tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 23, 2015 10:00am-9:01pm EST
national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention. >> coming up on landmark cases, brown versus board of education. for it to be a kansas third-grader, linda brown, separate but equal meant a six-walk -- block walk to the school year and though the all-white school was just a few blocks away. her father sued and her case as well as others made it all the way to the supreme court. we will examine the racial tensions at the time, the
personal stories of the people involved, and the long-term impact of the decision. p in the nextg up "landmark cases." for background on when you background onour the landmark cases book. french president francois hollande and british prime minister david cameron visited taclan theater. prime minister cameron arrived in paris today. they will hold talks about cooperation in the battle against isis and the aftermath of the paris attacks. newsweek reports the pair visited the scene of the attacks where three gunmen and suicide bombers killed at least 89 thele during a set of
american rock band eagles of death metal. cameron tweeted, french president hollande and i stood outside the theater in paris. we will have live coverage of prime minister karen -- cameron this afternoon. and what is next for france in europe following recent terror attacks and how should the international community respond? those issues would be the topics at the things -- at the brookings institution at 2:30 p.m. eastern. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at townhall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. are taking your comments, and as always, every event we cover is on our website at www.c-span.org. "the washington post" says
that in his book, ben carson incorrectly praised thomas jefferson in crafting the constitution. on c-span last night, the retired neurosurgeon said jefferson was our ambassador to france during the constitutional convention and was not involved. he drafted the declaration of independence a year earlier. here is an interview with the republican candidate. steve scully: joining us from cedar rapids, iowa is ben carson a presidential candidate, and author of "a more perfect union." dr. carson, why do you want to be president? dr. carson: after the their breakfast in 2013, there were so many people clamoring for me to do it and i figured if i ignored them it would die down. but it did not. it kept building.
everywhere i went, there were people with signs, run, then, run. i started getting petitions. 5000 every week, hundreds of thousands clogging up everything. and i said, maybe i should listen to what these people are saying. i was struck i all of the elderly people who said they had given up on the american dream and were waiting to die. and younger children worried about their future children. i have spent my life looking after the welfare of children. how can i now go and put my feet up and relax? even know i did not think it was possible, i said, lord, if you want me to do it you are going to have to open the doors. i am not going to kick them down. formation of a time, money coming in like crazy, a one
million dollar donation, so i saw it as something that needs to be done. my fellow americans were asking me to do it. i will continue to walk to the doors as long as they are open. steve: you say america is in shambles and you also say the quote from thomas payne, what do you mean? dr. carson: we are divided. a house divided by itself cannot stand. never could stand. we have a war on everything. they want women, wage wars, religious wars, age wars. our strength lies in our community. we're fundamentally changing into something else. we also have severe fiscal problems. there was a time when we made
every effort to keep the books balance. thomas jefferson said it is immoral to pass debt on to the next generation. today he would stroke out if he saw what we were doing. 18th at million dollars in the national debt. it would take 5000 years to prevent dead at 10 million dollars a day 365 daisy year. that is pink and on the backs of our children and it is actually much percent not because when you look at the fiscal cap of social security, medicaid, governmental programs, versus what we expect to bring in 10 and other revenue sources, those numbers should be identical or close to identical if we are fiscally responsible. if we are not, there is a gap, the fiscal gap, day over 200
billion dollars. the only reason we can sustain that is because we're doing it inappropriately. cannot sustain that. we cannot be the wave -- reserve currency of the world. several nations are protesting about us simply because, you know, we appear to be so fiscally irresponsible. later on this month, the ins will be looking at china in terms of their application to become a reserve currency that could shape things up a fair amount. the point is, we need to get our house in order. and we also need to be looking at those things that threaten us in the future. not just reacting when a problem occurs. for instance, our electric grid needs to be hardened. because, an electromagnetic us from the sun averages about once
every 150 years, the last one was 155 years ago. that could knock us back decades, not to mention, you know, a rogue nation that might explode a nuclear weapon in our axonal atmosphere could create an island or magnetic house. if you coordinated that with a cyber attack and dirty bombs, it could be a disastrous scene. need to be planning for these things. we are not black of any more. if you are active, could use our energy resources on a geopolitical scheme to change a lot of these socioeconomic sectors in our world. the do not really need oil from the middle east anymore, we need to re-look at some of those things. steve: let's look back at the debt. as you point out on your
website, it is the third-largest item in terms of expenditures. are you willing to cut entitlement comes to cut the dead? social security, medical problems? that accounts for a bulk of what we are spending right now in the federal government. dr. carson: first you need to fix the economy. would you fix the economy? well, you need to create an atmosphere that encourages entrepreneurial risk taking and capital innovation. regulatory gallops are going on, and used of a regulatory creeps and now it is gallops. this having up on the on our economy. rasco it is affecting the economy. every single regulation cost money. that gets stunned to the consumer. it does not hurt the rich person when they walk into the store and they bought a box of laundry
detergent and it goes up $.15, but the poor notices it right away. the middle-class may not notice, but when they get to the cash register they notice it, because everything is up. $.10, $.15. it attacks the ability of the typical american to reach the american dream. also, by having a very, very high debt, the fed is not able to raise the interest rate. every quarter, trying to raise interest rates. why? because the debt service on $18 trillion is already $250 billion per year. if we let the interest rates rise, we would be talking $1 trillion. and we simply do not have $1 trillion is our debt at cumulative.
we need to concentrate on how to drive that down. what the debt does to the economy, two small banks, strive them out of business. they do not have any incentive to make a loan to the average guy so he can start a business. big banks benefit. big corporations benefit because they can borrow and buy back stock and increase value. but what about the average american? that is what our backbone is and we have to really begin to understand the complexity of the economy is not a simple thing. so, if we fix the regulatory problem and we fix the tax structure so that we incentivize people rather than diss incentivize them, we will have a tremendous boon. jobs will become available. it is then that you address the
entitlement situation. at that point it does not seem cruel and unusual. steve: you mentioned vladimir putin. this morning on nbc, you said dealing with 2:00 a.m. decisions as a surgeon help you deal with military. do you think that is really a comparison for the life-and-death decisions she would need to make as commander-in-chief? dr. carson: it is not so much being a surgeon as it is having experience making critical decisions that involve life and death. there are a whole lot of other areas where that happens. i believe life experiences count. this country was designed for citizen statesman, not for career politicians. career politicians have managed to convince everyone they are the only ones that can solve the
problems. looking at congress, 187 years of political experience there and it does not seem to be the solution. steve: do you think you are personally at the may commander-in-chief? dr. carson: i believe i have the ability to do that. certainly, as i look over the past commanders in chief's. one of the things i learned as a surgeon doing complex procedures is that you do not do it all by yourself. even though you have a great deal of knowledge, maybe even a great deal of experience, new and different types of situations come up. you have to be willing to be on a continual learning curve. because the world changes every single day, it is changing at a rapid is. you have to be able to keep up with that. surround yourself with people
who are very fluent in the things that are going on. you have to be wise. steve: jonathan was released after spending 30 years in a federal prison, some say he should be able to go back to israel. do you have a view on that? dr. carson: i really would have to have all of the details of the information that he gave to israel and whether he still represents a danger with more information. if, after doing that analysis, does not appear that tea can do more damage, i certainly would not have any problem with it. steve: not sure if you saw the story and co-, but -- in politico, but they say many are concerned with your foreign policy credentials and that is one reason why your poll numbers dropped in iowa. do you want to address a? dr. carson: they should listen
to what i am saying. i was one of the first individuals to talk about the need to take the caliphate from isis in order to make them look like losers, to deprive them from the revenue they get from their oil and how we need to fight the battle over there and really take it to them so they won't wind up coming to us. talking about how we need to increase our own security, specifically in terms of the fbi, tsa, and teaching our own citizens how to react in case of a terrorist attack. these are the things we need to be doing pick-time. wendy to affect the world monetary markets are they are not able to move money around. it is happening at a significant level, it needs to be done to clean. steve: foreign policy, the
financial meltdown on wall street seven years ago, the economic impact it had, who would you surround yourself with? what kind of individuals? if you want to name names, do so. surround yourself with in the oval office? dr. carson: i would have a culmination of people with real-world experience an economics as well as some of the academics who talk about theory. neither one of them is always 100% right, but when you look at the combination, the things that were, the same things about military strategy. i think you want to have both to call experience, and then a number of what i call military philosophers. they teach these high-saluting courses. sometimes they gel and sometimes they are moving in opposite directions. i think what is important in
particular is you need to go down a whole list of scenarios and you need to put together the protocols for dealing with those things so that they are already ready to go when it happens. obviously, those need to be updated every so often to make sure he they are not outdated. but, there is no reason you should get into a 9/11 type situation and have to start at square one. steve: don't you think if you're going to be the chief executive, a brain surgeon, you want the very best. you have been an outstanding surgeon. so in the white house, when it you want someone with some experience in these areas? dr. carson: when you look at the job of president, and look at the people running, i am notch or that any of them have had experience in that area except
hillary clinton possibly. when you look at what that experience has led to, in her case, it does not bode well for experience. i think what is really needed is wisdom and the ability to work with other people and the ability to be strong and continue to learn. steve: let me get your reaction to donald trump on the camp and trip. it is what he said about you. donald trump: all of the people said i would be the best of the military, which is interesting. because if you read the front of the new york times today, they said about ben carson, that he is unable to understand foreign policy. he was unable to comprehend or understand foreign policy. it is all over the place. if you watched him over the weekend, you would understand. it was devastated when you watch the interview.
it, he is unable to comprehend foreign policy. we cannot do this. i thank you is a nice guy, probably, who knows. i don't care. i don't care. we need someone tough and smart who can figure it out fast. steve: that was donald trump last week in massachusetts. ben carson is joining us from iowa. your response? dr. carson: he concentrates a lot on trying to denigrate me. some people will try to win at all cost, that is what they want to do. i am not one of those people. i am going to stick to my values and principles and talk about those things that are important. trying to tear someone else down is not part of who i am. steve: talking about some of the accounts you read about in your best-selling book, is there anything in that book that is an
and anyway -- that is in any way inaccurate? dr. carson: i found it rather amusing that these accusations occur and then as they are debunked, and there is never any information about the debunking. they are raising doubt, raising suspicion, they don't really care about the veracity or how carefully the research was done. case in point, when they were talking about my temporary and they talked about people who i knew largely after that problem was resolved, and because they did not witness it, supposedly it did not happen. this is not what i would call stellar journalism. steve: how did you resolve that issue? dr. carson: for me, it was personally resolved on the day of the attempted stabbing, when
i realized i was completely out of control. i locked myself in the bathroom and contemplated my life, realized i would never be successful like that. i prayed for deliverance. i picked up the bible. there were verses about anger. including proverbs 16:32. it spoke at deeply to me and i came to an understanding. it was not a sign of strength to punch someone in the face, it was a sign of weakness if you are easily manipulated by padilla and circumstance it's. it is always about me, mine,, i. i want this, they are in myspace. if you learn how to step up and outside that circle, the likelihood of you becoming upset and angry is limited.
steve: who had an influence on your life? dr. carson: my mother. she absolutely refused to be a victim. she did not make excuses. she would not accept excuses from us even though she had a most her in this life herself. steve: in your book, you also talk about the press and you say the president is protected by the first amendment and part because it was assumed that they would be honest and without an agenda. what does that tell you about the media today? dr. carson: they have taken a significant step away from that goal but i have hope for them. there are some young journalists who are beginning to understand the bias and the agenda-driven media, who recognize that they
can have an effect on our society by being honest and equipping the people with objective information. steve: two other issues under website. the second amendment and the supporter of the nra. are there any circumstances you would want to restrict these clips or magazines or other assault style weapons that are designed to kill a lot of people? dr. carson: i certainly would not want them in the hands of someone who was mentally unstable and has had that documented. i think it would be a huge mistake. steve: and with regard to health care, you're calling it "a looming disaster." what changes would you make? dr. carson: i want to put the decision-making back in the hands of patients and health care providers and move the bureaucracy out of it. we have spent plenty of money on health care, twice as much per capita as many other nations. yet we have horrendous access.
that's because we built it into a giant bureaucracy and on a political platform. medicine and health care should not be an integral part of a political platform. that is what i would work on by using health savings accounts, giving you flexibility to shift money around within a family so that you can cover almost anything. that drives down the cost of catastrophic insurance because nothing is coming out about insurance except real catastrophic issues. steve: as these issues come through, as president carson, how would you structure the decision-making process in your white house on foreign and domestic issues? dr. carson: i think you have to have a decision chart. the president cannot be involved in every detail that is going on. that is something i learned in running the surgery at johns
hopkins in building this college fund into a national organization. as long as you have a reporting structure that allows people the opportunity to voice their concerns, to provide their suggestions, you are much more likely to have something that runs efficiently. steve: you need work with congress and you draw an analogy between playing pool and follow the congressional rules. can you elaborate? dr. carson: you obviously need somebody who is willing to sit down and talk. this is something we are not seeing what the current administration, even with the democrats. and recognize that congress in a republic-type government is the voice of the people. they have been almost disenfranchised partly on their own accord because they are not very courageous. but as a result of that, the
executive branch and the judicial branch have overstepped their bounds. that is why we have a system of checks and balances. as the chief executive i would sit down with congress and make sure they understood that and understood also that i would reverse the trend that is going on for several presidents now using executive orders in an inappropriate way. specifically stated why and when they should be used. they have been abused by both sides. steve: you talk a lot about the founding fathers. do you have one that impressed you the most? dr. carson: i'm impressed by a lot of them but particularly impressed with thomas jefferson. he seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people react. and he tried to craft our constitution in a way that it would control people's natural
tendencies and the natural growth of the government. he said the time would come of the people become less vigilant. as a result of that the government would grow, would infiltrate, and would begin to dominate. just before we turned to some other form of government he said the people would awaken and recognize what was going on and rise up and retake control. i'm very hopeful that is what is about to happen steve: what is this process been like for you running for president? what has surprised you the most and what have you learned about yourself? dr. carson: a lot of things about about myself is that it doesn't bother me when people attack me. i thought i would be bothered by that in the beginning. but i have come to understand they are just trying to protect their turf, their ideology, and it will go to any length in order to protect that.
the thing that has surprised me most is the rapidity with which the people are awakening. and that large numbers of people who have never been involved in a process who are coming into the process. i think that is surprising a lot of pundits. next week will have our one million donation. no one could've for seen our campaign would have been powered people, not by the special interest. steve: that includes to base. have you enjoyed them so -- this far? dr. carson: the last one was pretty reasonable,. the couple before that, not so much. steve: was that in terms for you in the campaign. are you in for the long haul even if you have early setbacks? dr. carson: i will continue as long as i feel that i have the support of the people. this is not about me. this is about america. this is about the people. if it ever becomes about
anything else, it would not be appropriate. steve: have you begun thinking about a running mate down the road? dr. carson: i have. you know, i would obviously be looking for somebody who has a very similar philosophy. i know that traditionally people for somebody who can bring strength to the ticket. who might be able to bring another region of the country. i think it's much more important to have someone who is aligned with you because that person could then become a very important part of the administration as opposed to what usually goes on. steve: dr. ben carson, presidential candidate joining us from cedar rapids, iowa. thank you for being with us. dr. carson: a pleasure. thank you. >> usa today reports french president francois hollande and prime minister david cameron visited the bataclan theater in paris today were earlier this month 89 people were killed in terror attacks. the two are holding talks about
cooperation in the battle against isis. prime minister cameron this follows his meeting with a red president earlier, expected to start in just a moment or two. it was scheduled to be at 10:30 eastern. we expected to get underway in just a moment -- we expect it to get underway in just a moment. in the meantime, the prime minister sent out this tweet a short time ago. again, prime minister in just a moment live on c-span.
>> i'm happy to reassure the gentleman as well as providing excellent training, we are also gifting nonlethal equipment. we can eradicate daesh if we want -- everyone to tackle this issue, we need to use all the force at our ability. isd agree with that, that reflected in the united nations. isis made no demands before the slaughter, this is not an organization that we can possibly negotiate with or -- oy
[inaudible] what more can a government due to support these initiatives started by veterans? agree, having been to several myself. there an excellent scheme, and something i will try to progress on in the coming months. >> statement, the prime minister. [inaudible] with permission, i would like to make a statement on the national security strategy and a strategic defense and security review. national security depends on our economic superiority and vice versa. the percept step in keeping our country safe is to ensure the
economy is and remains strong. over the last five years, we have taken the difficult decisions needed to bring down the deficit and restore our economy to strength. in 2010, we were ordering equipment for which there was literally no money, a total black hole in the defense budget alone was bigger than the entire defense budget that year. now it is back in balance by sticking to the long-term economic plan, britain has become the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world the last disco years. our renewed economic security means today, we can show how we can afford to progress further in national security. this is vital at a time when a threat to our country has grown. this morning, i was in paris with the president discussing how we can work together to defeat isis. us, it is not some remote problem thousands of miles away. it is a direct threat to our
security at home and abroad. it has already taken the lives of british hostages and carried out the worst terrorist attack against british people since the beaches of two nifty a. to say nothing of the terrorist plots right here in britain writing -- foiled by our security. to speak of the threats we face today go beyond this evil death cult. from the crisis in ukraine to the rest of cyber attacks and pandemics, the world is more dangerous today than five years ago. while every government must choose how to spend the money it has available, every penny of which is earned by taxpayers, this government has taken a clear decision to invest in security and safeguard our prosperity. as a result, the u.k. is the only major country in the world which is simultaneously going to meet the nato target of spending 2% gdp on defense and the united nations target of spending 4.7%
of gdi on development. while also increasing the limit of increasing intelligence agencies and counterterrorism. in ensuring national security, we will also protect our economic security. as a trading nation with the world's fifth biggest economy, we depend on stability and order in the world. 5 million british day -- internationals living overseas, our prosperity depends on trade around the world. it is fundamental to the success of our nation. we need those lanes to stay open and the arteries of global commerce to remain the flowing. the strategy i present to the house today sets out a plan for a prosperous u.k. with global reach and influence. at its heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defenses against state-based threats on the one hand or the need to counter
threat. today, we face both types of threats and must respond. over the course of this parliament, we will tackle terrorism and remain a world leader in cyber security and ensure we have a cute looking to respond rapidly -- we have the capability to respond rapidly. harness allinue to the tools of national power available to us. coordinate it through the national security council to deliver a full spectrum approach . this includes support for the armed forces, how to terrorism, international aid and diplomacy, and working with her allies to deal with a common threat. first, the bottom line of the national security strategy was always be the willingness and stability -- capability to use force when necessary. the un security council agreed on a resolution to: member
states to take all necessary measures against isis in both syria and iran. on thursday, i will come to this house and make a further statement responding to the foreign affairs. for britainthe case to join our international allies in going after isis after he orders in syria -- after a headquarters in syria. such action would be one element of a long-term strategy in parallel with a major international effort to bring an end to the war. today i want to set out how we will ensure that our armed versus have the capabilities to carry out such a task and any other task that might be needed in the years ahead. we will invest more than 178 billion pounds in buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade, including doubling our investment in equipment to support our special forces. it will also increase the size of our deployable armed forces. in 2010, we committed to a next missionary force of 30,000.
today i can tell the house that by 2025, we are increasing that number to 50,000. personnel,p to 5000 fully equipped to deploy rapidly and sustain themselves in the field. two additional typhoon squadrons. we will maintain our policy as a nation, our continuous act as a current -- nuclear deterrent. we will provide nine new maritime patrol aircraft. they will protect our nuclear carriers. they will hunt down hostile submarines and advanced maritime research. will buy at least 13 new frigates and two new optional patrol vessels that will include eight patrol some marines.
we will design and build a new class of forgets is what -- igates as well. by the 20 30's, we can further increase the total number of royal navy destroyers. that one of these capabilities is an optional extra. these investments are an act of clear self-interest to ensure our future prosperity and security. counter terrorism, major investment in a world-class intelligence agencies to act to ensure they have the resources and information they need to detect and foil plots from wherever they emanate in the world. we will invest two .5 billion pounds and employ over 1900 additional staff. we will increase counterterrorism police and double spending on aviation security around the world. i can tell the house that we put in place a significant
contingency plan to deal with major terrorist attacks. under this new operation, up to 10,000 military personnel will be available for support in dealing with the type of shocking terrorist attacks we have seen in paris. we will make a major investment in a new generation of surveillance drones. these unmanned aircraft will fly into the edge of the earth atmosphere and allow us to observe adversaries for weeks on end, providing critical intelligence. we will also do more to ensure the powers we give our security services keep pace with modern technology. you will see through the bill we published to ensure -- counterterrorism brief continues to have the power they need. third, we will use our taliban budget when our outstanding diplomatic service to tackle global policy, promote interests, sex influence and address the causes of the security threats we face, not just the consequences.
alongside the strategic defense review, i am also publishing our strategy for developing systems. it is hard to refocus half of the budget on supporting fragile and broken states and regions in every year of this parliament. this will help to prevent conflict and help promote the golden thread of conditions that drive prosperity across the world. the rule of law, the growth of democracy. the fund will grow to over 1.3 billion pounds by the end of this parliament and will create a new 1.3 billion pound austerity fund to drive forward our aim of promoting global prosperity and good governance. building on our success in tackling ebola, we will grow and -- tify investing 1.5 billion pounds through the parliament in a global challenges research fund for u.k. science to pioneer new
ways of tackling global problems like antimicrobial resistance. we will invest one billion pounds of the research to limit our products to fight in axis disease -- infectious disease. we will also play our part in help poor countries switch to greener forms of energy. these interventions are not write more later, they are firmly in our national interest. britain that only meet its obligations to the pores in the world, but cannot focus on our -- event -- investing at scale to create economic opportunities that lead to long-term stability across the world and responding rapidly and decisively to emerging crises overseas. acting on all these fronts gives us great influence in the world. britain's safety and security defense that only on our athens,
-- our own efforts, but working with allies to face complex -- to deal with complex that face assault like climate change. we will play our full part in the alliances that underpin our security and if -- amplify our national power. we will work with our allies in europe and around the world, as well as seizing opportunities to reach out to emerging powers. history teaches us that no government can protect the future. we have no way of knowing precisely what course of events will take over the next five years. we must expect the unexpected. we can make sure we have the versatility and the means to respond to new risks and threats to our security as they arise. armed forces, police and security intelligence services are the pride of our country. they are the finest in the world and this government will ensure they stay that way. using renewed economic strength, we will use them to keep us safe for generations to come. [cheering]
thank you mr. speaker. >> i think the prime minister for his statement -- i thank the prime minister for his statement. at the moment, this country's overwhelming focus is the threat from terrorism and how we can best ensure that the devices. [inaudible] faced with the current threat, the public will not understand or accept any cuts to frontline policing. everyone will be very concerned about the warnings we know -- that we've had from police and security officials that cuts will reduce the ability to respond to a peristyle attack -- to a peristyle attack. -- to a paris style attack. not --ce budgets are
will be sufficient to guarantee no reductions in police or community support numbers and protect areas such as helicopter cover. will you also confirm the government will make in full your request to the metropolitan police commissioner and his advisers for the for the furthers -- for the resources they say are required to counter attack, such as those in paris. the public quite rightly expects that. we are focused on the immediate threats, but there is insufficient analysis in the national security strategy of the global threat facing our country and people around the world. inequality, poverty, disease, human rights abuses, climate change and water and food security. i have no idea what members of
-- i have no idea why they treated as such a funny subject. or indeed the flow of arms and illicit funds that enable groups like isis to sustain and grow. when he drove -- join the prime ministry in painterly to the men and women in services. we must look after them in a decision we make and pay attention to their welfare while serving. just as importantly, when they retire. 25% of those serving plan to leave as soon as they can or have already put in a notice and the number of those is satisfied with service life was written at 32%. to we think it's a coincidence come at theumbers same time the government has cap armed services pay. are, the government has --
we saw many soldiers with many years of operational service finalize an online being days before becoming eligible for all dayson being -- being sent before -- being sacked days before being eligible for pension. we now confirm that the plan would be to cut the annual -- [inaudible] will that be reversed? worse family would not be -- made worse off any cuts to web care or childhood planning. what damage do you think will be done by the big cuts in plants of civilian support of the armed services? the country is united with respect to those who serve, there is widespread concern about how far less has been learned from recent military interventions. willbe confirmed that he
update and revise this review in light of the forthcoming quieting -- inquiry into the iraq war? what is his response to the u.n. sides this month that all in the continuing conflict and anarchy in libya are committing breaches of international law, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians and militants have consolidated control over central libya, carrying out summary executions? week, -- former deputy minister and i quote -- britain failed to provide meaningful backing of the vienna in the wake of the airstrikes there, and we must learn from our mistakes. lessons have been learned from libya? does the prime minister believed there is any prospect in
afghanistan, maintaining security in the future? how do you see britain's role in helping ensure this, given the huge commitment over the past 14 years and the ultimate sacrifice made by 456 members of the british forces? how would he apply lessons learned in libya, iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere to britain's role in the escalating war in iraq and rio -- and syria, ensuring that past mistakes are avoided? britain needs a strong military security forces to keep us safe in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, working with and strengthening the united nations. recognize the increase commitment made to the u.n. there is no contradiction between working for peace across the word and doing what is necessary to keep us safe at home. in fact, the very opposite.
my front of the leading a review about how we can deliver that strong protection to the people of britain. the review will seek to learn the lesson to iraq, afghanistan and libya and r military capable -- requirements in that light. we go into the members of our armed forces and the country as a whole to engage in the kind of review, which is today. they will consider carefully and whether it is right for the u.k. to commit so much of the budget to continue nuclear patrols. if not, what alternative investments in our security and military capabilities are required to make -- ensure skilled jobs in our defense industry are not -- are fully protected. and will focus on the failure of the last government to replace -- nimrod,
why has the government now chose the replacement, virtually no u.k. defense content when it will be in service? and a from minister confirmed as he was talking just now, that the reduction in the number of impactigates will not the navy's ability to protect the carriers? in the prime minister give some theyurance -- last year were told 13 ships would be built, now it is eight. candy confirm these facts -- can he referring -- can he confirm these facts? -- links to the funding of terrorism and firmly founded on the importance of human rights across the world. people recognize the security is about much more than defense. fill the huge
potential this country has to lead the way in peace evening, complex resolution and peace building. we have a highly professional and experienced diplomatic corps. some of the best in the world, as well as world-class academics. severe not agree that a cut and the budget is clear evidence of the government's determination to sacrifice our place in the world on the altar of misplaced prosperity? -- i return mr. speaker. >> order. of the leader of the opposition is approaching his last question. >> indeed. haveaying that we have to the recent security services to be rebuilt able to do what is necessary to protect the public.
i asked if i asked the prime minister to think very hard about the remarks made to him by police officers and the commissioner of metropolitan police and ensure the house today that services will not go ahead. and think the best they can be said about that is the locker room and on, the less he had to say -- is that the longer he went on, the less he had to say. talking about the importance of having troops within the u.n., the importance of shipbuilding on the fly, the importance of investing in defense and having high morale amongst our armed forces. why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? why? give all these uses for our armed forces which is a few months ago, he had none. we are safeguarding investment in our counterterrorism police
and increasing the capability they have. there will be a full statement tomorrow on quality -- on all of the spending decisions, but he might want to have a word -- who very recently signed up to a proposal at a time when we face this kind of security threats, to disband mi5 and special police forces and disarm the police. [inaudible] -- leader of the opposition think the police should not use their weapons and the shadow think they should not have them at all. he asked a series of questions, let me answer them all. he asked about the threats and how we set them out. riskw published a assessment and the whole point of a national security strategy is to bring together all the threats we -- all the threats we face as he nation.
-- as a nation. and respondate them to them, that is something that never previously happened. he asked about morale and armed forces. there are no proposals here to reduce the proposals we have for pay and increments in our armed services want to change the very generous pension arrangement that they have. one of the best things for morale of the armed services is that those serving in our army, navy or air force or planning to join can now see it is going to be a bigger navy with more ships. vacancy is going to be a bigger air force with more planes and more people. they can see that the armed services are going to be better equipped to better suit -- and that are supplied than they have ever seen before -- and better supplied than they ever have seen before. -- that is the role of an ambassador to advise in human
rights. he asked us about learning lessons from previous conflicts. we are determined to do that and that is part of what the inquiry into the iraq war is all about. we have not waited for that, which is why it is important militaryring together strategy with the dramatic strategy, political strategy and gilman strategy -- development strategy. he asked what lessons were learned from the libyan conflict. clearly we need to make sure in the situations that there are government and state -- i do not apologize for one minute for stepping in with france and preventing gaddafi from murdering his own people. he asked about the maritime patrol aircraft. i think is right that we ordered these new maritime patrol aircraft, not only is it to protect from terrorist, but also to make sure that we have greater safety and security and
search and rescue functions. he asked about the rickets -- s.rgets -- frigate we are also going to look at developing a new ship that will be a multipurpose one, not only what we can create for ourselves, but hopefully one we will be able to sell more overseas as well. it is open to the possibility of seeing the number of capital ships in our navy going up, rather than down. he asked about ship workers on the klein -- on decline. we've seen a great posting in naval shipbuilding because of the carriers. we want to keep that going, and that is why they will be two maritime patrol vessels built even before the others start being built. finally, he told us a bit about his review. we look forward to this review being carried out as it is by ken livingstone, someone who has no idea about defense, but every
idea of attacking hard-working front renters -- ventures who try to do their job -- front enchers you are trying to do their job. i don't think we'll we are discussing a bigger army, bigger navy, that are equipped air force, -- wouldn't it be wonderful if every politician around the world, and that of taking pride in the slaves of their armed forces, it would others had done and abolished their armed forces and took pride in the fact that they did not have an army? that's the view of the leader of the opposition. dr. liam fox. >> thank you. in 2010 defense review took some very difficult decisions. forcesr -- our armed were able to grow the second half of the decade. and i will come the purchase of a new maritime patrol aircraft
-- it was a gap we had -- catastrophic management. i also welcome the fact that -- can i ask him what impact the -- will have on naval personnel numbers and can i ask him of the decision on -- will have on the future of tornado? let me say that because of one and operate both carriers and wanting -- this inense increase in personnel the royal navy of 400 people, i think you're absolutely right about the maritime will aircraft. we had to take difficult decisions in 2010 to get rid of the black hole in the defense budget and the nimrod project was over time and over budget. we have had a gap in this usability, but this announcement today shows how we will fill it. -- allows some 10,000 armed
forces polices in case of terrorism. for the minister tell us how ?ong that will take to train will that also mean he will revise his plan -- here ison: the thinking that just as in france, it was necessary to search the number -- surge the number. some kind -- sometimes providing a security courrdon. she has when these people will be trade, the first 5000 are already could fill that function, should it be necessary. we will get to that figure of 10,000 as i announced. in terms of the role they play, this is not about some ranting
or taking over from the police, it is being at the disposal of the police to provide security cordon or a particular amount of safety. in the past we have had a divide between these two functions and i believe it is time to get rid of it. [inaudible] >> i'm sure most members will find at least some relief in the flooding of gaps such as naval aviation and maritime patrol aircraft and especially the emphasis on flexible and versatile armed forces and the inability to predict crises before they are upon us. and the prime minister say a little bit about some reports in the threats concerning the pay of armed forces and candy also give us an indication of when the main gate contract for the
submarines weent brought before the house for debate and decision? pm cameron: i'm sure that the defense committee will have a checklist to more scrutinize this document thoroughly and look forward to their conclusions. what i can tell him about pay is that we are keeping the annual pay upgrade and the increments that armed forces have. there is a package set up for new joiners that the defense will want to look at carefully. the other point he mentioned where the maritime patrol aircraft which he welcomed, and the main gate decision, it will be moving ahead with the four submarines at the appropriate moment. [inaudible] >> i began my thanking the prime thanking-- i begin by the front minister.
can we begin by reiterating our support for measures in the -- with preannounced following recent terrorist incidents, including support for the intelligence agencies and other counterterrorism activities including several security. the prime minister has announced a 2025 target or two liable strike brigades -- for two deployable strike brigades. and provides a context and allows analysis of policy and decisions. it is worth noting that in the 2010 -- there was no mention of a northern clement from -- the arctic. the single mention would bring the risks, the opportunities are necessary for response. five years ago, the prime minister made the disastrous decision to scrap and waste the entire fleet of nimrod every wasting $4 aircraft,
billion of tax -- 4 billion pounds of taxpayer investment. we have had to muddle through. the mod has, amongst other things, several fishing vessels to report on russian vessels. the previous defense sector confirm that social media was a helpful source of information on russian naval forces and destroy currently the case, the uk's relying on wrench and canadian and american assets to patrol and screen -- relying on french and canadian and american assets to patrol and screen. the ministry of defense is not been taking the northern -- seriously at all. to the ease, you would've thought it was a basic requirement. the u.k. has never, ever provided a single jet for nato northern air policing from iceland. the royal navy has not provided any assets, not once angle
vessel for nato northern maritime patrol groups. these are facts. just -- today we learned that there is good news and we can rectify this gap. it is walking that there will be maritime patrol aircraft -- it is welcome that they will be maritime patrol aircraft. the u.k. does not station a single oceangoing conventional vessel anywhere except the south. we have been told over a number of years that in scotland, we should be delighted that there will be 20 frigates built. voters in scotland where promised -- were promised. -- just over one year since the referendum and no shipyard workers are being trained within -- with a 40% cut.
[inaudible] under this prime minister, we have seen a defamation of the ends in scotland, two out of three airbases have ceased flying operations. there is a disproportionate cut to units and manpower. we were promised a army super base in west and -- instead, that was dropped. army headquarters in scotland was downgraded and service personnel are down considerably. numbers are at a record low in scotland. forn expanded lifespan chess jets, the front minister -- this is to be welcomed, but can i raise issues of traffic collision avoidance systems, which is still not being installed. will the promised her in front of a worker's recommended in 1990 and if still not been installed in all tornado and typhoon aircraft? moving on from issues of necessary sensible defense
spending, to the element -- to the elephant in the room, which is trident maintenance. as we learn, its replacement is ballooning and will be sweeping out the fence -- defense alternatives. how expensive the trident need to be for this government to realize that it is a super expensive vanity project. it has not deterred. against terrorism or cyberattacks or conventional tanks -- attacks on the u.k. and its allies and, even at this late stage. may i appeal to the government and the labour party that it is a huge mistake to renew trident? may i remind them both that in scotland, an overwhelming majority of our hearings and organizations, from our national churches and stake groups to the scottish trade reading -- trade union are all opposed.
what kind of family of nations, with the respect to the speaker, imposes something a one of its members against its will? [inaudible] you wouldn't think that scotland was getting more is, the u.k. truth punches above its weight in the world and scotland punches above its weight because it is in the u.k. it is a proud partner in our defense. let me answer his questions clearly about the maritime control aircraft. in 2010, we had to take difficult decisions, this was an aircraft that was not properly insert -- was not utterly in-service. -- was not properly in-service. was guarding at deterrent that he did not want in the first place. he should welcome its replacement, he should welcome the fact that it's going to be
based at mossy mount. he asked in terms of the service -- at least three aircraft will be in place by the end of the parliament. he asked about the role we play in defending northern europe and we are very carefully at some of these patrolling missions. we already have u.k. typhoons providing baltic air policing which are welcome. -- and to the question about the naval issues and trident. in terms of the shipbuilding program, we'll be publishing a paper in 2016 with our shipbuilding strategy. the fact is, scotland now have the opportunity the to build because of3 frigates the changes we are making. they can be built in scotland if the conditions are right. the only way these ships would
not be billed in scotland and that is scotland was independent and did not have the resources of the royal navy. that's what he should be saying to ship workers in scotland. it is the u.k. and our defense budget that helps to keep those jobs safe. trident is clearly not squeezing out other defense requirements as this document says today. here is the rub. they just -- describe themselves as the effective opposition, ,hey are opposed to the trident therefore unsuited to government. [inaudible] >> i greatly welcome friends statements in particular, his comments on the counterterrorism and reiteration of the money that will go to the intelligence and security agents. in that context, can he help the
house a little in identifying how the government is going to carry out the necessary -- massive expansion -- other expansions and expenditure to ensure we have -- we are going to establish a new subcommittee of the chairman -- under the chairmanship of the -- to make sure that all of these commitments are properly delivered in a way that they should be. along with the other organizations in the government that do this, to make sure that there is good value for money. [inaudible] we have the best counterterrorism in the world and this is the best time to increase the budget. last week, the global terrorism 32,000how the last year, people were killed in terrorism attacks in 67 countries.
in his statement today, the prime minister never really what is happening in this country and integrating it with what's happening in our strategy abroad. if we take one country for example, how would the government be assisted by a national security increase in our country, bearing in mind what happens on the streets of yemen? countries as diverse as to ms. zia or yemen or night -- as to media tunisia -- as tunisia or yemen or nigeria -- we want to help with things like aviation security, we also want to help in building the capability of the armed services, policing and counterterrorism abilities -- counterterrorism capabilities. this is also going to be an important part of our intelligence services, inc.
reaching the cave ability -- the -- increasing the capability and -- [inaudible] >> the commitment to naval platforms and manned and uncaring -- manned and unmanned theraft accentuates the -- threat to the likelihood that uavs will render the technology barrier obsolete by the end of service day. have,eron: what we particularly with our is aership with the french plan for the next generation of fighter aircraft being unmanned combat systems. the research is there, the work is being done with the french and americans and choices will have to be made in the future.
early to say too whether the next generation of fighter aircraft will be manned or unmanned, that's why it is right we have things like the f-35 with the americans and we should do some serious thinking about whether to move to fully unmanned platforms in the future. personally, as an amateur, i would have my doubts. >> the prime minister has said that he will come back to the house on thursday to respond to the select committee. pretty also ensure there was a full day's debate in government on this issue, well before the government puts down any motion on military intervention so we can have a full debate, not on the day of a vote, but in advance so that the house can give proper consideration? pm cameron: i will consider what the honorable lady says, will we have is a statement on the day -- depending on the reaction of senseuse and -- in the
that honorable and write members have about whether we should move ahead with this, my envision would be to have a full days debate and a vote subsequent to that in the coming days and weeks. i think there is also debate on monday for people who want to make further points about the issue. i don't think we are going to be under spoken or under -- before we take the stand. clear the statement last week, the statement today, the statement on thursday, then a debate in government time with plenty of time for people to have their views and have a vote. [inaudible] >> can i be among the first to -- [inaudible]
will the commit that both should not be unchangeable but should be reviewed regularly? i think my and honorable friend for his warm support for this approach? we get had to take difficult decisions and the last parliament. increase, but an making.a choice we are we have to make this choice, it is an active choice we are making in order to deliver greater security. is right that these documents are not set in stone, they are living and breathing documents. it is sensible every five years to hold a defense review. if we endlessly re-examine and read cook it, we will find we have lots of people doing analysis and not enough people actually delivering the strategy which is what this is about.
the leader of her majesty's will opposition should be to [inaudible] -- on behalf of our benches, can i warmly welcome the prime minister who is least -- at least living up to that requirement? and i welcome his decision to commit the company on dispense -- defense. [inaudible] in relation to maritime surveillance, can i welcome the nine new aircraft being deployed , plugging the gap that has existed for too long. can i ask him to give a commitment that the two new carriers will both be deployed going forward?? pm cameron:. years of brought into services and crude -- both carriers will
be brought into service and crewed. they will be a big addition to british power, the largest ships of the royal navy has ever had under its command. >> will the government strengthen control on our borders and integrate properly with the new intelligence which i must welcome, which you -- you are going to get. there is a clear danger that activity in the middle east could displace terrorists which may seek legal or illegal entry into our country? pm cameron: having border arerol only helps if you also sharing intelligence with others about the people trying to cross those borders. there are weaknesses in the european union system, that which we need to strengthen. i would stress again and be clear, we have borders where we are able to stop and attain
people and not let them in our country, even if they are eu citizens, if we think they are a threat to national security. that exists now. some other countries in europe are introducing borders like that on a temporary business. hours are a permanent bases. permanent basis. [inaudible] >> will he accept that before the public can be convinced into taking further action, particularly in syria, the case needs to be processed of what the scale of it would be. pm cameron: i think he is absolutely right. is aact that isis so-called state committing these
appalling acts both locally in syria and around the globe is one of the most important dangers we face. is also right that we will not degrade and destroy isis as we need to do for national security, simply through the exercise of military force. with theo combine that proper diplomatic and political activities of backing a proper government and backing a transitional government in syria. both of those things need to happen. the point i will make on thursday is i don't think we can make it -- we can wait the political process to be completed in syria before we start taking the action to degrade and destroyed this organization, which poses such a destroy- the great and this organization, which poses such a threat. to -- does the
prime ministers seek to reform what more can the -- to ensure we have a continental free trade area in order to reduce migration, increase prosperity, and increase security? pm cameron: my friend is right to focus on this issue. the fact is, we do need to see more development and growth and and europe can have an influence on that, not only through a programs -- aid programs, but also between african countries themselves. we do a lot of work to promote african trade because creating a hugearkets will make
difference in the lives of people on that continent. >> can i welcome their prime minister funding commitment on defense and overseas development and ask him to ensure that in his statement on thursday, he specked out how -- immediate action against isis and lands for the long-term restructuring we just -- we so desperately need? pm cameron: arguing for increases in defense spending earlier on this year, she was right about that. she is also right that we need to combine our a budget with our -- aid budget with our defense against. -- defense budget. we won't solve the problem in syria through missiles and bombs, alone.
and has to be solved by helping the syrian people have a government and country in which they can put their trust. as we have remembered this year, the 75th anniversary of the battle of britain, can we confirm that the investment and increased number of type wounds will ensure that we retain world-class capability? pm cameron: i can certainly get that assurance. provingthe typhoon is itself, not just in britain but elsewhere in the world as a leader in terms of capabilities. what the review will deliver is to further upgrade the typhoon aircraft with the final scan radar and more modern weapon systems it needs -- with the vital scan radar and more modern
weapon systems it means. .- it needs >> as we know, the u.k. is bombing isil in iraq. is the government currently not -- i think the point i made to the gentleman is that the border between iraq and syria is not recognized by isil. it is literally a line in the sand, so it makes no sense. if we want to degrade and destroy isil, to restrict our with some of the most dedicated pilots and sophisticated technology in the world. [inaudible]
>> is my friend is already recalled, the dire economic straits in which our country found itself thanks to the party opposition -- the review is a pretty lovely and painful exercise. can i say, i warmly welcome the statement today that has been delivered by the defense secretary. can i ask some questions about the striker grades -- strike brigades? delivered within the constraint of 82,000 regular army personnel and why is it going to take 10 years to deliver them? can we expedite the creation? pm cameron: and defense of the 2010 review, we did have to take difficult decisions, but i would
,rgue that the moves we made reducing the number of battle tanks and focusing on possible things,rces and those they were also -- they were actually the right judgments. what we are doing in terms of these strike brigades is that we currently have the ability -- have the capability to deploy one anywhere and have been sustained indefinitely. while we have our new armored vehicles and have them in a new way we are going to rotate armed forces personnel and have the ability, instead of being able to deploy one, to deploy two with greater mobility. the time this takes will depend on how soon some of this new look women comes on board. my commitment of the house is to make sure these brigades are ready as soon as they can be. the prime minister's
statement on thursday, can i toe him to listen carefully those on the side of the house to have an open mind on this question and want reassurance on specific things, chiefly, the issue of humanitarian and protection and making sure that we prevent further displacement and suffering, but also a commitment to long-term reconstruction and stabilization once conflict has ceased? pm cameron: i can certainly give the gilman that assurance -- the gentleman that assurance. my aim is to bring together the biggest majority across this house to taking the action i think is necessary. i'm not saying we will solve this problem simply by crossing a line iraq into syria. -- from a rock into syria. syria. iraq into
-- to raise funds necessary to help the syrian people wherever they are. the more of them we could in syria, the better. >> and the promise or confirm that today's statement is good news for the home of the tornado force and the future home of lightning? tornadoes are playing a vital role in the campaign against daesh. annot agree it is overwhelming case into attending these strikes into syria itself? pm cameron: i do believe today's statement is good because it means more lightning aircraft, or quickly and i believe that will be very good for that airbase and that is what he says about iraq and syria. the review, much of which is common sense. that limitede
defense budget is spent to the interest of our armed forces to give them the equipment they need, not to enrich -- pm cameron: i would do everything i can on that basis, it is always difficult, this issue, because in the one hand, you want to procure as swiftly as possible. on the other hand, you want to have a care to britain's final defense industry and the opportunity to help our allies with their capabilities. overall, making sure procurement is expedient would be a good thing. think my right honorable friend for stating unequivocally that the british army might be placed on the streets of the u.k., but i remind the house, it has actually been operating on the streets of the u.k. for over 40 years. public very much the will the very sympathetic to that idea and will take great
comfort in times of peril when they see our wonderful soldiers on the street protecting them. pm cameron: my friend is right. during the flooding problems, to regular fix, we saw a number of british troops on our the point i am making is that up been rathere have arcane and old-fashioned various to stop this from happening, but all sorts of very good historical reasons that i think we are rather over that now and if there were a terrorist attack and we have a need to surge to keep us safe, i think people would be very happy to see the military perform that role. the army,spect to what is given about wales, based in england? happy toon: i am very
look carefully at that we are bringing a number of people home from germany so there are opportunities for more in the united kingdom. >> speaker, can i think prime minister today for the hard work today as the has ever been. i have four thomas government -- worked for this government -- our most critical asset remains our men and women who serve. in the framework, looking after our men and women during and after this service will be a priority. i think my friend is right to say this. you can talk about all the equipment in the world but at the heart of it is men and women who are prepared to serve and put their lives on the line for us. they should be looked after. , youyou look through this will see we are committed to
doing that. ita legal footing, passing into law, we know that is helping people for the rest of their lives. obviously right with armed forces, taking our country and can i press you on the decision to bring before the house about military action in syria? just aensure this is not decision by the house to say yes or no, but that it is also a decision to do every diplomatic decision we have two forge a sustainable future for syria after question mark -- after? mr. cameron: there is the
diplomatic things being done, political change in that country, there is the humanitarian side where britain is the second largest donor in the world on a bilateral basis to help syrian refugees and we will continue with that work and i very much see all of these things as part of an overall strategy. there is not simply a plan to extend military action. there is a plan to step up in all these areas. richard: i warmly welcome the statement by my friend today and congratulate him for increasing resources for armed forces. a tiny cautionary note. in my day, we were talking about provisions. the armyassure me that will not be reduced below 82,000 so we can do the job around the world? mr. cameron: i can absolutely give my honorable friend that assurance. i found by reducing the size of
our army to 82,000, the most painful part of the review in the last parliament, that is why it did not go ahead to begin with. i want to find every way to try to avoid it. i can give the assurances than what is interesting about this report is because of the way we are changing the way the army work, we would have the ability hope it will not be necessary, division of entire armed services in one go, a higher number, 50,000. dennis: like many prime minister's before him, he is already talking about a decision that will cause the house to wage war in syria. nobody else has ever had one. exit strategy. mr. cameron: the exit strategy is a government in syria that
represents all of its people. in terms of exit tragedies, i would make the point that when i became prime minister, we were nine years into afghanistan deployment. i delivered the exit strategy by setting a time and a date by which we should be leaving the country in terms of combat and training up the afghans. so yes, you always have to have an exit strategy and there will be a very there was with us. >> can i take the opportunity to welcome you? we welcome the announcement today. can the prime minister give me the assurance that the future of combat vehicles will be more than simply off-the-shelf? i can give that assurance. we set out to work with the
americans for combat vehicles for the future. as i said, we cannot know exactly what form they will take, but the commitment is there. i want britain to stay at the cutting-edge of the technologies. that is why we invested and that is why it is important. i pay tribute to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to secure our national defense. u.k.'scern is the surviving soldier. he has been greatly helped in the last few years. other services have been afforded to him. they worried that this might all and when he went to leave the armed forces. the prime minister meeting with a senior minister with his family to secure his future. do cameron: i am happy to
that for the right honorable lady. it has been an immense privilege to meet then. he is someone who always seems to have good humor and optimism about the future despite how much he has suffered. what we tried to put in place with the libor fund is aggressive improvement year after year in terms of service as we give to our armed forces personnel and emily's. we have to recognize after the iraq war and after 14 years of these youngn and, people we need to look after for the rest of their lives. they want to have the filling lives in the best possible prosthetic limbs, the best health care, they want to go on and do great things. >> may i think my right honorable friend for his statement? --a welcome declaration of
to remain a nuclear power with armed forces with global reach? can i also -- also remind him however that defense industries are one of the largest export owners because of what the government has invested over the years in research and technology and if we are to sustain this to help in science of emergency to reduce the capability we need, we need to continue and increase expanding what we invest in those industry. -- those industries. mr. cameron: thank you for what he says. for a long time coming here thought about the importance of a clear strategy, about setting the goals you want to achieve, and then crucially making the choices that actually make that happen. these are choices we do not have to make but that we decided to make to maintain our global
reach and power, not for some reason of national vanity but hardheaded national interest. we are a country engaged in the world and we need to play the role. in terms of what he said about research and development, i completely agree with that. we have to make sure the british defense industry understands the ministry of defense is not used forcustomer to be evermore expensive equipment. it should be a core customer to develop. the things for our armed forces and our partners as well. to make sure we have export earnings for the platforms we create ourselves. >>, speaker appeared i hear him confirmed reports that president obama has welcome news. it particularly felt very hard in scotland. the prime minister confirmed
u.k. will initially borrow it also from the capability gap and the deployment on both carriers. maritimeon: on the patrol aircraft, he said we will be buying the vote -- the boeing version. that is a u.s. air draft but it will have a major british component. it is sometimes right to choose rather than tole start all over again from scratch. in terms of what we're saying from the aircraft available, you can read all about it and we are increase in the numbers that will be available for our aircraft carriers. >> thank you. today passes announcement represents a commitment to invest in the necessary capabilities to defend the country. while it is true the simultaneous deployment of
legends and assets is desirable, with the prime minister agree with me that effective defense grid -- relies on a necessary budget but also an unswerving commitment to deploy those assets when this country's defense requires it? mr. cameron: i think my honorable friend is right that our allies and what our allies want to know and what our threatened people want to know, that we are not just prepared to invest but we are prepared to use them. i believe our defense commitments go together to help keep us safe. donaldson: with support to the union and northern island -- growing ever stronger, say the we have a lot of locks [indiscernible]
i know the: honorable gentleman and i are united as one in hoping it never comes to that. >> mr. speaker, today's is important. to find out if my honorable friend -- how many more men [indiscernible] and will they be based in portland? mr. cameron: first of all, i think the honorable lady will be secure in the knowledge that portland will have a very strong the queen least with elizabeth aircraft carrier that will be based there. i have artist scene where it will go and what a magnet sent resource it will be. this announcement today about purposeoning a new commission enables us to
increase over and above what we are already committed to because it will be a more affordable program. having in all the work we do, it is essential we have the core empty summary in past. fromnk we actually benefit having a bigger role for those tasks. >> prime minister, the national security strategy, will bolster the u.k.'s's ability to participate in the diplomatic and military in syria and ensure the u.k. can play a significant stabilization process in syria and iraq. do cameron: i am happy to that. obviously, there are some capabilities we are building that would be useful in the
prosecution of the attacks on isil in iraq evidence area. but he a wider point which is, because we have committed to the aids spending and our funding our diplomacy, we are able to play a much wider part in making sure syria has a stable future. >> i very much welcome the prime minister's statement today and i wonder if he agrees with me there are at least three issues that enable us to defend our country. first is obviously a strong government willing to recognize the importance of defense tear the second is a strong economy the excellent -- throughout the country who have the experience and the defense we need. mr. cameron: mountable friend is right that crucial to our defense is having a strong defense in an aerospace sector that will keep us in the cutting
age of capabilities. >> we are looking at a gap in our capabilities. can i press seven for the armed forces? is he saying that new joiners will receive an inferior package? if that is the case, how will that affect morale? mr. cameron: what we're doing is trying to design a package for new joiners, which is attractive for people and the modern workforce. we have got to be asking questions about how people want to be housed and the flexibility to work that they want during their lives. the fact that we're seeing so many more women joining our armed forces and the consequences that will have, the new joiner's is about taking that all into account. >> to have an exit strategy is important but for me, the entrance strategy became compelling with what happened on the streets of paris on november 13.
it is an important we have the effect of resources for armed forces and with having extra joint strikes, it is important. it also emphasizes the important manufacturing skills of the people working. mr. cameron: i've been to these haveries and i know they incredible technical expertise and they can be proud of the fact that typhoon is a first-rate aircraft and it has a strong future. >> a whole range of tasks, including nuclear scientists a nuclear engineers, logistics, training support and maintenance. i understand there are 12,000. how will the prime minister ensure that critical tasks are not locked in military defense?
mr. cameron: an important point. there are civilian roles that are hugely important. what we have done is actually say we will leave the 2% of the defense spending, we create a security fund for our intelligence services and we said every petty you can save through efficiencies you now know will go into extra capabilities. that is why i am able to stand here today and talk about the squadrons and more people joining. but all of this should be done without damaging the vital capabilities the civilians provide. >> of course members of parliament on both sides of the house have concerns about action in syria. in that respect, we look forward to my honorable friend'statement on thursday. would you agree with me that
every day we delay action in syria, our allies and the syrian people also has the added effect of keeping confidence and boosting the morale of isil fighters? mr. cameron: mild friend is obviously right that we do not want to let down our allies and we should not allow dangerous terrorist organizations to build strength by not intervening against them. but i want to be clear i do not want to back the house into a decision about this. i deliberately last week spoke about the a foreign affairs committee. ont will be the issue thursday. members of parliament consider it over the weekend and then we can go to having a full day's debate and proper consideration. i think it is a proper protest. i want the house to take the decision deliberately paired we should not take too long over it because every day we spend is a day when we are not getting to grips with the isil menace.
>> the prime minister has announced the 170th billion in securement over the next 10 years. will this lead to the increase in procurement of equipment that can be used? it is so essential to the development. obviously the 178 billion we are talking about is in equipment, destroyers, the new vehicles for the armor -- for the army, in terms of removing mines, that is something we can use a budget for and we do. we fund for instance the trust and other organizations like that and perhaps there are opportunities to do more. >> may i congratulate the prime minister and his defense minister for turning around the economy of the military defense
and is procurement regime? and may also thank him for target?ng the 2% nato beyond that, may i urge the prime minister to perhaps consider finding the additional two brigades not from existing troops but by increasing the size of the army to 102,000? that was an ingenious idea at the end of that question. i think we are capable of delivering these brigades within the level of 82,000. we're seeing a small increase in the navy. what is important is we make sure we get everything out of the resources we put in and that is what this review is about. >> i'm afraid there are a lot of members catching my eye. perhaps collies could follow suit with pithy questions.
>> involving all means at our disposal, it is absolutely essential if we are to defeat isis in its heartland. the taking of all steps in our homeland to protect the .ecurity and safety of citizens will the prime minister reconsider -- neighborhood policing is the eyes and ears of the counter is -- counter is some terrorist network. mr. cameron: it is about bringing together the united nations and the aid we can bring , political solutions, diplomatic effort, together with military action we want to pursue. in terms of police, i said what i said about counterterrorism pleasing. you have to wait for the on wednesday.
i have no doubt all of our police play a role in keeping us safe. in the last parliament, we did demonstrate that we can get more for less. is a national crisis when our country is under great danger. there has been a tradition in this house but the leaders will support the prime minister. is the door open to the opposition? mr. cameron: my door is oh open to the leader of the opposition. he is able to get council briefings on anything he is up to appear it if he wants a conversation with me, i said for the moment, the labor department, i would always make itself available to that. [indiscernible] [laughter] >> extraordinaire grateful to the member about not giving away
all of our speakers in case not everybody heard. [laughter] a close link between our defense and security capability and research capability and manufacturing capability. in the u.k. steel industry, how close we are to losing forever money supply chain, chains that could be used for community services. to we expect the parliament evolve, what steps we can take to maintain the skills and kick though these so we can make the future security and defense requirements with the greatest -- british industry? mr. cameron: i think he is right to say the partnerships we anded with the defense aerospace industry are the basis of a long-term plan to work with them.
and also our commitments on defense spending as well. see more british steel secured for government expenditure like this. of the 82,000 tons involved in the carrier program, almost all of it was sourced from the british steel. >> the global challenges research funds are superb ideas. can we get on with them? mr. cameron: i'm grateful for his support and he is very knowledgeable about these issues can i'm glad he think we made the right choices. >> specifically what he said about deployable forces, i have concerns around whether 82,000 regular armies now will meet the scale of the challenges. can you see any circumstance where you may feel the need to increase regular challenges out there? the 82,000: remember was on the basis we would have
the reserves. recent figures show we are now getting ahead of the target we sat and i pay tribute to the hard-working team and we need to make sure we reach that 35,000. i am sure you want to look at it in detail. because we are changing the way the army works, actually over time we would be able to deliver two brigades rather than one and we would be able to deliver a force of 50,000 rather than 30,000, showing we can get more from the 82000 and we set out. in the review of overseas development strategy, will the prime minister find resources to promote british values, where she has to fight for the right right tothose have the worship their god or the game and has the right to look forward to a loving future, and to people with minority ideas, have the right to express those freely without oppression? at cameron: my friend is
solely right that our aid budget is not simply about spending money but also about helping to build the golden thread helps deliver inclusiveness and development. i spent some of friday with a christian charity open doors who promote that sort of work. they want us to do more to protect the freedom to worship and that is some that we should focus on. >> it seems that the number 10 has been journalists now reporting the government maintains only having a debate and not a vote. is that true? mr. cameron: no, i am keen we should have a vote. i think he honorable gentleman will have a vote on tuesday. if i am here, -- believe me, i would like to vote on main gate,
after gate, pre-gate here and you can have as many votes as you like. all of my honorable friends will know which gate to go through. >> thank you pure the timely deployment of armed forces can play a significant part preventing situations globally deteriorating. with respect to the employment of armed forces, and my right honorable friend give a commitment that his government will act awfully but decisively? mr. cameron: i am sure that is the right approach to take care one should never approach these questions. safer if weld be act on syria and iraq? it seems to me the answer to the question is yes.
>> mr. speaker, for those of us who will have to make the decision in the near future about british military involvement in syria, could the prime minister say something about what lessons he thinks we conjure off from the recent and current action in iraq and what about whattell us might be in syria? mr. cameron: there are so many lessons we need to draw from. it is not possible now, but let me take one. i think one of the mistakes made in iraq was a sense that the entire state and establishment had to be dismantled after the invasion of iraq, and that left a vacuum that has now been well documented. in saying we believe aside cannot play a part in the syria,rm government with we are not saying you have to
dismantle all of the institutions of the syrian state. quite the opposite. i think it would be important to have a transitional plan so syria has institutions. there need to be institutions that can represent all of the country, but it should not be part of the plan to dismantle them in the year zero approach. that would not work and we must learn from the lessons of the past. >> my honorable friend makes theome comments about division in the future. as he looks across the bench, to comment a little bit on the importance of allies and friends at times like this? what france's looking for now is an ally in the time of need to what my friends in the middle east are looking for is a commitment to allies around the world. mr. cameron: i think my honorable friend makes an important point. britain and france have been allies for so long and our militaries are so close. our security corporations are so deep that i think it would be very disappointing for them and for us if we had to say that we
simply could not join them and helping them out because helping them out is helping us out. the attack on paris is an attack on us as far as i'm concerned to --attack on our way of life concerned. an attack on our way of life. this is an attack on the values we all hold dear. within the region, those countries that look to britain for defense and support and protection, they would be concerned if we do not go to the aid of our closest neighbor and one of our oldest partners. questions about our reliability. that is one of the many considerations we should take into account when we come to this. politely -- delighted to hear about the program. [indiscernible] to meet these priorities, we can
will -- we will continue to hand it over to the program. minister states there is nowhere in a statement that he sees sumit recruitment numbers. does the prime minister therefore agree with the committee that the structure of 2020 is manifestly the wrong future for this environment? hiscameron: excluding from test any consideration he thought might in any time be in anyway material care i'm sure we are deeply grateful to him. [laughter] >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman's we are very much targeted on getting what we need. this has been a huge program in terms of turning the performance , encouraging people to join and stand up. a huge program that is now working well. i'm confident we will get to 95,000. welcomedect it will be
but with the prime minister just confirmed that when it comes to shoot to kill or hunting enemies wherever they are the world, or , but everyr in ended member of this house comes wherever they sit, they can find safe haven under leadership of this government? grateful to myam honorable friend for his comments. the people will just look at the argument and the current stasis isil and put aside party considerations and other considerations and just try to answer the questions as it were internally as to whether britain would be safer, whether the people will be safer, whether the world will be safer, if we take more concerted action against isis. >> thank you to the premise for for his statements and for the investment in security and
intelligence last week. front line inthe intelligence, from the frontline of the terrorist attack, our local police forces, the local police only has regularly seven armed police officers on duty and calls the neighbor police up -- police forces for help. can the prime minister assure ae people at home you have long history of dealing with terrorism, should another terrorist attack happen, the local force can cope without falling on neighboring forces? we are looking at the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers that are available. i do not want to see a routine arming of the british lease force and i think it is's the the growth in the pool of exports -- experts that can be called upon. as for forces sharing between each other and going to each other's eight, and is always been a part of the way british policing worked.
>> the extra investment announced by my honorable friend would be welcome along the south coast, particularly furthering my constituency such as westminster, already making preparations for the arrival of the aircraft carrier. does my right honorable a friend also agree that we safeguard training personnel, which is vital in the years ahead to deal with the demanding role now expected of him? i think my: honorable friend is right about how important it will be to make sure we have sufficient trained personnel to demand -- that is one of the reasons we are seeing an increase of 400 of the personnel. i think there is a great offer to encourage people to join, which is, we will have some of the most advanced to women in the world. >> thompson?
jim: prepare for a statement today, there are fiscal issues. prime minister, what new funds are being given to the army? mr. cameron: the point i would make is the aim of the strike brigade is to try to make them more -- more maneuverable so they are less dependent on the other services. was talking to some of our army personnel about the new also they haves, longer reach and more capabilities and faster speeds in order to increase the
flexibility of our brigade. mr. cameron: they play a vital role in identifying terrorists and keeping us safe. and strengthening -- strengthening our agencies is welcome but can my right honorable friend confirm he will press on with legislation to ensure that under hitting the oversights, they have the powers as well as the resources they need to protect our country. i concert me given that assurance. an amazing national resource that many countries are extremely envious of the expertise we built up over the years and we should be very proud of what we do. investing into be cyber and doubling the end of the parliament and establishing a new cyber command center. >> thank you. an increasingly uncertain world
and security measures are needed in five years time, let along 30 or 40 years ahead. does the prime minister agree with the defense committee coming out over the weekend to be flexible in response to threats, and also does he agree with me it will be underpinned by a new return? i completely agree with the honorable gentleman about his last point. in a dangerous world, you want the ultimate insurance policy. i also agree you cannot predict all the threats you will face and that is why this report and my statement was so clear that you have to expect the unexpected and be flexible enough. that should not be an excuse for drawing together threats and trying to make choices based on those threats. if you turn to page 87 of the document, you will see we tierlly tried to suss out
one threats. my lease we are setting out what the choices are. >> in my constituency, playing a key role in the supply change for the program. will the prime minister continue to ensure that u.k. companies within the supply chain as well as shipyards continue to benefit from the announcement? mr. cameron: i will do my best to deliver on that request peer that is what the defense growth partnership is about. we are trying to say to defense companies large and small, these are what our armies are in the coming years, work with us to deliver success. >> to protect jobs [indiscernible] shoree prime minister the
they will keep myself and my honorable friends [indiscernible] it might lead to short-term job loss. having visited the shipyards and his can agency and technical incredible expertise of people working on those projects, of course i want to see that happen. because of theg timing is having two offshore patrol vessels built to make sure there is plenty of work to be done on useful vessels that have a real purpose. then there are the figures which are almost ready to go ahead and then we will have a new generation, which will be i think more cost-effective and could potentially lead to the opportunity for ship workers to
build ships for other countries as well as for the u.k.. we have not actually managed to inll many of our warships recent years. it might be because we are crating every -- evermore expensive and ever more complex warships rather than also thinking about slightly more flexible vessels that others like the australian navy or the new zealand navy and old friends of ours might want to buy. >> i can say my honorable friend has support. i also welcome the decision to refocus the budget to fragile states. theill not only prevent put -- nd really mr. cameron: one who secures
about his up -- cares about his own security. they tend to produce huge problems and issues for us at home as well. sure we will folks make can reduce those risks, but also by having a substantial budget, we are able to act quickly and decisively to give us insight on how these problems are solved. important copperheads of to the house, but off the grid defense [indiscernible] by our membership of the european union? i believe britain's mentorship of a are formed european union is in our national interest. i think at a time when we face great dangers and great uncertainty in our world, it is the -- worth looking at membership of all that we have,
nato and the eu and the summit this week, recognizing that leaves partnerships to help keep us safe. >> thank you, mr. speaker. following up from that question -- [laughter] [indiscernible] our membership of nato is more important to our national security than our membership of eu? in my view, nato is the organization that has kept us safe since the world work. if we can secure the european union, they will not have to choose between the longing to nato. i can see the advantages of that because increasingly, we're going to see british ships involved in trying to deal with potential threats to our country
as part of european union work, which also at the same time by nature. >> thank you. [indiscernible] is it not the case that 100 [indiscernible] mr. cameron: it is the ultimate insurance policy in an unsafe and uncertain world that you can never be subject to nuclear blackmail. you look across the united kingdom, you can see the people do support having this ultimate insurance policy in the world.
>> will my right honorable friend join with me in paying tribute to the many firms in my constituency and all over? can the prime minister tell the house how this can harness the idea for small firms? think small firms play an important part in keeping us safe. i think what they can see is a long-term commitment. we have had a review in 2015 and we are repeatedly committed to the key platforms that will keep us safe so the small businesses can work out through the scholarship and have become part of that success. >> i'm concerned the government will maintain its commitment in the aerospace technology institute. mr. cameron: the honorable gentleman will have to wait for the outcome of the spending review it has to it another 48 hours with the partnerships we a defensece, for
industry and aerospace industries in other industries, they have in successful in inter actual property. and welcome the statements in particular for affirming our not spending on a. can i ask the prime minister to reassure my commitment -- that the hard-earned cash will only be spent -- mr. cameron: i can certainly give that assurance. when he reads the document we have been publishing today, you will see the clear guidelines and aims we are setting. of course we want to tackle extreme poverty and at the heart of everything we do, i would argue that is in our national interest as well. the broken fragile states, they should be a great focus of our effort. >> the balance between equipment and what is available must be a priority.
does he understand the plan to cut almost 30% of civilian jobs will inevitably lead to back remaining our defense capability and undermining the commitment and the military covenant question i obviouslyeron: don't believe that is the case because we asked the military defense to go through carefully and try to find the savings we could in order to put as much of the taxpayers hard-earned money militaryle into capabilities that we neither that is what the defense is for, to defend our nation where it if you can put that into the equipment we need, you should do it. >> the other week, i was privileged to see how good the it is doing and the good being done in helping defeat isil.
>> closer to home comic join me in congratulating the commissioner and her officers for the work they are doing in tackling extremism? mr. cameron: i will certainly join my honorable friend in doing that. ofdefeating the scourge islamist extremist violence, we clearly have to do more overseas and upstream to combat it and invest in our intelligence capabilities here. a crucial part is fighting against the extremist narrative itself and taking on the extremists and arguing and demonstrating that what they are doing there's no relationship to the true religion of islam. statement you gave over the last two days, can i ask the prime minister, when he says he armed forces the
by 20,000 by 2025, how is that consistent with cutting the regular army by 2020? mr. cameron: we have moved to an army of 82,000 and a reserve of 30,000 for the army. what we are trying to do is make sure that as much of that is deployable as possible. the reason for taking money is to spend that money as effectively as possible. clearly what you want is as much of your military to be deployable as possible. the force to deploy of 50,000, if we ever needed to, i would argue, is good progress. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today andannouncement in particular, the fact that once again, we have a strike capability. that the royal neighborly -- the royal navy
will have that question mark -- that? mr. cameron: i can certainly provide that assurance. >> the review has thrown up a shocking list of $170 billion over the next decade. are we capable of delivering two uniforms -- what specific steps is the prime minister doing to ensure that the firms have the opportunity to be part of this? the defense secretary will be setting out in terms of procurement and i also encourage firms to take part in the defense growth partnership, an opportunity -- for us to be a good customer, a good customer talks to suppliers long in advance of the order being made so they can start to prepare to bid for the work that they know is coming. ? spencer.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. be aware members of this house rise to support and yet when it comes to supporting government expenditure, also is enthusiastic. i wonder if you can promise to do anymore -- you can only have national military security if you have national economic security. at the end of the long session, i think my honorable friend brings us down to earth. none of these choices are possible if you do not have a strong economy. that is absolutely crucial. >> weapons of mass destruction [indiscernible] consultation of people of the country, including people of scotland? [indiscernible] of course this
needs to be carefully thought through. we have been absolutely clear that this has been necessary and it has been part of the government's program for many decades now. supports many thousands of jobs in the government. clear thatker, it is between the police and armed important.completely how does my right honorable friend see that developing in the years ahead in order to ensure a rapid response anywhere in the country where it may be required? mr. cameron: though i am grateful for the question, it makes me clarify something people were asking earlier. whatever the outcome of the spending review with the police and whatever the number of police we have available, i think in the dangerous times we live in with the possibility of mass cashel t attacks, it makes sense to break down the barriers
that were previously put in the lay of the military being able to deploy rapidly on the streets of our country. so we have this plan, 5000, soon to be 10,000, that the police can call on the military forces. it is not in any way undermine the police but indeed gives them another additional power to bring to bear at a time of great need. sessiong on from the with prime minister, you can see prime mr. cameron answer questions from the house on tuesday on our companion network on c-span. david cameron once the u.k. to start bombing isis in syria. the pie minister will begin to lay out his case for the royal air force to begin hitting islamic state targets in syria, something he has been eager to do but feared being blocked by parliament. picking up today after meeting the french president -- the
french president, he agreed that he does it needed to -- call for greater european wide efforts to stop extremists and also -- offer actions in syria against the islamic state group. weekess was on break this for the thanksgiving holiday but when we come back, the hill on the fight blocking refugees from syria and iraq, it has emerged as one of the biggest hurdles to congress completing work on a year-long spending bill and preventing a government shutdown. the deadline to reach a deal was december 11. lawmakers will be back on capitol hill next monday, november 30, the house likely taking up energy legislation. the senate is scheduled to debate the nomination of gill smith to be the administrator. live coverage of the house as always on c-span and c-span2. , landmark cases, the
series continues with the case of brown versus the board of education, includes a discussion that lawyers for brown used. here is a preview. was integral to brown versus board of education demonstratedearly separate was not equal and in fact, separate was an injustice. what we're looking at is the dolls. doll test was done to try to determine racial awareness in theg children with implication being that, in a segregated society, if children of race and the
differences in race and the differences in how different racial groups are treated, that it would impact how they felt about themselves and what they did that actually became very , part of the brown case, they showed young ,hildren, black and white dolls and they would ask the children, show me the doll that is nice and give me the doll that is the best and give me the doll that looks like you. and more often than not, the showed that the nice stall was the white doll. the doll that was the best was the white doll. the lastot to question, give me the doll that looks like you, that is when the and the aould pause bit more confused or look troubled.
dr. clark would say because they this is, in many cases, the bad doll. this is the nice stall. -- doll. remembering they had said this is the bad doll, they now had to show the doll that looked like them. it was particularly difficult for them and some black children -- some chose the white doll that looked like them because .hey could not embrace after having said this was bad, not nice, they could not embrace it.
>> our series "landmark cases" is live tonight starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house, unfiltered access to the candidates on townhall meetings, noon -- news conferences, rallies, and teaches, for taking your comment on twitter, facebook, and by phone. and as always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. hillary clinton is backing a new tax credit worth up to 1200 dollars and other supports for people caring for aging parents or grandparents say that too many parents struggle to provide care with too little help. the rush journal reported she is that -- eported change
the total cost of the initiative was estimated at $10 billion over 10 years. presidentialc candidate last week laid out her plan on another issue, how to combat the isis military group in syria and iraq. this is about an hour. [applause] mr. haass: please be seated. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. mr. mayor, welcome.
i'd like to welcome you all to the council on foreign relations. for those of you who do not know us, we are an independent, nonpartisan, membership organization, a think tank, and a publisher, dedicated to being a resource for our nearly 5,000 members, for government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other citizens to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing this and other countries. consistent with this mission, we are making ourselves a resource for the presidential candidates and their staffs, as well as for the american people, in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. i've written to the democratic and republican candidates alike, offering briefings from our experts, as well as the opportunity for them to come here to the council and speak and take questions from our members.
so far, we have had marco rubio, the senator from florida, and jim webb, the former senator from virginia. this tuesday in washington, chris christie, the governor of new jersey, is scheduled to speak. today, however, we are pleased and honored to host the former secretary of state and former senator from the great state of new york hillary clinton. today's conversation will be conducted by fareed zakaria, one of this country's leading thinkers on international relations and american foreign policy. fareed was also managing editor of our in-house magazine, "foreign affairs," and is host of a show, coincidentally named "fareed zakaria gps." the format for today is that we will first hear remarks from secretary clinton on the critical topic of u.s. national security in the wake of paris, after which she will take some questions from dr. zakaria, and then from cfr members.
we aim to accomplish all this in the span of one hour so that we can conclude by roughly 11:30. madam secretary, senator, i want to welcome you back to the council on foreign relations. the podium is yours. [applause] mrs. clinton: thank you. thank you very much. thank you, richard. and thanks for the great work that the council does under your leadership. it truly is an important resource for us all. fareed, i look forward to having the conversation with you, everyone here at the council. and, mr. mayor, thank you very much for being here and for everything you are doing and will do to keep our city safe and strong. i'm very grateful. i wanted to come here to our city, which has shown such resilience in the face of terrorism, to talk about the events of the past week and the
work we must do together to protect our country and our friends. when the united states was hit on 9/11, our allies treated that attack against one as an attack attack against one as an attack against all. now it's our turn to stand in solidarity with france and all of our friends. we cherish the same values. we face the same adversaries. we must share the same determination. after a major terrorist attack, every society faces a choice between fear and resolve. the world's great democracies can't sacrifice our values or turn our backs on those in need. therefore, we must choose resolve and we must lead the world to meet this threat. now, let's be clear about what we're facing. beyond paris, in recent days, we've seen deadly terrorist
attacks in nigeria, lebanon, iraq, and turkey, and a russian civilian airline destroyed over the sinai. at the heart of today's new landscape of terror is isis. they persecute religious and ethnic minorities, kidnap and behead civilians, murder children. they systematically enslave, torture, and rape women and girls. isis operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions -- a physical enclave in iraq and syria, an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond, and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. we have to target and defeat all three. and time is of the essence. isis is demonstrating new
ambition, reach, and capabilities. we have to break the group's momentum and then its back. our goal is not to deter or contain isis, but to defeat and destroy isis. but we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. so we also have to play and win the long game. we should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, one that embeds our mission against isis within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it's al qaeda or isis or some other network. an immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out.
it will require sustained commitment and every pillar of american power. this is a worldwide fight, and america must lead it. our strategy should have three main elements -- one, defeat isis in syria, iraq, and across the middle east, two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilities the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world, three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats. let me start with the campaign to defeat isis across the region. the united states and our international coalition has been conducting this fight for more than a year. it's time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be caliphate and deny isis control of territory in iraq and syria.
that starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes, and a broader target set. a key obstacle standing in the way is a shortage of good intelligence about isis and its operations. so we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, arabic speakers with deep expertise in the middle east, an even closer partnership with regional intelligence services. our goal should be to achieve the kind of penetration we accomplished with al qaeda in the past. this would help us identify and eliminate isis' command and control and its economic lifelines. a more effective coalition air campaign is necessary but not sufficient. and we should be honest about
the fact that to be successful air strikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from isis. like president obama, i do not believe that we should again have 100,000 american troops in combat in the middle east. that is just not the smart move to make here. if we've learned anything from 15 years of war in iraq and afghanistan, it's that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. we can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. but we can and should support local and regional ground forces in carrying out this mission. now, the obstacles to achieving this are significant. on the iraqi side of the border, kurdish forces have fought bravely to defend their own lands and to retake towns from isis, but the iraqi national army has struggled, and it's
going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. as part of that process we may have to give our own troops advising and training the iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes. ultimately, however, the ground campaign in iraq will only succeed if more iraqi sunnis join the fight. but that won't happen so long as they do not feel they have a stake in their country or confidence in their own security and capacity to confront isis. now, we've been in a similar place before in iraq. in the first sunni awakening in 2007, we were able to provide sufficient support and assurances to the sunni tribes to persuade them to join us in rooting out al qaeda. unfortunately, under prime minister maliki's rule, those tribes were betrayed and
forgotten. so the task of bringing sunnis off the sidelines into this new fight will be considerably more difficult. but nonetheless, we need to lay the foundation for a second sunni awakening. we need to put sustained pressure on the government in baghdad to gets its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and, finally, stand up a national guard. baghdad needs to accept, even embrace arming sunni and kurdish forces in the war against isis. but if baghdad won't do that, the coalition should do so directly. on the syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage isis beyond the syrian kurds, who are already deep in the fight is that the viable sunni opposition groups remain understandably
preoccupied with fighting assad, who, let us remember, has killed many more syrians than the terrorists have. but they are increasingly under threat from isis as well, so we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more syrians to take on isis as well. to support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force president obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more syrians get into the fight. and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable syrian opposition units. our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our arab and european partners, including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the
ground. we should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. opposition forces on the ground with materiel support from the coalition could then help create safe areas where syrians could remain in the country rather than fleeing toward europe. this combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the turkish border from isis, choking off its supply lines. it would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that secretary kerry is pursuing. of course, we've been down plenty of diplomatic dead ends before in this conflict, but we have models for how seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars do eventually end. we can learn lessons from
lebanon and bosnia about what it will take. and russia and iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability. right now i'm afraid president putin is actually making things somewhat worse. now, to be clear, though, there is an important role for russian help in resolving the conflict in syria, and we have indicated a willingness to work with them toward an outcome that preserves syria as a unitary nonsectarian state with protections for the rights of all syrians, and to keep key state institutions intact. there is no alternative to a political transition that allows syrians to end assad's rule. now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our arab and turkish partners, and we must
get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in iraq and syria. countries like jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the arabs and turks step up in a much bigger way. this is their fight and they need to act like it. so far, however, turkey has been more focused on the kurds than on countering isis. and to be fair, turkey has a long and painful history with kurdish terrorist groups, but the threat from isis cannot wait. as difficult as it may be, we need to get turkey to stop bombing kurdish fighters in syria who are battling isis and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against isis.
the united states should also work with our arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against isis. at the moment they're focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from iran. that's why the saudis, for example, shifted attention from syria to yemen. so we have to work out a common approach. in september i laid out a comprehensive plan to counter iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as hezbollah and hamas. we cannot view iran and isis as separate challenges. regional politics are too interwoven. raising the confidence of our arab partners and raising the costs to iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against isis. and as we work out a broader
regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with israel, our strongest ally in the middle east. israel increasingly shares with our arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well. now, we should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is. we have to fit a lot of pieces together, bring along a lot of partners, move on multiple fronts at once. but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air and on the ground, as well as diplomatically, i do believe we can crush isis's enclave of terror. and to support this campaign, congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. that will send a message to friend and foe alike that the united states is committed to this fight. the time for delay is over. we should get this done.
now, the second element of our strategy looks beyond the immediate battlefield of iraq and syria to disrupt and dismantle global terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online. a terror pipeline that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world has allowed isis to strike at the heart of paris last week, and an al qaeda affiliate to do the same at charlie hebdo earlier this year. isis is working hard to extend its reach, establish affiliates and cells far from its home base. and despite the significant setbacks it has encountered, not just with isis and its ambitious plans, but even al qaeda, including the death of osama bin laden, they are still posing great threats to so many. let's take one example.
we've had a lot of conversation about isis in the last week. let's not forget al qaeda. they still have the most sophisticated bomb makers, ambitious plotters, and active affiliates in places like yemen and north africa. so we can't just focus on iraq and syria. we need to intensify our counterterrorism efforts on a wider scope. most urgent is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the war zones of the middle east. thousands, thousands, of young recruits have flocked to syria from france, germany, belgium, the united kingdom, and, yes, even the united states. their western passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home, radicalized and battle-hardened. stemming this tide will require much better coordination and information-sharing among countries every step of the way.
we should not stop pressing until turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into syria, finally locks down its border. the united states and our allies need to know and share the identities of every fighter who has traveled to syria. we also have to be smart and target interventions that will have the greatest impact. for example, we need a greater focus on shutting down key enablers who arrange transportation, documents, and more. when it comes to terrorist financing, we have to go after the nodes that facilitate illicit trade and transactions. the u.n. security council should update its terrorism sanctions. they have a resolution that does try to block terrorist financing and other enabling activities. but we have to place more obligations on countries to police their own banks. and the united states, which has quite a record of success in this area, can share more
intelligence to help other countries. and, once and for all, the saudis, the qataris, and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations, as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization. when it comes to blocking terrorist recruitment, we have to identify the hot spots, the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools, where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in brussels where the paris attacks were planned. through partnerships with local law enforcement and civil society, especially with muslim community leaders, we have to work to tip the balance away from extremism in these hot spots. radicalization and recruitment also is happening online. there's no doubt we have to do a better job contesting online
space, including websites and chat rooms, where jihadists communicate with followers. we must deny them virtual territory just as we deny them actual territory. at the state department, i built up a unit of communications specialists fluent in urdu, arabic, somali, and other languages to battle with extremists online. we need more of that, including from the private sector. social media companies can also do their part by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts so they're not used to plan, provoke, or celebrate violence. online or offline, the bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. let's be clear, though. islam is not our adversary. muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. the obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or
repeating the specific words radical islamic terrorism isn't just a distraction. it gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. it actually plays into their hand by alienating partners we need by our side. our priority should be how to fight the enemy. in the end, it didn't matter what kind of terrorist we called bin laden. it mattered that we killed bin laden. but we still can't close our eyes to the fact that there is a distorted and dangerous stream of extremism within the muslim world that continues to spread. its adherents are relatively few in number but capable of causing profound damage, most especially to their own communities, throughout an arc of instability
that stretches from north and west africa to asia. overlapping conflicts, collapsing state structures, widespread corruption, poverty, and repression have created openings for extremists to exploit. before the arab spring, i warned that the region's foundations would sink into the sand without immediate reforms. well, the need has only grown more urgent. we have to join with our partners to do the patient, steady work of empowering moderates and marginalizing extremists, supporting democratic institutions and the rule of law, creating economic growth that supports stability, working to curb corruption, helping train effective and accountable law enforcement, intelligence, and counterterrorism services. as we do this, we must be building up a global counterterrorism infrastructure that is more effective and
adaptable than the terror networks we're trying to defeat. when i became secretary of state, i was surprised to find that nearly a decade after 9/11 there was still no dedicated international vehicle to regularly convene key countries to deal with terrorist threats. so we created the global counterterrorism forum, which now brings together nearly 30 countries, many from the muslim world. it should be a clearinghouse for directing assistance to countries that need it or mobilizing common action against threats. and let's not lose sight of the global cooperation needed to lock down loose nuclear material and chemical and biological weapons and keep them out of the hands of terrorists. at the end of the day, we still must be prepared to go after terrorists wherever they plot, using all the tools at our disposal. that includes targeted strikes
by u.s. military aircraft and drones, with proper safeguards, when there aren't any other viable options to deal with continuing imminent threats. all of this, stopping foreign fighters, blocking terrorist financing, doing battle in cyberspace, is vital to the war against isis, but it also lays the foundation for defusing and defeating the next threat and the one after that. now, the third element of our strategy has to be hardening our defenses at home and helping our partners do the same against both external and homegrown threats. after 9/11, the united states made a lot of progress breaking down bureaucratic barriers to allow for more and better information sharing among agencies responsible for keeping us safe. we still have work to do on this front, but by comparison europe is way behind. today, european nations don't even always alert each other when they turn away a suspected
jihadist at the border, or when a passport is stolen. it seems like after most terrorist attacks we find out that the perpetrators were known to some security service or another, but too often the dots never get connected. i appreciate how hard this is, especially given the sheer number of suspects and threats, but this has to change. the united states must work with europe to dramatically and immediately improve intelligence sharing and counterterrorism coordination. european countries also should have the flexibility to enhance their border controls when circumstances warrant. and here at home, we face a number of our own challenges. the threat to airline security is evolving as terrorists develop new devices, like nonmetallic bombs. so our defenses have to stay at least one step ahead. we know that intelligence gathered and shared by local law
enforcement officers is absolutely critical to breaking up plots and preventing attacks. so they need all the resources and support we can give them. law enforcement also needs the trust of residents and communities including, in our own country, muslim americans. now, this should go without saying, but in the current climate it bears repeating. muslim americans are working every day on the front lines of the fight against radicalization. another challenge is how to strike the right balance of protecting privacy and security. encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. we should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. they have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack.
on the other hand, we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit. so we need silicon valley not to view government as its adversary. we need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy. now is the time to solve this problem, not after the next attack. since paris, no homeland security challenge is being more hotly debated than how to handle syrian refugees seeking safety in the united states. our highest priority, of course, must always be protecting the american people. so, yes, we do need to be vigilant in screening and vetting any refugees from syria,
guided by the best judgment of our security professionals in close coordination with our allies and partners. and congress needs to make sure the necessary resources are provided for comprehensive background checks, drawing on the best intelligence we can get. and we should be taking a close look at the safeguards and the visa programs as well. but we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations. turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against muslims, slamming the door on every syrian refugee --that is just not who we are. we are better than that. and remember, many of these refugees are fleeing the same terrorists who threaten us. it would be a cruel irony indeed if isis can force families from their homes, and then also
prevent them from ever finding new ones. we should be doing more to ease this humanitarian crisis, not less. we should lead the international community in organizing a donor conference and supporting countries like jordan, who are sheltering the majority of refugees fleeing syria. and we can get this right. america's open, free, tolerant society is described by some as a vulnerability in the struggle against terrorism, but i actually believe it's one of our strengths. it reduces the appeal of radicalism and enhances the richness and resilience of our community. this is not a time for scoring political points. when new york was attacked on 9/11, we had a republican president, a republican governor, and a republican mayor. and i worked with all of them.
we pulled together and put partisanship aside to rebuild our city and protect our country. this is a time for american leadership. no other country can rally the world to defeat isis and win the generational struggle against radical jihadism. only the united states can mobilize common action on a global scale. and that's exactly what we need. the entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it. there's been a lot of talk lately about coalitions. everyone seems to want one. but there's not nearly as much talk about what it actually takes to make a coalition work in the heat and pressure of an international crisis. i know how hard this is because we've done it before. to impose the toughest sanctions in history on iran, to stop a dictator from slaughtering his people in libya, to support a fledgling democracy in afghanistan, we have to use
every pillar of american power -- military, and diplomacy, development, and economic, and cultural influence, technology, and, maybe most importantly, our values. that is smart power. we have to work with institutions and partners like nato, the e.u., the arab league, and the u.n., strengthen our alliances and never get tired of old-fashioned, shoe-leather diplomacy. and, if necessary, be prepared to act decisively on our own, just as we did to bring osama bin laden to justice. the united states and our allies must demonstrate that free people and free markets are still the hope of humanity. this past week, as i watched the tragic scenes from france, i kept thinking back to a young man the world met in january, after the last attack in paris. his name was lassana, a muslim
immigrant from mali, who worked at a kosher market. he said the market had become a new home and his colleagues and customers a second family. when the terrorists arrived and the gunfire began, lassana risked his life to protect his jewish customers. he moved quickly, hiding as many people as he could in the cold storage room, and then slipping out to help the police. i didn't know or care, he said, if they were jews, or christians or muslims. we're all in the same boat. what a rebuke to the extremist'' hatred. the french government announced it would grant lassana full citizenship. but when it mattered most, he proved he was a citizen already. that's the power of free people.
that's what the jihadis will never understand and never defeat. and as we leave here today, let us resolved that we will go forward together. and we will do all we can to lead the world against this threat that threatens people everywhere. thank you, all. [applause] mr. zakaria: thank you so much, madam secretary. and thanks to richard haass, again, for organizing this extraordinary opportunity. in the wake of the paris attacks, president obama said that he thought what was needed now was an intensification of his existing strategy against isis. is what you are proposing an
intensification of the existing strategy, or a change to it? mrs. clinton: well, as i said in the speech, it is in many ways an intensification and acceleration of the strategy, but it has to also intensify and accelerate our efforts in the other arenas. what we have done with airstrikes has made a difference, but now it needs to make a greater difference, and we need more of a coalition, you know, flying those missions with us. what we have done with the president saying there would be special forces sent is right in line with what i think, but they need to get there and we need to take stock of whether we need more. and we need to also empower our trainers in iraq to have more support to do what they're trying to accomplish by getting the iraqi army once again to be a fighting force. and we need -- one thing that i
believe we haven't done yet is make it clear to baghdad that we are going to be arming sunni tribes and kurds if they don't, because at some point they have to be in the fight. the kurds, as you know, are fighting bravely on both sides of the border, and they need the support that we've given them in some of the special ops work and the assault and taking back of sinjar, and then these other two elements that i mentioned. we have pieces in place but i think we have to deepen and better coordinate not only within our own country and europe, but more broadly. mr. zakaria: do you believe that president obama underestimated isis when he called it the j.v. team? mrs. clinton: look, i don't think it's useful to go back and replow old ground. i think that from the perspective of what they had accomplished at that time, even though they had seized and held territory, the major focus of our government was on trying to remove assad from power so that
there could be a resolution, a political resolution. and there were so many groups fighting. there were so many other factors at work. now that isis has made clear that-i think in part because they have been pushed hard by the airstrikes, by the kurds, they're now expanding their reach so that they can keep their propaganda going. so i think there's been, you know, an evolution in their threat and we have to meet it. mr. zakaria: a couple of days ago, "the new york times" had a headline that said, "paris attacks complicate hillary clinton's alignment with obama." has it? mrs. clinton: well, it's not the first headline i've disagreed with. [laughter] clinton: look, i have made
clear that i have differences, as i think any two people do. i was very proud to serve as president obama's secretary of state. i think we made a good team. we largely agreed on what needed to be done to repair our alliances to get our country in a position to deal with the wars that had been inherited and to take on some of the new challenges we faced. but even when i was still there, which is publicly known, i thought we needed to do more earlier to try to identify indigenous syrian fighters, so-called moderates, and i do think there were some early on, that we could have done more to help them in their fight against assad. but, you know, this is an evolving and fast-moving situation. i think we're all, you know, working to, you know, make sure that what we do actually will produce the results we seek. mr. zakaria: when you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then secretary of defense bob gates. gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in syria, thought it was an act of war that was risky and
dangerous. this seems to me the major difference right now between what obama's administration is doing and what you are proposing. do you not -- why do you disagree with bob gates on this? mrs. clinton: well, i believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an american-only no-fly zone. i fully respect bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone, but if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the syrian military, now supplemented by the russian air force. and i think we have a chance to do that now. we had a no-fly zone over northern iraq for years to protect the kurds, and it proved
to be successful -- not easy. it never is. but i think now is the time for us to revisit those plans. i also believe, as i said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, turkey discussed with me back when i was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they're going to do. and it can give us leverage in the discussions that secretary kerry is carrying on right now. so i see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. mr. zakaria: you talked about arab partners, but it's worth noting that after having announced with great fanfare that they would join us in the strikes, saudi arabia has essentially dropped out, the uae has essentially dropped out.
what can you do particularly to make these key sunni states that seem more interested in fighting in yemen, where they are battling a shiite force, as they see it -- what can you do to make them actually take this on as their struggle? mrs. clinton: well, we did build that coalition with respect to libya. we had the uae, qatar, jordan involved in what we were doing on the ground. and it takes constant outreach, and obviously you have to define the problem in a way that they see it as affecting their national interest. and you're right, the saudis were actually involved in syria and now have put all of their resources against the houthis and the iranian backers of the houthis in yemen. now, what does that mean? well, it means that they see the battle that they want to fight as one against iran and its proxies.
my argument to them would be, left untended, you could have iranian reach from tehran to baghdad if you allow syria to fall into as terrible a distress as it currently is, and basically assad being a proxy for, a front man for the iranians. the russians are interested in their naval base, and so you will find a consolidation of authority with the iranians and, moving into baghdad, even more so. so what you're facing in yemen could be a limited preview of what you could face going forward unless we get some concerted effort to stop the fighting and to seek a political solution that does give some room to all the different groups within syria to have a say in the future. mr. zakaria: donald trump says that if you look back you see
that every time -- i get a laugh just saying it -- [laughter] zakaria: donald trump says that every time we have deposed or encouraged the removal of a dictator in the middle east, what has followed has been political chaos and a worse humanitarian situation than existed before. and if you look at iraq, if you look at libya, if you look at yemen, if you look at the fragility of the assad regime and what it has produced, isn't he right? mrs. clinton: well, he has a very short-term view of history, because it is not at all clear what the final outcome will be in the places that you named. as i mentioned in the speech, i spoke about the foundations of the region sinking into the sand just as the arab spring was breaking. and i did so not knowing about the arab spring coming to full bloom, but because it was so clear that what was being done
by dictatorships, by the denial of opportunity, by the repression, by the sectarian divide just could not stand. it was going to explode at some point or another. and with the developments in libya, for example, the libyan people have voted twice in free and fair elections for the kind of leadership they want. they have not been able to figure out how to prevent the disruptions that they are confronted with because of internal divides and because of some of the external pressures that are coming from terrorist groups and others. so i think it's too soon to tell. and i think it's something that we have to be, you know, looking at very closely. now, deposing milosevic left problems, but problems that we came at by having a deal -- in
fact, my husband's in dayton today speaking about the dayton accord, where people who had been slaughtering each other had to come together and resolve to exist within a government together. is it perfect? no. but has it, you know, kind of kept going and do we have some work to do there? absolutely. so we have to look at all these different situations, i think, on their own, as well as part of bigger trends. mr. zakaria: several of the people running against -- against whoever the democrat is argue that -- argue that we should not be taking in syrian refugees, but if we do we should prioritize christian refugees. jeb bush has said this. ted cruz has said this. and the argument is that they are being persecuted particularly harshly by isis. why isn't that right? mrs. clinton: well, i just don't think we should have religious tests about who we bring as refugees into our country.
we've had, last i looked, more than 2 million refugees since 1990. so far, we know that trying to vet and understand the connections that a person or a family might have with somebody in the united states, you know, looking to see what organization, often a faith-based organization, will sponsor them, and what they'll do to help them get education or a job, is by far the best way to sort out and to determine who should be included. now, this is going to take a long time. i mean, really, doing this is hard under any circumstances. doing it when people are essentially stateless, they don't necessarily have documents, it's hard to do the vetting. it's going to be challenging, which is again why i said in the speech that congress should be providing resources for us to do it right, you know, not trying to stop it. i just don't believe that's in keeping with our values or our
history. and frankly, it doesn't send the kind of message that we want to send to the rest of the world. so, yeah, we have to be careful. we have to be vigilant. and we have to have a system that does all of that. mr. zakaria: let's open it up to members of the council. let me -- if somebody wants to put up their hand, identify themselves, and please make sure it is a question with a question mark at the end, and be brief. sir? >> thank you very much for your comments. with respect to tpp, i would like to understand a little bit better why you oppose it and what changes would perhaps make it acceptable to you. mrs. clinton: i think, you know, there are two problems that i see with it. one, the final language of the treaty itself, which i don't
think went far enough to meet the test that i've always applied to any trade agreement. i have voted for them and i have voted against them when i was a senator. does it help to create more good-paying jobs in america? does it raise incomes? does it advance our national security? and i think there are enough unanswered questions -- it was an extraordinary effort to try to bring these countries together to come up with an agreement. but i think that, at the end of the day, for a number of reasons, including that they couldn't figure out how to get currency into the agreement and it's only an aside agreement, i opposed it. the other side of the coin, though, is we have been doing so little because of republican opposition mostly to better train and prepare people who have been really either sidelined or whacked up against their head by globalization. globalization is real.
it's happening. it's having an impact. we don't have a good training program. we don't have the kind of support that people need to be able to move into positions where they can acquire new skills. and i see those two things as going together, because we have to first and foremost focus on how we better prepare more americans to be competitive in the global economy. and i don't think we've done that. i want to see that done alongside any trade agreement to a greater extent than the republicans have been willing to support it. mr. zakaria: ma'am? >> madam secretary, amy bondurant. hi. so, importantly, you've recommended that the u.s. lead the air coalition. and i wondered what next steps might be taken to ensure that that would happen.
mrs. clinton: well, amy, there's nothing magic or easy about putting together such a coalition. i know president hollande will be coming to the united states to see president obama this week, and i assume that there will be a group of french officials, defense officials, intelligence officials, homeland security officials, who will be meeting with their american counterparts. and on the defense side, i think that certainly the united states, working with france, and then from that, you know, sort of hub beginning to reach out to other countries to seek out support. earnest: i do not have anything at the top. president was quite
critical of his political opponent in terms of their criticism of his handling of the campaign against the islamic state. resourcesta said that the fight to the state mission have not been sufficient. dianne feinstein said something similar. what does the president think of the criticism from people who have worked with him? mr. earnest: i have not spoken to him about those comments. one thing -- i think there are two things that those individuals are aware of. both ofst of is to go them is to have that be aware how challenging the situation is. in syria, for years, this has been a difficult problem to work through, and there is no denying how significant that challenge has been as the united states
and our partners have worked through it. the second thing, each of them ofa person is keenly aware the priority that the president has placed on working through this problem in a way that threatens our national security interests. have been involved in conversations about policy options available, and the others have guided the advice that they had given over the years, and if they have additional ideas or suggestions, we are willing to take their call. that taking a look at all of the resources that have gone into this is to understand that there is a isprehensive strategy that being implemented by the united states and the 64 other members of our coalition, and that is a testament to the priority that
the president places on this issue. it is a testament to the american leadership that works here. >> does the president think the resources are sufficient? arnest: the president believes there is more that the purpose can do. based on the way that you presented them to me in your first question, the question is are enough resources dedicated to the mission. the success of this mission is 65 nations coming together, recognizing the interests they have, and dedicating these resources, and we have seen set up contributions from members in the last week, and we welcome those. >> are you saying u.s. resources are sufficient and resources from partners are the issue here? have beent: we gave
engaged in conversation with t ofers like president erdu turkey, and those conversations focused on what members can contribute. ofn you consider the range elements to our strategy, it is clear the united date is making significant concretions. whether that is the united states being the largest owner of humanitarian assistance to the problem of syrian refugees disagreementr investment of our military resources to a apply pressure and support fighting forces on the ground as they regained territory. >> the situation in brussels, what did the president make of saying putting that city on
lockdown? [indiscernible] mr. earnest: we will not be in a search oration that situation where we are and monday morning quarterback in brussels, which they did to ensure the safety of their citizens that european city. the united states is committed to sharing information and assisting with that investigation as it is ongoing. >> does that include sharing information? mr. earnest: absolutely, the united states has long-standing permission sharing agreements with countries in europe. this is the area where we believe there is more that our european partners can do in terms of improving the quality and quantity of information they share with one another, but also improving the amount of information and a way that
information to share with united states. that is something we are committed to, and we are committed to helping our allies in europe deal with this rather urgent threat. julia? >> while the president was away, a number of republicans said it was a delay of the pres ident's plan to close guantanamo. does the white house see this as a delay? delayinga thinking of the transfer of guantanamo prisoners -- the rhetoric around syrian refugees -- is there a rethink that this is not the best time to beat bringing guantanamo bay prisoners into the united states? no, this is not the
best time to continue operating a prison facility that is used as a recruitment tool around the world. isil's chief messaging goal is to protect themselves as the true inheritors or true defenders of islam and to make aggressively the case that the western world is at war with islam. those two scenarios are false, but doing something by continuing to operate the prison --guantanamo bay only serves you know, advanced the narratives that isil is seeking to write, that now is actually a good time for the united states to take the long overdue step of finally closing the prison at one time obey. it does not serve our national security interests, it
undermines them, and it is not an effective use of taxpayer dollars when you consider alternatives available, which is to transfer to other countries those individuals that can be safely transferred. and otherwise dispense with those who can be prosecuted, put them through our criminal justice system them and safely detain individuals who cannot be transferred. there's no reason that we cannot make progress with that. expect -- that we when is that the expected? mr. earnest: i have no date or time. the point becomes inoperative. the commitment that does remain operative is that something that we do and intends to present to congressmen, we will do. >> i wanted to bring your attention to the announcement
bring irelando in, the largest tax conversion deal. bernie sanders says the united states should block that the. is the united states in a position to do anything to block that, where tax inversion deals are not favored -- [indiscernible] mr. earnest: i do not have any specific comments on any specific private financial transactions, including the one you just cited. there are a couple things that i think bear mentioning. the first is just last week the secretary of the treasury announced a handful of administrative steps that the -- departmentap was taking to reduce the incentive for those countries that are seeking to engage in a corporate inversion, and the second is to remind you of the president's long-standing
concern and outright criticism of companies that pursue this strategy, that essentially allows them to renounce their , whileship and continuing to benefit from all that america has to offer, and whether that is the extraordinarily talented workforce that is in this country or the education system we have in place to ensure that there is a good pipeline workers that companies can benefit from, largesly united has customer markets and infrastructure in place that companies benefit from, and the present said it is not fair that the president said is not fair for companies to renounce their citizenship, the to at least on paper relocate themselves somewhere else so they can pay a lower tax rate. that is not available to middle-class families.
everything that is worse is that republicans in congress continue to protect the ability of corporations to engage in these kinds of actions. that is what you get when you get companies that have bought and paid for members of congress. it may serve the corporate bottom line of some of these companies, but it certainly doesn't advance -- certainly doesn't strengthen the economy of the united states, and it certainly doesn't enhance the prospects of middle-class families in this country. if i could call on pfizer, this would be the largest deal in history. the fresh off of [indiscernible] effected --e [indiscernible] mr. earnest: for the details
around the treasury announcement, i will refer you to them. they may be able to explain how or whether their announcement would apply to the specific transaction. department, for more than a year, has been announcing a serious of administrative actions to reduce the benefit associated with companies executing that inversion. and we have seen the pace of those inversion announcements slow since that treasury announcement was first made. i guess whether those two things are connection is something you would have to dig into. but the pace of these kinds of announcements of slowed since the treasury department did begin carrying out these of ministry of actions to limit the benefit associated with companies doing that. the other thing i will say is that all along we having knowledge that the treasury department is rather limited in what they can do it ministry lovely. and that what is required is congressional action.
the president's budget has consistently laid out a specific proposal for closing this loophole that only benefits corporations and doesn't benefit middle-class families. we continue to believe that something that congress should act on. i think just about every democrat agrees with the president, that this should be a priority. unfortunately, it's republicans who are blocking any legislative action, because they are more interested, it appears in supporting wealthy corporate interests, not middle-class families. >> pfizer said the deal would be good for america, because it leads to more investment in medical research, and keeps 40,000 people invested in the u.s.. do you agree with that characterization? mr. earnest: i'm not one to comment on the specific consequences of one financial transaction. antitrustir implications are what the effect would be on drug prices?
mr. earnest: i assume that something that would be subject to department of justice review, i'm not sure how that process is carried out, or whether or not the department of justice has publicly said they are prepared to go look at it. thing that secretary kerry said last week, about funding to the conservation for the global climate fund. he said the president is trying to bolster support and said of the upcoming appropriations process that the president is prepared to be till the budget because it didn't -- [indiscernible] are you going to veto any budget would/iations that funding to the state department? mr. earnest: i don't have a veto threat to issue from here today on this particular issue.
obviously as a priority of the presidents, it's included in our budget proposal. we are going to continue to make the case to congress that this is something that is worth funding. >> was secretary kerry off the reservation? mr. earnest: he indicated this is a top priority of the president. it's something the president committee get it to other world leaders directly at a something we will commit a directly to leaders in congress. >> i wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the vice president's meeting this morning with the ambassadors of the countries that are working to fight the islamic state. and tell us about that meeting, and i have a follow-up on that. mr. earnest: i haven't gotten a detailed readouts of the meeting concluded, but i can tell you the purpose of the meeting. countries who are part of our coalition were represented at the meeting, and were represented by their ambassadors to the united states.
howconversation focused on countries who are part of our coalition can ramp up their contributions to our efforts. what's true is that the progress that has been made this far as been a result of the contributions from members of our coalition. let me go through a few of them that the president cited in his news conference. there are nearly two dozen nations who have made a military contribution to our counter i campaign.il they are training local forces on the ground in iraq. syrian forces and other countries. there are 25 nations who are a part of the effort being courted by germany in the uae to stabilize areas that have been liberated from isil. as an effort underway to train iraqi police forces being led by
the italians. there are 34 different nations around the world who have taken steps to arrest individuals seeking to travel to iraq and syria to take up arms alongside isil. countering the flow of foreign fighters as been a top priority of the presidents for more than a year. you recall the convened a nationsat the united general assembly meeting more than a year ago to talk about how to shut down the flow of foreign fighters and to coordinate international effort to do so. we've seen 34 nations respond to that call. it's been an international effort to crack down on isil's financing efforts, that's being led by the saudi's, and we appreciate their contribution to that effort. we've also talked about how important it is to counter isil's messaging online, and make sure we are mobilizing resources and voices inside muslim communities, to counter
the narrative. there's a communication center was opened in the uae to lead this effort. we anticipate there will be additional centers that will open around the world, including malaysia, where the president just was. the last thing that will note is that we should not overlook the the humanitarian effort underway to try to meet the basic needs of those millions of iraqis and syrians who are fleeing violence in their home countries. in the international effort to try and meet their basic needs is important, and dependence on international coordination, and dependent on the leadership of the united states. the united states is excellent made the largest conservation to that. >> your words at the beginning -- united states is trying to given some of the countries? mr. earnest: i'm trying to lay out how critically important the contributions that countries to
this coalition have been. we believe there is more they can be done if countries are willing to contribute additional resources. >> is russia looking to form , perhaps coalition peeling off members of the us-led coalition? do you think the us-led coalition is eroding in any way? mr. earnest: there is zero evidence in that. >> your thoughts on russia forming their own coalition? mr. earnest: again, the president has been ready blobs of our rush is doing. right now, will rush is doing is undermining our efforts to reach a political settlement. and they are doing that because they are concerned primarily the fielding up regime of bashar al-assad. those efforts only undermine our ability to engage the moderate syrian opposition in a discussion about the
long-overdue political transition that even russian technologies is needed and long-overdue inside of syria. said, and the president said this on a number of occasions as well, that is russia's prepared to change their strategy, and prepared to focus their efforts on isil, and to work with the international community to do that, we would welcome them as members of our coalition. and certainly, their efforts and resources they can bring to bear would be important. --s far, they have been able unable to do that. they focused on another goal. and it is not one that has allowed them to build a coalition on nearly the scale of what the united states has built. the president has an opportunity to discuss this issue directly with president putin while we were in turkey last week. i know this is a conversation that secretary kerry has had with his russian counterpart, we
are going to continue the conversation. particularly now, that tragically, russia understands the stakes for going after isil. >> given every thing you said today about the support of the coalition, and the presidents evidence -- obvious reluctance to commit further u.s. ground troops, what in the world can come of a meeting between him and the president, and what is expected other than expressions of solidarity? mr. earnest: i wouldn't downplay the significance of additional expressions of solidarity and support. this is a time when the french people are grieving, and knowing that they can count on the most powerful country in the world to have their back as they determine what's necessary to strengthen homeland security in their own country, but also to take the fight to isil, think it
will be a source of significant comfort to the french people. we've also seen the french just in the last week announced their willingness to ramp up their contributions. we did see french military pilots carry out an additional round or two of airstrikes over syria. we certainly welcome the contribution. i think there is plenty for the two leaders to talk about. you will have an opportunity to hear from them directly after they have their meeting, you can get a better sense of what they discussed. >> talk about everyone else ramping up their contributions, you're not talking about the u.s. ramping up her conservation. mr. earnest: we've been leading this coalition. with form the coalition, we continue to lead it. i think whether you look at the humanitarian assistance we provided, or the contribution that the united states has made to the ongoing military campaign, our contribution has been significant. the united states obviously has unique capabilities that we can
bring to bear. and we have use them. let me give you one example. i just mentioned the french airstrikes there were carried , thater syria last week represented an escalation of their efforts. the airstrikes they carried out were based on targets that were identified by the united states, based on intelligence that have been conducted by the united states. midairre supported by refueling that was conducted by the united states. and they were backed by operations, search and rescue capabilities, for example, to ensure that if something went wrong with those flights, that those pilots could be rescued. though search-and-rescue capabilities were provided by the united states. so i think that's an indication that the united states is certainly pulling more than our own weight, when it would comes to the country should by this coalition. but that's something that we are glad to do. that's in line with a long
tradition of american leadership, it certainly is a tradition that this president believes in. >> what if anything can come of this meeting? mr. earnest: what i'm saying is you will have an opportunity to talk to the two leaders tomorrow. >> josh, thank you. first, follow-up on julie's question. the presidents defense secretary appeared on a television show in november and said the president of the united states and other world leaders need to recognize that this is not a time to just kind of sit back and hope that somehow this enemy will go away. the presidents other defense secretary appeared on the same show four days later on november 20 and said we have all along underestimated isis, both in terms of how tough it will be to root them out in syria and iraq, but also their ability to extend beyond the area, to europe and potentially to the united states. have thewe also
comments from dianne feinstein on face the nation, i don't think the approach is sufficient to the job. this is gone on too long now, it's not gotten better. knowledge that the criticism of the president and not underestimating isis, about prosecuting the effort with insufficient vigor, are coming from people who are not conservatives, republicans, presidential candidates, or printable opponents of the president? these are coming from the people who work with him. you've knowledge that? mr. earnest: mr. gates would respond himself best described as a conservative republican. and the president would not count himself in the week. the coalition mission i described in terms of the contribution we are getting from to applynations significant pressure ties all, to carry out a more than 8000 airstrikes against them in iraq
and syria, to apply pressure to their leadership, including taking out a range of isolators, our efforts to constrict their financing, the wide-ranging integrated efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy isil i think is a testament to how seriously the president takes this challenge. clear thatant to be you understand that the criticism of this effort is extending beyond the usual precincts to include people that work for this president9. . mr. earnest: they are entitled to their opinion. i don't think either of those individuals would deny the seriousness that the president has taken this issue, or the complexity and arriving in a solution that is consistent with our national security interests. >> in his low marks in kuala lumpur, the president said the string isil is not only a realistic goal, we are going to get it done. that safe and inferring
come in telling us we're going to get it done, the president was not abandoning his past practice, wherein he is always told us this is going to be an effort that extends beyond his term. he isn't saying when he tells us we're going to get it done, that he is going to get it done? hisearnest: he's exposing resolute confidence that the united states and are 65 coalition partners will succeed integrating and ultimately destroying isil. >> before he leaves office. mr. earnest: the president was clear that the length of time this is likely to take will require substantial commitments, both on the part of the united states, but also on the part of the world. >> as the united states for dissipation it in military operations increased in any discernible way since paris? mr. earnest: the department of defense can give you the latest accounting of the military operations that have been conducted in iraq and syria over the last week or so. i would expect that for the reasons i described to build,
the stepped up contributions of some of our partners in terms of the strikes they are taken probably has required the united states to expend some additional effort to support their strikes. >> the president also said in kuala lumpur that the intelligence he has received on isis, which as we all know, is under investigation by the pentagon ig, says it's not as if i have been receiving wonderful rosy portraits about what's been happening in iraq and syria. seems we have, it had a clear eyed sober assessment of where we had progress and opportunities. i've asked you if the president has confidence in the intelligence products ease received over the last year and half. when i be wrong to construe those remarks from kuala lumpur as the president expressing confidence in the intelligence rg has received of the last year and a half? mr. earnest: i don't want to get ahead of an ongoing inspector general investigation.
i think with the president was trying to convey is that the intelligence reports that he has , and theabout isil impact that they have had on syria and iraq in particular have been troubling. and that is part of what is prompted the kind of aggressive and sustained commitment to degrading and ultimately destroying that organization that you have seen put forward by the president. that is entirely separate from the question that is currently being investigated by the inspector general. president has long said, and what he said again in the news conference, is that he has made quite clear to military leaders and to intelligence officials that he is looking for the best, most accurate assessment of what's actually happening and he can possibly get. that's only going to approve -- improve his ability to make decisions on policy to address the situation on the ground.
as clear as people can be about what's happening, that's what the president wants. even if that means delivering bad news, even if that means providing evidence to indicate that previous elements are strategy didn't work as well as we hoped, the president would rather get that information, change the strategy where necessary, then not. >> the president tells us he has been receiving clear eyed intelligence. the pentagon probe was aimed at determining whether in fact he was or not. she was statement be weighed by the investigators -- should the statement be weighed by the investigators? mr. earnest: obviously, the president believes in the value and importance of conducting independent investigations like this. i'm not aware that the inspector any sort ofsought presidential cooperation. i think the investigation they are conducting doesn't rise to the president's level, with are doing is try to take a look at
what information -- how information worked its way through the bureaucracy at the department of defense. they don't seem to be at this point based on public reports concerned about anything beyond that. >> last question. us inhe president tells response just about any question about the progress of the anti-isis efforts that the strategy is making some progress amid setbacks, and we always that is going to take time, if we get that answer on september 10, 2014, the day after he launched the effort, and we are getting that same effort -- the answer in kuala lumpur and turkey -- if we're going to get the same answer, on the second 356 day,and 65th -- does that remove credibility on how this operation is going? mr. earnest: the president is
taking this action because he believed strongly that the national security of the united astes is top priority commander-in-chief. it's precisely why this operation has -- where the strategy has been implemented in the way that it's been carried out. the focus has been on degrading and ultimately destroying isil, we do that by applying significant military pressure to prevent them from establishing a safe haven inside of syria and iraq. leaders offn issa the battlefield, we have regained territory inside of iraq and syria. we have succeeded in shutting off some parts of their financing efforts. progressade important just in the last couple of weeks. i saw that the president's special presidential envoy to the counter isil effort noted that in just the past couple of weeks, with a 1000 square kilometers and territory has been reclaimed from fighters in the ground and isolate iraq and syria. as an indication of the progress
that's being made. but the president, as you pointed out from the beginning of the knowledge that we will enjoy some periods of success and some periods of progress. >> that's when we'll hear for the next year until he leaves office. it's going to take time. you will continue to hear a clear right assessment of his view of what's happening. >> when the president first learned that intelligence that theyere charging are consultants reports were being whitewashed to make the situation look better than it is in iraq? 21st learned about that? -- wind did he first learned about that? mr. earnest: when it became public that these individuals had raised their concerns with the inspector general, and in some ways, that's the way the process is supposed to work. is -- it's very
difficult to make decisions about military strategy when he can trust the intelligence he is getting. how concerned is he about this? mr. earnest: the president certainly interested in the independent investigation running its course. but i think the president does -- the president said yesterday that the president does have a lot of confidence in the individuals who are responsible for preventing intelligence information to him, primarily because he is giving them very specific instructions about his desire to get the best possible sense of what's actually happening on the ground, even if it means coming to the president was some bad news. the president also knowledge there's this area where people might have, based on the facts that are on the ground up, reach differing conclusions based on their own analysis of the situation. that's entirely appropriate. we want people of different points of view for sending fax analysis to the president. there is a mechanism for
ensuring differing views are incorporated into the intelligence material. the president encourages those differing points of view for being represented in the materials he is presented. >> as he noticed a more realistic or pessimistic assessment coming from the cia and other intelligence agencies than what he is seen come up to the military? would be hardt for me to offer that assessment to you, john, based on the amount of intelligence i see is much less than the amount of intelligence that presidencies. -- the president sees. i'm not aware that anyone has inressed a tangible change the intelligence is being presented to the president of the united states. that doesn't reflect what kinds of changes we are actually seeing on the ground. that's what's hard about this. it started -- is hard to control for --
>> would you say there's been intelligence failure with isis? we caught so may people by withise, the rapidity which isis swept into iraq and took over this large area. mr. earnest: i think the one somewhere there has been surprise expressed wives in, frankly, the weakness of the iraqi security forces, who are responsible for protecting the nation of iraq from the isolate vance. and there was surprise expressed at those forces who were treated so rapidly in the face of isil fighters. in the face of the isil challenge. for more detailed assessments of what the intelligent look -- intelligence looked like prior title making -- prior to isil making advances, you have to talk to someone in defense. >> john kerry was commenting on these acts of terrorism and
comparing them with the charlie hebdo attacks. saying there was a sort of particular focus, perhaps even legitimacy in terms of -- not legitimacy, but a rationale, even attach yourself to say they are angry because of this and that. what do you make of the secretary of state suggesting that there could have been legitimacy to the attack on charlie hebdo, or the very least, a rationale to those attacks, and saying that somehow, those were more understandable than what happened in this latest paris attack? mr. earnest: in the aftermath of that specific attack, we made quite clear from this podium that there is no justification for act of violence against act we saw carried out against the editors at charlie hebdo. i feel confident telling you that the secretary of state strongly believes that sentiment.
he doesn't believe there's any justification for the kind of violence we've seen perpetrated by terrorists, either against people at charlie hebdo, or the kinds -- or the citizens of france. >> why was he suggesting that was a legitimacy or a rationale? mr. earnest: he said the words -- you would have to ask him about that. april. >> a couple of questions i want to ask you. first, i want to ask you what the issue of surveillance of mosques in this country, he started it before the pairs attacks. [inaudible] mr. earnest: this may be a source of disappointed to you, but there are times where i have chosen to weigh in to the irresponsible rhetoric that's being spouted by republican get its for president, and times will have declined to do so.
this is going to be one of those times where i declined. time whenry serious there's a thought process that seems to be more vocal in this country about security issues that are trumping precedent in this country. that's why i'm asking that question. in all seriousness. it's not necessarily about donald trump, that is some thing he's putting out there, and people are listening to it and actually embracing it. april, i will just say that i encourage you to take a look at the comments the president made his news conference in kuala lumpur, where he was quite clear about language that is used to target or discriminate, or specifically alienate muslims only serves to advance the narrative, the false narrative that isil is trying to write.
that's why the president believes that the most important thing that the american people can do in the face of these shocking and scary images of violence that are being perpetrated by isil, is to not be afraid. and to not elevate them to a statue they don't deserve. the fact is, we shouldn't buy into the fantasy that they are seeking to perpetuate, the what they are doing is important. in fact, we should do is redouble our efforts to make sure that we are standing up for the values and principles, and institutions that we cherish in this country. that's the kind of response that the president would like to see from the american people. and the truth is, it's exactly the kind of response we saw from the american people in the aftermath of the boston bombings from a couple of years ago. boston, inpeople of the face of a tragic, violent terrorist incident, on one of the most special days of the year in boston, with all the
people of boston responded in the spirit of boston stronger. days later they showed up at fenway park for baseball games to sing the national anthem, and a year later, they had a huge showing to watch and other running of the boston marathon. captures the spirit and resilience of the american people. that has beenrage on display by those who survived -- they are an example, a powerful example of the american spirit. that should serve, frankly, is an inspiration to the american people, even in the face of these violent acts that isil has perpetrated on another western city. talked to a i former virginia governor who asked about the fact that
[inaudible] talking about the syrian refugees coming here. as relates to the controversy of the refugees, does this white house feel the same about that? mr. earnest: their individuals who suggested they should be a religious test impose on the refugee program. i think that would be discriminatory practices that are inconsistent with the values that we have cherished since the forming of this country. so i guess, from that standpoint, he's got a point to make. trump.g back to donald told an activist from the black lives movement to get out of his rally, and he was roughed up.
this white house has members of grassroots organizations with black lives matter's at the table to talk to them about what's going on. is this a time when candidate should talk to people and hear what they had to say, or is it the right thing to do to say get out? mr. earnest: this is not a departure from mr. fronts habits. he previously had reporters asking him tough questions removed from the room. so the fact that he might condone violence against the protesters not particular surprising to me. it's certainly not approach i would agree with. he is running his own campaign, that's what he should do. to what extent are they covering the security preparations for the upcoming leaders meeting? mr. earnest: anytime you have
that many world leaders in one place, security is obvious they going to be an issue. i don't know how much of the meeting will take up, i anticipate that the ongoing security situation in the french capital will be a subject of some discussion. both in the days ahead, but also in terms of the preparation this underway to host leaders from around the world. i think the president was quite resolute in his comments yesterday about how important it is for the world to send a clear message that even in the face of this terrible violence, that the business of the world, and the business of saving the planet is going to move forward. >> with her considerations given here to the president not going to this meeting? mr. earnest: not that i'm aware of. >> we sort of assume that at least some of this meeting is going to be about russia. my question to you, just to sort of start off is, does the
hereistration see hollande as a mediator between the united states and russia, especially given the fact that he is going to meet with putin afterwards? mr. earnest: i think you would have to speak with president hollande about what he's going to say. what president obama is interested in doing is showing in a very visible way the solidarity of the united states of america feels with our allies in france. even in this very difficult hour for that country. this is a nation that is grieving, this is a nation that is concerned about the security situation inside their country. they can and should take a lot of solace in knowing that the most powerful country in the world has the back. and the standing with them in this difficult time. it will certainly an important part of tomorrow's meeting. i think they will also have some tangible conversations about what steps the united states is prepared to take to help them
with the security situation in their country, particularly when it comes to intelligence sharing. we certainly believe there is more that france and their european partners can do, in terms of sharing information among themselves and with the united states. we obviously would welcome steps they would take to do that. we believe that would have a positive impact on the security situation, not only in europe, but in the united states. i anticipate they will also discuss how france can continue to ramp up their contribution to the counter i sold -- counter-isil effort. >> what are the tangible steps the russia would need to do in order to create more cooperation on the issue of isis? mr. earnest: what we have made clear is that the russians need to ensure that they have a military strategy that is consistent with the diplomatic and political objectives that they themselves identified. that's been the real problem the russia has had, both in terms of pursuing their own strategy, but also in terms of getting people
to go along with it. there's a fundamental contradiction to what they say their goals are, and what they are actually doing on the ground . president putin himself as a knowledge that the terrible problems that are plaguing syria now will require a political solution. any political transition. as long as russia is engaged in a significant literary effort to prop up the charlotte assad, -- bashar al-assad, it's going to push that political solution further off into the distance, not bring it closer. for our 65oblem member coalition. it's also a problem for russia. is the new the president has tried to persuade president putin directly. i know that other world leaders of tried to do the same. but we would like to see from russia is a commitments to the kind of counter i still focused military effort that our coalition is carrying out.
particularly if russia was prepared to integrate those efforts with a broader coalition efforts. that would have a positive impact. as we would like to see. rollback of economic sanctions over the ukraine issue completely off the table? or is there a way to sort of incrementally move in that direction, to at the very least, give president along the -- hollande something? mr. earnest: we've said from the very beginning we are prepared to back sanctions against russia once they pursue in implement the minsk agreements. russia has not taken the steps they need to take in context of the minsk agreements. that's why the sanctions remain in place. i shouldn't inhibit our ability to set -- to focus on other security issues. it shouldn't hinder us from working with iran to help them -- prevent them from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. russia already has a significant incentive to step up their efforts against isil. that's what we would like to see. the kind of symptoms relief we know that russia would like to they willhing get when they start giving their commitments in the context of the minsk agreements. the refugee program, on capitol hill, both democrats and republicans last week said that the administration had not done the finest job of selling the program, explaining to the american public, explaining on capitol hill. >> they took a vote on a significant national security issue they didn't understand? i haven't seen anyone say that, but that would be news. they didn't take time to read the bill or understand the programs? >> is sort of like health care.
does the administration feel as though it needed to do a better job of selling the finer points of the vetting process of making people understand it? mr. earnest: i think those who -- who voted to further encumber the refugee process are accountable for their votes. i think they will have to explain why they voted that way. >> my question to you is the program as it stands now, was it not sold well enough? with the finer points not sold well enough? mr. earnest: is that a nation for why they voted against it, because they didn't understand what was included in it? the substance of what they were saying is a bunch of members of congress voted in a way that we obvious that disagree with. because they didn't understand what they were voting on. i'm not really sure if that's worse than just putting the wrong way, or if unwittingly,
they voted the wrong way. here's the other thing that i think probably is deserving of some attention. there is also a certain level of irony associated with that step. we noted that voting to further encumber and bond down the refugee process is not likely to do much to improve the national security of the united states. the probably are reforms to the visa waiver program that we are currently discussing with members of the united states senate that actually could further enhance our national security. there are a number of steps that are permanent homeland security has already taken over the last to strengthen that program, there may be additional steps we can work with congress to implement. there's one other thing that congress could do that would actually enhance our national security. and right now, that relates to the purchase of firearms. right now, there's not a law on the books that prevents an individual who is already in the united states, and that we already know is suspected of having links to terrorism, that
allows them to go and purchase a weapon. this is particularly ironic because the concerns that were expressed by members of congress, some members of congress, where about individuals who are not in the united states being subjected to a process spending two years convincing national security officials that they don't want to commit terrorism. they will only enter the united states would have persuaded the national security professionals sufficiently that they don't have links to terrorism. instead, numbers of congress are prepared to allow those individuals who are already in the united states, and are suspected of having links to terrorism, from going and pursing a firearm. i think that's a pretty clear indication that republicans in congress are more interested in playing politics, and more scared of the nra then they are concerned about doing the right thing for our national security. kelly. >> on the refugee issue, we have a pullout that say 41% of people
support the idea of having syrian, 56% in. we have that to the situation on capitol hill with her was an overwhelming vote, including 47 democrats, who wanted to have additional restrictions on the vetting process. is the president not hearing where the public is on this issue? mr. earnest: kelly, if he pretty strong case about why what congress it is not what congress it is not going to do much to improve our national security. it may make them feel better, in terms of making a political argument. that's unfortunate what we're talking about an issue as important as our national security. the fact is, the reason the president continues to support the refugee program is that individuals who enter the united states as a refugee are subjected to more screening, and more vetting than anybody else who enters the united states. back onement to a check, they have to submit to an in-person interview, they have
biometric and biographical information is collected and then run through a wide range of databases that are maintained by international criminal rosacea and's organizations. the department of homeland security, the intelligence committee, department of defense , and only then are they given the opportunity to enter the united states. since 2011, when the war in syria broke out, about 22,000 syrian individuals were referred to the united states. to determine if they could qualify for if you do status and be admitted to the united states. these are individuals who had already been vetted by the united nations for consideration in this program. it will more than 2000 of them have been admitted to the united states. as an indication of just how rigorous this process is. and it's why further encumbering the process with even more be effective as cyclicalal -- if you
rhetoric, but it's not going to do anything to improve the national security of the united states. if congress were actually interested in doing that, they would pass a law that prevents someone from being on the terrorist watch list for buying a gun. that's what congress should do. as people are sitting around the things giving table -- thanksgiving table talking about these issues, that's an issue that should be raised. if we're going to have a series discussion about national security, let's talk about the pretty obvious things that congress could do. one obvious thing that congress can do is pass a law that prevents someone who is on the terror watch list from being able to buy a weapon. i'm not sure why that's even controversial. i'm not sure why it hasn't been done so far. i suspect it has a lot to do with the fear the republicans have of the nra. >> do think it's fear on part of the democrats who sided with republicans in voting that way? mr. earnest: maybe. it's unfortunate.
>> is there any concern that if president obama does not have specific or tangible to offer the french president, that when he doesn't go on to russia, is it possible that vladimir putin will see that as an opportunity to undo president obama in close proximity, judging these two meeting side-by-side? mr. earnest: when you consider the substantial coalition the united states has led, and the substantial countries and we made to the effort, it will require a remarkable commitment from russia to try to match our efforts. but if that's what they want to do, if russia is prepared to commit the kinds of resources that united states has in a way that integrated with the international community to defeating heisel, we welcome that contribution. there's no reason this has to be a competition. we are happy to have their contribution be added to the list.
if it's a sizable is the confirmation that the united states is made, we surely would welcome it. nadya. >> [indiscernible] i've seen sporadic reports about this. i'm not able to confirm the metal. >> [indiscernible] the president has many muslim americans who serve in his administration and armed forces. [indiscernible] mr. earnest: i certainly -- let me start by saying that mr. trump and other republicans on
the campaign trail of said a number of outrageous things. not to criticize them directly for doing so is not to condone the kind of rhetoric. certainly, i don't. but i think the president spoke quite eloquently about how important it is for this country to -- even in the face of this terrible violence that we saw perpetrated on the people of paris -- even in the face of the shocking images, that our response should not be too walk away from her values. in fact, it's a reason to redouble our efforts to fight for values. confidentesident is that that represents the character of america. and that certainly has been the kind of reaction we've seen from the vast majority of americans. and that is the kind of reaction the represents the way that millions of americans who are
muslim, live their lives. it certainly is a testament to the values of the american people, including american muslims. , because asmportant i mentioned earlier, it undermines the narrative that isolate seeking to advance. the fact is, there are millions of muslims in this country who practice their religion freely. kids, theyise their send them to schools, they are able to live the american dream. because of the opportunity they are given in this country. fighting for their continued ability to do that, and to not be discriminated against just because of the way they worship god is consistent with the values of this country, an important to our strategy to
degrade and ultimately destroy us all. pam. >> is a conference coming up, is the president optimistic about getting a comprehensive deal that will be significant, verifiable, and really carry through into the future to adequately address climate change? mr. earnest: the president is ontainly optimistic, based the significant minutes we've already seen, 90% of the , i shouldlimit carbon say that differently. the president is optimistic, based on the significant conservations and commitment we have seen from countries around the world. these countries account for 90% of the carbon that is emitted around the world. every present the substantial starting point. be angotiations that can important agreement.
ultimately we want to see the kind of agreement that is both ambitious, but also verifiable. these will be discussions in paris that will take place, and i'm sure they will have lots of ups and downs, there will be time over the course of that 10 or 12 day conference where i will be standing here answering questions about the talks being poised to fail. days, i'm sureun you will enjoy them as much as i will. everyone who is participating in the conference understands the stakes are high. that certainly was true of all of the conversations the president had over the last week. with leaders of countries large and small. you represents, or who understand that the time for action is now. and there is an opportunity for the world to do some thing important. to fight climate change, and to reduce carbon pollution in a way that has positive consequences.
for the health of our kids, and for our economy. because we know the kinds of investments the united states is already made in clean and renewable energy are likely to become more valuable as other countries follow through on their commitment to consider alternative sources of energy. thatcretary kerry said they are looking for ideas, the military counterterrorism and diplomatic ideas that would help defeat isis faster. is that assigned sign the president might be willing to change his strategy, orsi referring to other members of the coalition, what they could do? is earnest: the president prepared to intensify our efforts in those areas where we know our strategy is showing signs of progress. whether that is providing additional equipment and reinforcements to those local forces on the ground that are making progress against isil, or
intensifying the air campaign in the same way the french have committed to do, or redoubling our efforts around a diplomatic are -- this is always been the way that we've approach this issue, which is to try and intensify our focus in the areas where the strategy is showing progress and acknowledge those areas that are working as well as we hoped. we will have even more confidence in our strategy as more resources are mobilized by our coalition partners. that was a savage of intensive discussion in a number of conversations over the week, and i'm confident that will be the case and weeks ahead. >> at the u.n., the president talks about the dangers of leaving a vacuum in the country after removing authoritarian leader. does this is menstruation currently have a plan for post-assad?
mr. earnest: this is the subject of ongoing discussion the secretary kerry has been leading in vienna over the last several weeks. what is clear is that president assad has lost the genesee within the country. legitimacyjority -- within that country. the vast majority of citizens have lost confidence that he can lead them in a direction they support. in large part that is because the president decided to use the military of that country to attack his own people. that certainly would be one which undermined leadership. that's why the president has been blunt about the fact that are morally repugnant, his attacking but as acivilians, practical matter, he's lost the support of the people. he can't leave that country.
of the ongoing discussions of the and the last several weeks have been to figure out how to put in place the milestones for political transition. and with him essentially said is the countries with a stake in this have essentially agreed to support a strategy that would bring parties together the later than january 1 to begin those discussions. what would also take place simultaneously is that . hopefully that would lay the groundwork for negotiations and eventually, vote. look. the president having knowledged and we said this many occasions that the united states, will not succeed in imposing a militaries solution. the matter how substantial the contributions are, is not a
military solution is going to succeed, is a political one. our strategy is taking out isolators -- isil leaders and preventing them from establishing a stronghold. it's going to require a political transition. that is difficult work when you consider all of the different interests that are at stake here. 20, 22why there are some countries around the negotiating table, including countries with diverse interests like saudi arabia and iran. it's because leadership of the united states and secretary kerry deserve a lot of credit. we succeeded in giving everyone the same room, to begin having these conversations. despite their differing opinions at different levels of commitment, all of them acknowledge that a political transition is necessary to that hashe situation
negative cost with us for all of the countries involved. >> the american envoy to the organization in charge of overseeing the destruction of chemical weapons -- the american envoy today said the use of chemical weapons in the syrian conflict is quote becoming routine. how is the president strategy handle that? handle this apparently routine use of chemical weapons? can you say whether these are caches that were missed, or if this is new production? mr. earnest: i didn't see the representative, i may have to get back to you. the one thing that is true is were, i believe, hundreds of tons of chemical weapons that were in president assad costs stockpile. they were effectively done a fight, removed, destroyed working closely with russia. that was a significant hadressman, because we know
those materials not been removed and destroyed, the risk associated with chemical weapons would be even greater inside of syria. the specificnse to comments that have been shared, i will follow-up with you. pretoria, last one in the will call it a day. victoria, last one and then we will call it a day. >> the syrian rebels are saying he is a war criminal and needs to be in jail. you can have as many talks as you want, but that's our position. and that's where we are dealing from. so how far can these talks really go as far as they were involved? mr. earnest: the goal of these conversations is for the countries in the region and around the world who have an interest in resolving the situation inside of syria agreeing to an approach that would eventually include bringing the opposition together. the opposition is far from monolithic.
they are a variety of different organizations and groups that are involved that presumably would like to have some kind of say in the future of syria. , andis a complex process getting them to participate in that process and getting them around the negotiating table is only the first step. i wouldn't knowledge that we are a long way from the kind of political solution that is long overdue, but necessary. there is no denying that if you countries like iran, saudi arabia, the united states, and russia around the table discussing this and coming to at least a broad outline of framework for pursuing this kind of political transition, that's a significant element. but there's a long way to go, and certainly resolving or at least addressing the wide variety of concerns that are sure to be aired by opposition groups once they get in the room, that will sort of be the next challenge we will face.
>> about the talks tomorrow. is there a difference between president obama, and president hollande on the removal of a solid -- assad? mr. earnest: maybe will have an opportunity to hear more hollandefrom president on these issues. we have been quite clear that this clinical transition will need to end with president assad leaving power. and not just because we have significant moral concerns about the way he is let that country, and more specifically, by the way he has attacked innocent civilians in that country, but just as a practical matter. he is not able to leave the country. the vast majority of the citizens of that country don't support him and have been victims of his attacks. we going to need to see a political transition in place to
resolve the political problems that are plaguing the country. i think despite the wide variety of opinions that are represented in that room in vienna, i thing everyone has come to terms of that fact. thanks, have a good monday. the president will be doing a news conference with president ollanta tomorrow -- hollande tomorrow. we will not to a briefing on wednesday, i wish all of you a very happy thanksgiving. >> you eating turkey? [laughter] >> count on it. >> what is next for france in recent following the terrorist attacks?
how should the international community respond? posted the brookings institution in washington. hosted next by the brookings institution in washington. house speaker paul ryan said today that it's best to exercise caution when accepting refugees from iraq in syria, given the difficulty of keeping up terrorists in an op-ed for cnn he wrote that terrorists have made it clear that they have made it clear they will infiltrate this population and carry out other attacks. the speaker also called on the senate to pass the syrian refugee bill approved by the house this past week. lawmakers will return for the thanks -- from the thanksgiving break next week. we take you live now to the brookings institution on the discussion on the attacks in france. attacks, i think
that as i probably don't need to tell anyone in this town, when there is a terrorist outrage like this, the reaction is often rarely wellfurious, considered. and at times we have come to regret that. i think that we understand that the politics of the moment, the body politic demands a response to outrages like this. so, our -- a response it will have. i think that what we would like to do here, because we don't have to be elected to any office , is to think about how that response can be certainly consistent with public desires, but also smart and considered, as we can make it. we have an excellent opportunity to have that somewhat calmer
conversation here today. panele a really excellent and group of people to discuss it. from a few to do it different angles. our first speaker, philippe, will discuss the french reaction to the re--- to the attacks. the second speaker on my left is joseph, next door at an dilatation -- institution we talk about called carnegie and he will talk about the links between french policy in the middle east. the third speaker will be laure speakerle, who is the correspondent here in correspond -- here in washington. she is going to talk about visit andhollande's
how that relates to the french reaction to the attack. is going toal, talk about the effects of the french reaction and the attack on the broader european migration and refugee debate. started., let's get we will start with you, philippe. kamal: thanks, jeremy. to give you a quick summary of what happened -- i'm sure that you have all been following the news, but as you know france has been hit by terrorists for the second time in this time it was not satirical magazine columnists. it hit pretty much every level of the society. music lovers, soccer fans, young
professionals having dinner. that helps to perhaps explain some of the reaction that jeremy was describing. in a nutshell, several attacks took place around paris. and at the theater where 80 9 p.m. -- 89 people were killed. altogether 130 people were killed and almost 400 were wounded. that makes it the worst terrorist attack in france since world war ii and the bloodiest in europe since madrid in 2004. the french society is in a state of shock, of course. i guess not just the french society, but i think the main attackss that these have been random. it could have in any city. it could have been you.
it is also brussels, which has been pretty much a ghost city for -- for the past few days. it has been beirut. , wherebeen shut marshak the civilians were shut down. it has even been in mali. a different organization. i will wave of terrorism ask three questions to get the conversation started. the first question, perhaps the most difficult to answer -- a lot of my friends have been asking me -- why has france been targeted? why not others? first of all, other countries have been targeted later or is is, but at this level
as well as africa and the middle east. as you know, president along giving special power to the police. that is an immediate response. that has been supported by french political parties, all of them. that is the local response, as well as the arrest and killing of some of the terrorists involved. not all of them, i must say. the second response has been to send the charge the -- charles de gaulle aircraft carrier to the east mediterranean. the last response is the depth
-- diplomatic response. , meetingister cameron on wednesday, with a visit to moscow on thursday. i would say that these meetings are critical, they are helping to define the strategy. the end of that process will be monday, when 100 world leaders gather in paris for the prop 21 climate conference. this will be away also to attract attention. in addition to a number of measures, such as france andking the mutual defense the u.n. unanimously voting for resolution against the islamic
state. worries, first they will talk about that. the european corporation and security, the fact that the french president is meeting his counterparts in the u.k. in are important gestures, increasing the defense budget of these nations are important, but that's not necessarily the case for germany. you know, europe is in deep trouble. not just because of this terrorist attack, but also the energy crisis. i think that france has to show certain leadership. , -- is what president
president hollande, who is not seen as internationally minded, but who has become not just a world leader but a warmonger, a bit unexpected, perhaps. i think he has used a sort of adequate response so far. has to that the strategy be international cooperation at all levels. >> ok, first the response, then a strategy. sounds a good plan. france needs to take a leadership vision. how do people in the middle east feel about that, joseph? much forhank you very giving me the occasion to cross the demarcation line between our institutions.
>> you have a 90 minute visa. [laughter] joseph: i will probably prolong what philip just said. what's the strategy, what to do in the middle east? what are the words on the arab component in france? to diffuse some cliches about that. first of all, there is a debate about someow thinkers and pundits saying that this is after all a legitimate answer of isis to the anti-muslim policies, etc.. just a reminder to square off these issues. the french active involvement in the anti-isis campaign has really started or upgraded as of september 27, with the strikes. i'm not sure that operationally a terrorist attack like the one that happened doesn't need much more time than that.
i think it was probably boot prior to that. the second argument to that, and philippe alluded to those attacks, those happened before france got into the airstrike operation in syria or iraq. this is something that we also have to keep in mind. isis does not really need a pretext or an excuse to hit tomorrow the u.s.? it could hit in sweden or somewhere else. this is something that we have to keep in mind. the second thing of importance, yes, is an element that distinguishes isis and a muslim arab european phenomenon that is growing. europeans -- belgians and friend , born in belgium, all of them
by national, they are european. it's not a question of foreign cohort crossing the mediterranean. it is inside of us that it is happening. this fends off something important for the future and for our strategy. on that level, the first important remark on that point is that if you look at the statement that isis published after the attack, it's very important to notice the wording. the statement uses a term, strike. in the islamic philosophy of the theory of four, it is something applied in the islamic cosmology. something that is part. meaning that isis considers now that europe or the united
muslim due to the nation. it is not for the remote enemy, attempt. kind of these are some points i just want to remind you of. they will weigh on the debate. what will france do? what can we expect out of that? first of all of course, you have seen it. strikes overpgrade most of, today, for the first time in a long time french aircraft have taken off from the charles de gaulle this morning to hit iraq. of course, france will be much more active in the airstrike campaign.
this is probably based on the output of the meeting, and if they agree on that they will accompany. this is a departure of the former french reluctance to do that. i will explain this in a second. the second important dynamic at play in france, something i would like to really have in mind to understand what is , this is in france strong and probably this will increase. there is a strong pressure that is going to be exerted on the french leadership personally, politically, to change the course over here.
even inside the socialist party, from the intel and military communities, what are we doing with these ambiguous forces? let us talk to a sod, pollutant, the iranians. it is already coming in the large parts in france. it is in order to stop the rise. will that lead to a change? this is a huge political loss for francois hollande. politicians don't like to admit that. opinionalso my personal , on syria in iraq.
the software of the flat -- french diplomacy on syria, yes, isis is a monster that grew for a reason. this reason has to do with the rotten situation in syria and europe. issue, wetackle this will not be able to tackle the isis issue. this leads me to my last point. i think that in this diplomatic tour that has been described, this is exactly what francois hollande would be saying. this morning and tomorrow, the message to the u.k. at u.s., partners and allies in france, is that we would have to exchange more, have better intelligence cooperation. however, politically -- and i think that this will be said to obama tomorrow -- we also have to focus much more on syria. ,his american approach to isis
with the different shading a little bit, having a strong , aategy against isis in iraq losing strategy over syria, probably have to change. this is probably what hollande would say. let us do together the things on syria. we have the program to do it. our will be the message to -- to the french western partners. with russia -- i think that this is probably the most important part of his tour, the first day in russia, the message will be more difficult to convey. you are fighting isis since the first of september. so far we all know that your strikes have had very little to do with isis. you have hit 85% of non-isis targets. if you really want us to build a large coalition that you want us to build, let us focus on isis and not on other things also.
call theisis and mutual bluff, in a way. also, the second point, which will be much more difficult, is to focus on the political component. by saying that we all know that handling isis, vanquishing isis, eliminating isis, it will never work if we still put aside the question of the rebuilding of political hysteria. that has to do with the question of the regime. by the way, this is what hollande will probably add, two weeks ago in vienna we agreed that this is what needed to be done. this morning vladimir putin saw how many and a statement was issued, a very strong re-insistence on the fact that the question is something that is not to be discussed.
that it is none of the business of the foreign powers. and that the west -- this was very worrying for me, coming from russia and iran together, the rest -- the west is hypocritical, alluding that the west has created isis. i don't know if you can partner in a battle against isis if one of your partners still believes that you are the root cause of creating the enemy you are fighting. these are the things that i think will weigh on the climate of thursday. of course, if i have to answer jeremy's question about -- what do people in the middle east expect? i think that this time the analysis comes from across the board. probably we would say much more, but this is exactly the way that things are seen. things are seen as the following. proper groundld a
force in order to take on isis. westerners don't want to put boots on the ground, which is i think a wise and clever decision. if you don't want to do it, probably it is the best thing not to do, you will have to rely him the people on the ground. kurds, arabs, tribes, etc.. cannot in, you battle. addressing the question of the change in syria at some point. in the community we have the platform for that, altogether let's put a roadmap and calendar up for that. too close, i would say that the course and change abandon the discourse that so are the two sides of the same coin. the battle together will remain
probably in the deep software. however, what has changed for a is probably a different priority. he will likely much more focused on militarily isis. and then the question of the regime and the political solution will likely be put on the longer. in the process of vienna he will likely be more instrumental. i don't think that we have to expect a change of strategy, but in focuspect a change in the short term. thank you. laure, is that how you see the visits the present is making to washington and moscow?
mr. lecorre: -- [no audio] >> why don't we had over two kamal and get the technical working. seems toville: now it work. sorry, i'm taking the word back. tomorrow we have the meeting. we have a lot of questions in very few answers about the things that are happening. we have a president coming, , who is hollande telling us that this is a game changer. that these brutal attacks on our nation are changing the whole political game. i think that when president obama meets francois hollande, he is going to wait for hollande
to tell him what he wants to do. what strikes me is that in a way the contrast in the situation between these two men, they worked very much on the same line for quite a while. they were absolutely in line concerning syrian policy. 2013, obamaore in decided not to do anything when he crossed the fame's redline on chemical weapons, the french wanted to go for a much more muscular approach. after that the same line was in france, paris, and washington. neither bishara nor the islamic states, neither strategy. there was an article by the person in charge of the president. she was saying that there was some kind of quoting of a
diplomat, at close member weather was some kind of marginalization of use with the minister in favor of a new approach. the quintessential symbol of this very deliberately, you know, neither neither approach. sort of a very strong criticism of assad. in the context that we have today, does that mean that there is going to be some kind of shift? i must say i'm quite worried about the french context, actually. there is this huge emotional situation in france. the political class, especially on the right, as joseph underlined, is in line on this change of policy. a very strong anti-american feeling is growing in france.
look at president obama. look at america. .t certainly is feckless they are not helping us. they actually created the situation with iraq. now they are not handling it. they are neither engaged nor committed. why not turn to the russians? at the same time you have a huge propaganda operation that has been going on for actually quite a few years in france from the russians. the russians actually using a lot of different weak points to underline that america is this decadent place and that europe should go back to its roots, to its christian roots, the vladimir putin may be the defender and chief of these christian european roots. i see that it makes you laugh theit is pretty effective altra right parties throughout europe are becoming somehow the
new common hand on which some inple say the putin hand which russia, moscow is relying to spread this idea that you and have toleaders have a change in europe. this is coming in strongly. at the moment you have nicolas sarkozy, who used to be the best friend of america, the most pro-atlantic person in france and political figure when he became president for the first time, he went to moscow a few weeks before the attack and actually spoke in favor of a much more -- much closer partnership with russia. he criticized very harshly the fact that president hollande had not sold the mistrial to russia in the middle of the ukrainian
crisis, calling it despicable and horrible that he had done that. you have the former prime minister and presidential withdate, misaligned someone staying away from that. this is quite a strong pressure on the president. so, really, the situation is fascinating. a bit like in the 30's, france, europe was between two geopolitical strategic threats. on the one hand you have nazi germany. on the other hand you have the italians, then you have the soviet union and soviet threat. of course, you cannot compare, it's up the same kind of threat we have now, but these are clearly too geostrategic threats
weighing upon europe. one, and aggressive russia that has destroyed the international law and order that existed in which by annexing crimea, stabilized in ukraine and has been extremely pushy and aggressive, intimidating the countries like the baltic states anding extremely pushy their relationships with many in eastern europe, trying to have a much better relationship with the germans, having the vice president of germany pleading for a big ,lliance with the russians decidedly reluctant to do so because of angela merkel. context of the francois hollande. next to him tomorrow you will have president obama welcoming him to the white house.
president obama, i must say, when i arrived in washington in 2009 i was really struck that the spirit in washington was postmodern,was this even post historical place, where nothing would ever even happen. there were only these 20 -- how many? 27 countries? trying to settle some kind of bureaucratic issue? it's not important anymore. europe is some kind of slowly rotting -- maybe we should give it to asia. there was very little interest in europe and very little awareness of the dangers that were growing. russianeen covering issues for 20 years. i just went back from the georgia war when i arrived in washington. i arrived in december to washington. the people did not seem to see that russia was becoming a
serious an obvious threat to european security. there was not this awareness, which was strange. there was also a total underestimation of the islam question in europe. i know that it's kind of politically incorrect to talk about a muslim question in europe, but you know, despite the fact that the president and thatpeople here think there is -- it's not about this plan, what's going on. , butnot about all of islam it is about a branch of islam that is at war with western civilization. it wants to destroy it. this lack of awareness created the situation in which the elite decided toed states
blame the supposedly racist ,nstitutional system in france supposedly and timelessly not giving any space in france instead of seeing that there was a defined and brutal ideology threatening europe and, also, huge part of the muslim world. i think that this is the context. now you have this situation. i was pretty critical of the lack of the awareness from the administration in the past, but i have seen -- i understand the caution of president obama why. the french are coming with a plan that is not a plan, actually. i think it you said we need a strategy now. what is the strategy? i understand why president obama is asking -- what is the strategy? andt just to embrace russia go for some kind of declaration?
we have to understand what it means. does it mean for the french to give up on the idea that we are going to push for a sod being away? we have to state that quite clearly, right? second, are the french -- do they want to go for a military option? are they ready for a serious option? not just a few strikes, but i don't know, some kind of safe haven that would actually have some kind of consequence for securing the situation of refugees and preventing them from coming to europe? a secure haven potentially for a military position that could be reinforced? are the french ready to put some ground forces on the ground? french decisions that were made in europe to ally with europeans and tell them -- you don't want refugees, so why don't you also put some troops on the ground
and some peacekeeping operations? we have to really clarify all of that before we indeed ask for some kind of grand coalition. these are very serious questions and they have to be asked in pretty blunt ways. thank you. >> thanks. france has a problem with islam. maybe europe does too. how do you see this affecting europe? i knew that the issue of islam would turn around and come to me. let me take on the earlier remark that this branch of islam is at war with the west. frankly, i disagree with that.
i think it is at war with the whole of the world. it is other muslims, islamists, who have suffered the most from what isis represents. if today there are 4.2 million refugees in neighboring countries, a good proportion of half. still be less than we could work on the mathematics of it, have been displaced into neighboring countries because of isis. remarksd make similar about the internally displaced as well. post"in "the washington there is a great piece on this turkish town on the border in syria. the destruction speaks for itself. a lot of construction was
brought on because of isis. i think that we need to be clear about that. what i would like to do to tie this up is a piece that a very good friend and colleague of islamabad extremism, it's a piece today and the turkish daily newspaper. don't give isil the islamic phobia it seeks. he will be critical when responding or developing a strategy that france, the united states and others will need to .evelop also, to address this issue of islamic phobia, it has been part
and parcel of the presence in europe and elsewhere. very critical not to drift into essentialism, which i think has happened on many occasions in the past. there was a brief remark about the late 30's and recently in the media in bc there has been a ofber of pieces in a lot these in the way that jewish refugees were treated in the late early's with some of the reaction to the syrian refugees coming out of the united states. itself. i would like to make a second remark that in some ways lines up with the question that jeremy raised. successes ofeatest
the european integration project is the removal of borders. , whoomeone like myself might be amongst one of their a few people in this audience who europeemember the late of the 50's and 60's, who when crossing every frontier, europe, yugoslavia, italy, france, they could take anything from up to two or three hours and you could sense, as a young lad sitting in the back of my dad's car, i could sense that at each border there were huge walls. those walls were not necessarily just physical walls. they were walls of prejudice. walls of attitudes toward the other when you cross from france into italy or from that matter from britain into france.
to me that great success of removing borders is what also needs to be reflected on when addressing this issue of what strategy to develop in the coming days and weeks. last point, jeremy, references were made earlier on to refugees and it has come up on a number of occasions and in that respect in the context of what has happened in paris, as horrible as it is, the bill should not be .aid by these people a good chunk of them are middle-class people. teachers, doctors, shopkeepers with their kids. what is striking for the connoisseur when you look at the these ares that usually families with children.
the reason they are moving on is precisely because of what's happening in syria. inability to address those challenges. that's one point that must not be forgotten. today in the that huffington post there was a brilliant piece saying more for europe. the euro crisis, when first corrupting, there were doomsday of how this was it, the end of european integration. somehow europe, as it has done in the past, has succeeded in addressing the challenge of the eurozone crisis as far as we can see. a similar attitude needs to be done, because the stakes are high. 60's, it was a
different europe and you cannot right away at the borders with europe,evements in maybe the answer again lies not more in france, croatia or hungary for that matter, but more of europe. i think i had better shut up year to allow someone else to speak. jeremy: thanks for shutting up. [laughter] before we go out to the audience i will ask a question or so to each of the participants. i have to say, in listening to iese rich presentations started to learn a lot, then i unlearned it, that i learned it again, so i'm a bit confused and i would like to try to bring it all home. the thing that most confuses me
is -- something that laura got at, what is the plan? we have been talking a lot about reactions. obviously we don't really know what each, the french, russians, and americans want to do, but for me it's difficult to connect these actions to the strategies that were discussed. maybe we will start with felipe and ask you -- there have been these military attacks. they have a certain satisfying quality to them. paris, we attack. that's quite biblical, if we are talking about a return to christian france. how does that fit into a plan to prevent terrorism attacks in paris france? joseph was talking about the fact that i sipped dust isis is the result of socioeconomic
governance problems. among others. in the region. it doesn't seem like bombing a can reallyhe air affect that in any great group -- great way. just makes more victims. those military attacks actually for? a sense of revenge? or do they actually have a more strategic purpose? mr. lecorre: as you know, the history of france in the arab world is a bold and complex one. obviously there are different elements there. , the fact that france is a military, diplomatic that does have alliances with a number of entries in africa.
east it hasiddle toided, as was said before, go for regime change. at least it will medically. as far as the military actions , there isned obviously a similarity with what happened on 9/11. jeremy: does that make you nervous? mr. lecorre: yes, it does, actually. except it's much smaller scale and, i believe, the post-9/11 in , ordered by the bush administration, was about regime change. i don't think we are going for that at this point. on the other hand you have a french president who has another
15 months to go in his term. original election is coming up in two weeks. we haven't spoken much about the rise in things like that, but the french people have been shocked. there is a sense that something needs to be done. so to speak, the headquarters of isis are in syria. those who have committed the crimes were in europe. most of them either blew themselves up or were killed by the police. so, the dual approach of using counterterrorism and police actions and military actions is some kind of political response to what the french public is asking. strategy it's not a
because something just happened on november 13. the strategy would be the plan. what are we going to do in syria? what are we going to do in the middle east? the answer, so i will let him speak now. i think that on the political level, something had to be done. for actually quite painful francois hollande, who is a socialist. i do believe that he has much military knowledge or background to become a war leader. you could say that about a lot of elected politicians. but he has a very strong, very minister.defense but that doesn't make them more powerful than they are. the french military is overstretched. the fact that they had to conduct operations in france and
overseas to make their lives complicated. obviously if you compare the french military to the u.s. military, we are not talking about the same levels. there are troops everywhere. because there is this need for political action, i think that striking isis was right. i don't envy the position of francois hollande, but i think that something had to be done, so he bombed the city -- that's not a very encouraging concept for a strategy. joseph, i would love to have you respond to that, if you want to. i wanted to ask you a somewhat separate question. you really got at this critical divide between the u.s. and russians.
there was some disagreement as to which side the french were on on it, but over this question of assad. you made the case very strongly that you cannot really deal with isis until you have dealt with or without dealing with assad. the russian view is that you essentially can deal with isis without a sod. .- assad that he is a critical part of the anti-isis coalition in part because it's the only thing holding the rest of syria together. in part because he has a lot of forces on the ground in there groups in that coalition. to listen to laura, i think that the french, even some of the americans have been a little attracted to this concept.
can you tell us quite directly, what is wrong with this? mr. bahout: first of all, very quickly, your three-point arguments are factually wrong, the three of them. is holding 20% of the territory, not syria. the syrian armory -- army has become a shadowy corpse. it is perhaps at 25% of its original capacity. has noto far assad shown a lot of willingness to fight isis either. we can multiply that. i think the russian view is -- this is where i also said before , so far according to all the reports that we read that are has 20y serious, russia percent of the strikes over isis and the rest over something else .
i will come back to that by answering or reacting to philip. first of all, i don't want to enter into a franco french argument, the french socialism has sometimes been good at wars. it's not a very fortunate but they made some good military operations. some are well respected as antiterrorist operations. france did not have to do that. the question is not air support. if i take the risk to answer your question, what would be the strategy? maybe it will help me to bridge or connect the dots with what was said before. what would be the strategy? first off, i would be a bad ogre. we will have attacks again. attacks are to be expected. france, belgium, england, i hope not in the u.s., but we have to
expect them. it's not something from the coming months. yes, also, a military answer is required. of course you have to hit. not because you have to take revenge, but because you have really hammered the operational capacities of these people to organize, network, expose the device to europe, train people and etc.. if you only do that, you will not do anything. first of all, fine-tuning them, this will be partially discussed. probably better special operations. however, in coordination. if you don't do that, here i transitioned to my political power, if you don't do that with local partners on the ground, you can do the targeted killings that you want, as much as you
want, you can kill the finance minister and oil minister of isis, he will be replaced in the days after. you will have to have a local partner on the ground. this is where the second part of the strategy is. it is perhaps a much more integrated political strategy that we need today. isis is in syria and iraq. you really have to approach it in one way, more or less, which is not to further the american posture. second, why are you approaching it? in a rack why would you say that we have to find a political transition and we found it by working with local tribesmen -- why don't we apply exactly the same argument in syria, where the case is more compelling? you will have to tackle this
issue at some point. but what are the obstacles? indigenous, you say in english? it fills the gap. i think the cup -- the problems are threefold. the first problems are russia. we are not sure that they are on that part of the agenda. this is where i agree with you, i think that the possibility of holding a grand coalition with russia is fragile because of that. so, we have to call the bluff of russia, which is not a strong challenge to russia. saying to them -- we have not only signed together, but coproduced and cosponsored the geneva to platform and began a prop -- platform two weeks ago, in which we said we had to find a proper way to transition the power in syria. i don't want to get into ideological words that could lead to intellectual blackmail.
yes, this is the regime change. change, buts regime it is a device that would take 18 months according to vienna that would lead to the ousting of bashar from the picture. yes, it is regime change. you must agree that this is the only way to dry up the swamp within which isis is swimming. if you don't do that, you will have more. the second obstacle is an american obstacle. you have a president that still has 12 months in office. he also still has to digest and finish digesting the iran deal. anything he will do or not do in syria and iraq is suddenly to do that. i understand that from a political place, however this is the catch-22. we need a more proactive president here with a more proactive american strategy that thes to say bluntly to americans and iranians -- look, this is what we have to do to
slow the issue. however, probably he doesn't want to do it. first, enough is enough and second, we don't really want to antagonize the iranians, which i also firmly understand. the third obstacle is an arab sunni obstacle. of course, you are not today finding arab sunni partners in syria. you don't have the assad component in your strategy. we talked about this. however, what's lacking, and to be fair in the blame on everybody, you don't have a proper arab sunni geopolitical component. your partners are not fully on board with that. first of all, of course there is the assad component that is lacking. second we can say, probably they don't really want to fight isis because of some reason. i don't really want to get into that. brookings had a paper on that today by your excellent colleague, saying that the links between saudi arabia and isis
could be murky. of course there is that. operationally there is a problem , the gulf states are today sunk in another theater that is much more vital for them, yemen. of course, when it goes too much, you have no strategy because you have a lot of things to integrate. but if you want to have a strategy, better to take all the pieces of the puzzle and try to put them somewhere. without a proper military answer, it is not only a kind of ,evenge, but the first weeks the french population, you have to show that they are taking revenge, but then you have to do something more. is about syria, with a proper, frank, and resident dialogue.
look, isis is partly something , from yourfrom view habitat. please, help us in doing that. for that journey, this is something you are very much concerned about, we had this dialogue. for that you have to have a western leadership and part of it is an american leadership and fromof it, so far at least the point of view of france and the arabs. jeremy: you are saying that they need to confront the iranians. they need to round up the sunni
powers who don't have an interest in this. additional -- an indigenous force on the ground they can be the ground force. why not drop mono from heaven? heaven?from this seems to be a harsh requirement that they failed to do in a rack. mr. bahout: just one word, two weeks from now we were sitting where john kerry was active. we produced a paper that said exactly this. either we produce papers that we don't believe in -- so stop producing them, or we produce papers and we are spending our words. when john kerry said last week -- solving syria is a matter of weeks, not months, frankly i am asking myself -- where is he living? not where i am living area jeremy:
jeremy: on that, we can agree. laure, i would love for you to react to that. you mentioned marine le pen. this sort of how affecting this response were going to affect the response. what is she and the front nationale going to do to take advantage of this? ms. mandeville: it just said something very interesting, this outline of potential strategy, saying that is what obama should do. what is interesting is i think over the summer, as far as i know from good sources, the americans have been precisely trying to do that. that is exactly what john kerry has been trying to do going to sochi to meet with clinton -- pu
tin, getting the saudis to talk to the russians. >> and the iranians. there was this discrete game going on over the summer. the americans telling some sources it was going to work, it was not so bad, we are getting there. we, john kerry is saying will be there in a matter of weeks. the question is that we are not sure it is going to work. you have to push the russians. but why would the russians give up? this is the question i have. why would they? russians toush the ssad whenn a side -- a they've been using assad to keep
their big influence in syria and at the same time divide europe along lines. it is a much bigger geopolitical game for the russians and syria is the way to get to the central point of strategy for russia, which is the relationship with europe and antagonism and confrontation of the united states, which i think is at the core of putin's policy. this is the question i have. i have another question, can syria still exist as a country? i remember over the summer, i had an interview with the former c.i.a. and n.s.a. boss. his view, which is probably more informed than mine, is that syria was gone. all these discussions and
negotiations taking place in vienna were useless because the west was obsessed with the idea f getting rid of bush are -- bashar but mute on what to put in place. is it possible to reconcile all of this? because of that, i'm going to suggest a scenario that has been pushed by a few people for syria. there are twoy real scenarios. there is the russian scenario, which is the scenario putin has applied in chechnya, which is quelling the adversary, just destroying it to the ground. i think that is probably the dream of the russian game. that is not what they rationally hope for but, but with the dream
of doing in syria, what they did in chechnya. they managed to quell huge uprisings which was not radical muslims at first. it was sort of a nationalist quest for independence. they just destroyed it. they imposed a guy who has become the policeman of the armysus this man has an that has become sort of the , terrible, had an army of its own he would use to quell rebellion. that andutin is using they are kicking -- keeping the caucacus in order.
it is in check for now, putting the lid on it. that would be the scenario. the russian-sunni uprising islamic state, you are just keeping the lid on by force. that is one scenario. fine-tuning what is happening now, making it more effective, sort of the attrition model of obama. you keep striking islamic state. at the same time, you have opsial opt -- special and try to do something with the sunni army. the other scenario in between have be what some people hinted that -- at different ways. has written a piece
yesterday saying why don't we create a no-fly zone in syria and put troops on the ground to protect refugees because we cannot get to an agreement with the russians, we put pressure on them. maybe at some point we get some kind of solutions. then we get this federalization of syria? i don't know. if these people cannot live together, do we get a country where maybe assad is in place for a while and another country that is sunni. i don't know. i am just asking that. would that be a temporary, tactical move which would show everyone the west is willing to pushnd at the same time the russians. you were talking about europe. i think you have a very naïve and idealistic view of the
european union at the moment. you say we need more -- >> [indiscernible] mandeville: we need more europe. but at the same time, europe is not showing it exists. prey for give up the the shadow, as we say in french. we have nation-states still. they exist. more or less, they are weak. but they exist. europe does not show it is existing. in september before the general i wasly of the u.n., amazed the europeans did not together some kind of plan for syria. that was an existential question, the migrant crisis for europe is existential. and they want no initiative on
european unified. there were discussions between putin and obama. there were no initiatives from europe. my question is, does europe exist? because it does not exist, maybe transforming the borders of nation-states and europe. when your house is attacked, you don't open the windows and doors. you close the windows and doors until you are sure it is safe outside and you are not going to have someone getting in. i think for now, i know it is beautiful, the europe without borders. i remember my youth. it was not so terrible to go to spain for vacation and spend even half an hour at the border of spain or even moving to in a couple of
hours. if the future of europe is at stake, i think we should put the button on pozner now. i would have loved to have more time. point, it is not about only movement of you and i. it is also the movement of goods. that is what is maintaining economic growth or prosperity in europe. walls,ent you put up the the economy is going to slow down. then you are going to place right into the hands of those nationalists and xenophobic circles in europe. i think it is: the opposite. if you are not tough enough, he will play the game.
they will vote for the ultra-right next time. >> i think i should stop here. jeremy: why don't you give a quick answer and then we will go to the audience. >> i think the answer would be to elaborate, let me just say i disagree and leave it at that. jeremy: let's go to the audience and see if you can offer better solutions. we will take three at the beginning. when i call on you, please identify who you are. please ask an actual question. and donations are accepted. [laughter] jeremy: why don't we start with gary. >> i write the mitchell report. since you have solved the problem, there's not much left to deal with. i will pose the question this way. argue that discussion
about strategy is interesting but not particularly relevant. we have got more strategies floating around, each of which has its various weak points. the issue we are dealing with is execution. withems to me the problem execution has to do with the fact that each of the parties in any of the strategies has different objectives in the outcome. having said that, are we focusing on the wrong problem or wrong question? and should we be focusing on the more practical one, which is how do we do this rubik's cube? jeremy: good question. i think it invalidates my entire existence. [laughter] jeremy: let's go to the third row in the center. right there.
>> meta-mandeville -- madame speak on my own behalf as a frenchman. i don't speak on behalf of my clients. the italians and germans had proposed a plan which france because we see there was no united front in europe to respond to what was happening in syria. but once again on record, the italians and germans, there was a plan refused by france and other countries. we played a role in pushing back. >> what is the plan? it was on how to move and assist refugees who are already on european soil.
it was not addressing the entire affair. it was some discussion of how to have a group arrangement from the start. --first question is francerime ministers of said you have to speak to monsters. perhaps they were right. we did not. bashar al-assad and vladimir putin have to be part of the equation. is it true the americans are the ones claiming economic mobility is the reason? i would like to say maybe not. piece published on
brookings on the 17th. i focus on one paragraph that there could be a reason. two french have touched on one issue, which is we have to look at the socioeconomic mobility to understand where there is some identification from. perhaps we can wrap our arms around the affair. jeremy: we will take one more. let's go here on the second row. >> thank you. i am a phd candidate at the institute in geneva. i am surprised by the responses you have prescribed. i was surprised when of the first resolutions was to limit
freedom. i was wondering whether it might make sense to also look inwards and see how we can, within europe, germany, the u.k., and , do it without military attack. jeremy: some of the questions were directed to you. why don't you start? mandeville: i don't understand which plans you're talking about germany and italy. you said we have to talk to monsters. i have debated it with him on russia and other issues, saying we have to talk to monsters. yes, of course. talk to them, yes. but believe them, i don't know. frankly, he explained
why keeping bashar is not realistic. i am not an expert on syria. it is a big weakness of mine. it is difficult for me to talk about it. does he represent something? yes. have nosts like me access to what is going on in syria. that is one of the big reasons why we are so deprived of answers on the syrian questions. i am notomic issues, saying there are not issues in the minority in france. not at all. i know there is disenfranchisement. because you are poor you start killing people in the streets. what i want to say is there was this tendency to think because they are disenfranchised and because the french system has
, i heardonal racism that after the attacks on "charlie hebdo." debate and wasme amazed professors with tenure were telling me the reason was france was institutionally racist that we had these terrible attacks on "charlie hebdo." i don't agree with that. it is not a question of political models. it is not a question of how you integrate muslims. why do i say that? absolutelyn you take different models of integration, the french republican model or the dutch model in the netherlands that have studied carefully, which is very similar to the americans, which is each community is a different color -- pillar. it is a community-based model,
like the americans, the dutch. we are coming from absolutely -- the british model very similar to the american model in terms of organization of the minorities. exactly the same results as in france. you had attacks, murders by extremists, muslim extremists. it is not a question of model. ofis a question disenfranchisement and an ideology colored -- coming from the outside and coming from with which-- from within islam wants to destroy the west. by the way when you said i don't agree, i think it is not contradictory what you are saying and what i am saying because i said precisely there
is a battle in islam. this battle has to be waged. i'm not the only one that says that. you have prominent muslim thinkers saying we have to wage this battle in islam. we have to have reformation in islam if we want to get rid of this terrorism, islamist terrorism. they say that. it does not mean radical islamists do not want to take on the west. expert on a prominent isis, islamic state, and terrorism who wrote that in 2013, he underlined the journal of the islamic state allowed we will get to rome as crusaders and the flag of the islamic state will be floating.
if it is not an attack on the west, i don't know what it is frankly. jeremy: do you see a relationship between the integration problems in france and these issues? mr. le corre: you were saying you cannot see yourself as president who want -- president hollande because it is difficult to deal with syria. it will be more difficult to deal with the integration issue. when you talk about xenophobia, obviously -- i think what we have to do is get rid of the "i" of isis. it is a terrorist organization. the reactions from the muslim community in france has been striking in saying this is not islam, and this has nothing to do with us. we have to make sure in the upcoming elections, and there is wood, two weeks, touch
some of us are worried about the outcome. but we have to make sure learning how to live together goal andhe critical making sure this group is not identified with islam. says, the system is what it is. i spent time in london, five years in the late 1990's, and i saw the birth of a rather mosque invement at a london. preventsystems did not toher way for radical groups
getting support. we know they are getting support from others as well. i don't think european countries should change their constitutions or religions. certainly, there are muslim schools in france. there are even imams in the military. i'm not saying it is perfect including the refugees in europe. they will join a certain societal system. let's make sure we lost her size -- ostracize the terrorists. jeremy: for those interested, there is a debate on the relationship between islam and isis on brookings website which is very good, although you
probably will not find the answers. joseph, i would love for you to andess the execution point the integration question. mr. bahout: what is strategy without implementation? all of it is one part. this issue of isis, syria, iraq, much more than ever before within the same coalition, interest are very divergent. i don't want to plunge into that but very quickly. for turkey, of course. if you have to say either or, it is the kurds are more a danger for isis. isis is worrying. iran in the lavonne and yemen is more worrying. within europe, the divergences
are enormous. before that, on the arab-israeli process, in 1990 one when saddam invaded kuwait, in 2001 when we went to afghanistan after 9/11, not produce discord between france and the united states. people have differences in priorities and strategy. it took someone to put it together. and is part of strategy political leadership. today, someone has to put some order in chaos, to quote the bookings -- brookings blog. it is difficult to do. i'm not calling for american preeminence or leadership. someone has to do it.
bywon't be solved [indiscernible] i think this is a way of extricating ourselves. without a roadmap, an excellent strategy, it remains a good paper and not something that is incremented. the second point is interesting although it is not our subject, is syria livable again? like everybody, i have an opinion. i think it is beyond debate. the head of the french intelligence two or three weeks ago said syria is broken beyond repair. i believe that. i'm very convinced about that. i think syria is today broken. this is why assad is no more a problem. his ruling something that has disappeared. he is the head of a militia
among other militias. before becoming french, i was lebanese. i lived in a country where for 15 years, it was broken. we felt at times it would never be patched up again. analytically saying something is broken is true, but politically it does not mean you have to accept it. you can let go of the syria process, and you will have a fragmented syria that at one point will be legitimized and legalized by the international process. people sit around the tables and say these are the borders, let's accept that. i don't have anything against it. nations are born and die. maybe one day, lebanon will disappear. the rock has already -- iraq has already more or less. there's a process called geneva-vienna where we say we want a democratized, secularized
syria. if these words mean something, let's do it. let sit at the table with the syrians and say you cannot live together anymore. let's see where the boundary is. it can be federalization. it can be a federal state. i don't know. i am one of the people who think order in the laevont is not there. i don't think it will be replaced soon by something. theorry is how to shorten limbo between something dead and something to be born and how to least cores and etc. as a political scientist and citizen of that region and of the world, this is what worries me. nothing is sacred in these issues.
i know some syrian friends would probably jump up. is comatose. you can still save it. you don't want to save it? let's try to transform it into something else at the least cost possible. that is what i am saying. this needs a little bit of leadership. i know, jeremy, you're going to ask me what i think about all of this. heels, thereeph's are refugees out there. it happens that the west and the e.u. and the united states and a number of other countries are signatories of legal documents that promise refugees are going to be treated differently than
and this is an international responsibility. this is what i would like to remind us all. i would not want you to walk laure,ving listened to that somehow i am in advocate of [indiscernible] just a second,-- let me finish. all i said was to respond to your remark. transcripts of these debates. you can always go and look it up. that a branch of islam is at war with the western world. i said that branch of islam is not at war just with the west, but it is at war with the muslim world and syrian people, etc.
that is the only point i made. you did not need to cite the big literature that argues to the contrary. we have run out of time. jeremy: i apologize for my bad time management, but we are out of time. i think we have covered a frightening array of subjects. i think we have plunged into the ways to maintain our values, the ways to fight isis, and the struggles over leadership and structure. i'm not sure we have resolved anything. but i hope we have given you a lot of food for thought. i appreciate you coming. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause]
>> all persons having business before the supreme court of the united states are admonished to give their attention. >> coming up, we will discuss brown versus the board of education. the third-grader, separate but -week walk to the bus that would drive her to the all-black school even though the all-white school was only blocks away. her father school -- sued the school board. that case with other similar cases made it all the way to the supreme court.
we will explore the case and racial tensions of the time and the immediate and long-term impact of the decision. that is coming up on the next "landmark cases" live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span-3, and c-span radio. for background, order your copy of the companion book available for eight dollars 95 plus $8.95 plus 895 -- shipping. >> the security and exchange commission or mary jo white testified about the budget request. republicans on the house financial services committee told her they want to see analysis of the impact of regulations before they are proposed by the agency. this is three hours.
it is on their behalf this committee asked to ensure the s.e.c. protects investors and promotes capital formation, all key ingredients to growing a healthy economy with opportunity for all. oversight is needed to ensure the s.e.c. is a good steward of resources, both time and budget. a budget that has increased her medically by more than 54% over the last 10 years while the monitors show the rapidly rising red ink of our national debt. newsve seen good and bad since her last appearance. finally finished the rulemaking on the crowdfunding titles. this is noteworthy and commendable.
the s.e.c. has asserted its jurisdiction to hopefully stop the oversight council from regulating asset managers. this is commendable. regrettably, there's is more to discuss that is not so commendable. a a three-to partisan vote, role was pushed through which may appease left-wing activists but does nothing to protect investors or facilitate capital formation for small and medium-sized business. it does nothing to help struggling families get ahead. it is another example of the s.e.c. squandering precious resources on rulemaking that is nothing to protect investors or facilitate capital formation. as much as left-wing activists may wish to drag the s.e.c. into legal advocacy, the citizens united decision does not involve or implicate federal securities laws. political disclosure rulemaking is not within the s.e.c.'s core
competency. more importantly, it is not within its mission. it would create more opportunities for abuse and politicize enforcement, as we have seen with the i.r.s. scandal, and further damage the s.e.c.'s credibility. should instead redouble efforts to simplify the disclosure regime and renew its commitment to the materiality documents articulated by the 1976.e court in instead of modernizing our proxy system, the recent action to cut off staff guidance to public companies in the middle of the past proxy season was ill-advised. the universal proxy ballot proposal favors special interests and short-termism rather than benefiting the vast majority of public company shareholders. the s.e.c. does have an opportunity to act and stop the
labor department from making financial advice and retirement planning less available and more expensive for americans with low and moderate incomes. this, we hope they successfully do. real investment protection comes from innovative markets big rigs -- we vigorously policed. they allow capital formation to flourish and give investors the freedom to make informed decisions free from government interference and control. i now yield three minutes to the ranking member for an opening statement. thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to committee chair white. today, we gather to discuss the s.e.c.'s work to oversee capital markets. this work is hampered by harmful republican cast your budget request which will make it harder for you to police these markets. please note democrats are committed to full funding for because the
commission provides the first line of protection for investors. it has been eight months since you were last year and more than five years since dodd-frank was enacted. but the s.e.c. is still yet to propose a uniform standard. that whiled to learn the department of labor is doing its part to create a rule that works, that you are working toward that and there should be something in the reasonable future dealing with this issue. inadequate level in thesor exams, i join members of this committee in calling for a modest fee on advisors. and am concerned about costly exams which are staff may be working on. -- as we concerned
have discussed, i am deeply concerned about the continued granting of waivers to bad actor disqualifications. these allowed some of the worst actors in our financial system to continue business as usual. i look forward to your explanation of exactly how these decisions were made. i have learned they are made differently than i thought. i received your letter concerning a bill we considered last week. while this is not quite the bill i would have offered, we did craft a compromise i believe addressed most of your earlier concerns with the legislation. i also offered an amendment with mrs. velasquez to address your new concerns with owning investment advisors.
we disagree relative to the modest increase in leverage, but i urge you to help us craft language to further improve this bill before it moves to the house floor. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for two minutes, the chairman of our capital markets subcommittee. >> i thank the chairman and chair white. it is good to see you again. i may be echoing some of the comments raised. i do that because the last time you appeared before the committee, i noted my concerns than over the large number of votes in the commission as well as a general perception the s.e.c. is becoming increasingly politicized. since that time, little has happened to relieve those concerns of myself and that others have raised. in the last six months, the s.e.c. has prioritized and
completed the partisan and politicized payroll and is in the process of developing the proxy ballot rule. these are parameters that may appease special interests, but they do little to make our capital markets more competitive. i am pleased the s.e.c. has at last finalized the crowdfunding provisions of the jobs act. i would know this was also done along the partisan vote three years after the congressional deadline. at the same time, the s.e.c.'s ongoing failure to develop a capital formation agenda remains one of the most serious deficiencies. it seems the only time the s.e.c. actually modernizes security laws is to the benefit of the growing number of businesses is when we in congress tell you to. tomorrow, the s.e.c. will host for the 34th year in a row the annual government is this forum on small business capital formation. that is good. i expect this form to produce valuable ideas that will help small enterprises get capital
and grow. but as in previous years, i also expect the majority of these recommendations will be ignored by the s.e.c. finally, the s.e.c. clearly has an important mission and role in our financial sector. but right now, the agency has got to get its priorities in order. i look forward on hearing from you on how the s.e.c. can focus on its mission for the benefit of america's capital markets. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york for two minutes, ranking member of our capital markets subcommittee. >> i think the chairman for holding this important hearing. happened since chair white appeared before the committee in march. the s.e.c. has finalized several rules such as the c.e.o. pay ratio rule and two jobs act rules. perhaps most importantly, the
extreme volatility in the markets on august 24 was the first real-world test for many of the market safeguards the s.e.c. put in place after the flash crash of 2010. automaticlar, the trading pauses for stocks that experienced extreme volatility, known as the limit up/limit down rule, were triggered. nearly 1300 times on august 24. a lot of the stocks halted that they were exchange-traded stocks rather than stocks of individual companies. many stocks that were temporarily halted had trouble opening again because when they opened back up for trading, their prices rose too quickly which triggered another automatic pause. disruption, the market-wide circuit breakers which would have halted trading
on the entire market for 15 minutes were not triggered on august 24. so i will be very interested in hearing chair white's perspective on how these new safeguards formed -- performed. did they work as intended or are there problems with the safeguards that need to be fixed? i thank you and your back and look forward to your testimony. >> today, we welcome the testimony of the honorable mary jo white. chair white has previously testified before this committee as we know, so i believe she needs no further introduction. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record and you are now recognized or five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. thank you. you.white: thank chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the recent activities and current initiatives of the u.s.
securities and exchange commission. since i last testified in march, the s.e.c. has advanced significant rulemakings, continued to bring strong enforcement actions against wrongdoers, and made significant progress on our initiatives involving the asset management industry, market structure, and disclosure effectiveness. the commission has adopted or proposed 17 rulemakings in the past eight months, including rules required by the dodd-frank and jobs act. these efforts have included final or proposed rules addressing over-the-counter derivatives, new means for small businesses to access capital, including the final rules the chairman mentioned for updating and expanding regulation a and allowing securities-based crowdfunding offerings. expand oversight of high-frequency traders and mutual funds, amendments to the rules governing administrative proceedings, executive compensation disclosures, and
removing references to credit ratings from our rules. the commission also approved a proposal by the national securities exchanges infant rock for a two-year pilot program for stocks of some small companies. our enforcement program continued to deliver strong results with the commission bringing 807 enforcement actions and obtaining monetary remedies of approximately $4.2 billion in fiscal year 2015. of the 807 enforcement actions filed, 507 were independent actions for violations of the federal securities laws. more important than the numbers, these actions addressed meaningful issues for investors and the markets, spanned the industry, included a number of first ever kinds of actions. significantly, approximately 2/3 of our actions in 2015 included charges against individuals. to commission also continued
seek admissions, including the first ever settlement with an auditing arm and to pursue complex cases with criminal authorities, including a recent action charging thousands of defendants with a global scheme to profit from hacked information about corporate earnings announcements. going forward, we plan to continue to focus on completing our mandatory rulemakings while pursuing other initiatives critical to our mission, including those related to asset manager oversight, equity market structure, and disclosure effectiveness. this afternoon, the commission is excited to consider new rules to enhance the transparency of equity alternative trading systems. we will continue to strengthen our enforcement and examination programs, striving for high impact efforts that protect investors and preserve market integrity. we will continue developing a number of ongoing initiatives designed to facilitate capital formation, particularly for small businesses. the agency's fiscal year 2017 budget request reflects these
priorities focusing on the execution of our core programs and operations by seeking to hire individuals with a skill sets necessary to enhance the agency's oversight of increasingly complex securities markets. striving to build new oversight programs is continuing to enhance our technology including our ability to analyze and assess large fines of data. place a highe to priority on allocating resources efficiently and effectively, i was pleased the commission recently received an unmodified audit report. the best ever audit opinion from the g.a.o. with no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies identified in fiscal year 2015. we plan to build on these improvements and continue to enhance the execution of our mission. extensive work to protect investors, present market integrity, and promote capital formation is not limited to the
initiatives i have summarized today or in my written testimony. i have tried by example here and in the written testimony to convey the importance of the commission's ongoing efforts and provide a sense of our progress in the last few months. thank you for your support for the agency's mission and for inviting me to be here today. your continued support will allow us to better protect investors and facilitate capital automation and more effectively oversee the market and entities we regulate. i would be happy to answer any questions. itselfchair now yields five minutes for questions. it was reported you announced at a conference recently the s.e.c. is full out focused on developing its own fiduciary rule. i alluded to in my opening statement. you were last here in march. we have spoken about these matters publicly and privately. it is my understanding the staff has not yet performed updated
analysis of the potential impact of uniform fiduciary standards on retail investors. is that correct? hon. white: there is not another study that has been done. >> is the work being done to update the 2011 study? hon. white: part of the rulemaking as it advances will be deep analysis by our economists at the s.e.c. to judge impact as well as all relevant baselines. >> will that analysis be complete before the proposal of any uniform fiduciary standard? hon. white: certainly, there will be economic analysis complete before there's any proposal. there's always additional analysis before you proceed with adoption. that will be part of the proposal process. >> but not the complete analysis. but white: not necessarily,
it depends on how it is assessed as we go through the process. >> will this analysis be shared with this committee and made public prior to the proposal of any uniform fiduciary standard? hon. white: typically unless there is a paper produced separately, it is part of the proposal and made public. >> we would encourage you to do that. i don't know if you share the concerns many share on this committee in looking at the experience of a similar proposal in the u.k. the public sources i have been able to access show they imposed a similar fiduciary rule that being0 clients stopped served by their brokers because their wealth was insufficient to advise properly. 60,000 were not accepted as new
clients for the same reason. the year before the ban went into effect, the number of advertisers serving retail accounts plunged by 23%. does the experience in the u.k. concern you? withwhite: i am familiar the analysis. clearly, a concern of the it hasing is what impact on the ability of retail investors to get reasonably priced, reliable advice. as i have said before, part of this rulemaking process will be devoted to what impact it will have on precisely that. wouldould hope the s.e.c. look closely at the u.k. experience and also i hope you have received similar testimony that we have received that the best interest contract exemption is unworkable and not an exemption at all. meaning the u.k. experience is most parallel. switching subjects to bond
market illiquidity, you last appeared before us eight months ago in march. you acknowledged the concern about bond market illiquidity. we spoke about these matters publicly and privately. at thatu testified point you did not see a link between the vogler rule and reduced bond liquidity, it has been eight months. 20, "the wall street journal" reporter the number one concern of financial professionals was lack of liquidity in the markets. in august, price waterhouse cooper published a study that attributed the measurable reduction in financial market liquidity to multiple factors including a new regulatory framework. last week, "the wall street journal" reporter u.s. firms are
holding negative corporate bond inventories for the first time since the fed began reporting this separate data. haschair of finra testified in this committee to have been dramatic changes with respect to the fixed income market in recent years that has led to higher capital requirements. it limits the ability of trading and a range of other issues that have had significant impact from the standpoint of liquidity of the fixed income markets. since it has been eight months since you last appeared before us, there has been news. have you been able to determine whether regulations like the poker rule are a contributor's rule arerule -- poker a contributor? hon. white: it remains a concern of mine. i think it does with all regulators. the direct answer to your question is no, as is reflected in the reports we make to this
committee on that subject with our fellow financial regulators. i think the most recent reflects both levels of liquidity in the primary and secondary markets and the conclusion that one cannot determine impact from the rule. there are a lot of requirements. i do know recently, reports indicate dealer inventories have gone into negative territory. that is something we will be looking at closely before the final report this year. we will be looking closely at that for its existence, meaning, and whether impacts can be judged. >> my time has expired. but the rest of the world is concluding otherwise. i would hope the s.e.c. would pay very careful attention. the chair now recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much.
today aboutasked your efforts on a number of issues. i am appreciative for your response on the fiduciary duty rulemaking. second, would you please explain to us how a lack of adequate funding does not allow you to move as quickly as we would like you to move on some of these issues? are you hampered by inadequate funding at the s.e.c.? hon. white: i have testified about this before. we have responsibilities far beyond our resources. we try to make the smartest decisions we can in core areas. and in new areas we have been assigned. clearly, it becomes a zero-sum gu game and does slow you down. >> thank you very much. i would like to have you describe to us the s.e.c. waiver process.
the last time you testified, i expressed concern with the policy of providing waivers of disqualifications too bad actors . i questioned the transparency of whether or not there should be public input. as you know, i have a proposal that i think would remedy this problem that would require the process to be conducted and voted on by the commission that will provide the public notice and comment jperiod and the opportunity to request a hearing and require staff to keep complete records of requests and create a public database of all disqualified bad actors. here i am with a bill talking about more rules for you in this area. before i go further, because i know this is more complicated than most people think, explain to us a little bit about that process. hon. white: yes. first i want to make it clear the s.e.c. very aggressively
pursues financial institutions and senior executives. our record bears that out during and after the financial crisis. when it comes to disqualifications and waivers, it is very important to understand those are not enforcement remedies. those are separate provisions in the securities laws governed by separate rules and guidances that the commission and staff .pplied vigorously case-by-case a case may trigger disqualification. if a party is seeking a waiver to be allowed to pursue or continue to pursue business in an unrelated area, in -- than the enforcement action was about. the burden is on the party to show us it would be in the public interest to grant that waiver. staff to increase transparency and robustness has upgraded at my direction guidance on the
waivers as well as the bad actor waivers. i think the commission and staff do very deep dives and apply those standards robustly before making those decisions. the pay waiver is granted, it is made public on our website. if a waiver is not granted, typically the party will withdraw the request and it includes non-public information. because ifhallenges, you look at the public record, you think we are granting them routinely. that is not the case. there are many we do not grant. the challenge is preserving the privacy of non-public information but being able to provide the public the information that shows we are not granting these waivers as they are requested each time it is a very robust process.
>> you have written a letter to us with your concerns. i and others are concerned about support for small businesses. we want to make sure we do everything to create resources. what can we do to make the bill better? bdsc's are designed for small businesses and that is good for everybody. it is something that the staff in the commission have been supportive of throughout the years. some of the concerns i expressed a couple years ago. i'm happy to talk about it further.
primarily, the increase in leverage as well as the reduction of rights. stockholders will also prepare under the bill, allowing them to invest their assets in a financial institution. it used to be 30%. is to investctive in operating companies and new operating companies that you want to give a boost to. these are retail investors. that obviously heightens whatever concerns we have. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you. when you're here before, i opened with, her the markets
rigged? -- are the markets rate? rigged? does the small investor know that he has no coverage under this? of i invested $2000 out college in the marketplace and over 30 years, the market has grown. i have gotten dividend payments and capital gains. over the last 30 years, my statement says it is going up and up. i have taken out that $2000. coveragerstand it, my is exactly zero. is that correct? that is correct because of what is -- >> so i have zero coverage even
though my statement is telling me i have $5,000. there is an indication on the with the logo. does anybody have an obligation to inform me that i have zero coverage on my brokerage statement? hon. white: first of all, your account statement should be accurate. who should tell me that i have zero coverage? broker shoulde tell you but he may be committing a massive ponzi scheme. >> so it is the duty of the advisor to tell me i have zero coverage? hon. white: i can give you a legal opinion -- i can't give you a legal opinion. in your example, when you put in your $2000, you invested in certain securities that had
appreciated. if instead, what your broker did as never engage in trade, doesn't protect against fraud which is what we are talking about. simple investor and i think i have this much money and i find out that some went wrong. in actuality, your answer is i have zero coverage. there is an obligation for somebody to tell me this. the wise thing to do would be for me to move to another brokerage? is that not correct? hon. white: if you put that amount in their custody -- should be told the smart thing to do was once you have withdrawn the initial investment, the smart thing to --is to move to another >> if you draw 2000 but it appreciated with securities to $7,000 in the broker had those
securities, you would be protected for that $7,000. but you would be protected by pacific if you had invested that $2000 at some point in securities and it was still with a broker. what you are not covered for is essentially these ponzi schemes that are reflected falsely on your account statements. >> it depends on how the investments are made, in other words. now i need to know whether the investments are being done in some other way? it depends -- how is the investor supposed to know that? it is a huge problem, obviously. had a massive ponzi scheme so you are being defrauded from beginning to end. >> the bottom line is a simple don't know how it is being done and i don't know whether it is going to be there at the end of the day.
i have a bunch of other questions. 506, youn d annual have proposed to some amendments to that in the question is what is the effect of those amendments on the marketplace? 2%k analysis said that only has come under 506. that would tell me that there is a suppression of amendments hanging out there and can you withdraw those in them and so we can get the full effect of the jobs act? hon. white: there has not been
consensus on those amendments. the feedback that i have gotten from our folks is that they don't believe that is the case. 506 market has been years but not as much as anticipated. you.ank >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you. thattly, it was reported puerto rico's retirement system was placed in mutual funds and ont was sold to customers the island. however, due to the high cost of air travel at the time the act was passed, puerto rico and other territories at the time including hawaii were exempted
from the act. i have recently introduced legislation to close this loophole ensure that puerto rico and other territories have the same protections. do you believe that this loophole should be closed? >> i share your concern. when the exemption was put into law, it was many years ago. financialcal and difficulties of being able to enforce that law in the territories was not there. today is a different world. i share your concerns. >> thank you. in the ongoing financial crisis in puerto rico, hedge funds are playing a significant role. it is impossible to fully understand the scope of the investment. some disclosure requirements are
only available through regulators while others do not cover debt security. i recently introduced to close these loopholes and increase disclosure requirements on hedge funds. do you believe that further disclosure in this area will benefit investors and the public? i would have to study the precise parameters for their it can see pros and cons. registration and reporting are critical to increasing transparency and protecting .nvestors and private funding this has been looked at very closely in connection with dodge frank. there is a lot of information that is actually produced on form pf but the judgment was made then not basically exposed or exposed more than was thecriptive to be exposed
actual holdings and strategies of hedge funds because that could lead to a front running and other kinds of actions with respect to that kind of disclosure so there are pros and cost of that and i need to study it further it. >> thank you. i hope that we can work with your office to hear some feedback. on another issue that has come to our attention and that i care about is the small business community online lending industry that has grown rapidly in the last of five years and experts are expecting 2000e-digit growth through 20. lastly, i sent a letter requesting information on your agency's involvement with small businesses online. comment any preliminary on my request? >> i have seen the letter.
just in terms of what our spaces with respect to online lending, we don't regulate the loans themselves. space. not in our securities toell investors, essentially funding loans through investment contracts, they may need to register the offerings. some platforms will have to register as broker-dealers. pieces but our jurisdiction relates to protecting investors pace in fact there are offerings made under the federal securities laws. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.
>> thank you. i want to go back to a line of questioning that the chairman was talking about that i have it interested in that is the fixed income market. can you tell me what resources are dedicated to the fixed income market? >> i think we have had this .iscussion primarily but it is not confined to our trading in markets division and it is not segregated out as a separate unit which i think we did talk i don'tfore but we have know if 15-20 folks who deal with the fixed income markets and we have the office of municipal securities which is a small office. it deals exclusively with that area as well. i have had several conversations needour director about the
for additional resources, perhaps a restructuring so we make sure that the fixed income markets are getting the attention they deserve and in -- i think we are structured as we should be and resource as we shall be although i will note that our budget 2016st is for fiscal year [indiscernible] we saw an additional 15 positions in trading and market areat least two of those will related exclusively to a study assessment of the fixed income market. >> but today there is how many people you call >> in trading and markets the last time i asked for the number again it is -- for corporate bonds? >> not counting securities about 16 was the last number i was given. it is a rough number. it is not how it is structure
because that are other people who work in the space as well that don't promote the dominance of their time. >> house coopers released a study on the brittleness of the liquidity in certain classes in the study's findings are a concern to me. it liquidity had measurably declined. the study also notes that pending future roles and regulations, it could have other impacts on market-making extorties as we exit -- a comment of monetary policy. were you aware of the study have you read that? >> it is the investment >> market area
.iquidity is a big deal it is. >> the concern i have is we are not sure that your agency is giving the attention to it because we hear back from a lot of different participants the liquidity issue is a real deal so i would hope that as you move forward, if you are doing that youn that area would share some of the findings with this committee. move to -- commissioner stein released a statement supporting proposals to shorten the trade cycle for certain security transactions. we encourage participants to move forward in reducing
sediment cycle siding that it would improve investor protections and risk. there was a paper outline the timeline and actions required to for transactions in the united states. t2?ou agree with moving to >> the answer is yes. we responded to a letter and to thethers as well as position that i took on at and also asking for regulatory support to helping that about my letter was quite supportive. it is public. we can provide that.
>> why haven't you acted on that? >> we will. ?> what is timely ye >> the letter reflects this. we are allowing the commission to get to a place where their system can accommodate the t+2 and it will be in place by 2016. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. >> as i mentioned in my opening statement, i am interested in 24.events on august that day meant that the s.e.c. for stocks were triggered nearly 1300 times and i know the s.e.c. said it is collecting data to analyze what
ifpened and to determine there are any changes to the agency's rules. can you give us a sense of where this preliminary review what you have found in this review? >> yes. it is well along. i'm expecting that we can share some initial result from that review. right. absolutely as you commented earlier, we had a stress test on august 24. the markets had issues. was theificant issue market-wide circuit breakers. of tradingrge number pauses, particularly with ats.
with the same underlying security, it is a more complex issue which we are studying it we obviously have rules in place that were put in place as a volatility moderator after the flash crash. it is on a pilot basis. we are interested in the data that comes out of august 24 as to what calibrations should be made. at thelooking closely opening of the markets the cousin that is when the majority of this occurred. there were somewhat delayed openings. >> will this analysis be available before the end of the year? >> i hope it will be. last december, you outlined a comprehensive plan to update the regulatory regime for asset managers in order to account for the significant changes that
this industry has undergone. fcc has proposed to rules -- s.e.c. has proposed two .ules can you give us an update on this third rule? series couldn the obviously change. it will probably be the rule on derivatives and then following that would be the transition rule. areas.ate designed to be able to deal with disruption in an optimal way. that will not be this year. i am hoping it will be relatively early next year.
in terms of the stress test, when do you propose a stress test rule for asset managers? what are the challenges you have encountered in developing stress testing? why is it a challenge? >> it is a challenge. them all theon same time in working very hard on it. banks.e not one cannot just transfer stress testing for banks into this space. to come up with a meaningful test for different funding, different times of stresses that matter is a challenge. we are working very hard on it. like to ask you about the use of administrative proceedings. expanded the authority to try cases in an
have a lot of expertise to deal with those issues. they are in partial and they have due process rights. example, if you are responding to an administrative proceeding, he would provide which is notl required and district court. we turn over all of our investigative files. amendments toed provide additional rights for the defendant. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you. thank you for being here. i will start my questions with regard to designations of insurance companies. it is a concern to me.
as we continue to discuss this issue with a lot of the , canance industry folks you tell me the specific standards that you looked at when you voted in favor of designating to domestic companies? what were the objections of the experts? inwe talked about this march. i participated in the metlife cases. the metlife designation is still in litigation so i am limited on what i can say. the guidance as to what it looks at his public. >> my question is, what
standards digit look at that were more significant to you? >> well, to get into the had detailedwe presentations from the staff. we are looking for certain criteria. i was satisfied that those were met. listening very carefully and respectfully and understanding the knowledge they bring to bear on this. >> but you still went against them? getother question we always is we need an offramp, some mechanism or delineation of things for them to do.
do you support that? >> it exists to add agree. there is an annual review process for any company that is designated. a delineation of things for them to do. that is a report of where they are at. >> what a company designated will receive is a detailed analysis for the basis of the decision. in some cases, you may have a situation where it is the core business model for how much leverage is used. there hasn't been a to the nation. it can be difficult. bottom line, the clearer that we is they can beit designated and de-designated.
is a problem and everybody else goes along with international designation versus what we think is good for our companies in this country. it raises concerns. moving on. stamp --s not a rubber there is not a rubberstamp in my view. .> i disagree asset managers being designated ccb heading down that road. -- doesas looked at that concern you at all? >> they have not ruled out designations but i think that but i thinkducts --
the event -- but i think the pivot to products and managers -- >> [indiscernible] iti do think in it doesn't is not confined to asset managers -- >> my question i guess is -- model, business therefore, i think that ordinarily it would not be. >> interesting. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >