffering martyrs every single day. we encourage them to unite their ranks against this threat. there will be political disagreements. right now, we encourage them to united against this threat. we are working closely with the peshmerga, all the parties and , kdp. we are making sure they have what they need to prevail. >> the united states has been supporting the syrian kurds a lot. kobani the united states could have fallen. the syrian kurds say we need more actual ammunition, actual weapons, and the united states has said that recent airdrop was intended for the arab opposition, not for the kurdish
forces. what is the hesitation here? white is united states not openly and actively providing them with weapons? i don't understand that quite well. mr. mccurk: i not going to am discuss all the details here. we will work with groups fighting isil to make sure they have what they need to succeed. >> back to the role of u.s. military advisers on the ground are they just providing advice engaged inhey been fighting any military action? >> for the most part, our military advisers are providing advisory support, training and assistance. that is across the board. we have two sites in anbar province. and across the kurdish iraqi region. we are joined by a number of coalition partners, spain, the dutch, the danes, the australians and the french.
the french have a number of significant assets on the ground , particularly iraq. it is primarily training, advice, and support. the effort i mentioned was about getting the iraqis reorganized and getting them on their feet. to get the forces available to begin to take the initiative against isil. however, there are times we believe there is need for more direct action missions. you have seen that against the il inr one financier of is an operation in northern syria. we collected more information on that site and we have been any special forces operation in history. it is what has led now to a number of operations to completely uproot isil's
economic financial networks. you will see more of that. when we helped the iraqi kurdish peshmerga do their rescue operation against the 70 hostages. of course we lost a brave , american in that operation. we have people in harm's way. that is going to continue. i was in urbil and i met these hostages who were rescued. all of them were about to be executed the next morning. it was an incredible moment. it spoke to how important this is and why we need to do everything we can to prevail. >> just one more. i give you the last question. >> thank you. >> i wanted to ask you about anbar. you said you were mobilizing indigenous forces to liberate ramadi. >> we set a target. it was about 8000 tribal fighters paid for by the iraqi government. we have had full cooperation
for thate minister a effort. the numbers fluctuate a bit. we have about 7000 in anbar fighting. we have found that when the tribes mobilize and are able to coordinate with us they are , extremely successful. isil did not just commit to the province when mosley fell. they moved into falluja. that is going on now two years. all through 2013, they were decimating the tribal structures and networks, trying to hollow out the societal structures that had existed. so this is extremely hard work. that is why we have these two sites to help mobilize the local indigenous forces to take back their committees. most important, the prime minister has a philosophy of governance consistent with iraq's constitution of
decentralization and empowering the governors and local leaders to provide for their own affairs. you have seen that in tikrit. the local leaders have been empowered to bring people back to their streets. we have been working closely with the governor of the province to help ensure that when neighborhoods are taken back, neighborhood by neighborhood. it will be extremely difficult. the resources are there. the police are there to come back to the streets. the governor and local leaders have the resources they need to bring people back to the streets. i think we have had very good cooperation between local leaders in anbar province and the central government facilitated by our folks. it is very difficult. isil will put up an extremely hard fight. tikrit is no longer under isis's control.
mosley and ramadi. mosul and ramadi. has fought for ramadi for years. i mentioned the casualties. this is a difficult fight, but we are -- you can get this from colonel worn. doing will force those on the ground. we have the pieces in place to do it. that is what we are doing to mobilize those forces on the ground. ok, everybody.
i know everybody is following the story out of mali. information is still coming in. malian authorities report that the security incident has concluded. our embassy there is lifting its recommendation for u.s. citizens to shelter in place. however, the embassy continues to urge all u.s. citizens to be vigilant of their surroundings. they want them to continue monitoring local media for updates and adhere to instructions of local authorities. we would also like to take this opportunity to thank the first responders and security forces respond to this attack so promptly and quickly and helped rescue so many. that would include members of the u.s. military who happened to be at the site at the time and chipped in to assist first responders in moving people to the secure locations. i can confirm that all the chief
of mission personnel who were at the hotel are accounted for and are in a safe location. i don't have any information to corroborate reports concerning the number of u.s. citizens in the hotel. about a dozen americans including chief of mission , personnel and that doesn't were rescued. the embassy is providing all of appropriate consular assistance, as you would expect. i don't have any u.s. injuries or deaths to report at this time. we are working to verify the safety and security of u.s. citizens there. we are still working through that process right now. the embassy is returning to normal duties. again we are urging everybody to , be vigilant. there is one rumor i would like to put to rest, the rumor that a u.s. diplomatic vehicle was
somehow used or involved in the attack. that is not true. it was in fact a diplomatic vehicle at the hotel at the time of the attack. it was there for completely aner purposes, driven by embassy employee. the driver and passengers were able to escape without harm. there was no involvement by a diplomatic vehicle. there have been reports that the airport is closed. that is not true. one carrier has halted its flights in and out of the area. the airport is open. there has been no curtailment of air operations there. the vast bulk of carriers -- >> do you have other stuff to get to? mr. kirby: let me make sure i don't have anything else. >> i just want to ask -- you are
saying that there was a u.s. diplomatic plated vehicle at the hotel. that was the car that people were talking about? or are you saying -- not ruling out that another car with a non-us diplomatic plates -- mr. kirby: they were rumors that a u.s. diplomatic plated vehicle was used in the attack or involved in the attack by the attackers. that is false. there was a u.s. diplomatic vehicle on the site driven by government employees that were there for official business, and they were able to escape -- and the driver and passenger were able to escape without harm. we have no evidence that the u.s. diplomatic vehicle was in any way -- >> i missed the report. what about any diplomatic plate? do you know? mr. kirby: i don't.
>> what was going on there? was it a meeting? : as you know, there are sometimes diplomatic personnel on temporary duty to missions around the world and it oftentimes, hotels are lodging. they need transportation to get to work and that kind of thing. this was a passenger van used to help transport people to and from. they were there simply because of lodging. u.s. military helped move people to state locations. you detail other ways in which u.s. diplomatic or military personnel were involved?
mr. kirby: there was an active involvement with respect to doing with the attacked it self. it is just wrapping up so i don't have a list of everyone involved but it's my one or othersthat of them that assisted in helping move people that were trying to acape the hotel and give them location were not involved in the actual operation to go against the terrorist. i am sure more information will how out in the future about this transpired. this is all just happening.
>> when you say the chief of mission was accounted for, where they at the hotel? >> they were not. these were people who worked in the mission but staying at the hotel. do we have any information on whether this attack is linked to isil? qaedaan tell you and al is affiliated.p i think it's too soon to tell right now. i simply don't have the details about the claim of responsibility. it is an al qaeda affiliated group. they claimed responsibility for the attack.
it is an african jihadist group affiliated with al qaeda. i'm not in a position to confirm that. this all just happened. the government will be investigating. denyou cannot confirm or that it was him because there were rumors he was killed. >> a don't have any additional information about responsibility. about one dozen americans were rescued. >> some of those were mission personnel. >> but not all. and separately, the chief of missions safety has been established. >> all are in a safe location.
>> is this because of al qaeda wanting to come on the headlines? where have they come from? >> i'm not a spokesman for the state -- for al qaeda? i will not begin to -- the premise of your question is i should be able to speak for their intentions and their intentions to get publicity and i will not do that stuff there is no excuse, no rationale for this kind of violence. and whether it's of this al qaeda affiliated group or some completely this separate and distinct from al qaeda, i don't know and i would not begin to try to speak for their motives. it is obviously reprehensible
and we are going to work with in helping with the investigation and any other way we can to bring these people to justice. it should be no secret to anyone that offshoots continue to exist and metastasize in africa and in the middle east and that is why we are working so hard in the international community. what do they rationale was, i cannot begin to tell you. many people are asking where these groups are getting the financing and who is supporting them and training them and oring their oil
arming them? >> i cannot possibly begin to answer that question. there are multiple sources of financing and resources for groups like this. it is regrettable, but they do have streams of revenue and have the ability to attract people to their cause. that is something we are working hard to combat. i cannot begin to give you the balance sheet on how this group that claims responsibility for it or any other terrorist group does that. what is important to us is that we continue to work inside the international committee to combat all those areas of sustenance for terrorist groups. it is hard work but we will stay at it. >> in terms of the larger relationship between the u.s. and mali, there is no military aid for them because of the coup three years ago. how much assistance can the u.s. government legally provide to
mali? been strong for decades based on shared goals of reducing poverty and increasing democracy. promoting stable democracy, promoting regional security by combating terrorists and traffickers, reducing chronic vulnerability by improving social development and increasing sustainable livelihood. it's a relationship we will keep working at. mali remains a willing u.s. partner.
in 2014, the emphasis on institutional building, justice and respect for human rights, the state department's antiterrorism assistance program held a seminar for senior malian officials. i think you could see some of that pay off in the way they responded today. they are one of six countries participating in the president's security governance initiative. that initiative focuses on the management, oversight and accountability of the security sector at the institutional level. security governance and it should the u.s. africa leaders summit. >> in terms of the 10,000 or so u.n. peacekeepers in the country, you think that position is doing enough to help stabilize and secure mali or two other steps need to be taken to prevent
future attacks? >> we still believe it is an important mission. we will continue to support it. in the wake of an attack like this -- i will not speak for the u.n. in terms of what they will or won't do. >> a country has contributed blue helmets. >> once you have investigators go through it, you want to learn lessons learned that might affect the way you change your counterterrorism posture, operations, resourcing. that could be the case here. we need to let authorities continue to work through the same and let the investigation concluded and we will go from there. i won't speak for the u.n. it is common practice to examine
what happened and make adjustments as you need to do going forward. >> when you're talking about the role of u.s. military forces who happen to be there was that some number, at least one helped hostages -- one that you know of but none were actually involved in fighting against the hostage takers to your knowledge. >> to my knowledge, that is correct. i would refer you to the defense department. >> they happen to be at the hotel? >> they happened to be there and some of them were either at the hotel or very close by in order for one of them to assist. they must have been in the vicinity. i do not know, the pentagon said there was two dozen.
where exactly they were and what they were doing i would not be able to speak to. >> to your knowledge those that did go to help hostages to safety, was that something that they were ordered to do and some organized fashion or was that something they chose to do on the ground because they were there at that they could help? >> i think it is the latter. i have seen nothing at all and traffic today, high-resolution -- conversations that this was u.s. service personnel at least one of them who do what they do so well which is run to the sound of guns and tried to help and that is my impression is a what happened.
>> is there any suggestion to your knowledge that the presence of u.s. personnel was a factor in it being chosen as a target or was it randomly? >> i do not know. >> do you have any travel by the secretary to announce? >> i do not. >> do you expect to be having -- spending thanksgiving week in the united states?
that was the killing, the murder of this college student. do you have any more american citizens, do you have anything to say than you did yesterday? >> i do not have anything additional to say. the secretary was deeply saddened to hear of the death and obviously concerned by it. and we're going to continue to monitor the situation or the circumstances best we can and our hearts and prayers go out to the family. >> i know that you do not like to get into name-calling but you do think that he was killed and what was the -- in what was a terrorist attack, right? >> i do not think that i am in a position to characterize the circumstances right now but again we are mindful of what happened. the secretary said his deepest thoughts to the family. >> you do not think it could happen in some kind of robbery gone bad, you believe it was not just -- one of them, the criminal act because it is not being looked at that way. >> thank you. we do believe about the death of edward schwartz, we extend our deepest cone dolan's is to the victims family and the community and the family and friends of
the for the people killed in yesterday's tragic events. the secretary is concerned about five other american citizens who were victims and wishes each of them a full recovery. these underscored the importance of taking affirmative steps to restore calm. >> these other five were wounded yesterday or is this over the course -- >> that is the same. >> that seems an awful lot of americans to be killed or injured, no? >> it is disconcerting. we don't want to see that. i can draw a line of causation here. >> the student from massachusetts was killed on the west bank and have you been in touch with the palestinians about this? >> i am not aware of any palestinians. we have had communications with the -- at various levels. >> for what, details or what happened? >> to get there views and perspectives. >> the person who was murdered do you know what he was doing or where he was killed? >> i do not have that level of information. >> do you have any comment? >> i have not seen those reports.
and a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. contentious action such as the announcement demonstrate the opposite. they will have detrimental effects on the ground and increase heightened tension. we call on all to return to a path of peace. >> staying in israel, jonathan pollard has expressed an interest in traveling to israel although the terms of his parole would not allow him to leave the country. could you say if there are discussions with israeli officials about whether [indiscernible]
>> the white house has expressed their view. the justice department will handle his release on parole. he will be subject to the general travel restrictions that apply to all parolees. >> your answer, the latest announcement will further isolate israel and it may very well but i am wondering is that your message today because you were asked the question about our settlements. there is no question, you have not said anything about the palestinians being isolated. there were a large spate of attacks, a citizen died yesterday. >> we have been exceedingly clear about the degree to which this violence is doing nothing to get the two-state solution.
there is a difference here with settlement activity which we continue to consider illegitimate. we said before is not doing anything to get to a two state solution and it could continue to isolate israel internationally. well we do not want to seek settlements it is not the same thing as wanton violence. i think we have been strident about the danger of increasing violence, continued violence to not just peace and stability there but the ability to achieve a workable, sustainable two state solution. >> is there any thought about
they do not seem to have worked any magic. they do not seem to have decreased the tensions and i am wondering is there any thought to trying to do more to get them down? >> they were never intended to work magic. your words. they were not intended to work magic, the tension has not gone down and the secretary urges all to take steps. i think it will work at this very hard. we do not see a decrease from the last trip to the region and the agreements he got us israel and jordan. i don't think the secretary would tell you. it is going to take place on all sides. he will press his concerns with leaders. >> does the administration believe that settlement construction and building in
east jerusalem contributes to the violence we have seen, that might be a factor in motivating the palestinians. >> you have heard the secretary talk about this. you have to look at a range of activities that are not intruding to getting us back to a two-state solution. the secretary has been clear he is not drawing a line of causation between settlements and the violence. he has been very clear about that. >> have the plans to put cameras on the temple mount been dropped? >> the authorities and technicians are supposed to be working this out -- i do not know the status.
as far as we know there has been no intent, no effort, no decision to not move forward with that. >> is the aim of trying to reduce tension to stop the violence but create an atmosphere where we can restart a conversation about some kind of a peace process or is mr. kerry's plate full with trying to solve the syria conflict? >> his plate is very full on a lot of fronts. he does not believe it is so >> can i switch to counsel -- counter isil? >> the french president said obamar this week he wants
and then putin to have a ground coalition and we just had brett mccook here speaking about the coalition that exists against isolate and let me putin is going to russia and also seems interested in becoming part of this grand coalition. how do you see this might diminish or -- might mesh or are you preempting putin being involved with the ambassadors next week? >> i think this discussion about coalitions and who is in and who is out is way oversimplified. i can tell you in the meeting with the french president, the secretary came away convinced commitmentd by the by the president and france to continue and to intensify their
efforts against isolate inside the coalition. it was very clear to the secretary coming out of paris that those contributions would continue and likely increase. is a 65 member coalition fighting isil. that is the coalition. as we have said before, if other nations not in the coalition want to join it and be a part of it and focus on the fight against isil, that is a conversation we are willing to have with them. in order for that to work, every member of the coalition has to have the same focus on defeating we haveand thus far, not seen that.
it is simply inconsistent with the core goal of the coalition itself. and changing the calculus of the inside syriavity and that's great and where .elieved to have a discussion we are not at that stage right now. is the core goal? to topple isis, bring them down? say on a scale of 1-10 come are they the same, is one larger than the other.
you want to have them removed from our step -- from power. >> you just heard from a bright on what the coalition is doing. there is nothing in the mandate from power.sad there is a diplomatic track the secretary is using to get it to a government that can be responsive to the syrian people -- assad. solid can these efforts support one another and become elementary? absolutely. a responsible government in syria that actually can issue governance on the whole country, and keep syria whole and unified, then you have the strength, the
foundation of good governance. this for aed about long time. one of the reasons they have been able to grow inside syria is because there has been no can takee that they advantage of. as the secretary said last week, the coalition to counter isil is about countering isil. that is the focus in the missions the aircraft are flying, the advice, counsel, training, assistance coalition members are giving indigenous forces on the ground is designed to go after isil.
>> this oil business has been moveson but now the u.s. to take the targets. why does it take so long to get i talked about what we were doing to get the oil collection point and the advanced refinery sites they had , the temporary refineries. going after their oil revenues is not a new idea and i would not speak to the timing of
it's a way to capture human resources as well. this.is a lot to that is what territory matters, ground matters. one of the ways they get the money is extortion and robbery, bank robbery. we have seen that. going after financing is not a new idea and it is something we will continue to pursue. met withcretary had the chief. have they discussed this ongoing problem, isis and all of these problems? >> i read this out yesterday. he met with the general yesterday. they obviously talked about counterterrorism relationships between us and pakistan. >> south asia? >> sure. >> do you have anything to say
about these plans of executions? >> bangladesh? don't have anything on that. i don't have anything on that. arabia?tions in saudi >> we have seen those reports about this case. laws.s. strongly opposes that restrict the exercise of the freedom of expression and religion and urges all countries to uphold these rights in practice. i'll government have a responsibility to protect this. one more. >> thank you. detail about the revolution of the u n general
assembly? >> on the 19th of november, the countries and u others. these egregious actions in north korea include torture, public executions, political prison camps, and the use of forced labor. we encourage the council to discuss the human rights discussion. thank you, everybody. have a great weekend. >> i am the first woman to reach the rank of four stars in the u.s. navy. three-star been a
when he was months traveling through town and asked to see me. i presumed it was about the next job i was going to and that is we arespoke to me about looking at you for being a four-star and here are a couple different opportunities where we think you would do well in benefit the navy. .> life of michelle howard she speaks about becoming the first four-star admiral. to led the navy's mission capture richard phillips, kidnapped by pirates in 2009. >> i became head of the counter piracy task force and a few days on the job, captives kidnapped and it was our responsibility to
get him back and get him back safely. obviously a surprise mission and kind of a challenge. >> sunday night on q and a. the un security council met today to approve a resolution on combating isis, next on c-span. then a house hearing on the syrian refugee resettlement program and national security concerns in the u.s. and later a discussion on health care affordability and access to pharmaceutical drugs. the un security council met friday to can under a french proposed resolution concerning isis. it was unanimously adopted, calling the terrorist group a global and unprecedented threats to international these and security. several members of the council spoke after the vote, including
representatives from france, russia, the u.s. this is 45 minutes. the 7000 565th meeting of the security council is called to order. the provisional agenda for this threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. the agenda is adopted. the security council will begin the consideration. members of the council have s-2025-80.m document the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft revolution before it.
daiish thought our nation. the outcome was particularly deadly. 130 dead. they struck not just france and the french people, it thought a target for beyond the world in this cosmopolitan city of paris amongst those who died. 24 nationalities were registered. it soft to undermine an ideal that of our freedom and shared humidity, an ideal one of the
united nations. holandet along to -- spoke to note the determination of france to combat by all means necessary daiish. in this unstinting drive against daiish, france remains loyal to its values. in ourbelieves organization. the united nations is the collectedf right and security. the president of the republic addressed it security council to organize and mobilize our international action. in adopting this resolution, this security council mobilized unanimously the resolution we have just adopted recognizing
the exceptional nature of the daiish and calls upon all member states to take necessary theures to eradicate sanctuary it has created in syria and iraq and also to push back its ideology. this resolution frames are action under international law and the upholding of the united nations charter, which is our shared goals. it provides a guarantee that there will be an effective fight against transnational terrorism. they were unarmed aggression against france. justified byaction legitimate collective defense can now also be based on legitimate self-defense. based on this a stork resolution
, france shall continue and to vanquish efforts our shared enemy. france shall play its role here. the republic of has announced an intensification of air raids against strategic targets of daiish in syria. this scale up is underway. france in the days to come will trickle its strikeforce with the arrival of aircraft. can only be effective if they are supported by a political transition, which continues to be a hotbed for terrorism. this resolution creates conditions for international mobilization. in this context, we call upon europe. my country has asked for and obtained from the eu for the
first time the activation of the mutual solidarity clause. -- france is paying a heavy price for his combat against terrorism. we hope other countries will mobilized alongside us for our shared security and those that border countries of syria. we also call upon all members of the security council and beyond. it's along these lines the president of the republican will visit washington. withve engaged in contact them and are determined to obtain mobilization that is as broad as possible. we have unity to share. we the people of the united to defende the duty this unity. thank you. i think the representative of
france for his statements. we give the floor to the representative of china. president, for several days now, isolate other terrorist organizations launched a series of deadly terrorist attacks as multiple locations across the world. killing innocent civilians, including a chinese citizen. the chinese government strongly condemned a terrorist organizations gain his atrocity. heinousetrators -- atrocity. terrorism is a common enemy of the entire humanity. all terrorist ask regardless of the motivations are criminal acts that threaten international peace and security. the national community must join purposes acting on the and principles of the u.n. charter's and other basic norms
of national relations. they give way to the leading role of the u.n. and further strengthen coordination and cooperation in counterterrorism and form a united front against terrorism. counterterrorism efforts must be addressed as the root causes of the problem and refrain from adopting double standards. this must include combating terrorist use of the internet to spread extremist ideas. these must also be taken to cut funding channels. the chinese government firmly opposes all forms of terrorism and firmly combats all violent terrorist that combat civilization.
the movement is an important part of international terrorism fight will start we will further strengthen our cooperation on counterterrorism. thank you, mr. president. >> i think the representative of china for his statements and give the floor to the representative. here, we are all french. we are also russian and arab. it is time to react and do so with a french heart, with a russian and arab heart. paris havein beirut, a clear determination to terrify
. today, we have reacted quickly, united with determination and force. in to a way to not give victory of terrorism is to continue with our way of life to preserve our principles and values without any concessions on human rights. would but to underscore article five, which ensures in theoverage and respect of human rights of international law, refugees, and humanitarian law. because as the roman emperor said, the best revenge is to not be like them. tableuse it around this to have the duty to guarantee these values and principles. the dailytolerate news becoming part of war. we all mustoubt
close ranks in order to combat terrorism and vanquish it. i therefore think france for its leadership in this resolution for sounding the alarm to bring us out of the trenches and intensify our offenses. these days, we have heard it often. it's not the first time this anthem symbolizes resistance against the bloody flag of tyranny. asis time once again for us citizens of the world to form our battalions and go against those who wish to slit our throats. it's time for victory. thank you. i give the floor to the representative of the united states. >> in recent weeks, barbaric terrorist attacks have startled
the world conscience. from europe to africa to the middle east, innocent men and women have been slaughtered, families destroyed. paris, airs in passengers bombed in the sky. the united states stands with these victims of terrorism. yet even as we mourn those lost in these recent attacks, we remember the whole cell violence continuing in a rack and syria were men, women, children struggle every day to survive and flee the bloodshed. behind these outrageous rest of violence, and ideology of hate. groups like iphone know what they are doing. they perpetrate atrocities to advance a hateful worldview we
the members of the night states must therefore intensify and accelerate our effort to degrade and defeat these groups once and for all. we need a truly global initiative to counter isil to prevent more attacks and our homeland and stabilize the middle east. for this reason, we welcome and 's call this resolution to take all necessary measures in compliance with international law, to counter isil. choke off funding, arms, recruitment and other kinds of support. as a resolution recognizes, iraq has made it clear that it is facing a serious threat of andinuing attacks from isil in particular coming out of safe havens in syria and the assad regime shown it cannot and will not suppress this thread.
even as it undertakes actions that benefit the extremist recruiting. in this regard, working with iraq, the u.s. has been leading international efforts to provide assistance to combat the threat that isil poses to the security of its people and territory. and its recognition of the inherent rights of individual and collective self-defense. the u.s. along with 64 other nations and international organizations have formed a coalition whose essential aim is to degrade eiffel's capability and achieve its lasting defeat. militarily, the coalition is working to deny safe havens, disrupted the ability to protect power and build partner capacity.
it is also actively working to disrupt isil financing and .conomic sustainment and to counter its message of hatred and violence. to stabilize areas liberated from my full control, the coalition further supports the efforts of the development program and iraqi government stop today's resolution recalls the security councils well-established framework to respond to terror threats generally and to isil others associated with al qaeda in particular. layoute task resolutions specific obligations and actions of the state must take to respond to these threats. we look forward to continuing cost cooperation, including in
the relevant sections committee and counterterrorism entities to enhance our capacities. these ideologies capture and motivate individuals worldwide responsible for today's tragic attack today. we look forward to the secretary-general's plan to combating violent extremism. we must urgently work together to support a political transition process in syria in accordance with the geneva communicate.
through global solidarity and cooperation, isil and its ideology will be defeated. thank you. >> i think the representative. i now give the floor to the representative of the russian frederick. -- fedor its. the security council met today after a series of atrocious paris attacks as a result of which hundreds were killed.
bringing efforts together for these ends. guided not by ambition but shared values and interest the basis of international law, creating a broad, international counterterrorism coalition. this is what was advocated by president putin in the recent statement to the general assembly of the united nations. welcome the growing understanding that the time has come to bring together the ranks of the international community in the face of terrorism. it is indeed central for all and requires priority attention and most important, action without any controlling or preconditions. we had to support the french resolution. while the drop was prepared in
an extraordinary regime, the french delegation took on russians important amendment. we're convinced important foundation should be the u.n. charter guided hereby the matter of the use of force. this reference is now included in the text. the security council is undertaking a number of important decisions and at strengthening the international andunities counterterrorism its adaptation to the changing text. the resolution of
russia was adopted including the combating of financing of terrorist and cutting off their trade into gain legal oil. we believe the french revolution is a political appeal, not changing the principle. we think it's a step in creating a broad antiterrorism front through the organization of the copperheads a cooperation of all states to stem all manifestations of terrorism and eradicating. this was also the aim of the russian draft resolution.
thank you. >> thank you to the representative of the russian federation for a statement. i give the floor to the representative of nigeria. >> mr. president, the attacks carried out by isis by -- in beirut, by boko haram and syria -- underscore the fact that terrorist groups are a major threat to international peace and security. nigeria condemns these barbaric and cowardly attacks in the strongest terms. there can be no justification for terrorist attacks. the perpetrators must be relentlessly pursued and brought to justice. lost their lives in terrorist attacks in which the injured a quick recovery. week -- we call for urgent action by the international community, to identify intensify
the fight against isis and other groups including boko haram. 2249, with the council just adopted, provides a framework for achieving this. all u.n. member states misnomer together to diligently implement the resolution. i thank you. >> i think of are visited upon a jury for his statement. i give afford to representative of lithuania. >> mr. president, we welcome the prompt and unanimous adoption of this resolution. we shall not live in fear. we must not give in to fear. but act with the full force a conviction against the evil that daesh represents. we stand together in solidarity with the people of france. we also share the sorrow and grief of all those affected by the carnage and slaughter perpetrated by isil, boko haram, and other terrorist mutations.
nothing can ever justify terrorism. earlier today lithuanian president reassured by countries commission -- commitment to working with partners unified in terrorist -- against terrorism. the evolving nature of terrorism and violent extremism puts existing counterterrorism measures to the test. today's terrorist are out high-teching us. we find ourselves running against him behind the times. there can never be no room for complacency or business as usual in our responses. on the contrary, we need to take an honest look at the impact our actions have on the ground and rise of the task. this requires us to ensure cohesiveness in the machinery by putting in to the silo mentality and making all parts of the system within and outside united nations were as one, from assessment to assistance. delivering advice, and capacity building exactly where and when it is needed with maximum impact. as today's resolution reminds, attacking financing is a high
priority. here a breakthrough is needed. no more concealed measures but a comprehensive approach that would bring into account increasing diversification and complexity of the sources and channels of financing, as well as the linkages between terrorism and cross-border organized crime. furthermore we have to find the right answers to the difficult questions regarding modern technologies and communications which brings huge improvement to our lives again have deadly effect in the wrong hands. we will have to deal with the questions of how much liberties and freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to ensure the safety and security in a way that does not support repression and oppressive regimes and does not give the satisfaction to the terrorists of having disrupted our lives.
we have to critically review our battle for the hearts of potential terrorists by setting of the efforts to tackle the many recourses that push individuals into the hands of daesh butchers. as well as counterterrorism efforts. reinforce partnerships are required internationally, regionally and locally. for the voices of women coming youth and vulnerable groups are well hurt in heated. finally the importance of resolving the crisis could not be more urgent. we must restore hope to the syrian people. we cannot see the reserve --
regime at the daesh daesh cost of this crisis of the partner in the fight against. --daesh. we hope this week that this really need a transition and full of limitation of the geneva communique of 2012. thank you. >> i give afford to the representative of jordan. >> thank you mr. president. allow me to renew our condolences to the government and people of france over the grotesque and cowardly terrorist acts that struck paris last week. also we pay homage to the victims of the bloody criminal terrorist acts that were committed recently in sinai, beirut, and libya. and today mali. these referenceable crimes demonstrated beyond any doubt that these terrorists are seeking to destroy our common values of -- in that war against terrorism has become a global war. that makes it imperative on to be united in words and deeds. jordan welcomes the adoption of this resolution which jordan voted in its favor because it is a -- it is the belief of jordan for the need to reinforce and coordinate international efforts in fighting the isis terrorist organizations.
they wreak havoc and evil across the globe and are undeterred to demonstrate their reprehensible intentions towards humanity. degrading the capabilities of isis and other terrorist groups and defeating them requires action from all of us and response from desk commencement with the challenge. this requires international action and collective force at all levels, in all fronts, including the military, security, and intellectual fronts. in addition to suppression to the financing terrorism. therefore the council has adopted this resolution images for 70 demonstrates the unity of the council in fighting isis and sends a powerful message to the terrorist organization and other terrorist groups. in closing, jordan will continue to combat terrorism in all
possible means while working to enforce and coordinate international efforts confronting these terrorists extremists. >> finger presented of jordan and give afford to representative of new zealand. >> thank you mr. president. the new zealand stands in solidarity victims, families, fellow citizens and governments that have threatened under these serious attacks are treated by isil. we are today one week from the terrible events of paris, less than a day of those in bemaco. as others have noticed these are two episodes in a bloody continuing story. this counsel must be -- me in times of crisis.
we are pleased today the council has sent a strong unified message for the shared result of event and suppressed the terrorist threat posed by isil and other terrorist in syria and iraq. in the face of isil's barbarity, we are reminded of the important role of this counsel in uniting the international community around our shared commitment to peace and collective security. thank you. >> i think the representative of new zealand for his statement and give afford to the representative of achieving --chile. >> thank you very much there. -- sir.
we value the resounding message transmitted by this counsel through the unanimous adoption of resolution 2239. terrorism is a criminal act and unjustifiable. the material, intellectual and financial office of these acts must be prosecuted and brought to justice. all resolutions from this counsel should be applied, especially 2160, 2199, and the resolution we just adopted. combating terrorism is in keeping with the obligations under international law and united nations charter. the international community must contribute to identifying the causes and overcome these that simulates terrorism and violence. they cannot be overcome with military means. i liked it when it categorically
that chile will support the global action against terrorism from the security council and all international multilateral bodies. thank you. >> i think of her presented for his statement. i get the representative to the -- the floor to the representative and -- of. angola >> thank you mr. president. angola voted in favor of resolution 2239 in the name of france. the terrorist attracts pretreated by isil, also known as daesh, in the expectation that this is an important step in the fight against terrorism and for the building of the indispensable global coalition if we are to win the -- this war against terrorism. we join the other members and can damming this terrorist movement, which is the resolution states constitutes an unprecedented threat to international peace and security. we express our deep sympathy and condolences to the victims of this heinous crime recently committed by the terrorist and condolences to the families.
-- designated by the un security council is a top priority for the international community. international terrorism has been showing an extreme the dangerous capacity of spreading its violent extremism and ideology through terrorist acts, systematic attacks against innocent civilians, and violations of human rights, intolerant, and hatred dressed to others for being different, on cultural and religious or ethnic grounds. the heinous crimes committed by isil or daesh include the eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural items and natural resources. and recruitment of terrorist fighters on a scale of crimes rarely seen after the second world war. as things stand now mr. president, with the deadly danger of terrorism, it's a real menace to international peace and security into the very survival of some of the most concerned countries.
it is high time for international community and the main international players to put aside the differences, national egotism and arrogance, and work decidedly to build a global coalition to fight and eradicate terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations as called by public international opinion. it is our hope that the adoption of resolution in the wake of this deadly concerted terrorism will be the materialization of a wake-up call for a radical change in attitudes by the world's main players. i thank you mr. president. >> i think the representative of angola for his statement. i give the floor to the representative from venezuela. >> we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our condolences to the french people, to its citizens, and to the people and government of the countries that have suffered from the most recent strikes of terrorism.
they refused to bend to these groups. mr. president, venezuela was entirely in favor of resolution 2249 due to its category projection of terrorist acts in all of its forms and manifestations. regardless of the motivations, wherever they happen and by whomever they have been committed, any deliberate attack on international peace and security is unacceptable. terrorism is a flagrant violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights. and it undermines the rights of life. in addressing it, it must be done without double standards. there are not good terrorists and bad terrorists. it is time to be consistent and our actions. to take actions jointly that are coordinated and agreed to based
on consensus. and assume all responsibilities as members of this counsel with the mandate conferred upon us based on the principles of the united nations and international law. mr. president, the world is seen with perplexity how they are resorting to violence and terrorism by different societies, civilizations and religions and beliefs has now acquired many manifestations. but ultimately it continues to be the product which relate to intolerance, extremism, sector is him, and very often geopolitical interests which are imposed over legitimate rights.
as is needed in the africa and the middle east. the terrorist act endangered not just territorial integrity but also political unity of states, as well as the security and stability both states and the region and the international community. we are very alarmed to see the extraordinary military support and logistical support provided to the terrorist organizations such as isis. it's given them tremendous military capacity to develop and deploy indiscriminate violence, destabilize governments, break their constitutions, and moreover stopping economic and social the moment of their people, destroying institutions, and the capacity for --. mr. president, my delegation reiterates today more than ever the need to address the root causes that feed these phenomena and develop effective and innovation -- innovative strategies to stop the terrorists and extremists narrative and to stop radicalization and to achieve tangible results. not just in the short term but also in the long-term.
this counsel must acted and more preventative manner and resolve of anticipation conflicts that might be unleashed in terrorism. the recent events have shown us that the vulnerability of terrorism and the phenomenon of foreign terrorist combatants is a global one today. that is why the role of the security council will be resoundingly important in combating this extort every threat which is also
unprecedented in which is undermining the future of mankind. we must fully and completely at year to the resolutions, especially with regard to financing, training and illicit transference of arms to terrorist groups. finally mr. president, my country is convinced that the fight against terrorism must be conducted in the context of international cooperation. with fine -- binding international agreements in this area, including relevant security council resolutions and the norms of international law fully respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. taking into account that otherwise we will be contributed to radicalization of individuals. we hope the actions taken through this resolution and the combat against terrorism will always be coordinated with a concerned countries and that no actor participating will have a distinct political agenda different from overcoming terrorism and supporting the negotiations process in the case of syria, with its people,
government, and the countries in the region and at the international level who are supporting the efforts that we all hope will be successful. thank you sir. >> i think the representative of venezuela. i shall now make the statement in my capacity as a representative of the united kingdom. the united kingdom warmly welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2249. today we sent a clear, on ambiguous message that there will be no respite from our collective efforts to stop, suppress, and destroyed isil. weather in the streets of paris or beirut or in the skies above the sinai, isil's brutality knows no bounds and respect snowboarders.
-- no borders. their determination must be met by our greater resolve to defeat them wherever we find them. too many security council members here today and too many other u.n. member states have experienced isil's callous disregard for life. i will community today shows that we shall not be deterred in our efforts to prevent such attacks from happening again. as my security council colleagues have said, this resolution is a powerful international recognition of the threat i suppose is --isil poses. a cause for lawful action, all necessary measures to counter isil. right others, the united kingdom has artie taken action against isil on the basis of individual and collective self-defense as we have set out to this counsel. this counsel has put in place extensive obligations for states to take action against isil.
to stop the trouble of foreign terrorist fighters, and it's about the funding. -- and to choke off their funding. this resolution reminds us of these measures must be of limited if the international response to isil is to succeed. in conclusion, we stand in solidarity with the people of france and we demand france for its leadership -- command france for his leadership in this resolution. we are proud that the security council has acted with speed, unity and clarity of purpose to agree that this powerful call to action. >> i resume my function as president of the council. the meeting is adjourned. >> alicia call the discusses the vetting process for refugees entering the u.s. fellic looks of the
causes of the european crisis and what the united states and united nations is doing. after that, benjamin haddad talks about france's effort to defeat isis and why the terrorist group attacked france. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets on washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. 40 hours a nonfiction books and authors. our featured programs include the 32nd annual miami book fair. the live all-day coverage starts saturday and sunday at 10 a.m. eastern. at 10 p.m. eastern, neil ferguson on his book "kissinger." a kissinger was an idealist, rarity in the 1950's. that is what made his contribution stand out from the pack of people that you can
solve the cold war with system analysis. >> he is interviewed by carla ann roberts with the council on foreign relations. a former editor of the london-based and author of the the "islamic state: digital caliphate." and their rivalry with al qaeda. watch book tv every weekend everon c-span2. officials from the state department and citizenship and immigration services were on capitol hill this week to testify on national security concerns in the aftermath of the paris terrorist attack, including the screening of syrian refugees seeking u.s. resettlement. this hearing was held on immigration and border security committee. it is just over two hours.
chairman: we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the refugee >> i will tell everyone that proper quorum is properly heard. observed. this will be your one and only warning in that respect. are going to do things a little bit differently. i have some colleagues that are going to be here very shortly. we will recognize the witnesses before we recognize our members
of the committee. we want to get as much done as we can. fast each of you has very , i'mmpressive resumes going to skip them and just recognize you by name. i would ask you to rise for the administration of the oath. just the witnesses. you'd swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the record show that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. we are delighted to have miss and richard here and also leon
rodriguez. richard: thank you, mr. chairman. subcommitteethe for holding this important hearing at a key moment in the discussion about the program that we have to bring refugees to the united states so that they can restart their lives after living through very difficult situations of war and persecution. parisrderous attacks in have raised many questions about the spillover of migrants to europe. let me assure you that the entire executive branch and the
state department that i represent has the safety of americans as its highest priority. rigorouslyapplicants -- we screen applicants rigorously so that no one who poses a danger to the safety of americans is able to enter this country. they undergo intensive security screening involving multiple , including thes national counterterrorism center and the department of homeland security. resettlement is a careful and deliberate process that can take 18 to 24 months. are currently subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of travelers to the united states.
they scrutinize the applicants explanations of individual circumstances to ensure that the applicant is a bona fide refugee and will not present security concerns to the united states. leon will talk more about this. themrk so closely with that i want to say that they are incredibly careful and if they have any doubts they will not allow anyone to enter the united states. no one has a right to resettlement in the united states. it is something that we offer based on our history and our humanitarian values. the vast majority of applicants who been admitted have proven to be hard-working and productive residence.
they pay taxes and many take the test to become citizens. some server the united states military. regardedam is so well that other countries come to us to learn more about it. i will be taking the british member of parliament, richard for a visit to one of our centers tomorrow. i am happy to answer any questions. right now the american public wants to hear that our first priority is safety.
rodriguez: thank you mr. chairman. i think we can sticky like to two things. the united states has a proud and long tradition of admitting refugees. the situation in and around one withan untenable millions of people displaced. the question is whether we are going to continue that tradition . can i, as the director of the agency that that's these applicants, assure the american people that we are using all our resources to check on these refugees? i'm here to tell you that this multilayered, robust , through which
individuals must pass before they can travel to the united states. will sign posted three critical phases of that process. hopefully i will have little bit of time during questioning to dig into that process a little further. extensive biographical information is captured as well as preliminary analysis as to whether there are essential problems that would disqualify those individuals. interviewsof those are then passed to the state to seeent and ultimately i.s.. point, a series of
critical biographical checks are initiated. there are three let critical links to that check. queries against a number of intelligence and law-enforcement holdings. importantly, there is an interagency check. ae name is checked against number of law enforcement and intelligence holdings. it is important for me to let you know that through that screen of checks. refugee status or based onm on hold derogatory information that came up. populated by the extensive work being done by
u.s. intelligence services. at that point they come to my refugee all caps used -- officers, who had extensive training. specifically with respect to the conditions in syria. we interview each family of refugees and gain more information and more clarity about what is happening in syria . there is another round of fingerprinting and some biometric checks. fbi databases are used. when i talk about the interagency check, i would note
that that is now a recurrent process. they are checked on an ongoing basis. arises, thatation comes to our attention during the process. i hope i will have a further opportunity later to elucidate each step in this process. i think it is critical that the american people get the assurance they need. i asked us to consider the price of inaction. letting in refugees puts a side-by-side with our allies in europe. it also honors our traditions as the american people. jones: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important subject.
the tragic attacks in paris make it particularly important. i will write an overview of the foreign fighter problem. the focus of my remarks is primarily on terrorist groups. let me talk about the extremist threat from syria. airstrikes and also from thece have probably halted advance of the islamic state in syria. iraq, the border in
special operations forces have advance ofalt the the terrorist groups. andthe group remains strong is not on the ropes. is probably more capable now than any time since its creation. the shear number of foreign fighters we've seen traveling to and from syria. the battlefield is the largest concentration of foreign extremists we've seen in any major war. the national counterterrorism
numbers put this at more than 20,000 foreign fighters who traveled to syria to fight. somewhere in the neighbor of 200 americans who attempted to fight against assad regime. we've seen the attacks in paris, in texas, in copenhagen. the threat coming from this region is clear. there was a recent mi five directors comments. have 750 british extremists who joined the group. comingeat is notable
from our european allies. refugees clearly have played an important historical role in the united states. prosperityr economic and cultural diversity. almost none of those attackers were refugees. i would highlight a couple of things that make this syria picture worth noting. said, we see the highest number of foreign fighters on battlefieldihadist
in syria. there has been in exodus of fighters into the west. several european intelligence have expressed concern. most recently in belgium. there have been concerns about after they got into europe. what we had in iraq and afghanistan was a pretty good intelligence architecture. we don't have as much intelligence on the serious syria situation. america has a long-standing tradition of offering safety to refugees, but we need to provide
assurances that we can provide security to our homeland. there is a collection cap compared to other battlefield. krikorian: refugee policy have to be based on two principles. policies must not pose a threat to the american people. whatever money we take from our people in terms of taxes should yield to the maximum humanitarian effect. these policies fail on both of those calves. only clinton said the debate that the united
states should spend whatever it takes". the point. the problem is not that we are devoting inadequate resources. our people are doing the best job they can. proper screening of people from syria cannot be done. we are giving our people and assignment they cannot accomplish. we imagine in a modern developed country that everyone in the world leaves behind them the kind of electronic traces that we do. birth certificates, drivers licenses, school records. those tracks are nonexistent in much of the world. even the best of circumstances. in the kind of chaotic situation that we haven't syria, or
yemen, whatever information might've existed has gone up in smoke. johnson said we are not going to know a lot about the individual refugees to come forward. that's true. we found more information on that. the french sent us the fingerprints of the attackers in paris and it was no trace of them in the database that we are using. our screening resembles the joke about the drunk who loses his keys and searches for them under the streetlight because the light is better there. thislearest statement of , whofrom matthew emerick
said we are checking everything we are aware of. the second point is efficacy. are the resources we are devoting being used to the maximum effect? refugees to our country makes us feel better. humanitarian protection is not to make us feel better. it is to assist as many people as possible with the resources we have decided to devote to this purpose. we found that it cost 12 times as much to reset all refugee from syria in the united states as it does to provide for them in their own region.
the five-year cost we conservatively estimated at $64,000. the five-year cost for caring people in the region would be .bout $5,300 east refugee that we bring here means that 11 other people are not being helped with the same resources. imagine the year 12 drowning -- that you have 12 drowning people. you send it got to rescue one person, or do you throw them 12 like preservers? in conclusion, commerce has a
variety of measures to address the syrian refugee issue. i am not qualified to say whether we should have a temporary pause or abroad change in the rules. these are questions you are going to consider. iron judy keep in mind these two points. the only way to reduce the security risk from syrian refugees is to reduce the number that we resettle. and the government has an obligation to make the most effective use of those resources. resettlementfrom toward protection in the region.
hatfield: this is the oldest refugee agency in the world. we have been resettling refugees since 1881. saves lives. refugee resettlement has saved millions of lives not nearly enough. confronting the world's most horrific refugee crisis since world war ii. syrian.he refugees are without considerably more international insistence, countries like syria and lebanon and turkey are beyond their saturation point. this is causing refugees to risk their lives seeking new places
to go. three-year-old washed up on a turkish beach. 813 asylum-seekers who perished at sea that month. crisis an extra nine requiring extraordinary leadership. so far the response has been tepid at best. this is the largest refugee crisis of my lifetime. we are resettling far more than we did in 1980. my great sadness of the murderous acts of terrorism perpetrated in beirut and paris has been compounded by the reactions of some politicians in this country. they have diverted the focus away from fighting terrorism
toward keeping refugees out of this country their states. fears --e on people's plays on people's fears. that signsy thought like no irish need apply no jews are dogs were part of the past but clearly not. one governor even said, from my home state of new jersey. this can only did we call the ugly debate that occurred in in 1939se in this house there were saves children from nazi germany. governors have the right to be concerned about security but so are the refugee agencies.
our security system already reflects that. syrians being resettled here is relatively anemic. the security protocols are stronger than anything i've ever seen in my 26 years of working in this field. so strong that it has made the to have asettlement backlog and cause unnecessary suffering. this is based on erroneous assumptions. the flow of refugees to europe is entirely dissimilar to the refugees accepted through the u.s. program. the refugees who arrive in the u.s. have undergone extensive security vetting prior to setting foot on our soil. european refugees are not invented until after they enter. this is the distinction.
we should not react to the paris tragedy by proposing these changes. we will prosper as a result of letting in new refugees. refugees fromed communist, fascist and nazi regimes. refugeesng, these immunized us from the totalitarian ideologies that they were fleeing. the u.s. program is hardly a piece of swiss cheese. it is not even the wide reaching rescue program that it was intended to be. it seems highly unlikely if not impossible that a terrorist would choose the refugee resettlement program as his or her pathway to the united states
. my written testimony out loans -- outlines a number of ways to improve the program. thank you for inviting me to testify here today. this country must continue to be both welcoming and safe. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. for appearing late. this is an important hearing. it focuses on the syrian refugee
crisis and its impact on the security of our nation's program. it has the potential to shed meaningful light on critical issues. unfortunately, the value of today's undertaking is greatly the fact that immediately following the conclusion of this hearing we tol go directly to the floor vote on hr 4038, a bill that would effectively shut down refugee processing for syrians and iraqis. there are no easy solutions to this humanitarian crisis. that bill is not the right
answer. to let us witnesses know what should be our response keeping in mind these factors. the safety of all americans. debarll would effectively syrian and iraqi refugees from the program. this measure sets unreasonable standards that the department of homeland security cannot meet and thereby would halt refugee resettlement in the united states. perhaps that is what the whole point is. the program should be held to the highest standards to ensure to the greatest extent possible
that security screening is thorough and effective and timely. refugees are already subject to of highest level of vetting any other traveler or immigrants to the united states. this extensive screening process done by several federal on methodicallies and exhaustive background checks that often take up to 24 months complete and even longer in some cases. thoughtsppreciate your on how we can accomplish that goal. mind that ourn
nation was founded by immigrants. it has historically welcomed refugees who are suffering around the globe. the world looks to the united states. we provide refugees with protection. especially women and children. 11, andake of september the tragic terror attacks in vigilant must be especially in the midst of a global refugee crisis. the bill is in extreme to these latest security concerns.
desperate men and women and children are risking their lives to escape torture in their own homelands. congress needs to do its part by properly funding the resettlement program as well as funding our federal agencies so that they have the necessary personnel to complete the .ecurity checks rather than slamming the doors on the world's most honorable, we should be considering legislation to expand the refugee programs. i am sponsoring a bill that toows persecuted individuals apply directly to the u.s.
refugee admissions program. rather than rushing to the floor to consider legislation that was introduced just two days ago and has not been subject to a single hearing, we should have a discussion about developing meaningful solutions. owdy: national security is the primary objective of our government. the ultimate policy objective. the safety and security of our fellow citizens should be the driving force the hind all the decisions we make as representatives. to take anywrong act that would jeopardize the
safety and security of those who sent us here in the first place. people do not employ us to represent them so that we can take risks with their security. we must put security at the top of our to do list. we have a rich and long history of welcoming those who are being persecuted. are the most welcoming country in the world. the most generous country in the world. we help those in need both here and abroad and we'd minister that aid in greater quantities than anyone else. country has welcomed more than 3 million refugees since 1975. we protect those who cannot protect themselves. we provide a defense for those who are defenseless. but the world we are in is imperfect and seemingly becoming more imperfect.
societyhave an orderly rooted in public safety. rather than address the underlying pathology that results in displaced people, those in charge of our foreign policy seem more interested in treating the symptoms. there are refugees from the middle east and north africa to those regions are on fire. our policy of containment has failed. the terrorists took the lives of over a hundred innocent people in france for no other reason than the fact that they could they killed 100 because they couldn't kill 1000. it is murder for the sake of murder. it is wanton violence and premeditated depravity. barbarism of
committed in france are the latest in a long line of medical attacks-- political committed against innocent people. the cia director said this is not a one-time event. waysare intent on finding to attack americans here on our soil. director brennan said that they have a next journal agenda they are committed to carrying out. these are not the words of republican presidential hopefuls these are the words of our very own intelligence officials who serve this administration. the president has said he is too busy to debate this critical issue. forrtunately what passes debate in this day and age is some discussion of widows and orphans.
it is precisely that kind of hyperbole that is designed to cut off debate that is denying this country a true debate. we have no idea what our foreign policy is in the middle east. they are asking this president one simple question. what assurance can you give us about our public safety and our national security? no one has been able to provide that assurance. on monday the president said we continue to accept refugees. those are wonderful words but at some point you have to ask what does that mean? says theof the fbi lack of our footprint in syria means that the database won't have the information that we need. it's not that we don't have a process. we are have the information.
you are talking about a country that is a failed state. all the intel services you normally would go to do not exist. that is not a republican presidential hopeful. that is the head of the fbi. if someone has never made a ripple in a pond in syria in a way to get their identity reflected in our database? we can check the database until the cows come home and nothing will show up because there is no record on that person. he said i can't offer anyone in absolute assurance that there is no risk associated with this. if our experts are telling us this is not a risk-free endeavor, someone is going to need to tell me and the people i what about a risk is
acceptable when you're talking about national security and public safety? the president says we're scared of widows and orphans. with all due respect, what i am afraid of is a foreign policy creates more widows and orphans. start is with to a foreign policy in the middle east where people can go back to their homelands. we should defeat that jv team that we felt we had contained. that would be the very best thing we could do to help people who aspire to a better life. congresswoman: we must make sure that the security of the
american people is attended to. that is our first obligation. admonition has caused me to review the procedures and policies and laws relative to our refugee program. refugees from syria and other places in the middle east are arriving in waves of screen -- unscreened in europe. see the bodyed to of a three-year-old child wash up on the beach. our process is different. an ocean between us and europe and the middle east. provide allowed us to for a rather extensive process.
considered, united nations commissioner on refugees must have referred you to our system for screening. only a few people only make that process to be screened. that point, with paris settlements support center that does interview people. system whichass classified. that is fbi,cludes the dea, the homeland security, immigration and customs. for certain refugees, including , we have a security
advisory opinion. it is everybody. we had the interagency check which is new. 2008 we didn't have that. we admitted for iraqi terrorists who turned out to be terrorists. we change the process to avoid a repetition of that. we added the biometric check. we have the automated biographical identification system. that is followed by in person interviews.
there are additional checks for syrians. it is no salsa prize -- small surprise that this process takes a couple of years. the fbi essentially has a veto. if there's somebody we don't know who they are, they can't come in. that is as it should be. side sixare what a about a refugee. let us put this into perspective. when ire a terrorist, say i'm going to go through this process and hope that the u.n. systemfer me to the u.s. and go through this extensive process for two years?
paris, everyone wants to make sure that every cheese crust. i don't think it terrorists would do that. we need to take a look at all the systems that we have in place. , perhapshe terrorists all the terrorists in paris were europeans. belgian and french passports. they could come to the united states very easily. we have to take a look at the process we have in place. to make sure that the country is safe. but it doesn't include being afraid of a five-year-old.
i was listening to my colleague luis gutierrez. a syrian family of refugees arrived in chicago. the nonprofit group that was resettling them was the jewish community center. world that we are on the right side of history and they are on the wrong side of history. how do you recruit more terrorists when the united states stands up for what it is? we need to win this on a military basis but we also need to win it in terms of our values. goodlatte: from immigration standpoint, the most essential lesson from the 9/11 attacks is
that foreign nationals who want to do us harm will exploit all aspects of our generous immigration policy do so even if it takes months or years. francelly our ally in learned that lesson when more than 120 people were slaughtered in paris. at least one of those people registered as a refugee from syria while in transit to paris. the administration has a plan to admit thousands of syrians into this country as refugees. the administration announced that during this fiscal year they plan to admit at least 10,000 more. stated i underscore the at least. it is not a ceiling, it is a
floor. at a minimum, nearly 12% of refugees will be from a country with little infrastructure and complete turmoil where thousands of radicalized foreign fighters have poured into it. we have no law enforcement presence there. i understand that the administration conducts checks. are these enough? can this process ensure that these people are not terrorists? dhs secretary johnson told congress that agencies involved in the vetting process are committed to doing the best we can as deliberately as we can. such a statement from the top homeland security official
doesn't exactly instill vettingce in the system. islamic radicals around the world are chanting death to america. that we willng strike america at its center in washington. top security officials of told congress that the refugee vetting process is not adequate. the fbi director told this committee that while the vetting of this committee has improved, with conflict zone like syria where there is dramatically less he couldon available, not offer anybody an absolute assurance that there is no risk associated with admitting syrian nationals as refugees. attorney general lynch did not refute the statement. she conceded that there are challenges to the refugee
vetting process. i wrote to the president last month asking why he continues to ignore the concerns of some of his top security officials. i look forward to the witness's on such concerns today. exactly who they are is a question of immense concern. some of the foreign fighters who streamed into syria are now some of the very individuals who are leaving the country. the director of national saidligence james clapper he wouldn't put it past the terrorists to infiltrate the refugee group. that is a huge concern of ours. non-syrians passing themselves are trying to get into european countries. there is a boom in fake identification documents.
i know that the administration is trying to implement the laws that congress puts in place. take a look at the tougee provisions in the law determine what changes must be made. i would like to thank the witnesses. i know some of you had to rearrange your schedules. i am aman: proponent of the refugee program .
when i hear the witness say that we are going back to the 1930's, i think that is completely out of line out of place. we are here because we are concerned about the safety and security of the united states. we want to continue with this humanitarian program. it was very disappointing to hear your testimony. the mission that we have with humanitarian concerns must not come at the cost of our national security. the testimony from the fbi director and the attorney that they are not able to properly vet the refugees. we are not acting out of just plain fear. we are acting after we have had testimony after testimony from our top national security people telling us that we have a problem in the vetting process.
richard, you reference a tough vetting process. you think the current process is appropriate? richard: yes i do. it is the toughest one. do you think it is sufficient to the current crisis? richard: anyone that we have any , is not allowed to come in. labrador: you agree with that mr. rodriguez? rodriguez: yes. labrador: so all of you disagree with the fbi director's testimony?
richard: what director call me not't say is that it is normal for us to have all the information. labrador: he testified that there was a huge difference between the syrian population and the iraqi population. that thethe reason is programs were not like the other refugee programs. people who have served in the u.s. military and have a great deal of information about those populations. labrador: the fbi director has testified again and again and have enoughe do not
security. your job is to bring in the refugees. my concern is the security of my constituents. we have refugee centers in the state of idaho and we are concerned about what going to happen in that state if we don't get the proper venting. so is my responsibility to ensure that they are protected. mr. drayton is, i want to touch on the interviews. they are generated by a a briefing on country conditions including classified information. they are generated based on
information from prior interviews with that same individual. also the experience and training of that officer. .nd what we learned questions are determined to very carefully i case cap by case basis. what is the typical duration of a refugee interview. them as one hour, two hours. it takes as long as it needs to take. labrador: mr. jones, what is the future of the u.s. refugee admission program? if security programs are not updated. have ishe challenge we
the databases we have that are feeding into the program. and in gaps in syria some of the iraqi cases. i do think this is a notable concern about these gaps in information. lofgren: thank you mr. chairman. rodriguez, we have heard that refugee admissions are subjected to more rigorous screening than any other traveler. this screening is often conducted because refugees in particular may not have the documents that we would have walking down the street.
aliases, associations. when we have less documentation that is the norm, we have trained our personnel on how to recognize fraudulent documents. lofgren: the chairman of the committee organized a trip to visit the middle east. i think the chairman for that. we went to a refugee camp on the syrian border. we had the chance to meet a large number of refugees. their homes and been destroyed. we were very grateful to the
united states for the efforts we have made to provide support for them. that was very rewarding to hear. do we ever crowd source information? some of the more computer science students. some of them were widows. rodriguez: we are always comparing what we hear from with what we are learning from other individuals from that town.
the ones we rooted so far tend to come from particular areas. as part of the classified beormation, there can information that gives more detail. lofgren: what supplementary with syrianken refugees as compared to all other applicants? rodriguez: the manner in which they are briefed on regional conditions is more intensive than what we do for any other officers. we have their basic training on refugee law. we have two series of intensive briefings.
goodlatte: why we have 5 million states,s in the united people who were admitted and violated their visas, violated the promises they made when they entered the united states? rodriguez: what i can speak to today is the actual refugee process? goodlatte: you are saying you have a more highly accurate system for the refugees. the question is very simple. if the interview process is so , and we interview people who apply for all kinds of pieces. coming from countries where we have a much greater presence on
the ground. why was that good process and we still have five million people who are illegally present in the united states who didn't come butss the border illegally they are here illegally? i can speak to is about the refugee system. you canlatte: interview neighbors. you can interview business associates. to them.get
why do you think this process is so effective? rodriguez: it is based on extensive detailed mapping of family relationships and associations and credibility of the documents. from anythingllow may havetor comey said that we are looking at avoid. goodlatte: he said you can check the database until the cows come home but if the information is in the air it will help you. rodriguez: we have placed people on heightened review and there have been denials.
goodlatte: why not hit the pause button on this? in syria has been going on for years and it continues to deteriorate and the situation in terms of gathering weormation about people, have a problem with forged , why not simply delay this for a. of time until we make sure that the criteria we have set forth through legislation can be met? rodriguez: the process as is the mostsourced intensive process and has resulted in denials and holds. it is a redundant, rigorous process.
krikorian: i have no doubt that u.s. officials are doing their betweendistinguish people pretending to be syrians .nd people who are not there is a limit to how effective that can be. there is an extreme lack of data. sometimes they will smoke out someone who is lying or cheating. but more than 90% of syrian .efugees are being approved that might go down a little bit as those cases that are in limbo or formally decided.
the average worldwide is 80%. so how stringent really can this vetting process be when more than 90% are being approved? lofgren: i ask unanimous consent to submit 37 statements on this issue. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. my questions seem to be directed to mark hatfield. i respect the important testimony of the other four
witnesses. i am trying to see how much difference there is between the model and the european approach. is there much of a distinction? hatfield: there is a very significant distinction. the refugees who arrive in europe are not fitted in advance. that vetting does not begin until after they touch the land. states, people are checked right side up upside
down before they are ever admitted to the united states. and in the process continues. they have to apply for adjustment after a year in the united states. they continue to be under close watch. conyers: we are considering hr 4038. they say that it will do no more than add a certification process. do you think that is the whole story on that bill? hetfield: that process would
totally cripple a system without making it more effective. refugees are already thoroughly .etted having three high-ranking officials certify each and every case is a guaranteed that the system will come to a screeching halt. it saves lives very very slowly and that would bring it to an end. conyers: are you concerned that pose a specific threat to the jewish community in the united states?
etfield: we are very concerned with screening out ,eople who want to do us harm especially those who have a particular ax to grind against the jewish community. more is the us phobiabia, islam a driving a wedge between the muslim community and the rest of the world and that could do much more damage to muslim jewish relations and who we are as a country. and it will make us more vulnerable to attack. because we will have said that syrian refugees are not welcome here. conyers: please explain our war
becauses is different they do not comprise enemy states or governments. safety of our people the our first concern even if it means not allowing some refugees into the united states? keeping the eyes states safe and secure is our paramount concern. confidenceith great that our colleagues in the government are doing that. they check every refugee to make us safe. i can't imagine what protocol they could possibly install to make us safer. no terrorist in his right mind
would use the refugee program as a way to enter the united states. they may find other channels. the refugee program is to invasive and to thorough. richard: the people that we are bringing have gone through this process but they also refer to becausee first place the united nations knows the profile of the type of person we are trying to help. we are getting people who have , thetortured, burn victims elderly, widows and children. course, every single one of
us feels that the first priority is the safety of the american .eople if we could not provide for that, we would shut down the program. that weve very strongly are bringing in the most vulnerable people, giving them a second chance at life. anyone abouted out whom we have any question. they probably were not referred to as the first place, which may be why we had a higher acceptance rate. thank you for the opportunity to provides information. we would be happy if given the opportunity to explain more about the nuts and bolts of the process.
states says he wants to protect the security of the american people. we have a bill on the house floor where the fbi has to certify that a syrian refugee is not a threat to the united .tates and yet the president is threatening to veto that bill. i have no rational explanation for the president's threat of a veto. it is astounding to me the president would want to veto a bill that tries to protect the security of americans. this year we have admitted 1700 refugees from syria already. 1700 have beense
arrested for committing a crime? richard: as far as i know? none have been arrested. we do not track them after the first three months then states. smith: so how do you know if they've been arrested? rely on the law enforcement agencies to tell us. smith: are you going to stop tracking the 10,000 that are supposed to be admitted to year after three months? richard: once the refugees are in the united states, after a
year of being here, they become legal permanent residents. they are treated pretty much like ordinary americans and they are not track. they are not treated differently from other refugees. i think most people consider syrian refugees. country they fled their . smith: we've had testimony from that we havetor less information about the syrians than the others.
he says he regrets he doesn't have more refugees about the syrians. he has real concerns and he thinks is risky. are you saying that syrian refugees are less risky than other refugees? richard: we know what they've been up to and there is a record of them outside their countries. smith: terrorist organizations have already said they are going to use the refugee program to try to infiltrate this country. richard: i am very worried about .errorists odds of a refugee being a terrorist are very very small.
we are focusing our program on making sure that no one comes in who might become a terrorist. smith: we've heard that you really don't have the data you need to make that determination. i don't think there's any way if you have the data it seems that it would be very difficult for you to give the assurance that these people are not going to become terrorist. richard: the fbi does not have a lot of data about what happens in syria. it collects the information and does a fantastic job.
smith: the law enforcement people have disagreed with you. lesssay they have information on the syrians. state dotizens of the not want to have syrian refugees resettle within their , is thetion administration going to force them to take those refugees? richard: the legal answer is that the federal government has the right to resettle people all across america. the reality is that this program only functions if we have the
support of the american people at the level of states and cities and towns to come forward and help them get jobs and so forth. so you are saying that the administration is not going if thee communities local communities oppose the settlement of the refugees? richard: i haven't said that because it is up to the president to decide that. i personally would not want to resettle anyone in a hostile community. smith: they are not hostile communities. they are acting in what they consider to be the best interest of their people.
i like to put the process diagram into the record. it is a maze. the inquiry is being made through this legislation is a legitimate one. i was on the homeland security committee when the 9/11 recovery was still going on. memory that sears the minds of americans as much as 9/11. harborbing of pearl resulted in the internment of japanese americans. this process troubles me. i understand that approximately 23,000 individuals are referred by the united nations from syria
mr. rodriguez, have you read hr 4038? good, it is not one of our more complicated ones. it is not had a hearing before hascommittee would that basic jurisdiction over domestic security. it has not had a hearing before the crime subcommittee of this committee. you are the tactical man in this process. ityou look at it, you read that the elements of must certify every iraqi,person, syrian or you read it in that way? rodriguez: i am reluctant to
interpret the bill. i am aware of it. jackson-lee: i need you to be understood. it says that everyone in this category has to certify each refugee. rodriguez: i think that our basic position as the president stated last night is that it doesn't add anything to the already rigorous process. jackson-lee: then he go back to ms. richard. each person would have to be independently certified. there is a long list of persons that must do the certification.
rodriguez: religion is one of the categories of persecution but we do not disqualify anyone because of their faith. king: you asked them what is the religion? rodriguez: if that is the basis of their persecution. king: can you explain to me, and i was in the kurdish region on the front lines and over to turkey and into hungary in croatia. i said take me to the camps where i can talk to persecuted christians.
and they could do that. the christians are being taken into the homes. out to be almost exclusively muslims that are in the camp's. can you name from a right and if a suicidal terrorist that was not a muslim? rodriguez: what i can talk about king: the administrations policies to walk around the subject, and not say these words.
rodriguez: we do our job. if terrorists are testing to gain admission to the united states, we prevent them. king: you're telling me you are doing a thorough vetting process. but if you don't specifically religion, about their and you are not able to quantify the risk to american society. i think my point is made there. operating hearing completely the wrong premise. premiseerating on the that we can examine them upside ok. sideways and we will be and yet when i look at the situation, there is a daily mail , nearly 70 people have
been arrested in connection with isis plots including refugees that were trying to bring terror against americans. the number was actually 66. i know that we can't be perfect with this. but some of these people came in as terrorists were vetted. they may become terrorist after they got here, become radicalized. this, a huget in airk of humanity and are the needles called terrorists. it's a proposal from the administration is that we are so professional that we can identify any of the needles in this haystack as terrorists and sort the needles out of the haystack and somehow prevent them from coming into america,
rather than putting them down in gitmo where they belong. and they will assimilate into the broader american civilization. it is nuts to think that. and some of the people that were not terrorists can morph into a terrorist. people get radicalized in this country, we've had multiple attacks in america. europelook at the map of and the dots of the hotspots where they've been attacked in a most every country in europe. it is proportional to the muslim population they are brought in from the middle east and north africa. we are committing slow motion cultural suicide in america. we are just one generation behind europe.
they feel so guilty about political correctness over the that they will except any kind of violence brought into the country. if we going to save ourselves, we have to intervene and provide a safe zone for the persecuted religions. syrian christians. gutierrez: we are all shocked and horrified by the news coming from paris. as a member of the intelligence committee, i know there is much to learn from our allies. attacks, i urge my colleagues to keep a cool exactly the react way the terrorists hope that we do.
republican governors and elected figures have media done this. i have been here long enough to know a thing or two about opportunism. you got 15 guys and a lady running for president on the republican side. they will say whatever they can to get in front of the news cameras. the governor of illinois could not resist saying that our state was closed to syrians fleeing the terror of assad regime. he said there was no place in illinois for women and children and elderly fleeing assad regime. just as he said that, a
wonderful syrian family arrived in chicago just two days ago. they found a safe place. that is the message that destroys the hatred. not the film that they are going to have of people saying we don't like muslims. every community of people that is come here as strengthens to this nation. fear, last year we talking about the refugee from central america. sayingmedical doctors that they were bringing ebola to the states. later, where is it?
saying theyernor were close down their states because of ebola. every time we hear this, it is about they are coming because they are murderers and racists and drug dealers. it is just fear. the best tradition of america is those that stood up against fear mongers. and hatred and bigotry and prejudice. that is why savvy believe is happening now. if they were only christians, it would be fine. people said if they were only white anglo-saxon protestants they must be under suspicion. we've heard these arguments time .nd time again
america has always responded to them correctly. nationoming those of our , so that they can celebrate that faith. we are having is kind of test here. we used fear during world war ii. we had the internment camps of the japanese. a blemish on american history. to say fear and bigotry that those who would flee the of the nazis and the holocaust, we said there is no room in america for you. that there is a tourist system out there that wants to hurt us.
there are tens of thousands of who are outatriots there protecting the homeland every day. they are not working a hundred 200%.t, they are working they are keeping us safe. those are americans watching out for america. i think we impugn their integrity and who they are and their system. we have made this mistake before let's not make it again. system.ave a we're not just adding an extra layer. they are being vetted. we shouldn't fall into the trap that the terrorists have put out.
buck: i was the district attorney in northern colorado. 1500 and 2000 somali refugees. there were some pickups in the process but for the most part they were welcome. they have lived there happily married community that is open to them. how many refugees are there around the world who are in a position to come to this country? rodriguez: there are about 19 million refugees worldwide. that is the largest number it is
ever been. buck: what is the number that we were allowing for the country? rodriguez: our target this fiscal year is 85,000. buck: why would the administration objects to a pause on syrian refugees who have suddenly other refugees we can admit where we have been successful in admitting them into communities in this country? rodriguez: about a quarter of all those refugees worldwide are syrian.
buck: this is not a matter of religion. there have to be various religions in that 75%. rodriguez: the situation in syria is devastating in that there is no prospect ever return. buck: but admitting those refugees would not change the situation in syria. rodriguez: the germans are expecting more than a million buck: mr. hatfield said that he was surprised that attacks in paris have caused
more scrutiny. are you surprised by this? rodriguez: there are enemies of the united states. i know that we have enemies. buck: your point doesn't answer my question. are you surprised by this? rodriguez: i'm not surprised that there are fearful americans. but i think americans want to be a welcoming country. buck: let me tell you one of the reasons that americans are distrustful. we had the murder of an ambassador in benghazi. the president told the american
was thehat the attack result of a video. state whoretary of immediately found that it was not because of the video it was a well-planned attack. -- theistry did administration paraded all these people out to lie to the .merican people the people have very little faith in this and administration on whether they can determine if syrians who come to this country are trustworthy. , thisthis country's administration's lack of credibility that is caused the problem. trott: do you think americans have a right to be fearful today in light of what happened in
paris and the threats against new york and washington? rodriguez: yes. trott: what should i tell my constituents that we are doing about their fears. ? rodriguez: there's a whole lot more that goes just beyond the refugee program in terms of protecting the united states. i would tell them that this is the most rigorous process in the history of refugee screening. we have denied people admission. there are hundreds of people on hold because their stories or becauseibility there was derogatory information about them.
trott: can you understand the complete lack of confidence in my constituents have? whether it is the future of social security, the affordability of health insurance, the veterans administration, and you understand why people are upset about the competence of the rodriguez:ernment? we have more of a burden of information with people that we perceive. we need to make sure the american people understand in a calm, reasoned dialogue. what are doing is rigorous. trott: you are 100% confident that this process is going to work perfectly going forward? rodriguez: it is a meaningful and robust process.
trott: so there is no value in just hitting the pause button? many people have made this vote into a political vote. what congress wants to do, and there will be many democrats to join us, is to hit the pause button and to work in a collaborative way to make sure their homeland is safe. i stand by what i said about the process. we need to think about the cost of inaction. of course the process could be improved upon. we are working every day to make sure we refine our understanding of what is going on in these countries. of course there is room for improvement. process as it exists is
a robust and meaningful process. radcliffe: i appreciate your leadership on this issue, mr. chairman. meeting with hall the people of my district in texas. was similar to many the telephone meetings i had before. as many as 300 or 400 people in the group to ask me questions. i did have a single question about obama care. --id have a single question did not have a single question about epa. about the questions syrian refugee issue and the
concerns that the terrorists will use gaps in our process to make us less safe. there is no hyperbole and what i just said. concernights the grave that the people around the country have about this issue. usticularly relevant for theuse texas has received largest percentage of refugees. 10% of all arrivals in the united states were settled in texas. i think or hope that this and the in syria efforts to infiltrate this process present a unique challenge to the united states. it is important that we all honestly assess whether our
system is equipped to protect the american people. pause whileave to we perform the process. americaemphasize that is the beacon of freedom to the world in part because it is a refuge. it is a safe place. if we sacrifice that, we will begin one of the very aspects of our country that attracts the week in the vulnerable to our shores. i would likemind to ask director rodriguez, i understand that an applicant for refugee status must be cleared. all the security checks prior to the application. individuals unless something negative appears?
rodriguez: we need to have confidence that they can sustain the claim for refugee status. they are identified by the united nations. often they are torture victims are people that have been injured in war. carefully as to whether there are exclusions that would keep them out. beener they have affiliated with a terrorist organization. we have kept people out because we had suspicion. we screen for both an absence of information or the presence of information. if there is insufficient information, insufficient context for us to the continent
that this person is who they say they are, then that would be a basis at a minimum for that case be placed on hold. radcliffe: the current law requires consultation with state local officials. i don't know how much a consultation actually takes place. it is supposed to result in the development of policies and strategies for the resettlement of refugees. including25 governors my governor in texas have issued statements saying they would bar syrian refugees from settling in their states. would consultation take into account a desire on the part of to keepe's governor
refugees out? richard: you are absolutely right that consultation is an important part of this program. we require that the local organizations have quarterly thisltations and they do with the community leaders. every state has a state refugee coordinator who reports the there is a make sure suitable provision made for the refugees. one of the things that the chairman is reinforced in our discussions is that it is important for our partner organizations to talk to the people who are most responsible at the community level. they go to the police chief, the
ther, the school principal, health care center to make sure they know who is coming of what to expect. this reinforces their preparedness to welcome the refugees. you are correct that texas is the most welcoming state. i was surprised that so many governor spoke out so quickly. a phone call the governors. i think we have to get more information out to people so that they understand what this we take suchnd why care in making sure that it is that will keep people safe.
chairman: votes are going on so i don't want you to think of the members have left to do to disinterest. i wanted to go last in the questioning as i wanted to hear everyone else's perspective. the thought that kept going through my head was that this past weekend i saw a gentleman in my hometown walking away from a gas station carrying a gas can. his car ran out of gas. i had to make the decision as to whether i was going to offer him a ride. i offered him a ride. that is a risk that i was
willing to take for myself. i would never ask any of you to do that. you have to balance that risk for yourself. i want to get on airplanes today p i want to get home quickly. i'm not willing to go bungee jumping even though the risk may also be small. i have not heard a single one of you say there is no risk. even mr. hatfield said that the risk is very very low. but even there, there is some risk. no one has been able to say that there is zero risk. the potential consequence of us getting it wrong is maybe cataclysmic. we have to be right every time.
the risk could be very small at something bad could still happen . we have to balance the risk versus the potential of us getting it wrong. wrong inver gotten it the past? not just syrian refugees but any refugees. is anybody aware of a circumstance where it has failed? not all at once. krikorian: and it was big refugee who was admitted was convicted. a couple of years ago to iraqi refugees in kentucky, it turns out their fingerprints were on
ied's. , they critics of skeptics insist on saying no one has been in the united states. iraqis conviction the doesn't mean anything to me, the paris attacker is not going to dead.victed because he is you can't use a conviction as a barometer for somebody being a threat. does anybody disagree that there have been failures in vetting? does anybody take the position that we have made no mistakes?
>> chairman gowdy, i agree with you that in the history of the refugees that have come here, there have been a handful that have been a threat. fortunately, they have been before anything bad happened. the two iraqis in kentucky was -- were the most shocking example. they had done bad things in iraq, lied to get into the country, and had our current system been in place, they would have been caught before they got here. that is why the system has been improved since that episode. you had said few things in life are risk-free, i heard the governor of washington state say you take a risk when you get out of bed in the morning, there are a lot of dangers in the world, absolutely, but i think the program we run does as much possible to reduce the risks of bringing refugees to this country. we have great confidence in it. we invite members to come out to
the field and meet some of the people and sit through some of the briefings by leon steen that i sat through -- leon's team that i set through. ms. richard, that is what hates -- that is what makes me hate waste, fraud, abuse, deception so much. when anyone engages in it, it impacts those that would never consider engaging in it, because it makes everyone stop and think. there is some risk. there is a great reality that if we get involved, something bad could happen. you have to balance the risk with the potentialities of something bad happening. when you do have people who abuse any system, believe it or not, there have been federal judges to undergo rigorous screening, including going back and talking to neighbors 25
years ago, and they still turn out -- we did wrong with them time to time. united states attorneys, serious fbi background checks with every database. we still get it wrong. members of congress, believe it or not, we get it wrong from time to time. that is what i am trying -- we can't do it this morning, but you can't say there is no risk, and i appreciate the fact that nobody has tried to say that. we all agree that we are dealing with an enemy that affirmatively wants to do whatever bad thing they can do to us. as put thek it american people in a tough position, particularly given the fact that public safety and national security are critical functions of government. to in this by thinking you for coming to south carolina, and noting that the reason you had to come to south carolina was nothing you had done. othershatfield, i know
-- and others in his line of work. you are exactly right. the community needs to be talked to, not simply people who may be supportive. if you want to find out the truth, you have to talk to everybody, including those who may not support the program, so you can weigh the competing evidence. you should not have to have come to south carolina, quite frankly. it should have been done well before you and i ever met. i think a lot of information -- the sooner and more fully it is shared, the better people can make informed decisions. as i leave to explain to the majority leader why i missed the vote, this is what i encourage everyone to do. what i really wanted to do that towork going was get you walk the american people through every step of the vetting process. i really do like the director of , but i also would
knowledge the fbi may be experts in this realm of data. do you have access to other realms? again, you can draw whatever conclusions you want, it is none of my business -- but intel you have all the facts, you can't draw any conclusions. so if you or somebody else could lay out for the american people every single step, and every database you can access, and every question you can ask, and the training of the people doing the questioning -- folks are still going to come down on different sides of this issue, least theyre, but at will know they did it having access to every bit of information. want to thanko administration witnesses for agreeing to a single panel. unusual, buts given the circumstances, it was a necessity. i think all of our witnesses,
and with that i am going to head to the floor, and we are adjourned. thank you. >> thank you, chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the discussion on syrian refugees continues this week and on "newsmakers." talk about other issues, including federal spending, which lawmakers must address before december 11 to avoid a
potential government shutdown. watch the interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. has the best access to congress. watch live coverage of2 the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watches online or at www.c-span.org. listen live anytime on our c-span radio app. twitter.span on stay with c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org for your best access to congress. next, a discussion on the health care industry and ways to improve access to affordable drugs. this was part of a forum hosted by the health and human resources department. it is one hour and 15 minutes.
the drugs and i am on now has varied in price from 4702 9800 per month for the same product at the same dosage. medicalbout $270,000 in .ills i have never been able to figure out the actual cost. the 65 disabled population is on regulationsof state and run legislation. i've worked with my legislature passed my own bills to get supplemental coverage. i could not afford to pay the co-pay, yet they had the right to turn me down and refuse me,
or they offered me ridiculously expensive premiums. that is for 20% coverage. each state is different. it is a huge issue in many places such as this virginia about half the states across the country. my third issue is there is no out-of-pocket maximum. many cancer drugs are billed under part d. it is expected that a day will come that it can over blogger a formidable mental coverage. i will be paying the co-pay which today would be 1000 and $2000 per month just for the one drug, not my doctors, cat scans and everything else. dsca did regulate the out-of-pocket maximum for those without insurance.
this remains a problem just for medicare recipients. i'm glad to see that there are lots of drugs in the pipeline. if they could help to keep me alive little bit longer. drugs are increasingly stacked. i can only expect that my cost will escalate in the future have learned to this term. despise i always want to ask when people ask about skin in the game, is most of my savings enough, and why must i worry about financial insolvency as much as i worry about cancer? i'm a middle-class american that happen to get cancer. i could be any of you. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause]
thank you susan. as a patient advocate i want to commend heather for her advocacy, her work. it is what it is all about when you are in patient advocacy. tremendous work there. i also want to thank the secretary for convening this meeting with all the stakeholders. relieved the national health council way. our organization is controlled terms of this governance. all stakeholders in membership, that includes providers, payers, and the biocentric close -- and soon the generic association. we work to achieve solutions to very complex situations that our but involvedred, all stakeholders so that we can truly make the solutions work. this is the only approach where we can address this issue.
to you aboutalk three specific issues and my own comments. of the last several decades we have an research on chronic disease and their family caregivers. what they tell us routinely as they hate the fact that there are industries, both insurance companies and the biopharmaceutical sector understand the cost paid they have begun to focus in on health plans are structured. what we are finding for people, conditions is that they are going to insurance products that have taken what was one of the greatest benefits in the , the maximumre act
out-of-pocket costs, and they've turned neutral webpage by frontloading those costs so what many people in chronic conditions find is that they had their out-of-pocket cost in the first month or two. often before they get their first medication or see their specialist. people onfor many average amount to 20% of their annual income. bar, and itective discriminates against people with chronic conditions that are of low social economic status. people with chronic conditions are getting really angry about that. the second point out like to make is finding a solution to this would not be easy. as we heard from the previous speakers that starts by identifying value. looking at volume from the perspective people with chronic disease. theannot simply address
cost of what item without looking at the entire oscar ecosystem. we have to look at the entire ecosystem and collectively decide what is value, and how are we going to promote value. valuetainly cannot define without the patient perspective. that leads me to my third and final point. we -- we continually conflate consumers and patients. while we are part of the same stakeholder community, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. healthrs go into the care system, and the use it as needed. quickly for an acute care incident. they go home to their families and jobs and lives as if nothing if you ared in
getting to look for indices where there is no effective treatment, or one that is deadly, you have an entirely different to what value is, at what innovation is. we have to include that perspective for all the other perspectives as we work through the complicated issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. my role is going to be to tell you a little bit about what the public opinion context run the issue is. but it is respective with how the public bills about and what their perspectives and the really stems from a question that we asked back in
what we found was that high-cost drugs available for chronic conditions and making sure they were affordable to those that needed them, this ranks number one. it right number one across parties. most americans were saying that this should be a priority for the president and congress moving forward. was access toond lower friction drug prices. were above ams number of other health policy issues related to the aca and to consumer protections like network protect sections and increase transparency in health plans and that sort of thing. we re-ask this question in our
october tracking poll. we found similar results. most of what i will talk about the hole wefrom have done since april when we found that drugs were coming in this top public priority in terms of health care. normalowed up with our tracking to see how the public sees these issues. what we found is that roughly three quarters of the costs are viewed as unreasonable. what must -- but most to our taking drugs seem to have a easy time reporting them. the still a quarter taking drugs say they have a different -- difficult time affording their drugs. this is a bubble for people with lower incomes or are in poor health or those who are taking .ultiple drugs
i think one of the reasons that such a large share of public views the cost as unreasonable is not personally for them that this is a key way that they interact with the health care system. of transactions people have with their pharmacies or the care providers about drugs as much larger than when they go to an office. drug on the cost of the their body. -- on the bottle. one thing that i want to point it is important to
keep in mind that these drugs impact the relatively small share of the public. about today isg polling we have done of the public at large. not specifically those who are facing as extreme prices. general went is in found they did not have the best view of the pharmaceutical industry. that the ink making make american lives better. i will leave it there for now. >> thank you. lisa? lisa gill: thank you. i'm excited to be here, representing consumers in the marketplace. consumer reports is an independent, nonbiased, nonprofit organization. context of my discussions
will be what consumers experience when they're at the pharmacy counter specifically. we have a separate poll, asking what people have experienced in the last year. i wanted to share a few points about that because i think it is germane to this topic. we asked a national representative survey of americans what they were experiencing in the last 12 months. -- one out of0% three people who take a prescription drug told us they had seen their cost at the counter spike unexpectedly. the average price that people paid extra than what they had intended was $39. that does that sound like a lot to me you're you, put on fixed income that can be substantial. one out of every 10 people told $100 or price spiked
more which is just outrageous. some people went ahead and fill their prescriptions, some people do not realize they may should -- maybe should have shopped around. that is something we want to talk about as well. we will talk about high-priced specialty medications today. but we are very focused on what seemajority of americans with their more mundane everyday drugs and their ability afford polls havee our shown your view of the people cannot afford their medications and they will do pretty dangerous things. they will not fill prescriptions the way they're supposed to. they may not take medication as directed. they might split pills without asking the doctor or pharmacist. those are some pretty bad things. but consumers also told us because of high medication cost sometimes they skipped doctor visits that were scheduled. they skipped procedures or tests, so all of these rings from our standpoint lead to worse outcome.
medication compliance is a key component of what we do. i want to sayind, that i am an editor of a program " went on last 10 years is comparative effectiveness research. some of you may not be a health professional in the audience. drugss are done with looking at how safe and effective they are compared to other pages in the same class and others instead of just the placebo. we have looked for high-value medications, drugs that were very safe, effective, and relatively affordable. wouldhe idea that that improve compliance. this effort has been to understand the affordability issues. we want to understand what the best way to shop for it and the best way to save it is.
i will give you three times because they are very important to illustrate what is wrong with these aretplace workarounds solutions. they will make some of us in our chairs, but they are wanted to hear. the first one is this in some mays, using your insurance not be the best deal. i will give you an example. on almost every discount drug list, you can get a prescription for about $10 for a three month supply. that is fantastic. a lot of people do not realize that. for people who find they may have to pipe does pay the entire cost of their medication, there are a lot of reasons that could happen in the could be that their formulas have changed, the insurance is not covering the drug in a high enough rate.
they may have a high deductible insurance plan. experiencedt they what feels like an overnight spike in prices because the manufacturer is taking advantage of a loophole they found and the drugs have gone through the roof astronomically. if the consumer finds this situation happening to them, you might want to try to negotiate with your pharmacist. he could actually negotiate the price of drugs if you're paying for them out of party. i will give you an example. we have secret shoppers at hundreds of pharmacies around the countries. policy, aular supermarket and more annoyed look, we asked and said what is your price for this generic drug. they first told us it was $75 are seekers harborside imac
i am not good to use my insurance, can you give me a better rice? $21. that is pretty good. the third point is, if you find yourself in a situation, chopper out because like heather pointed out, drug prices for the same drug, save streets, even in the savings and code can vary dramatically. another example of that is generic cymbalta and the raleigh north carolina area. some of the larger chains give us the rise of $228 or $198. we called a couple of pharmacies and got a different price in the cold costco. instead of paying $220, they would give it to us for $43. that was phenomenal. we were very happy to see that for consumers and their a couple
--marketplace caps on we see marketplace gaps that we see. out-of-pocket maximums would go bring way toward helping more stability to the marketplace in addition to form formularies being changed. and more transparency. we want to see how much medication, how well they work about how safe they are, and how much they cost a thank you for having me. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for holding this important meeting. of 37ere on behalf million aarp members and their families to break out into a cold sweat every time they go to the cashier to pay their drug cost. as many of drugs,
you have heard on this panel, many of you know from your own visit to the pharmacy, are going up and up and. specifically specialty drugs that are coming to market that you heard about in the first panel. today we released a report that shows the average price in 2013 was over $53,000. price ofor the average a special treat drug let me put that into context. the median income in the u.s. for a household is just over $52,000 in if we look at our onbers, those who were social security or medicare beneficiaries. their immediate and total debt median income is only $23,000. if we look at their social checks, $15,000 on
average 3.5 times the cost for one drug trade -- one drug. that's a lot, by any measure. but more only most of our beneficiaries and older members are not just taking one drug, two thirds of older americans are taking three or more drugs multiply the cost of the drive by the number of corrections have to fill, prices can be examined. not pay thes do whole price of the drug, but they do in one way or another. all consumers are paying for these drugs are important lee, as you heard from heather the skin in the game of copayments can sometimes break your budget. newven if we look at the drugs that are coming on the weket of $15,000 a year,
calculate how people are going to have to pay out-of-pocket, it can be about $3000 a year government a third of their social security check. is for one drug that they will have to take every here. importantly, even if you are not personally take that drug, you will be paying for it through higher premiums, and other ways than the fix the system. we know that in just 2016 the theree rice -- price is team percent higher -- 13% higher. everybody's premiums go up by over $124. that is a lot of money. and we'll all be paying for truth. it for one drug. it is not just consumers complaining about the cost that they have.
we heard about people not taking the drugs that needed it. haveent study showed 35% not filled in prescription because they could not afford to. and while today's conversation on medical innovation, we fully support new treatments for chronic conditions, for major , medical innovation is meaningless and nobody can -- if nobody can afford it. talk a little bit about access and ways to control costs. statusso want to raise as an issue. many insurance companies and medicaid programs are creating very high bars for people to get treatment that they need. medicaid programs you have to have a biopsy in order to qualify to get certain drugs. and others there are other barriers.
aboutd to think not only access and affordability together. there are ways to address cost. other countries are doing it. far better than we are. if we look at the cost of drugs in the united states, many times they are 10 times, 100 times the cost of that other people pay. $84,000 in the united states, but $60,000 in the united kingdom, and $900 in egypt. the united states taxpayers and consumers should not read the full cost of innovation, and we should use the tools that we have and add additional tools in order to make sure the drugs are affordable and that all patients have access to needed care. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to all of you. what we have heard really is
affordability is issue number one for america since, consumers, and patients we heard numberny that it was the two issue on the tracking polls. we have heard that pricing is a particular issue. he mentioned having a single drug that you are taking very by ry in price that is twofold. we heard about price hikes that increasingly patients are encountering. we see the premiums in part d plan shooting up 13% as a consequence. we have heard about difficulties within the plan design, whether
, the medicare, catastrophic costs, or even less of the donut hole, the real burden on disabled and who are qualified for medicare. theeard from you on volatile health plans issues, frontloaded these drug costs by virtue of the high deductibles in these clients. people may be protected at the maximum product at level of the day had these hydro costs right away. and what of these have high desert those, and suffered to the tools on the medical side. we have heard that there are consequences to all of these things that are not always to the best interests and health of consumers. not filling prescriptions,
giving medications, skipping other forms of care. some tips. if offered a few of the four consumers simply can't avoid testthose recruiting record in steps. shopping around. there are other approaches as well. approaches.licy he mentioned some of those that we may want to take into consideration. these are particular issues for low income and elderly americans especially. many of whom will have multiple chronic conditions and feel multiple drugs. back to some of the policy discussions that you have had in various ways started to wade into. heather let's start with you. you mentioned patchwork of state and federal regulations that affect people who are on
medicare and disabled. how that hurts people from place to place. this is obviously not going to be workable to attack these issues on a state-by-state level necessarily, but what do you think? a policy agenda from your perspective as a patient who has seen this and sees the issue than the of ability that consumers will have skin in the game, but we want to minimize the beyond your liver? heather block: what i see it is time for national regulation of medication. , it wasto -- instead of too difficult an issue. they left it to the states to execute. each state tax credits and differently.
i do not there there are two states that are alike. i ended up writing a bill that i copied from several states, which i got my information from i started: health insurers in different states to find out. i cannot expect that every person that is under 65 and disabled is going to have -- feel good enough and have the wherewithal to share how to draft a bill and get it passed. the other issue is the law i helped draft to a six-month windows that would be became medicare eligible you could not be medically underwritten. the cannot ask you about your disease and what happens when they quit selling certain medigap plans? do not know what happens to people like me because we are
i know i am and and in the weeds here, so bear with me. but i buy guitar plan that is going away, they will not be selling it anymore obviously there are fewer and your people on the plan and my premiums are going to skyrocket your there will come a time when i could no longer afford to buy the. i backed paying 20% of my drug costs which could be about $9,000 a month and you begin to see it is not sustainable. donovan is. and his helmet begin to look at the national framework and include those of us were under 65 and disabled and i believe you're going to see a steady rise of bankruptcy from people like me. i want to ask you about tips for consumers who are shopping around for health plans that will cover their drugs in a way that minimizes the pain out of pocket.
aarp has been working for many aars with consumers to choose part d plan, which obviously's going to be necessary for consumers to do now more than ever as these premiums go out. and presumably you are offering advice on that score as well for but itt just in part d health plans generally. let's start with you. this is then: season. every thanksgiving i said that my father-in-law, get out his prescriptions, and type in to see with the best plan is to plan costs change year to year, and you may have been on the cheapest plan lester, and so going back and searching for the drugs you are taking right now, the pharmacy are using, is very important for consumers. checking between different pharmacies is also very urgent. talking to your doctor about the number of drugs you are on as .ell to make sure
many people of multiple doctors, multiple restrictions. there are benefits within part d to make sure that you are on the right set of medication. there are things that consumers to do this can do to a degree. what i was trying to address was the larger structural cost of underlying drugs. much, butan shop so if somebody is taking a very expensive cancer drug that is the treatment for their condition, or is not a part d party drug administered where they have no negotiating power all that falls away. >> i would have to thought, one of the biggest mistakes consumers make during the season is not taking any action. unfortunately a large portion of people assume that the plan will remain the same. this is particularly true for employer plans for you get into
a rhythm, where you do not really look at the changing me less than plant design in general. i would really underscore consumers always at this time of year double check their plans and double check that have covered the things that they still need them to cover. are doingthing they is to be very mindful of high deductible plans. and let the players have moved to these plans. they can because in certain circumstances, but some people have a chronic condition or a plan surgery, or maybe they will start a family of these plans may not be the best for their needs at all possible. into a healthim care consumer. the shopping and comparing his pretty critical. as we heard from the earlier panel, a value-based insurance design might be one way that can address of word ability for different consumers.
there are some plans now that have moved in that direction and eliminating co-pays for variable voluble drugs. diabetes medication, cholesterol medications, etc.. there is a one of the out there in the market today. how is your assessment, and could that market be stimulated, and how can consumers help to stimulate the market? really telling from the consumer standpoint, not having a cold and is fantastic. and removes this barrier of the potential surprise of standing at a pharmacy counter to be had with a high drug bill that you did not expect something you take all the time. i think consumers, as we have gone through signing up for affordable health care act plan for medical poor people are covered and many were for coming into the argosy space. consumers will begin to be about experience the
streams issues of not having the kind of cover their hope in, and not being covered as well as do notd intended to i know i will answer your question directly, but i will hope that there was frustration and would spur better plan design and more consumer friendly plan design that is focused on compliance and high-volume rather than just choosing bottom lines. susan dentzer: two point about the kaiser tracking poll, people expressed a desire to see more government regulation of drug prices are drilled out further than that. do people really understand what that means? just have an impulse of they want somebody to do something? heather block: i think the
latter in this debate. general public is largely supportive of these different approaches. how they set their prices, allowing medicare drugs to be negotiated for drug pricing. limiting the amount the drug companies can color just charge for high crest drugs. then also we have reference pricing. encouraging people to buy lower-cost drugs. general, eight out of 10 or so but not 10 is supportive of these options. the one the countless support but still have to say they are supportive is the pricing option. at this point it is still relatively early as this
discussion is happening in this go around. is possible but there will be more differentiation in terms of what the public would prefer both theers do proposals are honed, as opponents come out with their objections to it of the proposals might be. developedsages are and policies are developed the public right to with more options. right now we see broad support for both me and help this issue. susan dentzer: what about the membership of the national health council? break thesey various turn in dave's, are they really at a consensus at this point on what might be done? there are two issues that we are conflated. i also didn't affect year 20 about the cost of drugs being the primary issue.
respect to people with chronic conditions, what they will tell you is they do not like the fact that they are paying so much out of pocket to get their drugs, but also to see their doctors, to see their specialist, to access their care. i think what you are hearing is there is a lot of agreement that the plan design is not working. especially for people with high cost treatment. we recognize we have created a set of incentives that compel health plans to compete on trying to keep high cost individuals out of their plans. we have not made the rules of the road granular enough so that plans can compete on value. but think that is part of what needs to be looked at. there's a lot of opportunity. if you look at what happened in the affordable care act, and a lot of them are going out of his this because they tried to provide really good benefits,
but the risk adjustment did not work. there is opportunities to realign policy so that access can be made affordable, and we can have plans compete on value. it is a critically important issue. we speak with patients and they often tell you that the cost is number one, and they do not like the price of the drugs. there are a few of them understand what the price of the drug was that went to the plan where they got it. they do not have that information. what they really mean is i want access to the drug trade those are two different elements. the other point i wanted to make, going back to your earlier comment, those people who have treatment, axis is a huge issue in the marketplace, and in most insurance products now. especially if you're a social economic status that is lower. even if you're just middle income. what you have to recognize, i'm going to channel one of my board
members whose the head of after jurors. she said we have between seven and 9000 diseases. only 500 have effective treatment. for the vast majority of people with chronic conditions, they want a treatment, but they want the treatment that they have to get better. but is a number one priority. for a lot of them they would love to have an expensive option. we're at the point where science is moving to a place where we are developing treatment that we have never seen before. it was pointed out before the we of the first specialty product that say to her. there is huge opportunities. for people with chronic condition, that is a priority. how we make them affordable is also a priority. but we have to look at the entire health care ecosystem and figure out as a society, are we going to pay for new innovation, and how are we going to make it accessible to all, not just to
the wealthy? susan dentzer: texas] you, heather. because you said you hope there are new drugs coming out that will continue your survival. earlier,rd from dog the vast majority of cancer treatment's going forward are going to be these targeted therapies and they are going to have high price tags attached to the, almost assuredly. how would we balance this? drugsid, value driven that will extend life, but also have that the affordable? heather block: you're asking me that? [laughter] first of all, i got on a targeted therapy. i wish i was. i look forward to the validity around to be on what one day. but i do understand the balance that is needed.
i look at it as i am not sure that every drug but we have to have access to everything one from a patient perspective i'm not sure we need access to every single one out there. best to have the drug that will give us a long. if we're balancing affordability with axis, we have to have some give on the access side. i'm willing to give that up to make treatment more affordable. that is from my personal perspective. heather block: do think most patient groups are there? this is the first time i have met together -- susan dentzer: do you think most patient groups are there? marc boutin: this is the first time i have met heather. i'm enjoying this conversation. there are services that
increased costs by creating other complications. for people with chronic conditions we often say they want access to everything. but the reality is they want access for what works for them. to move away us from just treating people as the average amount of because nobody is the average for people have multiple chronic conditions. we have to look at how we drive treatments for that 20% that drives 70% of the cost. build a system that is different. we need to be able to look at those people and say we are going to spend the time with you to understand what is going on in your personal life. what are your goals and aspirations. and then we look at the clinical options that are available and we hope the match the right options for the right person. and that often means less care, less invasive care, and there's
great research that shows you reduce costs, and improve outcomes. individuals, at take two individuals with parkinson's, they are the same stage of the disease progression or they are both working. one person wants to ensure the nobody knows they have parkinson's with the other person wants to a the tremors that are keeping him awake and impacting his life with his spouse. those are two entirely different requires two different treatments. and yet our current system will give you the average. any may not get the one that is right for you. when you align the treatment with the personal circumstances and the goals of the individual, you will often see less care. it is often better care. we have an opportunity to save money. he is how we get value with the system, and how we align incentives to drive value, i am all for incentivizing plans to do this.
i am all for incentivizing biopharmaceutical companies to develop high-value treatments. we have to look at how we balance that. doing this great project in chicago where they are actually paying doctors to spend 90 or 120 minutes with high touch patients that are high-cost actually align their care and coordinated and eliminate the unnecessary waste. what they are finding is there reducing cost and they are getting much better outcomes we don't all need that, but for the five percent or 20% of the copublished that is driving the cost, we do. that creates room for high innovation that is going to have some cost. i think we have to recognize there's going to be some cost. but we have to make it affordable, and we have to make sure it happens to because there are tens of millions of people in this country that are dying
as a result of these diseases, and they want better treatments. susan dentzer: we will come back to the question of what patient donemers think should be about all of this. he mentioned a couple of approaches. and on the first pettaway heard about a number more. we heard about the role of competition, having drugs approved as rapidly as possible. in aare competitive particular class that will help bring the price down. we have seen that phenomenon out of the hepatitis c drugs in the past year and a half. we heard about the whole panelbased payments discussion about that later this afternoon. debbie mentioned some more regulatory approaches that other countries undertake, especially run reference pricing. give us a further sense.
they are not policy experts, but we take that as a stipulation. what do people think is a meaningful set of approaches? debra whitman: it is throw the book at this problem. they are frustrated that they do not have the capacity of idividuals to negotiate a think secretary barwell is a very smart cookie. she has a great team behind her. and behind them is all of the medicare beneficiaries, all of the medicaid beneficiaries. that should be a powerful way to negotiate. so.is forbidden to do overcoming that provision is one way. and howdy transparency prices are even developed. people deserve the right to know how a drug is cost, how much was thisby taxpayers in
research to develop the drug. right now they're just decide arbitrarily will information. they do not have the information they need, even on concerns. we should make that transient -- transparent to make sure you understand if someone drug over another drunken understand the trade-off for there's a also think whole list that market put up earlier today of different policy recommendations. all of these things together can play an important role. but right now we're doing few in this country and we're paying the price. susan dentzer: we want to open this up to questions to those of you in the audience. what will try to get to hear more than we were able to get you last time. you'll introduce yourself by name and affiliation, that would be terrific. we advocate for people living
with hiv and hepatitis. we appreciate this panel and the focus on the patient. i would like to focus on the plan design. what we have seen is for the same drug, insurance companies $15, $50, $100 co-pay. but for the same drug other companies are asking patients to pay 50% coinsurance, which we talked about some of these drugs, could be a lot of money. i guess i'm looking for the of people percent patients on the panel. when can we do? co-pay max for co-patients. it would also be great if they could enforce the nondiscrimination provision of the affordable care act. thank you. >> we talked a little bit about
that. do you want to expand on what might be done as we continue to educate people about the need to shop around? isa gill: the plan described a key concern of my colleagues. advocates of the consumers union side have been very focused on the issue especially out-of-pocket limits. and also, nondiscriminatory plan design. the enforcement around hhs. the only thing i can say is supporting both of these issues, this is not fair. it is not surprising. many plans youtuber rebate mechanisms as tools for their business formula. and that is part of the reason on see the plan design based their own goals. and both of those things are definitely want they have been
focused on. not just around pricing, but about these others. lisa gill: from the consumer standpoint, they would not know war on just and or be aware of the rebate that would exist. that is why you find it was the strange anomalies. >> and let people do not huge difference in the amount that they have to cross to share, and that the different drugs can be the on different spheres. inis very complex, and even part d there are still payments of the catastrophic cap's for certain specialty drugs. the amount of protections that consumers can have on the private market and even in the medicare marketplace can vary greatly based on each drug. marc boutin: a couple of quick
thoughts. first of all, it is fundamentally discriminating against people with chronic conditions, particularly those of low socioeconomic status. we have to recognize that. but we also have to recognize that the plans have been put into place with rules that are not great new or to compete on value. that have to work with a plan to help them solve the problem syrian to donate these issues. i completely support spreading that the cost across months. but it puts caps on are pocket cost. at the it did go degree pressures and other mechanisms that get us there. we have to get under way to work with a plan to figure out how we can set the rules of the road so that they can compete on value run them on excluding high-cost patients. >> i want to come back quickly to the case of california, we
have $200 cap on drug copayments. there are some concerned that that will take the pressure off the fundamental pricing of jerks . -- of drugs. debra whitman: i think they are both key issues. but the underlying price of are really an issue that we have to get because even if the individuals co-pay has a cost, the terms are sure throughout the system. they may save on a co-pay, but -- we have to to get a pricing model. >> hello. i'm an oncologist. oncologist in8 the mayo clinic.
very discouraged distribution want to give up the fight. i think we really need to ask question, why do we need to reinvent the wheel? almost all one truth -- western countries to valuation on value. the first thing we need is medicare has to have membership prices. [applause] >> i think that was a hugely important article that you and the co-authors did you ask fundamental question. what is the value of these individual drugs? of also told the stories what happens to your patients and their families who do everything to pay for those drugs. that is a conversation with widely need to have is a way to get this issue on the table, and
the issue of value. i thank you for doing that. >> just to add what the public thinks, there is ron support for medicare negotiated drug prices. it is something we have asked about overtime. there has been brought support for that for quite some time now. dan, from america's health insurance. an excellent discussion, focused on price analysis. did mention mentioned the out-of-pocket maximum and the affordable care act. particular the those with low socioeconomic status and an important part of making a statute.
150% of our 50 and receiving cost-reduction subs three, enrolled in a silver plan, when something with a price hike of $95,000 that person with low economic status is laying less than 1% for the cost of a drug. the price, if you truly believe that, the cost-sharing reduction should not just feel the efficient, it should be approved policy to increase those production subsidies. planpeople can buy a unworkable plan. marc boutin: i grew much of what you said.
but i want to put it in this context we did an analysis when the marketplace was opened up. one of the very specific examples we did was a woman in the district of columbia who had heart disease, and she had rheumatoid arthritis. she would working above minimum wage full-time. eligible for cost subsidies for her premium, and if she got through the right silver plan to malicious or a challenging for a if she got on the rights of her plan, she was also eligible for subsidies in her out of the cost. with that individual, she was almost 20% of our annual income. depending on the plan she selected it might be in the first two months of the plan. plans are not
working as effectively as we would like. if she was receiving the drug, the insurance company would have picked up a substantial part of that cost. i'm not here to say that the plans are doing anything wrong and what i said earlier, in a completely stand by this, the plans are acting completely rationally within the rules do thisen we need to work with you to alleviate some of the pressures that are on the land so that they can provide affordable coverage that is not impacted by social economic status. we had cheap medical officers from some of the largest plans .n the country .> let me ask cost-sharing subsidies to be increased in the affordable care act.
given that a majority do not like the affordable care act. kim at of course we know plenty of people there want to kill the entire law, how would that kind of thing fly? will show out american consumers react to the this point. >> public union is pretty divided overall. we did find out that the public's like the revisions of the law. when you break it down and ask about subsidies, about preventive care, about the different divisions of the law, the majorities do like what is in the law. but the public is divided thing overall company like some of the that it> i want to say
is obvious to me that it is one more be a good read if we just caps on werethese not do it with the issue. just another band-aid weekly subsidies. shouldn't we get to what the root of the problem is? i have been part of the problem by creating band-aids. , howed to back up and say much of that is because of the r&d that with developing and innovating? figure areo see the effective, but i want to understand how much does it actually cost? my costs are way off of their actual.
problems. there is a considerable amount of transparency on the health landside i think the point was really addressing the lack of transparency on the pricing fight for drugs. i will restate your question if we need to. the foundation. are average patients had about $22,000 a year. what we do -- [inaudible]
we surveyed those on what is causing the financial distress. hospital visits, physicians, drugs,. [inaudible] my question is one of the organizations here doing about the other cost drivers? one. consumers -- what are the impacts on consumers? we're talking about 10% of the whole spending. and a small percentage of that, it is a important issue.
we are struggling with the billions of costs that are in the health care system, not just drugs. there is a lot of support for patients with their drugs in that market lace. what else is being done across the spectrum? susan dentzer: the broader point is that we do waste a lot of money help -- elsewhere in the health care system. were to gain some of that money back, we could potentially afford to spend money on some of these very innovative treatments that are in the pipeline as we heard earlier. this go to your members and how they approach the larger question? are boutin: i think you actually correct. we have to look at the entire health ecosystem. we tend to think that the innovation ecosystem a separate. and the delivery system as something else. but the reality is it is all intertwined. from a patient perspective it is
ultimatelyat prevents many people from getting care. one of the questions we talked about as a group is what is the impact on the family budget. in the lowerpeople social economic status, there is no effect on the budget because they never felt that first prescription or see that specialist. that is not acceptable. we have to look at the entire system. we have to define what value is. we have to go and create incentives to drive value. in many cases that is going to be high-value products and may be high-value surgical intervention. where youdelivery really help those people with complex chronic conditions who are falling through the cracks and not getting services they need. if we simply looked at each issue in isolation, we are leaving and a lot of the opportunity on the table. i've effect to something i said earlier.
all the estimates are there are $220 billion in waste. the vast majority of that is spent on that 30% of the population, the population we represent, chronic disease and disabilities. by providing them care that is completely unaligned with their personal circumstances and their goals and aspirations and there are huge opportunities to drive waste down when we think about this. there are huge opportunities to drive high-value intervention. there are also opportunities to drive costs down. we have to look at it as a package. will dentzer: each of you suppose for a moment they have been named to a newly created family task force on biopharmaceuticals in hq to make one important recommendation to the president, to policymakers, to the u.s. congress. you have a limited amount of time. a twitter links
recommendation. about 140 characters or slightly is the numberat one recommendation you would make in that situation. ? ? >> access to innovative treatments. susan dentzer: specifically how? secretary on: negotiation. price transparency. more value information for both consumers and payers. susan dentzer: lisa? more focus on comparative effectiveness studies. we have a very clear understanding of how well each occasion works against other appropriate treatments. and in that, make sure that all the data is actually released a so that we can see a more clear picture of what is going on. susan dentzer: and the patient centered research institute, the one that plans an undertaking.
lisa gill: there has to be a large well-funded network dedicated to these issues very clear that vacation's when they come out. that the public really does see that this is a thatity, and making sure people who need high cost of drugs, that they are available to those people. taking it is a priority even if they are not facing the cost themselves in and prescription drugs are one piece of that health care's polo, and we have similar things like to duct of and premiums as well. susan dentzer: not just on the drug side. drive innovation,
balance appropriate axis that is aligned with patient goals and preferences and personal circumstances. and i would emphasize a point that has not been stressed. we have to fund i biomedical research. our regulatory size of fda, our comparative research. our patient centered outcomes. we are at a point in time when we are driving patients into consumers. they are now looking at the world in a very different way. technology is disrupting it. we need the information so that people can make informed decisions and take the treatments that are correct for them. that is a very different environment that we are shifting to. susan dentzer: last word to you. heather block: i want to steal something that one of the panelists said earlier.
innovation is meaningless if no one can afford it. class,i represent middle not low income represented -- the recipients. i work the government. i spent a career in d.c.. i did not have my platinum federal employee health care. it is a struggle. a struggle to pay for these treatments and to stay everything that has happened. i'm not talking medical information, i'm talking about plan changes. i found a metric measures only be covered with no co-pay if i went to a private oncology office, not a cancer center well into my treatment. and there were not any in my state. submit that my copilot went to 300 that month. those are think that you're constantly trying to stay in front of when you are a patient. i could be any of you. concludeszer: that
our morning session. we are going to take a one hour break for lunch. you are notr, permitted to move around the building on your own. if you want to purchase lunch in the cafeteria in the top floor, please go to the registration table to find a escort. there are a number of express mentorptions by the station which is outside into the left. we were resume probably at 12:45 p.m. being here.r help me to think this panel and we wish heather all the best. >> sunday, on cue and day. >> eyeing the first woman to reach the rank of four stars in the united states navy. i had only been a three-star for when theyr 11 months
were traveling through town, and he asked to see me. i presumed it was about the next job i was going to. that was when he talked to me about, we're looking at you for being a four-star, and here a couple of different opportunities where you would do well in benefit the needy. >> admiral howard talks about becoming the first female four-star admiral in the history of the navy. she also talks about her history appointment. i became head of the counter piracy task force. and a few days on the job, captain phillips was kidnapped. was our responsibility of the task force to get him back and get him back safely. and that was obviously a surprise mission and a challenge. sunday night at 8:00 p.m.
eastern on cue and day. -- q&a. >> the un security council met friday to consider a for french resolution proposed on isis. it was unanimously adopted. it was a global an unprecedented threat to peace and national security. members of the council spoke after the vote, including representatives from france, russia, and the united states. 45 minutes.
>> the provisional agenda for this meeting is threats to international decent security caused by terrorist acts. the agenda is adopted. the security council would navigate is consideration of item to the agenda. members of the council have before the document s/2015, the text of a draft resolution submitted by france. the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before us. i shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. will those in favor of a draft resolution contained in document s/2015/890 please raise their hands? the result of the voting is as follows, the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor. it is been adopted unanimously as resolution 2248 of 2015.
i give to the floor to those members of the security council who wished to make a statement after the vote. i give the floor to the representative of france. >> 13 november, daesh perpetrated an act of war against france. in conducting these deadly attacks in paris. daesh sought to strike not just the capital of what defines our nation. the outcome was particularly deadly. 130 dead. more than 600 injured. 193 still in the hospital, many between life and death. daesh on that day struck not just france and the french people, it sought a target for beyond. the world.
amongst those who died, 24 nationalities are registered today. and here are just recalled that before paris daesh attacked lebanon, iraq, turkey, tunisia, russia, and many other countries. it sought to undermine an ideal, that of our freedom and shared humanity. an ideal which is one of the united nations'. president hollande on monday spoke before the french parliament to note the absolute determination of france to combat by all means necessary daesh. in this drive against daesh france remains loyal to his values, founding member of the united nations.
france believes in our organization. united nations is the pinnacle of rights and collective security and thus the president of the republic naturally addressed the security council to organize and mobilize our international actions. in adopting this resolution the security council mobilized unanimously amongst all of its members commiserate with his responsibilities. the resolution we just adopted recognizes the exceptional nature of the daesh threat and calls upon all members states to take all necessary measures to eradicate the sanctuary it has created in syria and iraq, but also to push back its ideology which is radical. this resolution frames our actions under international law and the upholding of united nations charter, which is our shared boon. it provides a guarantee that there will be an effective fight against transnational terrorism.
13 november attacks were an armed aggression against france. the military action of which we inform the security council from the very beginning justified by the legitimate collective defense now can also be based on legitimate self-defense individually under article 51 of the united nations charter. based on the historic resolution of the security council, france shall continue and scale up its efforts so as to galvanize the international community as a whole to vanquish our shared enemy. france shall play its new role -- due role. the president has announced that it is a vacation of eric against
strategic targets against daesh in syria. this scale up is underway. france in the days to come will triple its strikeforce with the arrival of aircraft. the combat against daesh is only effective if it is supported by political transition that will put in it to the syrian crisis -- an end to the syrian crisis. it creates conditions for international mobilization. in this context we call upon europe, my country has asked for and obtained from the eu for the first time the activation of the mutual solidarity clause as francis take a heavy price for its combat against terrorism, daesh in syria and iraq, but also combating terrorism. we hope other countries will mobilize alongside us for our shared security and those of border countries with syria.
we also call upon all members of the security council and beyond. it is along these lines the president of the republic next week will visit washington and moscow. we have engaged in contact with the partners and are indeed determined to obtain mobilization that is as broad as possible in the face of daesh. friends, we have unity to share. we the people of the united nations have the duty to defend this unity. thank you. >> i thank the representative of france for his statement. i give the floor to the representative of china. >> mr. president, isil and other organizations launched a series of deadly terrorist attacks at multiple locations across the world, killing innocent civilians, including a chinese citizen. the chinese government strongly condemns the terrorist organization's heinous
atrocities. the perpetrators must be brought to justice. terrorism is a common enemy of the entire humanity. all terrorist acts regardless of the motivation, timing, location and perpetrators are great criminal acts that threaten international peace and security. the international community must join hands in acting on the basis of the purpose is -- purposes and principles of the u.n. charter and other norms of international relations. give way to the leading role to the u.n.. further strengthen coronation and cooperation in counterterrorism, and former united front against terrorism. counterterrorism efforts must attack the root symptoms of the problem and avoid adopting double standards. -- must include combating terrorism use of the internet to
instigate and plan terrorist activities and spread extremist ideas. and measures must also be taken to cut terrorist financing channels. the chinese government firmly opposes all forms of terrorism and fairly -- combating terrorist forces headed by the east islamic movement is a important part of the international counterterrorism fight. thank you mr. president. >> i think the representative of china for his statement and give the floor to the rep is in a different spain. >> mr. president, here we are all french. colleagues, we are all russian and arab. it is time to react. and to do
so with a french heart. with a russian and air apart. -- arab art. terrorists have declared determination to terrify. as in new york, casablanca, in madrid. but they will not succeed. today we have reacted quickly, united with determination and force. the only way to not give in to victory of terrorism is to continue with our way of life. to preserve our principles and values without any concessions on human rights. i would like to underscore article five which ensures legal coverage and is a article stresses, in the respective human rights of international law, of refugees, and
humanitarian law. because as the roman emperor marcorayo said investor vince is a not be like them. we, who sit around this table, we too have the duty to guarantee the designs of principles. we cannot tolerate the daily news becoming part of war. no one can doubt that we all, absolutely all of us, must in order to combat terrorism and bank which it. -- vanquish it. i think france for its leadership in this present resolution for sounding the alarm to bring us out of the trenches and intensify our offensive. these days we have heard it
sound often. it's not the first time this anthem symbolizes resistance against the bloody flag of tierney. it is time once again for us, the citizens of the entire world, it is time for us to form of italian and go against -- form our battalions and go against those that would slit our throats. >> i think are presented from stanford's statement. i give the floor to the representative from the united states. >> mr. president, in recent week
barbaric terrorist attacks of start of the world's conscience. from europe to africa to the middle east, innocent men and women have been slaughtered. families destroyed in beirut, concertgoers slain in paris, air passengers bond in the sky -- bombed in the sky. tourists killed on the beach in tunisia. united states stance of these victims of terrorism of all faiths and nationalities. and yet even as we mourn those lost in these recent attacks we remember the wholesale violence continuing in iraq and syria where men women and children struggle every day to survive and flee the bloodshed. behind this rests they violent ideology of hate. groups like isil know what they are doing. they perpetrate atrocities to advance a hateful worldview. we, the member states of the united nations must therefore intensify and accelerate our efforts to degrade and defeat
these groups once and for all. we need a truly global initiative to counter isil and prevent more attacks our homelands and stabilize the middle east. for this reason we welcome and applaud this resolution's resolute call on states to take all necessary measures in compliance with international law. to counter isil. we must also choke off funding, arms, recruitment and other kinds of support to isil. as the resolution recognizes, iraq is made it clear that it is facing a serious threat of continuing attacks from isil. in particular coming at a safe havens in syria and the assad regime in syria has shown a cannot and will not suppress this threat, even as it undertakes actions that benefit the extremists recruiting. in this regard, working with iraq, united states is been leading international efforts to provide assistance to combat the threat that isil poses to the security if people and territory. we are taking in accordance with the u.n. charter and its recognition of the inherent rights of individuals and collective self-defense necessary and proportionate military actions to deny isil safe havens. the united states, along with 64 other nations and international
organizations has formed a coalition who central aim is to degrade isil's capabilities and achieve its lasting defeat. militarily the coalition is working to deny isil safe havens, disrupt its ability to project power, and build partner capacity. it is also actively working to disrupt isil's financing in international -- economic sustainment and the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to and from territories it has seized and to counter its measure -- message of hatred and violence. destabilize areas limited from isil's control, the collision further supports the efforts of the united nations' development program and iraqi government. today's resolution recalls the security council well-established framer to respond to terrorist threats generally and to isil and others associated with al qaeda in particular. multiple pass resolutions, 1267, 1373, 2170, 2178 and 2199 layout specific obligations and actions states must take to respond to these threats.
we look forward to continuing cooperation, including in the relevant sections committee and counterterrorism entities to enhance our will and capacity to implement these tools they counter isil and related groups. we must also tackle the violent extremism that drives them. these violent ideologies capture and motivate individuals worldwide, including those likely responsible for today's tragic hotel attack in, go --bamaco. finally, we must urgently work together to support a political transition process in syria in accordance with the geneva communique to reduce the operating space for these groups and established a political process leading to credible,
inclusive, nonsectarian governance followed by a new constitution and elections. our task is great but we know it needs to be done. we draw our strength from the resiliency of the people affected by these tragedies. their unity and resolve is why isil will fail in his goal of treating fear and polarizing communities. through global solidarity and cooperation isil and its ideology will be defeated. thank you mr. president.
>> i thank the representive from the united states for her statement. i give the floor to the representative of the russian federation. >> the security council met today after a series of atrocious terrorist attacks as result of of hundreds were killed. isil and its affiliates are threatening new attacks. we are all outraged by those dead and the sinai peninsula and paris. terrorist targets were also turkey, tunisia, lebanon, and today mali. boko haram continue streak havoc on a rack in syria. isil has attended to create terrorist caliphate with a stronghold and stepping up its
scope of action. we condemn unequivocally all terrorist attacks. we express our heartfelt condolences to the friends and family and wish speedy recovery to those injured. the masterminds and executors of these bloody crimes shall be your revocable he punished. they should be sought wherever they may hide. we stand ready for broad cooperation with other states to these ends. over the past year, merciless, terrorism has been the absolute
riot ready for our country which many times as been targeted by violent terrorist attacks. the international community must fully mobilize and once again demonstrate political will, unity, and solidarity in combating the shared terrorist threats. strengthening this combat with specific steps and actions. bringing efforts to bring together for these ends. guided not by ambition, the shared values and interest of the bases of international law. creating an broad
counterterrorism coalition. this is what was advocated by president putin in the recent statement to the general assembly of the united nations. we welcome the growing understanding that the time has come to bring together the ranks of the international community in the face of terrorism. active work of our partner on the security council, and initiatives brought forth that are aiming to tackle this challenge. it is indeed central for all requires priority attention and most importantly action without any controlling or preconditions. of course we had to support the
french resolution. while the dresses repaired in an extraordinary regime that on a tight timeframe, the french delegation took aboard the russian support of an amendment. we are convinced an important addition of combating international terrorism should be the u.n. charter, guided hereby the matter of the use of force. and felt important to reflect that in the text. this reference is now included. the preamble or section clarified by us clearly states the document adopted by -- on 14 november are a packet. on the basis of which in addition to the geneva communiqué of 2012 should be used to settle the syrian crisis. security council has undertaken a number of important decisions aimed at strengthening the international community's combating terrorism and its adaptation to the changing tactics of terrorists and new threats. in february, up on russia's initiative, 2199 was adopted. this was regarding combating the financing of terrorist and cutting off their attempts to gain financing through the
illegal trade of oil. we believe the french resolution, political appeal, not changing the legal principle of the counterterrorism combat. we think it's a step in creating a broad antiterrorism front through the organization of the conference of cooperation of all states to stem all manifestations of terrorism and eradicating its root causes. this was also the game of the russian draft resolution presented at the security counsel for security on 30 september containing a number of tactical provisions, without which combating terrorism in iraq and syria will be difficult. some levers of the council work in our draft. we seem to be politically shortsighted. on the one side he cannot commit terrorism and with the other a symbol -- essentially play into their hands. active work on the approval of our draft is something we intend to do. thank you. >> thank you to the representative of the russian federation for a statement. i give the floor to the representative of nigeria. >> mr. president, the attacks carried the back in isis by buyer -- in beirut, by boko haram and syria -- underscore the fact that terrorist groups are a major threat to international peace and security. nigeria condemns these barbaric and cowardly attacks in the strongest terms.
there can be no justification for terrorist attacks. the perpetrators must be relentlessly pursued and brought to justice. we offer our deepest condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks in which the injured a quick recovery. week -- we call for urgent action by the international community, to identify intensify the fight against isis and other groups including boko haram. 2249, with the council just adopted, provides a framework for achieving this. all u.n. member states misnomer together to diligently implement the resolution. i thank you. >> representative of lithuania. >> mr. president, we welcome the prompt and unanimous adoption of this resolution. we shall not live in fear. we must not give in to fear. but act with the full force a conviction against the evil that daesh represents. we stand together in solidarity with the people of france. we also share the sorrow and grief of all those affected by the carnage and slaughter perpetrated by isil, boko haram, and other terrorist mutations. nothing can ever justify terrorism. earlier today lithuanian president reassured by countries commission -- commitment to working with partners unified in terrorist -- against terrorism. the evolving nature of terrorism and violent extremism puts existing counterterrorism measures to the test.
today's terrorist are out high-teching us. we find ourselves running against him behind the times. there can never be no room for complacency or business as usual in our responses. on the contrary, we need to take an honest look at the impact our actions have on the ground and rise of the task. this requires us to ensure cohesiveness in the machinery by putting in to the silo mentality and making all parts of the system within and outside united nations were as one, from assessment to assistance. delivering advice, and capacity building exactly where and when it is needed with maximum impact. as today's resolution reminds, attacking financing is a high priority. here a breakthrough is needed. no more concealed measures but a
comprehensive approach that would bring into account increasing diversification and complexity of the sources and channels of financing, as well as the linkages between terrorism and cross-border organized crime. furthermore we have to find the right answers to the difficult questions regarding modern technologies and communications which brings huge improvement to our lives again have deadly effect in the wrong hands. we will have to deal with the questions of how much liberties and freedoms we are willing to sacrifice to ensure the safety and security in a way that does not support repression and oppressive regimes and does not give the satisfaction to the terrorists of having disrupted our lives. we have to critically review our battle for the hearts of potential terrorists by setting of the efforts to tackle the many recourses that push
individuals into the hands of daesh butchers. as well as counterterrorism efforts. reinforce partnerships are required internationally, regionally and locally. for the voices of women coming youth and vulnerable groups are well hurt in heated. finally the importance of resolving the crisis could not be more urgent. we must restore hope to the syrian people. we cannot see the reserve -- regime at the daesh daesh cost of this crisis of the partner in the fight against. --daesh. we hope this week that this really need a transition and full of limitation of the geneva communiqué of 2012. thank you. >> i give afford to the representative of jordan. >> thank you mr. president. allow me to renew our
condolences to the government and people of france over the grotesque and cowardly terrorist acts that struck paris last week. also we pay homage to the victims of the bloody criminal terrorist acts that were committed recently in sinai, beirut, and libya. and today mali. these referenceable crimes demonstrated beyond any doubt that these terrorists are seeking to destroy our common values of -- in that war against terrorism has become a global war. that makes it imperative on to
be united in words and deeds. jordan welcomes the adoption of this resolution which jordan voted in its favor because it is a -- it is the belief of jordan for the need to reinforce and coordinate international efforts in fighting the isis terrorist organizations. they wreak havoc and evil across the globe and are undeterred to demonstrate their reprehensible intentions towards humanity. degrading the capabilities of isis and other terrorist groups and defeating them requires action from all of us and response from desk commencement with the challenge. this requires international action and collective force at all levels, in all fronts, including the military, security, and intellectual fronts. in addition to suppression to the financing terrorism. therefore the council has adopted this resolution images
for 70 demonstrates the unity of the council in fighting isis and sends a powerful message to the terrorist organization and other terrorist groups. in closing, jordan will continue to combat terrorism in all possible means while working to enforce and coordinate international efforts confronting these terrorists . >> representative of new zealand. >> thank you mr. president. the new zealand stands in solidarity victims, families, fellow citizens and governments that have threatened under these serious attacks are treated by isil. we are today one week from the terrible events of paris, less than a day of those in bemaco. as others have noticed these are two episodes in a bloody continuing story. this counsel must be -- me in times of crisis. we are pleased today the council has sent a strong unified message for the shared result of event and suppressed the terrorist threat posed by isil and other terrorist in syria and iraq. in the face of isil's barbarity,
we are reminded of the important role of this counsel in uniting the international community around our shared commitment to peace and collective security. thank you. >> i thank the representative of new zealand for his statement and give the floor to the representative of chile. >> thank you very much sir. we value the resounding message transmitted by this counsel through the unanimous adoption of resolution 2239. terrorism is a criminal act and unjustifiable. the material, intellectual and financial office of these acts must be prosecuted and brought to justice. all resolutions from this counsel should be applied, especially 2160, 2199, and the resolution we just adopted. combating terrorism is in
keeping with the obligations under international law and united nations charter. the international community must contribute to identifying the causes and overcome these that simulates terrorism and violence. they cannot be overcome with military means. i'd like to point out categorically that chile will support the global action against terrorism from the security council and all international multilateral bodies. thank you. >> the floor to the representative angola >> thank you mr. president. angola voted in favor of resolution 2239 in the name of france. the terrorist attracts pretreated by isil, also known as daesh, in the expectation that this is an important step in the fight against terrorism and for the building of the
indispensable global coalition if we are to win the -- this war against terrorism. we join the other members and can damming this terrorist movement, which is the resolution states constitutes an unprecedented threat to international peace and security. we express our deep sympathy and condolences to the victims of this heinous crime recently committed by the terrorist and condolences to the families. -- designated by the un security council is a top priority for the international community. international terrorism has been showing an extreme the dangerous capacity of spreading its violent extremism and ideology through terrorist acts, systematic attacks against innocent civilians, and
violations of human rights, intolerant, and hatred dressed to others for being different, on cultural and religious or ethnic grounds. the heinous crimes committed by isil or daesh include the eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural items and natural resources. and recruitment of terrorist fighters on a scale of crimes rarely seen after the second world war. as things stand now mr. president, with the deadly danger of terrorism, it's a real menace to international peace and security into the very survival of some of the most concerned countries. it is high time for international community and the main international players to put aside the differences, national egotism and arrogance, and work decidedly to build a
global coalition to fight and eradicate terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations as called by public international opinion. it is our hope that the adoption of resolution in the wake of this deadly concerted terrorism will be the materialization of a wake-up call for a radical change in attitudes by the world's main players. i thank you mr. president. >> i thank the representative of angola for his statement. i give the floor to the representative from venezuela. >> we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our condolences to the french
people, to its citizens, and to the people and government of the countries that have suffered from the most recent strikes of terrorism. the russian plane and how the attack in mali. we would also like to feature beat to the thousands of children who die in syria every day, especially due to the repugnant association -- assassination of children in the hands of isis. they refused to bend to these groups. mr. president, venezuela was entirely in favor of resolution 2249 due to its category projection of terrorist acts in all of its forms and manifestations.
regardless of the motivations, wherever they happen and by whomever they have been committed, any deliberate attack on international peace and security is unacceptable. terrorism is a flagrant violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights. and it undermines the rights of life. in addressing it, it must be done without double standards. there are not good terrorists and bad terrorists. it is time to be consistent and our actions. to take actions jointly that are coordinated and agreed to based on consensus. and assume all responsibilities as members of this counsel with the mandate conferred upon us based on the principles of the united nations and international law. mr. president, the world is seen with perplexity how they are resorting to violence and
terrorism by different societies, civilizations and religions and beliefs has now acquired many manifestations. but ultimately it continues to be the product which relate to intolerance, extremism, sector is him, and very often geopolitical interests which are imposed over legitimate rights. as is needed in the africa and the middle east. the terrorist act endangered not just territorial integrity but also political unity of states, as well as the security and stability both states and the region and the international community. we are very alarmed to see the extraordinary military support and logistical support provided to the terrorist organizations such as isis. it's given them tremendous military capacity to develop and deploy indiscriminate violence,
destabilize governments, break their constitutions, and moreover stopping economic and social the moment of their people, destroying institutions, and the capacity for --. mr. president, my delegation reiterates today more than ever the need to address the root causes that feed these phenomena and develop effective and innovation -- innovative strategies to stop the terrorists and extremists narrative and to stop radicalization and to achieve tangible results. not just in the short term but also in the long-term. this counsel must acted and more preventative manner and resolve of anticipation conflicts that might be unleashed in terrorism.
the recent events have shown us that the vulnerability of terrorism and the phenomenon of foreign terrorist combatants is a global one today. that is why the role of the security council will be resoundingly important in combating this extort every threat which is also unprecedented in which is undermining the future of mankind. we must fully and completely at year to the resolutions, especially with regard to financing, training and illicit transference of arms to terrorist groups.
finally mr. president, my country is convinced that the fight against terrorism must be conducted in the context of international cooperation. with fine -- binding international agreements in this area, including relevant security council resolutions and the norms of international law fully respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. taking into account that otherwise we will be contributed to radicalization of individuals. we hope the actions taken through this resolution and the combat against terrorism will always be coordinated with a concerned countries and that no actor participating will have a distinct political agenda different from overcoming terrorism and supporting the negotiations process in the case of syria, with its people, government, and the countries in the region and at the international level who are supporting the efforts that we all hope will be successful. thank you sir. >> i thank the representative of venezuela. i shall now make the statement in my capacity as a
representative of the united kingdom. the united kingdom warmly welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2249. today we sent a clear, unambiguous message that there will be no respite from our collective efforts to stop, suppress, and destroy isil. whether in the streets of paris or beirut or in the skies above the sinai, isil's brutality knows no bounds and respect s no borders. their determination must be met by our greater resolve to defeat them wherever we find them. too many security council members here today and too many other u.n. member states have experienced isil's callous disregard for life. our world community today shows that we shall not be deterred in our efforts to prevent such attacks from happening again. as my security council colleagues have said, this resolution is a powerful
international recognition of the threat isil poses. it calls for lawful action, all necessary measures to counter isil. like others, the united kingdom has already taken action against isil on the basis of individual and collective self-defense as we have set out to this counsel. this counsel has put in place extensive obligations for states to take action against isil. to stop the travel of foreign terrorist fighters, and to choke off their funding. this resolution reminds us of these measures must be of limited if the international response to isil is to succeed. in conclusion, we stand in solidarity with the people of france and we commend france for
his leadership in this resolution. we are proud that the security council has acted with speed, unity and clarity of purpose to agree that this powerful call to action. i resume my function as president of the council. the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] washington journal as next. then ohio governor and republican presidential discussesjohn kasich foreign affairs and national security issues. later lawmakers talk about the deadly terrorist attacks in .aris